We Are All On Trial With Oriana

Incredibly Oriana Fallaci, journalist and outspoken freedom fighter against fascism, has found herself to be labeled a vilipend, an worthless abuser, for exposing and continuing to speak and write against Islam and the Muslim fifth column that has infiltrated and in a de-facto manner, overtaken European territory and the European psyche.

Oriana met with world figures, from Kissinger to Qaddafi and even interview the Ayatollah Khomeini whom defied by ripping off the enforced headscarf when he was in one of his rants. She went into semi-retirement and re-imerged from a self-imposed exile by the clarion call of 9/11, the same clarion that has alerted many of us to continue our quest to grab the attention of a sleeping public and our corrupted and clueless political and bureaucratic classes.

from FrontPageMag.com

Then after a lengthy hiatus, Oriana Fallaci found herself lured from a self-imposed exile by the clarion call of 9/11. 
 
She spoke and wrote forcefully about the peril a free, pluralistic, democratic, and secular society faced at the hands of an Islamic jihad. She condemned terrorism everywhere and called out the Euro-leftists who marched in solidarity with Palestinian terrorists – including some elements of the Vatican. Straining against the vivid memories of a war correspondent and every inclination of her heart, she supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, writing of her anguish:
 
I hate [war] as the pacifists in bad or good faith never will. I loathe it. Every book I have written overflows with that loathing, and I cannot bear the sight of guns…When peace stands for surrender, fear, loss of dignity and freedom, it is no longer peace. It's suicide.
 
It was in this period that she committed her unpardonable sin: she published “the trilogy” of books examining the threat of jihad in detail: The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason, and The Apocalypse.
 
The cancer-stricken 75-year-old woman was promptly demonized by the Islamic world, by the European Left, and even demonized as a racist by Newsweek.
 
Her crime? She exposed the threat of Islamic jihad – from without and within. Europe, she wrote, is becoming “an Islamic province, an Islamic colony.” Describing increasingly Muslim Europe, she wrote, “In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran.” When Shari’a rules certain areas of Christendom’s ancient home continent, and French girls cannot go through certain Parisian neighborhoods without wearing a burqa without fear of being raped, few could argue with her insight.
 
She frankly says she is against Islam, not because she opposes religious freedom, but because she believes in it. As she has said, after 9/11, “they want to come impose it on me, on us.” She calls herself “a Catholic atheist,” and she realizes the world cannot survive half-secular and half-theocratic, anymore than it can survive half-slave and half-free.

Oriana is being tried in absentia and will be found guilty of breaking Italy's hate-speech law by exposing Islam for what it is. These laws are popping up all over Europe, and parts of Australia, the same kind of law that is chilling free speech where speakers must carefully choose their words for fear of offending Muslims. These same laws are in effect in Muslims countries against non-Muslims who dare not speak against or even complain.

So far we on North America are not affected by hate-speech laws, but there is a definite trend to vilify by labeling us racists, xenophobes and bigots. Essentially the outcome of Oriana's trial will be our fate. She will be condemned in absentia and the outcome will be telegraphed worldwide as a victory against Islamophobes. We must continue to be brave.

So, You Really Want a Terrific 2006? Read On.

Eleanor has been totin' the load this month with some really good stuff, as she always does. We, on the other hand, have been doing some resting and recuperating, and getting ready to take on 2006. We must come out of hiding briefly at this time to render a service to humanity.

As Southerners, we have long felt it to be our obligation to the rest of America and the world to share with you the secret carried by generations of Southerners.

What is that secret? Well, it is: How to ensure good luck for you throughout the year. To accomplish this, however, it takes specific preparatory behaviors begun in 2005, and you do not have a moment to lose. You must be ready to take certain other behaviors as soon as the clock strikes midnight on 31 December 2005 and becomes 1 January 2006.

We published the following guide last year, but we know that we have some new readers. So, in the interest of furthering all mankind, we share the secret again in hopes that you and yours have the best year possible in 2006.

You can take the man out of the South but not the South out of the man, says the maxim. Over the decades, from all over the USA, even to Guam, the South travelled with me. Right now, we live far, far away from our Southern roots, but, when it comes to New Year preparations, we dig into our heritage, as an inviolable tradition: Namely, how to get ready for the New Year and guarantee good luck all year.

It is no secret, neither for family nor for region, so we want to share this marvelous ritual with readers so that they too can have a full year of good luck.

Maybe Southerners are the only Americans who have a specific ritual meal for ushering in the New Year. We are ignorant of any other similar custom from any other region of America.

Well, here goes:

The meal is to be prepared in time for the clock crossing 2400 hours into the New Year, and the key ingredients are to be the very first thing in the mouth as the seconds of the newly arrived year tick off. No champagne, no nothing in the very new, New Year before the first bites of the traditional meal. After those first bites, then consume whatever you want. (What you eat and drink prior to 2400 hours has no influence, so indulge in advance freely).

The first essential dish is a preparation of black-eyed peas. Tradition suggests "hog jowl" be cooked with the peas, but we are vegetarians, so we use a ham analog. Our luck persists with this small change, so it obviously does not upset the metaphysics to use fake ham. We make a black-eyed pea casserole with a nip of Tabasco and a crust of cheddar on top. My, oh my, is it good!

The second essential dish must be turnip greens. Diced turnips are a neat addition as is some fatback, if you have it, or, in our case, some more ham analog. If you are unfamiliar with turnip greens, be advised that you must cook them at least 45 minutes for them to become tender. Be further advised that when they tenderize, they are scrumptious. If you are an afficianado, you know to dash a little vinegar on a steaming mound of turnip greens.

The third essential dish is corn bread. Don't get any of this Yankee "mix" that is sweet. Authentic Southern corn bread is NOT sweet at all. Get something like Martha White cornbread mix made with buttermilk, if you don't make it from scratch. Add cracklins if you have 'em, or crumbled bacon bits, or bacon analog.

With the instant of the arrival of the New Year, have a bite of each; it is crucial to start with the black-eyed peas. After that, you can just chow down on the rest for sheer enjoyment.

It always works: You never know what happens if you don't protect your luck using this tradition, because it never happens--if you follow the tradition. You just cannot know what does not occur. If, during the year, life events kick you in the teeth, just think of where you would have been kicked without this meal.

You can make and feed a passel of people this meal for about five dollars and really spread the good luck around.

You have nothing to lose, except bad luck--for the year. Hmm ... if every single one of us indulged in this good luck feast, perhaps it would change the course of history vis a vis the threat of Islam ...

From all of us at Sixth Column and 6th Column Against Jihad:

HAPPY NEW YEAR! LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!

A New Year's Jihad Retreat

From December 31st of this year through January 2nd, due east of St. Petersburg, Florida, in the Cedarkirk Camp and Conference Center located nearLathia,the Tampa chapter of MAS (Muslim American Society) will be launching a new camp, a 'ILM &TARBIYAH RETREAT, or "Jihad retreat." It appears that Muslim youth "need" to learn more about Osama bin Laden's menotr, Abdullah Azzam among other things. The title of the event is : "A Generation with a Mission."

That title is a little more subdued than the YM August 2002 “Planning for Our Akhira (afterlife),” but make no mistake, the speakers are just as extreme.
 
Featured at the “retreat” is the former President of MAS-Chicago, Chantal Carnes. Carnes is well known in the radical Islamist American community; she has given speeches at such venues as ICNA, MAS and Muslim Students Association (MSA) conventions. In addition to being a lecturer, she has also hosted a radio program for the Islamic Broadcasting Network (IBN). Each half-hour program was spent reviewing a different book.
 
On the occasion of July 22, 2003, Carnes and a guest had reviewed the title ‘Imam Shaheed Hassan Al-Banna - From Birth to Martyrdom.’ During the show, she lathered Al-Banna, the founder of the violent Muslim Brotherhood, with praise. She stated, “Every movement I can think of – every organization I can think of – in a way or another, is tracing back to what he started.”  She said he had “inspired” her, and that “His life was captivating.” She said she liked “the fact that he was a shaheed (martyr),” and that she was going to model Al-Banna’s “personal development” with that of her own.
 
According to former federal prosecutor John Loftus, “Al Banna was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930’s, Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.”
 
Carnes also gushed about the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood started with only four persons.  She exclaimed, “It’s not quantity, it’s quality!”  According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Muslim Brotherhood is a “terrorist group”… “The Brotherhood shares with HAMAS a complete rejection of Western values and Communism and calls for the establishment of a pan-Islamic state founded on the basis of shari'a, or Islamic law… The two movements similarly share the view that Israel is the theological archenemy of Islam… As the precursor of the HAMAS movement, the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza promoted the long-term strategy of creating the foundations of a Muslim state that would eventually become powerful enough to destroy Israel.”

from: FrontPageMag.com Read it all.

I'm Not the Only One Disturbed by These Events

It seems that others are as deeply troubled as I am about the so-called partnership between Mexico and the United States and the refusal to assimilate by entrants from "South of the Border" and elsewhere. The sad thing is that we are allowing this to happen. The question is which country is more corrupt -- the United States or Mexico?

Thanks to Brenda Walker.

No Islamic Country Can Ever Hurt the West?

Lulled into complacency, many have forgotten the lessons that our ancestors learned when faced with the monster that is Islam. Perhaps they were never told, for that which passes for instruction on history or world cultures mostly overlooks the unpleasantness of conquest along Islam's "bloody borders." Today's headlines and stories often overlook the fact that the perpetrators of violence, whether physical, emotional, or spiritual, are Muslims acting against non-Muslims in the name of Allah. Hugh Fitzgerald, at Jihadwatch.org, reminds us of how entire civilizations were sucked up a lost in the maw of Islam and how, even today, our contemporaries and our countrymen are suffering even after assurances that there is nothing to fear.

We’re often told that the defense against global jihad is disproportionate, and its advocates fear-mongers, because “no Islamic country can ever hurt the West."

Really? What about Islamic "groups" then? What about communities of Muslims, living in the West, working actively to transform that West, now by noisy demands, and now by ostentatious displays of sweet reason, and by a sudden great attachment to the beauties of "pluralism" and "dialogue" -- as on display in the taqiyya-kitman of the "new, improved" Islam that those Bright Young Muslim Things hold out as having so much promise, and that Tariq Ramadan, in his sinister way, is now flogging as well? "Dialogue," "pluralism" that is at the heart of Islam -- oh good god, spare us this nonsense.

Islam has been "hurting the West" for 1350 years. It took over what was once a central part of the Christian world -- Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, the rest of North Africa. It took over the ancient homeland of the Jews, and apparently they who had endured the rule of Romans and Byzantines found the Muslim overlords so oppressive that many of them had to leave the Land of Israel -- which is why eventually 90% of the world's Jews ultimately came to live under Western Christendom, terrible as its own intermittent persecutions may have been, rather than live in the "paradise" of Islam.

Islam has been "hurting the West" ever since Muslims conquered Byzantium and destroyed its civilization -- though the flight of Greek scholars to the West, it is true, helped to spark the Revival of Learning.

Islam has been "hurting the West" of Christians and Jews, and "hurting the East" of Hindus and Buddhists, for as long as it has been in existence.

"No Islamic country can hurt the West"? Madrid, Beslan, New York, Washington and a thousand plots and subplots uncovered in recent years suggest otherwise. But the hundreds of billions of dollars now being spent to defend against the Jihad, to monitor radiation levels in mosques, to protect synagogues and churches, Jewish and Christian schools, outspoken political figures (how much does it cost the Dutch state to protect Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali?), parliaments, subway systems, railroad stations, airports, bus stations, chemical plants, oil refineries, and on and on -- all because of the existence of Believers in Islam -- does that not inflict economic damage, as Bin Laden and others have expressly noted with such glee, on the Western world?

And what of the vast sums being expended now in Iraq, in a vain hope that "democracy" will remedy the situation, just as naive Israelis used to believe that making the desert bloom and bringing prosperity to one corner of the Middle East would serve as a "Light-Unto-the-Nations" as well, instead of as a horrifying example to Muslims of their own backwardness -- which was contra naturam, for by all the laws of Allah it was right, it was proper, it was just, that Islam "is to dominate and not to be dominated."

Read the rest.

Good Advice - Watch Out for Saudi Charm Offensive

Women especially should be wary of Middle Eastern men oozing charm as they have been nurtured on the art of taqiyya, the "acceptance of lying" in the service of Allah. What better way to further the goals of islam than to create more Muslims. That is to marry (use) Western women as incubators for more Muslims and as an anchor to gain entrance to Western countries that offer a host of benefits -- asylum, financial, and eventually "citizenship" and access to the base of power -- money and politics.

Surprisingly not everyone in Saudi Arabia seems happy with the idea of sending their young out to be sullied by Western culture and other dangers not facing them at home: "young women report sexual harassment" and lying can get one arrested or cause a loss of face and prestige, obviously not a problem back home. Then they have difficulty dealing with traffic problems and, darn it, they can't use "political pull" to get them off when in trouble.

Some of our students even lie in their responses and are proud of it. These students, used to lying to officials in the Kingdom, can fall easily to American justice when they lie or provide false information to US officials.

One of the bad habits that our students take with them when they go abroad is the culture of sexual harassment. They cannot take this culture to America. American woman can easily report sexual harassment to authorities. Saudis that engage in sexual harassment can end up arrested, charged, jailed, and deported. In this system that often sides with the woman in sexual harassment cases, what do you think happens when the accused is an Arab?

Lock up you daughters! (Oops, that would make us MORE like Saudi Arabia. No, inform them about cultural differences and problems created when Middle Eastern men move in on Western women, and forearm them with Karate classes and pepper spray. Perhaps parents should send their students to college in small tank-like cars rather than the cute little minis that seem to be in fashion.

Follow the linksin this one from Vdare.

Treason for Fun and Profit

Just who is having all that fun and profiting from the influx of millions of undocumented and unsupervised entrants? Why does the writer consider the "Mexico Project" to be treason? Do you and I have anything to fear from this industry? And best of all, should we care that this sort of thing is happening to the United States? If so, what are you doing to do about it? I'm not going to roll over and play dead!

Read it all and follow those interesting links.

Is the West the New Ansar?

from: FaithFreedom.org

The Islamic movement started 1400 years ago in Arabia. There were two breeds of Arabs:

It is interesting to note the difference in the approach adopted by the Meccan and the Medina Arabs towards Muhammad. The Arabs of Mecca had known him since his birth and had gone through the thirteen years of his prophetic claims, which they had already rejected steadfastly. They called him anything from a liar to a mad man to a poet but never called him a prophet. They heard the verses he produced to support his claim and they said we produced better verses to refute his claims! They heard the Quranic stories and said they had heard this before! Muhammad was getting with them nowhere.  

On the other hand, the Arabs of Medina believed Muhammad without asking any questions and without even seeing the man or hearing the Quran! Only a few of their tribesmen met Muhammad during their Hajj to Mecca and the rest just followed. They gave Muhammad more than he could dream of. They allowed him and his group in their city and provided them with food, shelter and protection which he dearly needed. Now look at how Muhammad returned this favour: he took over the city from them and made it a rule that none of AlAnsar will ever rule the Islamic state as long as a Qurayshi* is still in existence! Muhammad knew only too well that those Ansars are too stupid to be trusted as rulers.

(*The Arabs of Mecca were the masters of the Arabic language and were deeply involved in the theology of the time as their city was the centre for the various religions practiced in Arabia in the seventh century. Quraysh looked at the evidence produced by Muhammad and were not impressed. They did not accept those verses as a divine proof and decided to reject Muhammad’s claim. They were not biased or prejudiced and were happy to consider the matter seriously in a fair manner; but when they examined the evidence they knew it is a forgery and so rejected Muhammad’s assertion.)

Today, 1400 Years Later

The current Islamic movements started in its own Mecca and among its own population, but for decades failed to make any real progress. Just like Muhammad failed in his own Mecca !  

These current Islamists turned their eyes to the west which they saw as the new Ansars. And they were not disappointed. The western civilization has a built-in structural fault called Political Correctness which aims to make stupidity, not common sense prevail. The west received these Islamists (some actually call themselves al Muhajeroon!) with open arms and provided them with food, shelter and protection which they badly needed to propagate their religion, just like the Ansar of Medina did to Muhammad and his companions!  

These new Muhajeroon despise the west (the new Ansar) just like Muhammad did to his own Ansar! Today’s Islamists are only interested in making use of the benefit system and civil liberty laws available in the west under the protection of political correctness. Under such protection, they plan to use to their advantage, all the facilities available in the west to propagate the real Medina Islam, including their  plans of  ghazwas (aggressive wars) —just  like Muhammad did in Medina .  

Even though they are yet to be powerful to make any dent in the western civilisation, these Islamists audaciously make it clear they want to take over the city, under the protection of the politically correct western Ansars! Just like Muhammad did.

The West is at a crossroads. Will be accept dhimmitude or become the new Ansar under the boot and yoke of Arab masters through conquest -- war or from within?

Just How Many Muslims Are There...Really?

Just How Many Muslims Are There...Really?

Islam by Country gives us a breakdown of the numbers. It's amazing to see how much trouble only a few people can cause. For example, out the Netherlands' 6% came the murder of Theo VanGogh. Anti-Muslim-politicians live in hiding out of fear for their lives. Denmark is undergoing a chilling of free speech because their 3% are offended by published cartoons and, of course, have threatened the lives of all concerned. France has a larger group-- 7.5%. Recently they underwent almost a month of riots all over the country in which thousands of cars were burned. Sweden with 4% is and Norway with 1.6% Muslim population have reported an unprecedented crime wave. Australia is fighting back against their 1.5%, some of whom have taken over and driven non-Muslims from enjoying beaches. And did I mention that the city of Malmo, Sweden is almost completely Muslim and there are areas outside Paris where police fear to go --- Muslims have ordered them to stay away? The Philippines is experience a separatist movement caused by only 5% of the population.

No one should be surprised by the persecution of non-Muslims in such countries as Nigeria with 50%, or Somalia with 100% Muslim population, or even Saudi Arabia with a population of 95.7%. One wonders who makes up the non-Muslim 4.3%. Oh,yes, the country is full of contract laborers from the Philippines, India, and...the United States.

What about the Muslim population of the United States? How many are there that are causing us such headaches? The Muslim population of the United States is equivalent to 1.4% of our population. Only 1.4% of our population are demanding accommodation and special privileges from education to health care to special meals. Americans measure their speech and activities at the whim of 1.4% of our population. Does that seem right? I don't think so.

Hattip: TheGates of Vienna'sThe Muslim Ratchet gives a taste of the effect of contemporary Islam in various parts of the world. As the 'Baron' has said, and I have stated so often: "We ignore them at our peril."

I'm Astounded to See the Diverse Groups and Peoples That Are Out to Destroy the United States

The New York Times - ACLU War on National Security

at FrontPageMag.com
This article is an important window into the diabolical and insane world of individuals and groups that are often acting in concert to destroy the foundation or very existence of the United States. The identity of some groups and individuals will amaze and astound.

Read every word and follow every hyperlink.

The Right to Speak, Write, ...and Draw Are Under Attack in an International Effort to End Freedom of Expression in the West

How many millions of times have Muslims infringed on the rights of Christians and other non-Muslims over the centuries? How many times contemporary non-Muslims are having their rights trampled at the present moment? In this light, is it the present effort to squash criticism of Islam and free expression hypocritical or disingenuous? The answer is neither. As fervently as we in the West believe in freedom of expression, Muslims believe that right to be evil. As fervently as we believe that parody and satire are appropriate criticism in politics and religion, Muslims will kill to squash any criticism of Islam or the Prophet Mohammed.

In Thou Shalt Not Draw, Robert Spencer explains the controversy created last September when Danish author Kare Bluitgen was set to publish a book on the Muslim prophet Mohammad. He approached three illustrators who rejected his offer out of fear for their lives. This fear was an obvious stifling of free speech to which The president of the Danish Writers Union objected, prompting the Jyllands-Posten,Denmark's largest newspaper, to approach cartoonists for depictions of the concept. Of the forty cartoonists approached, twelve replied---a shot heard 'round the world.

The first to comment was Danish Imam Raed Hlayel:

Danish Imam Raed Hlayhel was the first to react. “This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims,” he fumed. “Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world. We demand an apology!” Jyllands-Posten refused. Editor-in-chief Carsten Juste refused: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn’t set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn’t mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.” Cultural editor Flemming Rose concurred: “Religious feelings,” he observed, “cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.”

Worthless? Humiliation? Insult? Apology? It appears that Islam and the West don't and can't mix. Although the Editor in Chief, Carsten Juste explained Danish culture and the use of Satire regardless of political or religious affiliation, the imam and other Muslims around the world were not satisfied and have created a full-blown international crisis from one end of the Muslim world to the other and even to the UN High Commission for Human Rights.

The UN was happy to take the case. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, wrote to the OIC: “I understand your attitude to the images that appeared in the newspaper. I find alarming any behaviors that disregard the beliefs of others. This kind of thing is unacceptable.” She announced that investigations for racism and “Islamophobia” would commence forthwith.
 
While solicitous of Muslim belief, Arbour did not seem concerned about the beliefs of the Danes. Yet Jyllands-Posten had well articulated its position as founded upon core principles of the Western world: “We must quietly point out here that the drawings illustrated an article on the self-censorship which rules large parts of the Western world.  Our right to say, write, photograph and draw what we want to within the framework of the law exists and must endure — unconditionally!” Juste added: “If we apologize, we go against the freedom of speech that generations before us have struggled to win.”

Spencer ends his essay with the generic assertion that "freedom is being imperiled" as an international crisis grows over the "cause celebre." One might add that although neither hypocritical nor disingenuous as Muslims, the pressure to stifle and squash free speech and other traditional freedoms and liberties is no less real and thousands and thousands of examples can be cited throughout history and are documented in contemporary news stories throughout the world. The West must take a stand now while we still can.

CAIR Issues U.S. 'Travel Advisory'

CAIR, the Washington D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, puts itself forward as a civil rights advocacy group. Always on the lookout for any 'infringement' on the rights of Muslims' in the United States and Canada, this time it is telling Muslims planning to travel to attend an upcoming conference the weekend of December 23, 2005, to be "prepared to have their rights violated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials for 'special security checks and fingerprinting based solely on their attendance at both religious events." Why else would they advise Muslim travelers to carry with them a 'border incident report?'

Being on the lookout for incidents of alleged violations against Muslims is part what CAIR is all about. A spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for Hamas, CAIR is actively agitating and fundraising in the United States. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

The travel advisory with the handyincident report form goes along with CAIR's "Pocket Guide:Your Rights as an Airline Passenger:

" You have the right to complain about treatment that you believe is discriminatory." Who's to know what any given person will find to be discriminatory at any given moment? In any case, the 'victim" is to complain about the treatment:

1) Ask to speak to a supervisor.
2) Ask if you have been singled out because of your looks, dress, race, ethnicity, faith, or national origin.
3) Ask for the names and ID numbers of all persons involved in the incident.
4) Ask witnesses to give you their names and contact information.
5) Write down a statement of facts immediately after the incident. Be sure to include the flight number, the flight date, and the name of the airline.
6) Contact CAIR to file a report. If you are leaving the country, leave a detailed message, with the information above, at 202-488-8787. Ask to speak to the “Civil Rights Department.” You may also file a report on-line at www.cair-net.org.

In the past, the bulk of media reports by CAIR and the ACLU focused on the "degrading experience which was termed a 'hassle' or worse." All travel today is "a hassle" because Islamic terrorists destroyed the Twin Towers with weapons smuggled on board 747s and continue to threaten the use of airlines as bombs in the name of their religion. Those hijackers weren't and contemporary bombers aren't Methods, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Rastafarians, or even Egyptian Copts or Maronite Christians from the Middle East that might have a legitimate beef because of centuries of discrimination by Muslims. No, they were, and continue to be, Muslims.

The continued discomfort of all Americans, including Muslims is because of the activities of Muslims, activities that are mandated in the Koran and ahadiths, books that give accounts of the life of Mohammed. Mohammed's seventh century activities mirror those of today's Muslims. Mohammed was a contentious man. He took offense at everything and today's Muslims are following suit. For this reason, Muslims traveling to this conference are prepared, already believe that they will be given discriminatory treatment by airlines and American border officials and thus will be hypersensitive to any perceived discriminatory infraction. And CAIR is making the ability to complain and push forward the Islamic agenda.In the past CAIR has used such 'incidents' to chill criticism of Muslims and Islam and to remove the spotlight of surveillance that accompanies Muslims now that we are engaged in the misnamed "War on Terror."

Why are American officials concerned about this weekend's upcoming conference in Toronto that is billed since 2003 as "promoting a strong message of building friendships and alliances between Muslim and non-Muslim communities?" Is it because of their faith as CAIR and most Muslims proclaim? Perhaps the reason is that in the past such events "have been used to provide cover for pro-terrorist operatives."

The two-day conference in January 2003 advertised Sheik Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais as the main speaker. The previous year, al-Sudais, the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, reportedly prayed to Allah to "terminate" the Jews whom he called "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers ... pigs and monkeys." The sheik also has characterized Jews as "evil," "evil forefathers," a "continuum of deceit," and full of "tyranny" and "treachery."

The same conference featured Zulfiqar Ali Shah, the former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, an organization linked to Jama'at-I-Islami, a fundamentalist Pakistani group that calls bin Laden the "hero" of the Islamic world and raises millions of dollars for global jihad.

Some writers and commentators, such as Daniel Pipes, a specialist on Islam, have supported the U.S. government policy, arguing it's a matter of national security. Controlling the border flow, he said, is absolutely necessary and of "paramount importance."

Pipes has compiled an interesting miscellaney on the activities of CAIR since the 1990s. A recent example documents the December 8, 2005 acquittal of Sami Al-Arian and his commentary:

CAIR leader: "Nothing immoral" about Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Ahmed Bedier, communications director for CAIR's Florida office, made a revealing statement on Dec. 8, speaking on a local television program in Tampa, Florida, WTVT's "Your Turn with Kathy Fountain." As reported by Joe Kaufman of Americans Against Hate, the exchange went thus:

Fountain, asking about Sami Al-Arian: "If he was associating with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, doesn't that seem immoral, in your opinion?"

Bedier: "To a certain degree. Now, before 1995 there was nothing immoral about it."
Kaufman notes that, prior to 1995, Palestinian Islamic Jihad took credit for five terrorist attacks, resulting in the murders of eight innocent people.

Comment: CAIR's true colors come out unpredictably like this from time to time. (Dec. 13, 2005) Dec. 14, 2005 update: Kaufman documents CAIR's shenanigans after he exposed Bedier's embarrassing statement. First, it edited out the statement. Second, it removed the entire video. Third, Americans Against Hate posted the entire video. Finally, CAIR restored the full version of the video on its website. As Kaufman points out, noting the hijab added to a photograph, "CAIR has a history of doctoring material on its website."

It seems that non-Muslims all the world have much more to complain about Muslims than the other way around. Throughout the centuries Muslims have pressed their own agenda with such vigor through violence and conquest that complaining non-Muslims lost the spirit. Conquest from within is our Achilles heel and CAIR and other Muslim groups and individuals are right there to administer the fatal blow.

And finally -- Hugh Fitzgerald at JihadWatch.org offers his insight on CAIR:

CAIR is not a civil rights group. It is a Muslim pressure group. It attempts to deflect criticism of Islam and of Muslims, to push aggressive Muslim demands for changes in the laws and customs of this country, and attempts to prevent the adequate monitoring of those whom, there is good reason to believe, form the population pool from which terrorists -- and others pushing for the Jihad in any number of ways -- come.

Why should that earn it the title, or why should anyone accept its own description, as a "civil rights" group? Does CAIR believe in pluralism and the priinciples of the American Constitution? Apparently a number of its former and present officials believe that Islam is superior to all other belief-systems, and eventually it is right, it is natural, it is just, for Islam to dominate and in dominating, to transform America.

Let's start with a simple question. What are the universal ideals to which CAIR adheres, if any? Are they ideals that all Americans might subscribe to? If CAIR believes in pluralism, and individual rights, does it believe in them only for the United States? And if so, for how long? Or does it believe that these principles should be pushed in Islamic countries as well, and does CAIR intend to make sure, in this "greater understanding" of Islam and the West that it so pines for, to push for changes all over the Muslim world?


Finally, does CAIR think it might be helpful to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of conscience if it were to issue a statement insisting that those born into Islam, or who have converted to Islam, have as much right to leave Islam as anyone else does, any other belief-system? Constantly emphasizing the rights of Muslims, not to be free from surveillance, but to be free to exercise their rights as individuals, including the right not to be Muslims, given what we all know is the treatment so often meted out to apostates, from social ostracism up to, and including, death, this would be a helpful statement. Helpful for those who, born into Islam, might wish to leave it. Helpful to show the full-throated commitment of CAIR to American civil liberties, to the Bill of Rights, to regarding people as individuals and not as communal members.

Let's see.

Sometimes we have the answer before the question.

Mexico Is at a Crossroads - A Return to Oligarchy?

Why my fascination with Mexico? For starters, the Mexican elite continue to use the United States as a safety valve, sending north millions of their citizens who can't make a decent living in an oppressive society. The Mexican elite refuse to impose taxes upon themselves, relying instead on the American taxpayer and employers from whom their uneducated citizens eke a living, sending back the billions in remittance wages on which the Mexican economy seems to be operating today.
Mexico is country rich in natural and human resources. The scandal is that neither is being developed for the good of the people.

Should further discontent and violence occur south of the border, one doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to understand what will happen to us here, north of the border. Millions more could pour through the open sieve bringing yet more social problems and the internecine violence that always accompanies political instability. Why am I concerned about Mexico? My question is: armed with this knowledge, why aren't you?

Read it all.

Update: Mexico Retaliates for Border Wall Plan
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK6GGO9.html

MEXICO CITY - The Mexican government, angered by a U.S. proposal to extend a wall along the border to keep out migrants, has struck back with radio ads urging Mexican workers to denounce rights violations in the United States. Facing a growing tide of anti-immigrant sentiment north of the border, the Mexican government is also hiring an American public relations firm to improve its image.

"We learned to believe in the United States. We have a binational life," he said of Zacatecas, a state that has been sending migrants north for more than a century. "It isn't just a feeling of rejection. It's against what we see as part of our life, our culture, our territory."

The government is scrambling to fight on two fronts. On Monday, it announced it had hired Allyn & Company, a Dallas-based public relations company to help improve Mexico's image and stem the immigration backlash.

"If people in the U.S. and Canada had an accurate view of the success of democracy, political stability and economic prosperity in Mexico, it would improve their views on specific bilateral issues like immigration and border security," Rob Allyn, president of the PR firm, told The Associated Press Tuesday.

What exactly is an accurate view of Mexico. Yes, the people work hard, but they see the United States as a "part of their territory."

And the government has stepped up its defense of migrants, airing a series of radio spots here aimed at migrants returning home for the holidays:

"Had a labor accident in the United State? You have rights ... Call," reads the ad, sponsored by Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, which has helped migrants bring compensation suits in the United States.

This underscores the elite's sense that Americans should provide industry and jobs, salaries and pensions, not Mexicans themselves.

The sense of dread connected with the measures is hardly restricted to Mexico. Immigrant advocacy and aid groups in the United States are worried about provisions of the House bill that upgrade unlawful presence in the United States from a civil offense to a felony.

"This is a sad foreshadowing," said immigrants rights activist Kathryn Rodriguez of the Derechos Humanos coalition in Tucson, Ariz. She fears the bill could expose those who help sick or dying migrants to criminal prosecution.

The House bill, passed on a 239-182 vote, would also enlist military and local law enforcement to help stop illegal entrants and require employers to verify the legal status of their workers.

Calling these people "immigrants" is deceptive. An immigrant is a person that voluntarily moves to another country and adopts the language and cultural mores of the new country and swears and oath of citizenship. Mexicans that come to the United States and become citizens of the United States are dual citizens. They are encouraged to vote in Mexican elections and often candidates reside and campaign within the borders of the United States. I find this very disturbing.

Mexicans are outraged by the proposed measures, especially the extension of the border wall, which many liken to the Berlin Wall. Some are urging their government to fight it fiercely.

"Our president should oppose that wall and make them stop it, at all costs," said Martin Vazquez, 26, at the Mexico City airport as he returned from his job as a hotel worker in Las Vegas. "More than just insulting, it's terrible."

I am also outraged...outraged that the wall and other measures were not taken decades ago.

In These Sad, Tense Times, It's Well to Remember the Lessons of the Past

Slouching Toward Kristallnacht
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945

With the expansion of executive powers looming, the threat of terrorist bombers, Mexican irredentists in the American West, and the insinuation of Islamism into Europe and North America, it would be well to remember how insidiously Naziism took over in Germany as the population wrestled with problems foisted upon them following World War I. Germany was in the surrealism and euphoria of Hitler's early years, years that brought them back.

Mayer, an American journalist of German/Jewish descent, says of his work:
"How could it -- the Holocaust -- have happened in a modern, industrialized, educated nation ?  The genesis of my interest in the Third Reich lies in my search for an answer to that enigmatic question."
I know few people who haven't asked themselves the same thing. The first, most likely hypothesis is that most people didn't know what was happening to the Jews. I may be wrong, but I believe that's been shot down pretty decisively by now.
The following excerpt from Mayer's They Thought They Were Free... provides some pretty plausible clues (the emphases are mine)...

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933,between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know it doesn't make people close to their government to be told that this is a people's government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote.  All this has little, really nothing to do with knowing one is governing.

What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believe that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security.

The crises and reforms (real reforms too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.  One day it is over his head.

Read it all and take time to consider where we are going. It gives one pause to think about why presidents need so much power and what could happen to us one way or the other. The danger of the war is real and so is the possibility of an abuse of power...

Only an Idiot Believes That Some American Citizens Wouldn't Betray This Country

We are at war whether you believe it or not. Today's enemy has the capability of using nuclear and biological weapons. Technology has given him the added advantage of the use of cellphones that can thrown away or cloned, or even registering U.S. numbers when used overseas. It is hard to understand why some can't grasp why the President of the United States and the Department of Justice must take unusual measures in wartime when faced with a new and deadly challenge.

Members of Congress should be given the opportunity for consultation. But let's face it, some members are in it for themselves and not for the good of the country. Others have an aversion to war or an ideological ax-to-grind with today's administration and would do anything in their power to spite the President regardless of the cost. Perhaps they have other reasons, but today's fast-paced warfare often require rapid and decisive action.

American citizens are generally loyal, but does citizenship automatically confer loyalty to the United States? Do children spring from their mother' wombs with a desire to defend the Constitution. What about those children whose parents have taught them to defy authority or who have been caught up in causes that appeal to the natural idealism of youth? And who hasn't met an immigrant or two that has taken the oath only to get the benefits of citizenship while the while still clinging to the old country?

And what about those entrants that are here for other reasons: to work, for refuge, to join family members, to get an education, and so on? The citizens of enemy countries were interned during previous wars. Today's conflict does not afford us the luxury of identifying the enemy as their citizenship is an ideal: to destroy the United States using any means possible. They nominally hold allegiance to diverse countries, are of varying races and ethnic backgrounds.

We have few tools with which to identify them. The media has taken two important tools from us. The first was the reportage of the use of satellite phones by Osama bin Laden and the second is the recent disclosure by the New York Times of the monitoring of phone calls. And the third could be the demise of the Patriot which is slated to expire within a few weeks.

And listen to this. Here is proof that there are some that have been casting about for something, anything on which nail Bush. Here's an offering from Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. Alter exposes his personal bias, his disbelief that we are at war, and his ignorance of Islam (At least we hope that he's ignorant and not complicit):

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War...

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

When at war, one must presume that the enemy that they are under surveillance. But that doesn't mean that we should stop trying, that we should not develop ways to monitor them, to use technology in our favor.
Sadly there are useful idiots among all walks of life in the United States. Even more sad is the knowledge that some Americans are traitors and some guests are out to kill us. Surveillance will help pinpoint who is who and what is what. Those that refuse us the tools are either among the idiots or the enemy. Besides, how can we catch them IF we don't watch them? This is only common sense.

How Can We Win the "War on Terror" If We Continue to Pander Even to... Mexico?

Say it isn't so! The Border Patrol is increasing fearful of displeasing...Mexico.

Border Patrol agents stationed along the nation's southwestern frontier increasingly are fearful of encountering armed and potentially hostile military units from Mexico.

Also, agents say, officers are hamstrung in their response, citing concerns the U.S. government is often too deferential to Mexican authorities.

"The Border Patrol lives in constant fear of pleasing the consulate general of Mexico," the agent continued. "It's one of the things that's most mystifying to line agents" because the U.S. is one of the most powerful countries in the world but appears to be more interested in accommodating Mexico City, the agent said.

Unbelievable...and some readers wonder why I rant and rave on this issue. Immigration is important. Mexican irredentists have been operating in this country for decades. And they have terror training camps right across the border. I bet you didn't know that.

One would think that I am anit-immigrant. We are a nation of immigrants...but we must know who is here, where they are, and why they have come. To be one nation, we must speak a common language, adopt a common culture, and leave behind cultural baggage that won't work, that panders to the fears, superstitions, and ancient hatreds of the"old country," and all that live here and become citizens must demonstrate and practice loyalty only the United States, not to foreign governments, potentates, princes, imams, or ideologies. Period.

Update:Mexico plans to block the wall. Put on your letter-writing hat. Let your Congressman know what you think of these Mexican polticians that keep sending us their problems and the American politicians and businessmen that allow this to happen.

What's to Worry?

Daniel Pipes reminds that there's plenty to worry about. The biggest worry is that we're falling back into the pre-9/11 mode.

from FrontPageMag.com
Desensitized and tired of thinking about bombs and bombers, long lines at the airports, security issues, the Patriot Act, war and sad times, Americans and others the West are pushing these items to the back of their minds and picking up where they left off BEFORE those crazy terrorists blew up and collapsed the Twin Towers in Manhattan.

Don't be fooled. That way of thinking is so-o-o-o dangerous. We are at war. We will continue to be at war until one of two things happens: we win or we are taken over from within a la European experience, through subtle and relentless changes brought about by those that have learned how to manipulate our political and cultural system.

Some of us need ice water to the face: Read it all and follow the links for a wake up call.

Holiday Hiatus

From now until the holiday period fully concludes in January 2006, we will be publishing very irregularly, not surprisingly, we hope. We will remain open to comments, articles, recommendations, and all other correspondence. During this time, we will have some time to work on a number of things related to this site. Any comments, particularly suggestions, will be most welcomed.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Live Long and Prosper

Sixth Column

CAN IT BE TRUE: THE PENTAGON IS DISCOVERING ISLAM?

It is hard to decide whether to laugh or cry about the notion that the Department of Defense (DoD) is “discovering” the nature of Islam, also phrased as “breaking the Islam taboo.”

Hoover Institute scholar Paul Sperry, author of INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington (reviewed here), published a fascinating paper on 14 December 2005 in Front Page Magazine, entitled “The Pentagon Breaks the Islam Taboo.” Sperry addresses DoD’s efforts to awaken to reality:

“… [F]or the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam’s holy texts to answer whether Islam radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what’s motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable.

“Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it’s religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture.”

Presumably, when Sperry writes, “Answers are hard to come by,” he is speaking for DoD--Mr. Sperry's book suggests that he know that answers are NOT hard to come by. He then adds, “Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges. " (Emphasis added)

Answers hard to come by? No baseline studies? These are astonishing statements. Have these people never heard of initiative or of reading? They lack studies? How about reading some of the outstanding books which tell the truth about Islam—all of which are readily available? After all, how did the rest of us learn the truth about Islam, from whom, and from whom did the sources learn it?

Mr. Sperry further cites the Pentagon report:

“Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West’s response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level—Islam—unaddressed.” (Emphasis added)

This recognition is encouraging, but it is something so many of us have been trying to tell them for years. Get this, however:

“So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They’ve found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.”

Why the painfully slow awakening by DoD?

“One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide ‘indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized.’”

There is yet another reason. Read on.

Mr. Sperry repeats the theme throughout that those within DoD chronically complain that no one has told them about the nature of Islam: “Right now political leaders don’t understand the true nature of the threat, it [the report] says, because the intelligence community has yet to educate them…Even many intelligence analysts and investigators working in the field with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces have a shallow understanding of Islam.” Says one Northern Command intelligence official, “However, all of these organizations [our intelligence services] have made only limited progress adjusting to the current threat or the sharing of information. All suffer heavily from political correctness.” (Emphasis added)

No wonder we are not winning the larger war—the one against Islam!

I suspect that my education about Islam is typical of very many, except in DoD. On 11 September 2001, I knew a few isolated facts about Islam. Starting 12 September 2001, I cranked up some initiative and spent a few bucks, starting by reading a Koran. My mind was opened to the extreme virulence of Islam, and I could not stop learning the whole story. A few great books later, I had given myself a basic education about Islam. Many books followed, to say nothing of endless contributions from numerous, outstanding web sites. Persistence and initiative moved me from basic to advanced education. No one did it for me. No one could have done it for me. And, I had absolutely no temper tantrums about no one handing me studies or educating me.

Do these people in DoD not read? Do they not have curiosity? Are they so full of themselves that they use “p.c.” as an excuse for being too lazy to pick up books? Four and ¼ years after 11 September 2001 and just now DoD has BEGUN asking about the nature of Islam?! Even at that, it is asking questions so gingerly that no one can tell when—or if—they will ever recognize or accept the truth about Islam. Perhaps in this Christmas season, it is charitable to pat DoD on the shoulder and tell them “Better late than never.”

Yet, there is some evidence in Mr. Sperry’s article for more than just faint encouragement and hope:

“The hardest part of formulating a strategic response to the threat is defining Islam as a political and military enemy. Once that psychological barrier has been crossed, defense sources tell me, the development of countermeasures—such as educating the public about the militant nature of Islam and exploiting ‘critical vulnerabilities’ or rifts with the Muslim faith and community—can begin.”

To the best of my awareness, this the first time anyone in DoD—or anywhere else in our government at high levels—has identified this, the biggest hang-up. Coming to terms properly with Islam will end the tyranny of “p.c.” and allow release of the self-imprisoned minds at DoD with regard to Islam. From there, victory can be strategized. Then, the Pentagon will truly have broken the “Islam taboo.” Right now, it is just scratching at it. Let us encourage them to achieve a complete, total breakthrough.

This is a war of ideas. Islamists know it. Our people do not. We must use ideas as weapons. Instead of these anti-American complaints, leading incredibly to investigations about our military planting stories in Iraqi newspapers, we need to flood Iraq with newspaper stories, printed materials, and an endless barrage of radio and television broadcasting. All should be geared to promoting our interests, Enlightenment values, and to destroying every vestige of Islam. No Islamic country should be exempt from this philosophical war. It is on the outcome of this war on which our future depends.

The Real Threat of Fascism

First clarity, then the horror of the realization that real parallels exist between the political and economic conditions of contemporary North America and those of the fascistic societies of Germany and Italy that arose during the 1920s until their defeat at the end of World War II. Some believe that we are in that downward spiral.

The exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism.

Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America's most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, "Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism." ...

Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice in 1939: "Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob ... Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade."

Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association: "Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else." ...

Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the end result of political and economic changes these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.

Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a very high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private, but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government...

How was Hitler able to achieve his goal?

1. Germany was "bent to the will of powerful industrial interests.

2. Certain taxes applicable to large businesses were reduced while simultaneously increasing the same taxes as they related to small business.

3. Price ceilings were repealed increasing the cost of living for average families, hastening the destruction of the middle class. "The fact that he did this while simultaneously destroying them was a terrible achievement of Nazi propaganda."

4. Hitler destroyed organized labor by making strikes illegal.

5. Hitler allowed the creation of cartels. ( an association of manufacturers or suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition)

6. Nazi law gave over total control over wages and workers to the employer.

7. Slave labor was formed oof the untermenschen (subhuman), largely German and European Jews, Poles, and Russians that were, most of whom were imported or worked in place in the factories and labor camps of conquered nations.

8. The use of deception, slogans, and the appeal to fear mesmerized the German population.

The same conditions existed in Italy. Mussolini, like Hitler "used a socialist language to lure the people to fascism.

Mussolini spoke of a "corporate" society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The entire economy was to be divided into industry specific "corporazioni", bodies composed of both labor and management representatives. The corporazioni would resolve all labor/management disputes, and if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene.

Unfortunately, as in Germany, there laid at the heart of this plan a swindle. The corporazioni, to the extent that they were actually put in place, were controlled by the employers. Together with Mussolini's ban on strikes, these measures reduced the Italian laborer to the status of peasant.

Mussolini, the one-time socialist, went on to abolish the inheritance tax, a measure which favored the wealthy. He decreed a series of massive subsidies to Italy's largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italy's poor were forced to subsidize the wealthy. In real terms, wages and living standards for the average Italian dropped precipitously under fascism.

"It is always dangerous to forget the lessons of history." I might add -- It is always dangerous to not apply these lessons to the present and to be ever vigilant and jealous of our rights and freedoms. I see the writing on the wall and fear for our children and grandchildren.

Read it all.

We Vote, and Then We Throw You Out

An interesting compilation of names and facts about the aftermath of the upcoming election in Iraq that we won't see in the New York Times or any Western media outlet.

This, in a nutshell, is the Shi'ite agenda for the new Iraq, potentially embracing 62% of the population of roughly 25 million to 26 million. The pact may have been a Sadrist move, but there's no reason to believe these decisions will not be implemented as the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which is dominated by the SCIRI, Da'wa and the Sadrists, is set to become the majority in the new, 275-member Iraqi National Assembly. The whole numbers issue in the elections is by which percentage the UIA will be a majority compared to the Kurdistan coalition and the Iraqi Concord Front.

The main players

The UIA, list number 555, created with the blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, received almost 50% of the votes in the January elections. Now the 18-party UIA is weaker because some parties defected. Sistani stated his position last Sunday. In January, he practically ordered all Shi'ites to vote for the UIA. Now, he is more nuanced. "These elections are just as important as the preceding ones, and citizens - both male and female - must participate in them on a wide scale in order to guarantee a big and powerful presence for those who will safeguard their verities and work energetically for their higher interests in the next parliament."

Although not explicitly endorsing the UIA, he did advise all Shi'ites to not split and not waste their vote; this would mean something like "vote for the UIA, not for Allawi". Politically, the UIA has been heavily criticized by Iraqis themselves for being utterly impotent - and incompetent - while dealing with corruption and fighting against both the Sunni Arab resistance and the jihadi groups.

The eight-party Kurdistan coalition list, number 730, remains dominated by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, headed by the current Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and the Kurdish Democratic Party, headed by Masoud Barzani, the president of Iraqi Kurdistan. They have been allies to the UIA in government for the past 10 months, but the infighting is abysmal. The only thing the Kurds actually care about is Kirkuk and its oil wealth - and how they can prevent Sunni Arabs and Turkmen from having a slice of the cake.

The 15-group Iraqi National List, number 731, secular and pan-sectarian, is headed by Allawi. The list includes the Communist Party, former foreign minister (pre-Saddam) Adnan al-Pachachi (a Sunni Arab), a few tribal sheikhs and even some liberal Shi'ite clerics.

They say they will fight the Sunni Arab resistance (would that mean leveling Ramadi now instead of Fallujah?), establish a strong central government (SCIRI, Da'wa and the Sadrists would never let them get away with it), revise the de-Ba'athification laws (so Allawi can get his former pals back to government) and return more former officers of the Iraqi Army disbanded by former proconsul L Paul Bremer to the new security forces (once again, over the dead body of the SCIRI, Da'wa and the Sadrists).

The Iraqi Concord Front, number 618, is an alliance of three mostly Islamist Sunni Arab groups. All of them boycotted the January elections. Their platform includes total American withdrawal, and of course bringing back former Sunni Arab Iraqi Army officers. They also want to change the constitution - again - eliminating the newfound regional power and reinforcing the authority of Baghdad.

The 10-party Iraqi National Congress (INC) list, number 569, is headed by former Pentagon asset, current deputy prime minister and eternal revivalist, Chalabi. He split from the UIA to form his own group. Chalabi obviously preaches fighting against the Sunni Arab resistance and in impeccable populist fashion promised every Iraqi family cash derived from Iraq's oil money plus a piece of land for every family that did not yet own a home.

All's well in militia hell

When they are not occupied dodging bullets or trying to spend at least one hour of the day with some water and electricity, Iraqis see rot piling up everywhere. The Allawi-Chalabi (they are cousins) mini-war gets dirtier by the day. The British government is according to some unconfirmed reports pulling out all the stops to stall an investigation into the theft of more than US$1.3 billion from the Ministry of Defense. This favors - who else - Allawi, because the money "disappeared" during his corruption-infested six months as prime minister.

Then there's the rot in the Ministry of Interior. Bayan Jabr, the minister, is from the SCIRI. He controls about 110,000 men armed to their teeth. The SCIRI's militia, the Badr Organization, formerly the Badr Brigade, rule the ministry and have infiltrated paramilitary police commandos, which are in fact "legal" death squads specialized in terrorizing Sunni Arabs. In parallel, Muqtadar's Mahdi Army controls most of Baghdad's police. Many people tend to forget that Baghdad is a predominantly Shi'ite city.

This country is no more

None of this points to national cohesion. "Iraq" as we know it - the unified, heavily centralized state with arbitrary borders drawn on a paper napkin by Britain after World War I - may be on its way to extinction after these elections.

Partition is de facto in the four provinces of Kurdistan - roughly between 15% and 20% of the total population, self-governed and with their own army and police. The billion-dollar question is how the SCIRI, Da'wa and the Sadrists will conform a Shi'iteistan composed of nine Shi'ite provinces out of Iraq's 18. This would be the logical outcome after the American-designed constitution approved in the October 15 referendum. The SCIRI's leader, Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, definitely wants a Shi'iteistan.

The US would be left with little more than the Green Zone - which is not exactly an oil lake - and a lot of empty desert. Essentially, Kurds and Shi'ites will be able to decide what to do with their oil revenues. The Kurds, for instance, have already signed a contract with a Norwegian oil company to drill for oil.

Escobar's prediction:

Election or no election, the ultimate blood-drenched quagmire will remain fully operational. Al-Qaeda will keep suicide bombing to death. Shi'ite death squads will keep executing Sunni Arabs. Shi'ite and Kurd politicians will keep squabbling - while Kurdistan and Shi'iteistan further ignore Baghdad. The Americans will keep controlling nothing - not even the road from the airport to the Green Zone. "Reconstruction" will remain non-existent - until the probably not-too-distant day when the Shi'ite signatories of the "pact of honor" - the probable election winners - will muster the will to tell the occupiers "you're out - and don't forget to pack your military bases as well".

Read it all

"Cheap Votes" for "Cheap Labor"

How can you justify marginalizing 70 percent of the electorate who don't want this?

Some weeks ago the White House held a meeting with potential supporters on the hot topic of immigration. It was promoting its "comprehensive" reform package, which combines enhancement of border security with a "guest worker" program that would admit as many new legal immigrants as the market will bear plus an amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the country. (President Bush denies that allowing illegal immigrants to remain and work here is an amnesty, but if it quacks like a duck . . .)

The amnesty and guest workers programs are so unpopular with the public that a skeptic at the White House meeting wondered how this problem would be handled. "We'll marginalize our critics," replied an apparatchik. "Well, it's a little difficult to marginalize 70 percent of the American people," replied the skeptic -- and so it is proving.

Monday's "Washington Post" reported that the White House was suffering anguish because the Republicans in the House, responding to their constituents, intended to vote for a bill that contained measures to improve border security without the guest worker/amnesty parts. The RNC chairman, Ken Mehlman, lamented that such a bill would endanger the GOP's outreach to Latinos.

How can it possibly be electorally disadvantageous to adopt a policy supported by 70 percent of voters in order to win more support from Latinos who constitute less than 8 percent of voters? Even that question understates the absurdity of his argument because, as numerous polls show, Latinos are almost as divided as other Americans about legal and illegal immigration.

A recent Pew survey of Latino attitudes shows most Latinos rank immigration as not a very important issue. But 23 percent of them -- and 34 percent of Latinos born in the United States -- think illegal immigrants hurt the economy by driving down wages. Most surprisingly, a majority of Latinos think legal immigration from Latin America should be reduced (13 percent) or stay the same (43 percent) as opposed to increased (31 percent.)

Almost certainly, those Latinos who either oppose or are indifferent to higher levels of immigration and amnesties are those most likely to vote Republican. So the political effect of Mehlman's argument, if it were to carry the day, would be to dishearten both the potential Republican voters in the Latino community and the non-Latino voters, white and black, who in polls consistently oppose guest worker/amnesty programs and equally consistently support enhanced border security...

The Latino argument provides cover for a policy of giving corporate America and Republican donors what they want -- cheap labor. This smuggling operation is failing, however, because the GOP is divided. GOP donors may want "comprehensive" immigration reform but Republican voters oppose it bitterly.

A bill to enforce immigration control is now making its way through the House. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner's bill was approved last week by the Judiciary Committee. It not only improves security on the border, it also enrolls employers in a system of Social Security verification that will curb illegal employment and makes it easier to deport illegals.

And what will the Democrats get?

Unfortunately for the White House, the Democrats will exact a high price. In effect, they will vote for a "comprehensive" bill only if it allows guest workers and "illegals" to stay indefinitely, get "green cards" and citizenship in a relatively short time, and eventually vote Democrat. They want cheap votes as compensation for giving the GOP and its business allies cheap labor.

Unfortunately big donors have more clout than the average guys that are losing jobs and benefits, whose children are forced to go to increasingly more crowded schools and who have to use a degrading health system in order to benefit those who profit by the tsunami of immigrants pouring unchecked through every point ingress. One does not need another study to feel the effect. Look around at our city streets, emergency rooms, crowded classrooms, and workplaces to grasp the magnitude of the sellout.

End of rant; sorry, I can't help but be outraged!!!

Has the Pentagon Finally Seen the Light About Islam? Will the White House Follow?

From: FrontPageMag:

Washington's policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.

A little-noticed speech by President Bush in October gave them some hope. In a major rhetorical shift, he described the enemy as "Islamic radicals" and not just "terrorists," although he still denies that radicalism has anything to do with their religion.

Now for the first time, a key Pentagon intelligence agency involved in homeland security is delving into Islam's holy texts to answer whether Islam is being radicalized by the terrorists or is already radical. Military brass want a better understanding of what's motivating the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists around the globe, including those inside America who may be preparing to strike domestic military bases. The enemy appears indefatigable, even more active now than before 9/11.

Are the terrorists really driven by self-serving politics and personal demons? Or are they driven by religion? And if it's religion, are they following a manual of war contained in their scripture?

Answers are hard to come by. Four years into the war on terror, U.S. intelligence officials tell me there are no baseline studies of the Muslim prophet Muhammad or his ideological or military doctrine found at either the CIA or Defense Intelligence Agency, or even the war colleges.

But that is slowly starting to change as the Pentagon develops a new strategy to deal with the threat from Islamic terrorists through its little-known intelligence agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, which staffs hundreds of investigators and analysts to help coordinate Pentagon security efforts at home and abroad. CIFA also supports Northern Command in Colorado, which was established after 9/11 to help military forces react to terrorist threats in the continental United
States.

Dealing with the threat on a tactical and operational level through counterstrikes and capture has proven only marginally successful. Now military leaders want to combat it from a strategic standpoint, using informational warfare, among other things. A critical part of that strategy involves studying Islam, including the Quran and the hadiths, or traditions of Muhammad.

"Today we are confronted with a stateless threat that does not have at the strategic level targetable entities: no capitals, no economic base, no military formations or installations," states a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained. "Yet political Islam wages an ideological battle against the non-Islamic world at the tactical, operational and strategic level. The West's response is focused at the tactical and operation level, leaving the strategic level -- Islam -- unaddressed."

So far the conclusions of intelligence analysts assigned to the project, who include both private contractors and career military officials, contradict the commonly held notion that Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked or distorted by terrorists. They've found that the terrorists for the most part are following a war-fighting doctrine articulated through Muhammad in the Quran, elaborated on in the hadiths, codified in Islamic or sharia law, and reinforced by recent interpretations or fatwahs.

"Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)," concludes the sensitive Pentagon briefing paper. And "no one is looking for its off switch."

Why? One major reason, the briefing states, is government-wide "indecision [over] whether Islam is radical or being radicalized."

So, which is it? "Strategic themes suggest Islam is radical by nature," according to the briefing, which goes on to cite the 26 chapters of the Quran dealing with violent jihad and the examples of the Muslim prophet, who it says sponsored "terror and slaughter" against unbelievers.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," the defense document says, and Muslims today are commanded by their "militant" holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the "cult characteristics of Islam."

It also ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." Which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing. Of the eight obligatory categories of disbursement of Muslim charitable donations, it notes that two are for funding jihad, or holy war. Indeed, authorities have traced millions of dollars received by major jihadi terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaida back to Saudi and other foreign Isamic charities and also U.S. Muslim charities, such as the Holy Land Foundation.

According to the Quran, jihad is not something a Muslim can opt out of. It demands able-bodied believers join the fight. Those unable -- women and the elderly -- are not exempt; they must give "asylum and aid" (Surah 8:74) to those who do fight the unbelievers in the cause of Allah.

In analyzing the threat on the domestic front, the Pentagon briefing draws perhaps its most disturbing conclusions. It argues the U.S. has not suffered from scattered insurgent attacks -- as opposed to the concentrated and catastrophic attack by al-Qaida on 9-11 -- in large part because it has a relatively small Muslim population. But that could change as the Muslim minority grows and gains more influence.

Read the rest.

Die in Place

During the past few years we have heard repeatedly about the Muslim notion of self-sacrifice for the Ummah, the community of believers. It is this winning devotion to not only their cause and to the whole of the Muslim community that is creating a problem for us in the West that are accustomed to nationalism and individuality. Non-Muslims are portrayed as selfish and unwilling to put themselves on the line for their fellow countrymen or in this case, fellow non-believers. No where but in the military can we seem to find this kind of comradeship and devotion to duty, the kind of spirit that we will have to discover if we are to survive the onslaught of Islam.

Dr. Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington writes on censorship and political correctness that is overwhelming polite behavior and conversation, public policy, and, in some cases, the law. Of course his bailiwick is the education, the university system. Fatigue is setting in as it is for all of us. A recent inspirational offering to him has given renewed vigor and can be an inspiration and reminder that we are the frontline of this struggle.

“Die In Place”.

Years ago while in training as a Marine Officer, I first heard the expression “Die In Place”.  The phrase was used as a teaching point to understand the concept of “Mission Type Orders”...This concept directs that simple and concise orders be provided to subordinates without dictating the minutia of how to accomplish the assigned mission.  A Marine given “Mission Type Orders” must; 1) assess the situation, 2) identify his tasks, and 3) develop an operational concept designed to accomplish his mission.

Simply put, a Marine given "Die in Place" orders understands the gravity of the situation as follows:

- He occupies the key terrain of his unit positions.

- There may be NO withdrawal or retreat.

- There are NO alternate or supplementary positions.

- There will be NO attachments or reinforcements.

- The position MUST be held.

- Failure to do so will result in the literal destruction of all friendly forces and the ability to successfully conclude the conflict.

In other words, death is preferable to the resulting loss of Marine Corps honor, culture, and prestige if he fails.

Although most of us are not officially in the military, we all are at arms against a foe. Some among us "hold the key terrain," and others of us are "sniping from the rocks," but the line is drawn and we can't back down. The correspondent to Dr. Adams remarked about his position in academia:

It is apparent to me that you clearly understand the importance of your position and the tasks that must be accomplished to end the assault on academic excellence...Another lesson from my time in the Marines is that you always “Reinforce success, never failure”. 

He was speaking of reinforcing those that stand a lonely, hazardous vigil, putting themselves on the line against a cold world that has not yet learned to appreciate or even recognize the importance of efforts. Whether we are on the frontline or up in the rocks, we can't allow ourselves to give up our posts for this an existential fight to the death and we will have to match or supercede the code and devotion of the enemy to win.

Alarm Bells Are Ringing all Over the "Infidel World"

Imagine the relentless clanging of firehouse bells to warn citizens of fire. Those nearest the fire respond with alacrity; those away see the glow on the horizon and may run toward the fire to assist or turn away, content to allow others to douse the flames. The exposure and criticism of Islam is not prejudice but the equivalent of the firehouse bell.

...The "criticism of Russia's Mulsims" does not smack of "prejudice" but of alarm -- alarm at the constant, relentless, pressure of Muslims everywhere, not only in Russia, to undercut in every possible way the sense that this or that place belongs to, was created by, and should continue to remain in the hands of, Infidels. That alarm, and that anger, and that refusal to give in, where there is such refusal, to Muslim demands here and there and everywhere, isn't "prejudice." It is rational alarm, rational hostility to those whom, one discovers if one bothers to look, are taught to hate Infidels. Some may not, because they were bad or inattentive students, or played the truant. But the lessons of Islam remain on the books -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

There is no "prejudice" against Muslims. There is only the alarm and hostility that all properly informed Infidels should feel -- and the more they know, the greater both their alarm, and their hostility.

Hugh Fitzgerald atDhimmiWatch

We Wish We Could Say "Don't Let the Door Hit You!" to Illegal Aliens

Michelle Malkin, a journalist, is as concerned as I am about illegal immigration. LawyerJuan Mann has quite a bit to say about why it is almost impossible to send them back from where they came. Perhaps you would be concerned as well if you knew how many arevictimsof the crimes of unsupervised aliens.

Juan Mann's lengthy and well-documented essay should be an eye opener. The other problems caused by unsupervised immigrants can left for another time. However, the problems caused by immigrants can't be solved until the immigrantion service gets its act together.

I Had No Idea There Are So Many

Stunned that Sami al Arian"Acquitted on Some Charges," because groups such as al Qaeda use charities for recruiting, I came across two recent offerings by Daniel Pipes: "Converts to Terror" and "More Converts to Terror. I had no idea there are so many converts to Islam that are willing to commit acts of murder and violence. But then, again, Jihad is mandated in the Koran and Jihad is murder and violence. The zeal of converts of any stripe is legendary.

Jihad can not be characterized as only bomb throwing and violence. Jihad against non-believers is subversion of non-Muslim culture using any means necessary. Thus when hearing of a convert to islam, we all should look to which sphere of influence this person may be involved: education, government, health care, economics, journalism, etc.

Update Al Arian's free pass must hearten other terrorists on trial. This does not bode well for the United States.
Michelle Malkin links to various accounts of Al Arian's acquittal. Joe Kaufman at FrontPage has a full account.

The School That Terrorism Built

I have been nagging incessantly about the importance of educating our children in the skill of thinking with the same enthusiasm that we try to teach them math, history, or literature.

I have been nagging about the fact that for about 150 years, ever since the government took over education in this country, our kids have been taught, unopposed, the lessons written by those who wish to destroy it.


Those "deconstructionists" include every "flavor" of collectivist thinking you can imagine, including liberals, leftists, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, Nazis, and Islam.

These are the people who seized our children's minds and had their way with them. They invented multiculturalism, moral equivalency, political correctness, diversity, and all the rest, and then made sure our children were taught that these were good things.

We, as parents, were told, "Don't try to teach your children yourselves, leave that to the experts." And many of us did just that, and then wondered how it was that our children turned into what we see today--unsure of what's right or wrong, wondering what all this fuss about Islam is about, thinking that cheating on exams is OK because everyone does it, that learning and working hard isn't "cool," that trivializing sex as just another recreational activity IS cool, that believing that all cultures are equally good, that any assessment of one culture as "better" in some way than another is "intolerant," that "profit" is a dirty word, that "individual rights" are a fiction, and on, and on, and on.

The State of Islam has slipped through our back door and into our our schools, where it has used the lessons it learned from its collectivist bedfellows to its advantage. Under the prostituted version of "tolerance" our system was promoting, Islam, just another culture which is just as good as ours, has sent its tentacles into our schools via "outreach" programs, via "mentors" who supply lesson plans which are written and sponsored by Muslim organizations charged with promoting da'wa with the ultimate goal of bringing the United States into the ummah and replacing that nasty, man-conceived Bill of Rights with the Koran.

To further that cause, they establish schools which will produce lawyers, teachers, politicians, journalists, academics, clerics, military men, etc. who will join the Islamic imperative to create an Islamic planet.

FrontPageMagazine tells the story of one such school, paid for by you and me because our people have failed the "vigilence test," below; there are others.




The School that Terrorism Built
By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 5, 2005


In July of 2003, the Islamic Academy of Florida (IAF), an elementary/secondary private school for Muslims based in the Temple Terrace suburb of Tampa Bay, was suspended from receiving taxpayer funded tuition vouchers. The voucher program is a statewide government initiative that was devised to help underprivileged students in underachieving schools get a better education. Up until that point, the school had received more than $350,000 in vouchers, the majority of which came from Florida PRIDE, an organization that funds scholarships. After further investigation, the school was cut off completely from the voucher program.

The reason the school was cut off from the money was simple. IAF was named, in a 50-count indictment, as having been a part of the “PIJ Enterprise.” PIJ is short for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a 26-year-old terrorist organization connected to the Muslim Brotherhood that targets Israeli civilians and others with murder, using young Arabs as human bombs (martyrs). According to the indictment, IAF and other organizations were actively used as “the North American base of support for the PIJ and to raise funds and provide support for the PIJ and their operatives in the Middle East, in order to assist its engagement in, and promotion of, violent attacks designed to thwart the Middle East Peace Process.”

IAF’s former Chairman, Sami Al-Arian, was the ringleader of the enterprise; the school’s former Treasurer, Sameeh Hammoudeh, was conducting fundraising activities for PIJ from IAF; one of the school’s former teachers, Ramadan Shallah, was soon to leave town (on his own) for Damascus, Syria to become the new leader (Secretary General) of PIJ; and one of the school’s former Directors, Mazen Al-Najjar, was deported from the United States and, himself, had major ties to PIJ. The former three are presently the focus of a soon-to-be-ended trial dealing with their involvement in the murders of over 100 innocent human beings, including two Americans.

The school is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Saudi financed organization with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood that controls the assets of many, if not all, of the most dangerous mosques and Islamic centers inside the U.S. IAF’s mailing address, as published by the Hillsborough County Property Appraiser, is a NAIT office located just a few doors down from the school.

Most U.S. citizens would shudder at the possibility that the taxes they pay, out of the money they worked hard for, were being used to fund a school that was founded as a link between the country they call home and an overseas terrorist organization. But that is precisely what had happened (with the case of IAF), and unbeknownst to many, it is continuing still today (with IAF).

In March of 2003, a domestic non-profit was incorporated within the state of Florida, using the name American Youth Academy. The organization was set up as an Islamic elementary/secondary private school (just like IAF), and its corporate address put it directly adjacent to IAF. Or is it inside IAF? Taking a drive down the back street that is E 130th Ave, one is easily confused as to where one property ends and the other begins.

If you listen to American Youth Academy (AYA) officials, you’ll be hard pressed to believe that AYA is a brand new school. But in reality, only the name has changed. As reported in the Tampa Tribune, the school “uses the same buildings, desks, books and equipment as the Islamic Academy. Nearly half the teachers and many students are the same.” The phone number to the school is also the same. Even one of the AYA Directors, Ayman Barakat, was a long-time Director of IAF.

So why is the state of Florida treating this “new” school differently than it treated IAF?

As stated previously, IAF lost its funding due to its ties to terrorist activity. However, the same school that goes by the new name is currently receiving more taxpayer funded vouchers than any other school in the Tampa Bay area. For this year alone, Florida’s citizens have shelled out $332,500 to AYA for its elementary/secondary program and $2500 per child for AYA’s Voluntary Prekindergarten (VPK) program, which it is actively soliciting children for on its website. Given this school’s history, how is this possible?

But it’s not just about the school’s past. There is equal concern with its present. According to courtroom documents, in December of 1999, Ibrahim Khader, one of the school’s new Directors, gave $1900 to PIJ defendant Sameeh Hammoudeh, who told Khader the money was going towards “orphans” (i.e. families of suicide bombers).

Two years ago, the St. Petersburg Times posed the question, “…do lawmakers know… that the Islamic Academy of Florida, a school described in a federal indictment as a base of operations for a local terrorist cell, served 101 students on vouchers last year?” Evidently someone was listening. Well, hopefully someone is listening now, when I ask the follow-up question, “Do lawmakers know that the Islamic Academy of Florida is still getting taxpayer funded student vouchers?

It’s time for the American public to get angry, because those that are charged with protecting us are paying no attention to the radicalism festering in our midst.

(Bill Warner, the President of W.B.I. Private Detective Agency, contributed to this report.)