The Freedoms We Fight For

Islam hates individual freedoms and Islamists are moving quickly and violently to hasten the demise of any and all freedoms we cherish in the West.

Free speech has never been allowed by Islam. Freedom of speech is under attack because the dissemination of information and opinion that is unfavorable to Islam could not be possible without the unimpeded access we have to get and give information. Today's world is shrunk by technology that allows groups and individuals greater access than every before to information and to each other.

Will technology force us to adopt the kind of self-censorship that has been imposed on Muslims since the beginning. If we in the West allow Muslims to force and enforce our silence. it will only be a matter of time before our other precious freedoms will be lost forever and Islam will have won.

Ironically Islam is becoming very successful in silencing speech in the West. Everyone remembers the plight of Salmon Rushdie, the novelist against whom a death sentence has been issued and Theo Van Gogh, the filmmaker against whom a death sentence has been carried out. But they aren't alone.

Omar Sharif has been threatened because he gave credence to Christianity while playing St. Peter in an Italian film. Ali Hirsi, a member of the Dutch Parliament, must live in hiding due to her death sentence. Khalid Duran produced a book called Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Islam for Jews for the American Jewish Committee that caused an escalating furor in the Muslim world that, according to the scholar Daniel Pipes, resulted in a fatwa that "religiously condones Duran's death." Ironically CAIR did not condemn Duran but the American Jewish Committee for publicizing the remarks to Abu Zant, a powerful Islamist leader in Jordan.

Read the rest for more chilling examples of death threats and other intimidation against those that have the courage to expose themselves by criticism or by even giving information about Islam that has not been given the seal of approval by Muslim leaders, mullahs, and scholars.

SCOTUS, "untruthful," "outside the mainstream," "ideologue," "precedent," and "extremism": Sorting Through

Once more we must gives thanks for an editorial in the New York Times for providing such good grist for our mill--we have been wanting to grind these issues for some time now. The subject is the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the flimsy oppositional thinking going into justice selection. Some really bad ideas are afoot, but they are bandied about as if they meant something, particularly now that Samuel Alito has been nominated to fill the O'Connor vacancy on SCOTUS.

We have severely excerpted the editorial from the Times because it adds nothing of value. We have retained the buzzwords, however.

Editorial (November 16, 2005): Ignore the Man Behind That Memo

Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s insistence that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights is not the only alarming aspect of a newly released memo he wrote in 1985. That statement strongly suggests that Judge Alito is far outside the legal mainstream...

First, he has extreme views on the law...

Second, Judge Alito does not respect precedent...

Third, he is an ideologue...

On the bench, Judge Alito has voted to uphold extreme limits on abortion and on other important rights, like freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Equally alarming is the notion that he fudged the truth [on a 1985 employment application] to tell a potential employer what it wanted to hear. Senators should certainly keep this in mind when they try to decide whether to believe how he describes his views at his confirmation hearing.

(All emphases mine)

First, the standard of truth issue. According to this editorial, Judge Alito lied on a 1985 employment application because he told the potential employer what that employer wanted to hear. Complaints about lying from the New York Times ring hollow. Imagine that: Someone telling someone else what that someone else wanted to hear in order to get something--Shocking, utterly shocking! Why, no one at the Times has ever done any fudging... In fact, if fudging facts were the criterion for rejection of employment, national unemployment would near 100%. If, indeed, in this case, Mr. Alito lied on a job application, it does not reflect a pattern of evasion, lying, or even “fudging.” The Times needs to focus on serious stuff, not an instance of a minor moral transgression.

A pattern of lying is a pattern of fraud. That is very serious because it is characterological. No evidence has been found, nor do we believe any will be found, to indict the man’s character on this charge.

As for “lying,” these confirmation hearings have taken on a character akin to the Inquisition. No nominee can possibly get his nomination confirmed any more without some lying, by commission and omission. Senators insist on being told what they want to hear, and that is, in most instances, formulaic stuff. Every nominee has to engage in senatorial gamesmanship of morbid mendacity; if nominees are evasive, then senators are getting just what they have long been asking for.

Second, the outside the mainstream issue. What does “mainstream” mean? Realistically, it means nothing more than someone being “moderate,” even “militantly moderate.” A moderate tries to appear principled while actually avoiding being firm on principles. Moderates approach principles, regardless of how important and mutually exclusive some of these basic principles might be, as if selecting from the fabled Chinese menu: Some from column a; some from column b; and some from column c. Practically speaking, moderates cancel themselves out by the contradictions they try to hold. By trying to be all things to all people, they become nothing to anyone. They negate identity. So, being in the mainstream means what? Nothing.

Why accuse someone of being out of the mainstream? The accusers hope that unthinking people will jump to the emotional conclusion that the accused is "rabid."

Third, the extremism issue. The first time we heard people go crazy en masse about “extremism” was in the aftermath of Barry Goldwater's famous remark about extremism in his 1964 presidential nominating convention speech, particularly when he said that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Perhaps Leftists had been going nuts about the use of "extreme" before then; we cannot say. However, since then, we have heard countless repetitions of concerns about “extremism” from the executive and legislative branches of government, the media, and academia, all pounding the idea that “extremism is bad, bad, bad.”

What is extremism? At best, it is a junk term, which collects into one pile all sorts of things that do not go together, both the good and the bad, and makes all items and issues in the pile equivalent. By this argument, all extreme positions are bad because they are, well, "extreme." A good illustration of this kind of thinking came out of the mouth of one of the weekend hosts of Fox and Friends on the Fox News Channel. A highly conventional host stated recently that all truth taken to the extreme becomes false. (We did not make this up). Aside from the fact that this statement makes no sense, in fact, truth is truth; and, if it is truth, it is "extreme" only because it is fully logically consistent. That is the nature of truth.

Properly used, the term “extreme” means no more than taking as consistent a position as merited by the premises. That is what Barry Goldwater meant. His enemies tried to paint him as some id-dominated monster who would eat babies, blow up the world with nuclear devices, etc.--i.e., their view of extremism. The cry of "extremist" or "extremism" from the Left tries to paint the target emotionally as a lunatic. In fact, it may well mean that the target person is rational, something the Left can hardly abide.

Fourth, the "precedence" issue. In the Supreme Court legal lexicon, the "precedence" issue is known as stare decisis. This doctrine gives such gravity to prior decisions that SCOTUS justices are all but handcuffed not to challenge prior decisions. When those prior decisions are rational, that is, when they support rights and the Constitution in a fully rational manner, they need not be overturned. However, stare decisis has become a Leftist litmus test in the Senate.

Leftist senators are terrified that someone like John Roberts or Samuel Alito will challenge the beloved pro-socialism decisions made by the Court in the last 125 years or so. They hang their fears on the Rowe vs Wade as THE symbol of all they stand for. If SCOTUS reverses that decision, they fear, SCOTUS might start interpreting laws by "strict construction" and start dismantling the semi-fascist-socialist state that America has become, thanks in large measure to the activism of SCOTUS. (We are addressing the fears of the Left about Rowe vs Wade, not challenging the validity of the decision here). Knowing how to play the confirmation game, all nominees rush to assure the Schumer's, et and al, that they believe in stare decisis, just as they believe in God, country, mother, and apple pie.

What SCOTUS needs is men and women of principle, conviction, and backbone, willing to subject prior decisions to the test of reason and Rights of Man, keeping the good, and overturning the bad. Advice to the nominees then is to tell Schumers what they want to hear, then do what reason dictates.

Fifth, the "ideologue" issue. The ideal expressed by this editorial and among almost all politicians is that holding an explicit philosophy of life (which would qualify as “extremism,” please note, because explicit = definite=extreme in the Leftist bizarroworld), particularly a judicial philosophy, makes one just terrible. But, in fact, ideologues are people who hold specific sets of principles, usually social or political. These sets of ideas may or may not integrate with a full philosophy of life. Ideologies are smaller sets of principles rather than a full philosophy of life. Some ideologies are rational, and some are not. Muslims are ideologues, for example. So are people like the infamous professor, Ward Churchill. Hitler was an ideologue. Many conservatives and liberals are ideologues. Using “ideologue” this way tries to make it an epithet so that people will associate “ideologue” with “evil.” Further, by using the term this way, users intend to scare people that the “ideologue” will try to cram his ideas down their throats, like Muslims or Hitler. Well, that could be the case--or, maybe not. It all depends on the nature and extent of the ideas held and by whom; figuring that out far exceeds the capacities of politicians these days.

What this Times editorial and mouthy Leftist senators mean is that someone with principles guiding his or her thinking, feeling, and behavior, has to be bad because ideas guide his or her thinking, feeling, and behavior. By implication, their ideal is to be fluid, flexible, indistinct, malleable, and willing to bend in the wind, changing directions as the wind shifts—to keep principles in a form resembling the blobs of a lava lamp.

Where would they get such a notion? They were taught that by America's universities and college, bastions of irrationality since pragmatism, and the philosophical spawn that followed pragmatism’s heyday, became the dominant academic, then cultural, philosophies, starting in the latter 19th century. The world created by this "ideology" is an unstable world: Reality is entirely malleable--if you want something, and take action (from the Greek, "pragma"), and if it all works out, then it was true; morality or ethics is nothing more than following your feelings and learning that something was right because it all worked out the way you wanted--you act, then examine--anything goes. Bill Clinton is a good example.

As for politics, pragmatism and its progeny require force wielded by the all-powerful state to be able to control all those people following their versions of reality, truth, and morality, some of which are bound to clash. Taking a firm stand on principle is anathema to pragmatism, which holds that reality is too subjective to take a firm stand on. Thus, politicians go nuts when people take principled stands. Those that do take principled stands become labeled "ideologues," i.e., "extremists," and definitely "outside the mainstream." Moussolini loved pragmatism as taught by William James because James' ideas taught him to act first (instead of thinking), and, if it all worked out, then it was right.

The mainstream, to those thoroughly soaked in pragmatism and its postmodernist progeny, consists of all sorts of compromises and deal makings to get what participants want, having nothing whatsoever to do with what is true or right, as normal people use the terms.

These buzzwords and buzz-terms have been trotted out, as expected, in order to smear Judge Alito, as though his detractors really mean something when they use them. However, these accusations smear about as effectively as fog smears. The Left do not want someone who knows what his principles are and follows them. They want someone who sees life as they do, where anything goes--except principle.

What then, do these Leftist complaints really say about Judge Alito?

1. Truthfulness: He erred morally once .
2. Outside the mainstream: He is an independent thinker.
3. Extremism: He has integrity to stand firmly for what he regards as right.
4. Precedents: He might well challenge prior SCOTUS decisions, if he thinks they were based on false premises.
5. Ideologue: He is a man of principle.

So, these are supposed to be disqualifying negatives? Only the Left, never at home in reality, would consider these obvious strengths as negatives.

Do You Want the United Nations to Design A Curriculum for Your Child's School?

Bill Clinton and Bill Gates do...and so does George W. Bush

For sometime now, the United Nations and transnational companies have insinuated their way into the governance of the United States, the workplace, and American society. What better way to prepare American citizens for life a "citizen of the world" rather than a citizen of the United States than to mold the minds of the next generations.

On Jan. 22, 1997, President Bill Clinton made a speech to a suburban Chicago audience so friendly that it interrupted him with applause 29 times. One line in his speech, however, was greeted with stony silence: "We can no longer hide behind our love of local control of the schools."

Clinton is gone from the White House, but the federalization laws of his administration - Goals 2000, School-to-Work, and Workforce Investment - are still in place. President George W. Bush, who says the federal government has "a role to play in education," has merely substituted labels more comforting to Republicans: standards, tests, and accountability.

Now we find that the process is no longer just federalization; it's globalization. Who would have guessed that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization would be positioning itself to design curricula for U.S. schools?

Former President Ronald Reagan withdrew the United States from UNESCO on Dec. 31, 1984, because it was corrupt, anti-Western and a vehicle for far-left propaganda. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush rejoined UNESCO in 2003.
UNESCO's efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to influence U.S. school curricula were unsuccessful. But now UNESCO has found a sugar daddy.

On Nov. 17, 2004, at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris, UNESCO signed a 26-page "Cooperation Agreement" with Microsoft Corp. to develop a "master curriculum (syllabus)" for teacher training in information technologies based on standards, guidelines, benchmarks and assessment techniques. The Agreement states that the syllabus will "form the basis for deriving training content to be delivered to teachers," and "UNESCO will explore how to facilitate content development."


Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates initialed every page in his own handwriting. You can read the agreement at www.eagleforum.org/links, but Microsoft has fixed it so you can't print it out.


Following the signing of the agreement, UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura explained it in a speech. One of its goals, he said, is "fostering Web-based communities of practice including content development and worldwide curricula reflecting UNESCO values."

No doubt that is agreeable to Gates, because the agreement states "Microsoft supports the objectives of UNESCO as stipulated in UNESCO's constitution."

This is the same Bill Gates that sold out American tech workers. This is the same Bill Clinton that supported NAFTA and GATT. And this is the same George W. Bush that transformed the role of the Federal Government in Education.

Now we have a big brother in Washington and a slew of overseers in the United Nations dictating not only how our children will be educated, but what they will learn and not learn to help them overcome the parochial mindset of Americans, another sacrifice on the altar of diversity and multiculturalism, a step away from accepting the role of dhimmitude in the world of expanding Islamism.

Could This Happen...in America?

It’s December 2030, and I’m shopping with my grandson in a mall in Northern Virginia. We’ve purchased a gift for a relative.

“Gift wrap?” inquired the clerk.

“Yes, thanks.”
“Happy Chanukah, Merry Kwanzaa, or Eid Greetings?”

I frowned. The clerk whispered, “Listen, I think there may still be a few rolls of Christmas wrap in the back if you want…”
My grandson looked up at me and asked, “Why is the man whispering, Grandpa?”

The clerk leaned over the counter: “The store’s Diversity Regulations stipulate that we’re no longer permitted to offer anything saying ‘Christmas.’”

“Grandpa,” David asked, “when did the stores stop offering Christmas paper?”

“I’m not exactly sure,” I replied, “but I do remember that already back in 2005 stores like Kohl’s and Target no longer allowed their employees to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ Now even schools are forbidden to print the word ‘Christmas’ on their calendars in the December 25th box.”

“But, Grandpa, the President still lights the National Fern!”

“Yes, David, and it was once the National Christmas Tree. But there were these very powerful and well-moneyed groups such as the ACLU that for over 50 years relentlessly tried to remove anything of Christmas from American public life and social discourse. Then there was this other group, the ADL, which claimed to be fighting bigotry, but really appeared to be promoting bigotry against Christians and people with political views the ADL didn’t like. Anyway, by the time 2005 had arrived, most American people no longer had the conviction and mettle of the people who founded this nation in the 18th century.”

“Why not, Grandpa?”

“Well, believe it or not, they simply were worn down by constantly being called names like anti-Semite, Islamophobe, racist, or homophobe.”

“You mean, people 50 years ago were so scared that they’d allow their country to be taken from them rather than be called a name? I thought sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me!”

“Well, there was another factor at work. Back then we called it ‘political correctness.’ If you spoke out against the ACLU, you were called ‘intolerant.’ If you cherished our American freedoms and were patriotic, you were ‘reactionary.’ If you were revolted by the in-your-face perversions of the day, you were ‘unsophisticated.’ If you believed in right and wrong, your thinking was ‘un-nuanced.’

“Some of the people who stood up against the ACLU,” I continued, “were called Conservatives. In those days, you weren’t welcomed in ‘progressive’ circles if you were a Conservative. You didn’t get those high-paying jobs in the media, Hollywood, or in the University. In fact, if they knew you were Conservative, you could even lose your job -- and, if you wanted to keep your job, you had to undergo diversity training at Sensitivity Sessions and mouth the appropriate platitudes and apologies, even against your own conscience.”

“How did the ACLU control everybody?” David asked.

“You see, they insisted that any references to Christmas and Christianity were ‘offensive’ to some people.”

“Were the Christians trying to impose their religion on everybody?”

“Heavens, no, David. But when Christians wanted simply to express themselves as other groups did, they were accused of having a hidden agenda of ‘Christianizing’ America. Black ‘pride,’ Jewish ‘pride,’ Islamic and Hispanic ‘pride’ were considered social goods and ‘diversity,’ but Christian expression was considered a symptom of concealed anti-Semitism, racism, Islamophobia, and even American imperialism!”

“Grandpa, how did you feel when someone wished you Merry Christmas?”

“I felt fine being on the receiving end of good wishes and that person’s desire to include me in his season of joy. Besides, it was the gracious thing to do. Then along came the Left and they politicized every harmless and gentle aspect of everyday life, rendering almost anything any normal person said as somehow ‘insensitive’ to some person or group. They took regular daily life which had been sweet and turned it into a political brawl. They made fair-minded Americans self-conscious of every word, and relations between people strained and bitter. They busy-bodied into everything private and personal. And out of a desire to be considered ‘inclusive,’ Christians allowed their Christianity to be rubbed out from the public sphere.”

“Just so they could be called ‘nice’ by a bunch of bullies, Grandpa?”

This, of course, is a satire, with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Read the rest and ponder how our traditions are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Eurabia's Morass Elicits Mythical "Solutions"

Muslims continue to play up the "tolerance and justice" of Moslem Spain and the Ottoman Empire which were neither tolerant nor just to non-Muslims. A lie repeated often enough begins to have the ring of truth. The same can be said of the claims of the recent rioters in France and Europe that "trivialize the role of Islam" in those events. From the processor of Andrew Bostom at The American Thinker.

After nearly three successive weeks of rioting in France by predominantly Muslim youths, the violence has ebbed, albeit to an uneasy level in considerable excess of the early October “baseline” before the riots (for example, in terms of vehicles burnt per day see this graph).

The prevailing apologetics regarding these disturbances, which emanate from pundits across the political spectrum, denies or trivializes the role of Islam. For example, although twelve Christian churches were desecrated and/or burned by the overwhelmingly Muslim rioters in France during the intifada, these bigoted acts were barely reported by investigative journalists or bloggers, and ignored altogether by pontificating commentators.

Apologetic assessments further ignored the existence of ominous and influential Islamic entities such as the Arab European League (a hideous group which equates the assimilation of Muslims within a European context, to rape), or the European Fatwa Council, headed by Muslim Brotherhood “spiritual” leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who sanctions homicide bombings against Israeli non-combatants, and has stated  publicly that “Islam will conquer Europe”.

Also absent from such discussions were the alarming statements made by European Muslim leaders at a conference entitled, “Islam in Europe” that accompanied the July 10, 2003 opening of the new Granada Mosque. The keynote speaker at this erstwhile “ecumenical” conference, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, a Spanish Muslim leader,  implored Muslims to cause an economic collapse of Western economies (by switching to gold dinars, and ceasing to use Western currencies), while the German Muslim leader Abu Bakr Rieger told attendees not to adapt their Islamic religious practices to accommodate European (i.e., Western Enlightenment ?) values. 

Finally, none of the apologetic narratives acknowledged, let alone addressed the implications of disturbing survey results from British Muslims polled shortly after the 7/7/05 London bombings. These data revealed that one-third of British Muslims were brazen enough to admit, “Western society is decadent and immoral and …Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”, expressing ostensibly, their desire to replace Britain’s current liberal democracy with a Shari’a-based theocratic model .
French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut has noted, appositely, that it is a reductio ad absurdum to view the “social dimension” of the riots in France exclusively (and obsessively), as,

…a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity….in France there are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult—Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese—and they’re not taking part in the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an ethno-religious character.
Despite Finkielkraudt’s salient observations, and others by the rare reporters Melanie Phillips aptly lauded for simply having “…their heads screwed on the right way”, Phillips warned of the dominant mentality which sought to negate the truth through vilification, and replace reality with fantasy.

Amir Taheri  has cited perhaps the most disturbing examples of this proclivity to indulge ahistorical and dangerous fantasy. Two mythical inventions of purported “ecumenical” Islamic rule in Europe have been revived— the “Andalusian paradise” of Muslim Spain, and the former Ottoman millet system (most relevantly, in Eastern Europe, primarily the Balkans). Taheri reports that Gilles Kepel, who (despite arguing prior to 9/11 that  jihadism was a spent force within the global Muslim umma!) currently serves as an adviser on Islam to President Chirac, recommended the creation of a modern Andalusia,
“…in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis”.

Taheri, but unfortunately, not Kepel, Chirac’s adviser, possessed the wisdom to ponder the critical matter of sovereign political power, asking “…Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?”. Other muddled thinkers, “…are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the ‘millet’ system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs”, according to Taheri.

Read it all. The internal links included in the original are very informative.

The March of the Extremists: Attacks Threaten Religious Harmony in Southeast Asia

There is no surprise here. From the beginning, thuggish warriors led by Mohammed, on the backs of horses and camels, using fire and sword, murder and mayhem, have ground countless peoples and cultures under the Muslim boot. Only the scope has changed.

Contemporary technology is allowing them to cut a greater swath than ever before as ocean-going ships and air transport is opening up opportunities to spread their vile ideology of hate, murder and violence.

Each world region is under attack. Recent events in North America and Europe are only tiny fraction of what other parts of the world are suffering at Muslim hands:

Buddhist monks are being murdered, Christian schoolchildren beheaded and dissenters blown up. Southeast Asia's peaceful co-existence among religions is under siege, from Bangkok to Jakarta. Meanwhile, politicians and military leaders are using Islamic fervor to boost their own power...

Terror is everywhere. Although Indonesia recently reported the death of dangerous bomb-maker Azahari bin Husin ("Dr. Azahari"), a member of the notorious Indonesian terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiyah and the man believed responsible for the 2002 attacks in Bali, among other acts of terror, the whereabouts of the more than 40 suicide bombers he trained remain a mystery. In Australia, authorities reportedly managed, at the last minute, to prevent a group of Muslim extremists from staging "an attack on the scale of the London bombings." The would-be attackers had apparently singled out the country's only nuclear power plant as their target.

But "the most dangerous battle" in Southeast Asia's religious melting pot, says al-Qaida expert Rohan Gunaratna, "is currently being waged in southern Thailand." Indeed, the growing violence is proving a challenge to the Thai military, as evidenced by the fact that Thailand's version of the "Marines" have barricaded themselves behind barbed wire and sand bags in the town of Yala. Even the country's elite forces face the threat of car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers.

Not a day goes by here without an attack. On some days, state-run schools are set on fire and teachers murdered, and on others unknown attackers in pickup trucks target Muslim teahouses in drive-by shootings. In late October, a train carrying military recruits was blown from its tracks. Last Wednesday, armed assailants armed with machine guns and hand grenades wiped out a nine-member Muslim family because the father had worked as a police informant.

Fighting a war against a shadow army

Who is behind these attacks? Army spokesman Lieutenant Somkuan Saenypatharanetr is a tall, thin man with delicate facial features. "There are no letters claiming responsibility for the attacks," he says, "we are fighting a war against a shadow army."

Western terrorism experts already refer to southern Thailand as an Asian Caucasus. According to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, two groups are responsible for the unrest, the "Patani Islamic Mujahidin Group" and "New Pulo," both offshoots of a once-powerful guerilla organization that until the 1980s fought for a separation of Thailand's 2.4 million Muslims from the country's 60 million Buddhists -- and for an independent Muslim state.

Throughout history, the pattern has always been the same.

Read the entire sorry story.
Hattip: Fjordman

Thanksgivng--A Grand and Patriotic Holiday

All of us remember the stories about Thanksgiving from our earliest school years--how difficult conditions were for the Pilgrims, how grateful they were to have survived the harsh conditions of New England, and how thankful they were to their Indian neighbors.

The first to help had learned some English from English fishermen who regularly traveled to the North American coastal waters to fish, while the second and most famous had actually been taken back to England by some fishermen for purposes of display, and became quite fluent while there.

When about half the colonists attempting to establish a permanent presence in North America died during that first winter, the English-speaking Indians taught them better methods of growing food in the New England soil, and at harvest time, they brought additional food and sat down with them for a celebratory feast. The colonists gave thanks to the Indians and to God on this happy occasion.

This was the first Thanksgiving—or was it?

The Daughters of the American Revolution and other groups interested in “truth in history” have been trying for decades to persuade the American educational system to tell the true story of the first Thanksgiving, but to no avail.

In fact, the festive meal of the Pilgrims was a lovely and happy occasion, but it was not the first Thanksgiving, even though the colonists were, indeed, thankful. It was a harvest festival, a meal much like those that had been a part of harvest ceremonies from temperate mankind's earliest times. These festivals celebrated the change of seasons, and the gathering of enough to sustain them through the fruitless time of winter. They were held everywhere in the world where winter caused low productivity. These festivals had then, and continue to have today, a deeply important place in human society.

Unfortunately, the colonists didn’t fare so well in subsequent years, and they rarely held a similar harvest festival after that first and most famous one.

On this momentous occasion, on this particular day of celebration, I would like to share with you the story of the REAL first Thanksgiving in the United States.

It all started in New York, on October 3rd, 1789. . . But wait; it’s better to let the man who started it all tell you about it in his own words:

“WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me ‘to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANKSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:'

“NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

“And also, that we may then united in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in publick or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations, especially such as have shewn kindness unto us; and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.”


(Signed)

G. Washington


This holiday, the one George Washington asked Congress to have in that year, was celebrated quite regularly thereafter, although the dates changed slightly from year to year, and it remained "unofficial" until Franklin Roosevelt established a permanent date for it--the last Thursday of November, as Washington had requested.

So you see, Thanksgiving—the one we celebrate today—was created as a peculiarly American celebration, specifically in gratitude for the Constitution of the United States of America. The fact that it occurred in the fall, during harvest time, was coincidental. By that coincidence, however, the two reasons for celebration were rolled into one. It is from the harvest festival component that we get the meal. Unfortunately, the real reason it was established has largely been ignored by our schools and forgotten by our citizens.

A “constitution” is a document that describes the relationship between an organization and its membership. The Constitution of the United States was then, and remains today, the most breathtakingly sophisticated description of the proper relationship between a government and free men that has ever existed.

Please note in particular some of the other things which our first President thought worthy of gratitude: “. . .the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have (since) enjoyed...the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish Constitutions of government...the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge...(the rendition of) our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws...the increase of science among (them and) us (and) to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”

Fellow Americans (and, in fact, ALL of us who are citizens of the Civilized World), these gratitudes are indeed worthy of our deepest and most sincere Thanksgiving. The Constitution of the United States represented the highest level of reason ever applied to the relationship between the individual and government. It was a product of the Age of Enlightenment, the end-product of an ancient line of philosophical thought beginning with Aristotle, salvaged for us by the great Muslim Aristotelian Commentator, philosopher, judge, and physician Ibn Rushd (Spanish born of parents thought to have been converted by force, and whose commentaries on Aristotle were destroyed by his North African colleagues), then spread throughout Italy and the rest of Europe by his near contemporary Thomas Aquinas, then to the Enlightenment English philosopher John Locke, and finally to the Founders of our country, who created this nation from “scratch," based on deliberately chosen and carefully considered philosophic principles.

We are today the fortunate beneficiaries of this long line of intellectual thought; it is the Founders who illuminated for us, as had never been done before, the nature and meaning of “rights,” and laid them out, in writing, in a way that could not be hidden away from us by tyrants. We experience life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a manner never before seen in human history.

Please look carefully at the last, but most assuredly not the least, of the things George Washington considered worthy of our gratitude: “...to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity...”

George Washington, and others who had inherited the shining light of reason from his predecessors, recognized that life on this earth, and the material riches required to support and celebrate it, were blessings, not sins.

So great was the threat to life during the winter that it is termed, allegorically, as the “wasteland” in those aspects of the Arthurian legends whose origins stretch back perhaps as far as the last Ice Age. Light in the darkness, heat in the cold of winter, plenty during the time where nothing grows, and the energy to enjoy life during the season of emptiness, are all gifts of reason.

I would like to suggest that we all--no matter where on this earth we may live, or from what source we believe our origins derive--lift our glasses in gratitude and to toast the great thinkers who preceded us, as well as those as yet unborn, who will follow and continue to refine what was begun 2500 years ago.

And to all, a very Happy Thanksgiving!

Muslim Terrorists Are Swimming in Saudi Money

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In describing his guerrilla army, Mao Tse-tung used an aquatic analogy: "Guerrillas are the fish, and the population is the sea in which they swim." He realized that a neutral, if not supportive populace was essential to guerrilla success. Once the majority was swayed to at least tolerate the guerrillas, then only a small portion need be committed to the cause to achieve victory. Today's Islamofascist terrorists are ignoring Mao's dictum in dealing with populations -- witness the atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians by terrorists occupying Fallujah and Tal Afar -- and in so doing have alienated themselves from the populations in Afghanistan and Iraq. This arrogance will in time contribute to their failure.

But the terrorists have applied his metaphor assiduously to the financial sphere, for the modern Islamofascist terrorist movement swims in the rich waters of international finance. Far from being poor, ignorant peasants as many in the West fancifully envision the terrorists, these men and their organizations are highly sophisticated, technologically aware, and extraordinarily adept at moving money within the intricate web of international financial institutions. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of these terrorists is that many of the most virulently anti-Western have matriculated in British and American institutions of higher learning. More than one detainee in Guantanamo has an advanced degree in international finance from schools such as the London School of Economics. Admission standards may have changed, but one does not reasonably expect to find a simple Afghani opium farmer conscripted by the Taliban to be on the roster of distinguished graduates.

So for the modern terrorist money -- and lots of it -- is the ocean in which they swim and without which they will cease to live. Post-9/11, one of President Bush's stated objectives was to dry up that ocean and deny the terrorists the funding needed to carry out their horrific attacks. These sorts of financial tracking operations are done by analysts in front of computer screens pouring over endless printout sheets. It is mostly thankless work that is conducted in the back offices of CIA, Treasury, FBI, and Homeland Security. Information is obtained by liaison to foreign countries intelligence agencies and banking establishments -- thus bringing in State Department, and though signal and information intercepts - that means the Pentagon and National Security Agency.

The vast majority of money transfers are accomplished by electronic means. In the early days, these systems were relatively unsophisticated and vulnerable. No longer. Today's systems are under constant attack, but are protected by sophisticated, complex security software. It is a constant war of bits and bytes as hackers fight guardians in cyberspace. But so far sophisticated technology has been good news for the terrorists and those who support their cause, because it means that transfers are extraordinarily difficult to track. Tom Clancy's new novel, Teeth of the Tiger, discusses electronic intercept and offers an optimistic view of American capabilities. We are not there yet. Highly encrypted software, multiple accounts in a myriad of international banking and financial institutions, and covert tradecraft, such as use of electronic "cut-outs," can preclude any but the most persistent, careful analyst from finding the money trail. This is the challenge faced by our financial specialists who try to find walk the cat backwards to the lairs of leading al-Qaeda operational leaders.

Terrorists get funding everywhere imaginable. Some fundraisers are academics or private citizens -- the Sami al-Arian case in Florida is one example -- but by far the largest contributors are worldwide Muslim charities. These so-called charities are significant providers to al-Qaeda. Some of the largest and most generous are in the U.S. It was only a few years ago that the charities have been identified as the terror support groups they are. They have been legally challenged, investigated, and in some cases prosecuted, for funneling money illegally to al-Qaeda and terrorist accounts. The country behind most of the charities is Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi infiltration of American Islam has been as frighteningly quiet as it has been pervasive. Virtually every imam at an American mosque is a Wahhabi -- Saudi trained, funded, and vetted -- a religious leader who promotes a virulent brand of fundamentalist Islam with the ultimate aim of imposing Shari'a law upon the non-Moslem world. Even more frightening, our prison system is staffed by Moslem chaplains who are products of Saudi training. As a consequence, anti-American Islamofascist ideology is being taught to some of the most dangerous, unstable, and violent members of American society. Meanwhile, the mosques continue to beat the drums for anti-Israeli causes including fundraising for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other terror outfits.

Opium production, distribution, and sale, manufacture of morphine base and heroine and other income sources as well as

Meanwhile, across the Middle East and Central Asia strange, exotic gatherings are taking place. In what the Union for the Conservation of Raptors calls the "money camps," elaborate, ultra-luxurious temporary facilities are periodically set up in remote places in the region for gathering of the rich Arab sheiks from Saudi, the Gulf States, and other Arab countries. These people meet and indulge themselves in many of their favorite activities, including sale of protected species of falcons and eagles that are used in sport hunting. Hunting with birds of prey is a traditional Arab male activity, essential to the macho image they like to portray, along with rhino horn-handled knives, and a bevy of wives and concubines.
At these money camps, huge amounts of money are exchanged for such trinkets, including the birds. Some of these illegal birds bring payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars into the millions for the very rare. During the social sessions at the camps funding is also arranged for some of the sheiks pet projects, including the promotion of Wahhabi Islam and support for terrorist organizations like bin Laden's al-Qaeda. It is a way of both salving their Moslem consciences and paying off the wolf that may turn on them if neglected. Read more of the story at www.savethefalcons.org.

All of these operations -- the charities, gems, drugs, payoffs from the money camps, and other shakedown scams -- eventually result in substantial sums of money put into terrorist coffers. Even larger than that, however, is the support -- direct and indirect -- that the terrorists receive from legitimate corporate business interests. These are investors who, according to Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, "hold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stocks in companies that partner with Iran, the other Islamofascist regimes and their friends." This, in fact, is where huge, below-the-radar support for terrorism is largest.

For some reason, most Westerners fail to recognize this danger. Anyone with half a brain knows that Jihad is more than bombs and bullets and that the other forms and more effective and more deadly. Our survival depends on divesting ourselves from the tentacles of these evil people.

Hattip: Fjordman

Open Source Media Changes Back Into Their Pajamas

Too bad. This could happen to the best of us.

I, for one, stake my claim to be an official participant in the PajamaBrigade After all, this how we all started.

Here's Why the "True Enforcement and Border Security Act of 2005" Is Just More Hype

"Until the time comes when Americans look out of their windows one morning and see vans, trucks, buses and trains filled with illegal aliens and criminal alien residents streaming outbound toward the border, or to the nearest airport out of the country . . . ONLY THEN will we know that something is being done.

"But until that day comes, Americans can know with absolute certainty that the federal government has done NOTHING to halt the illegal alien invasion of these United States . . . But until then, you’ll know that all of the "solutions" emanating from Congress—including the ghastly specter of another "amnesty"—are all just a lot of hot air."

When the day comes that this actually happens, we can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Don't hold your breath. The powers behind the powers have a different agenda and playing the system for financial gain at the expense of the American taxpayer. We will be registered, not the aliens.

And by the way, Section 433 of TRUE Enforcement allows the HHS Secretary to create a nationwide "electronic birth and death registration system" with "a common data exchange protocol" in order to allow "the implementation of electronic verification of a person’s birth and death." But doesn’t "true" immigration law enforcement entail keeping track of aliens, not U.S. citizens?

So what's being enforced and why are we being tracked? This smells fishy to me.

Read it all. The internal links give a "true" picture on "True Enforcement."

Jordan - The Model

This Is How We Should Be Acting. Jordanians are "outraged" because they're own people bave been slaughtered.

Look at our behavior:

The Jordanians’ response to the ghastly hotel suicide bombings in Amman is refreshing: They are  blaming terrorists for terrorist attacks. Filled with righteous rage, they flooded the streets of their capital, calling for the head of the man who planned the attacks. “Barbaric and subhuman,”  Jordan’s ambassador to the U.S. Karim Kawar denounced the bombings. While such reactions may seem obvious and fitting, they are not the case throughout much of the world.

Just think of Americans’ behavior after September 11, 2001, the biggest and most heinous terror  attack the world has ever seen. Americans assembled for hushed candle-light vigils and moments of silence; they gathered not to condemn the terrorists, but to urge the American government to refrain from revenge. Americans flew flags from their windows, but were vilified by fellow citizens for doing so. When they didget angry and take to the streets, it was to carry signs proclaiming that “Bush knew.” Millions of Americans explicitly did not blame the terrorists for the terrorists’ actions.

When Islamic terrorists blew up commuter trains in Madrid last year, killing 191 people, Spaniards reacted with grief and anguish, but very little rage toward the perpetrators. The Spanish people’s biggest statement against this terror? To vote out their U.S.-backing government, in accordance with the terrorists’ wishes.
 
In fact, no Islamist terror attack—whether 9/11, Madrid, the Bali nightclub bombings, or the London bus and subway blasts—has led people to take to the streets to denounce the terrorists. Always there is talk of “strength,” and “resolve,” and “getting on with our lives,” and, of course, of addressing the “root causes.” When it comes to Israel, where men, women, and children are regularly blown to bits by Palestinian suicide bombers, much of the world is united in assigning blame to the victims, not their assassins.
 
Regardless of who has been massacred, never has rigorous, steadfast, and full blame been assigned to the murderers and their sponsors, not by Arabs, not by Muslims, not by Westerners, not by average citizens, not by politicians.
 
Even the supposedly tough-on-terror president of the United States, the number one terror target on the planet, spends more time lecturing Americans about how “Islam is a religion of peace,” than illustrating the constant and mounting threat of attacks that will dwarf the horrors of 9/11.
 
While the harshest condemnation that President Bush could conjure up about the 9/11 plotters was the underwhelming “evildoers,” Jordan’s King Abdullah promised the beasts behind the Amman bombings that he would “pull them from their holes” and assured the world that Jordanians “get mad and get even.”
 
In the West, no matter how monstrously we are attacked, our main priority is not to stop those trying to destroy us, but to avoid calling barbaric subhuman killers, barbaric subhuman killers. Just imagine if an American official were to make such a statement.

Compare our wimpy behavior to that of the tiny country of Jordan:

What a relief, then, to see the Jordanians rise up against such slaughter—no flaccid stoicism for them. “Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!” they shouted, blaring car horns and waving flags.
 
Of course, the same Jordanians clamoring for Zarqawi’s head because he spilled innocent blood have famously been silent about the continual spilling of innocent Israeli blood, referring instead only to the purported injustice suffered by the Palestinians, who now make up about 60 percent of Jordan’s population.
 
The same Jordanians who believe that “Death to Zarqawi!” is the appropriate response to the deaths of more than 50 innocent Jordanians, have been unperturbed by their fellow countryman’s success at blowing hundreds upon hundreds of innocent Iraqis to smithereens. An NPR reporter, interviewing the protesting crowds, recounted that the prevailing mood among the demonstrators was that if the terrorists want to wage such a war, they should do so in Israel or Iraq, but stay out of Jordan.
 
“These are criminal and terrorist acts which no Muslim can accept and which go against our religion,” proclaimed Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood—an organization known for its refusal to condemn such attacks in Israel. The blasts are a “crime against humanity,” railed Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas, a man who downplays suicide bombings when carried out by his own people.
 
“We condemn these criminal actions that target innocent people,” said none other than a spokesman for Hamas, one of the world’s leading terror groups—lacking, apparently, any sense of irony.

Of course Jordan only reacted to the slaughter of their own people. They, like most other Muslims, ignore the slaughter of non-Muslims for to do so would be a rejection of the tenets of the Koran. Their reaction, nevertheless, is far more appropriate to ours.

Where is OUR outrage? To our peril, we are sinking into a passivity and boredom with the "Long War Against Radical Islam" which should be the struggle to foist off the insinuation of a predatory ideology, Islam,into our culture.

Of course we can not win a war against a billion people intent on making us over, but we can resist, and we don't have to have them among us as fifth columnists. We should be following the example of the Joradanians, outraged at the idea that our precious country is being victimized and our citizens are under attack by an ideology long infamous for its predation. This is not "racism," but common sense.

Anti-Muslim "Racism"?

The term pejorative "racism" is evolving to include matters of culture, ethnic background, and now religion.

Racism is now increasingly used to mean something far beyond its dictionary definition. The director of the influential London-based Institute of Race Relations (IRR), A. Sivanandan, has been pushing the concept of a “new racism” which concerns immigration, not race:

It is a racism that is not just directed at those with darker skins, from the former colonial territories, but at the newer categories of the displaced, the dispossessed and the uprooted, who are beating at western Europe’s doors, the Europe that helped to displace them in the first place. It is a racism, that is, that cannot be colour-coded, directed as it is at poor whites as well, and is therefore passed off as xenophobia, a “natural” fear of strangers.

An official paper from Australia goes in a different direction, that of “cultural racism”:

In the modern era the underlying assumption of “racism” is a belief that differences in the culture, values, and/or practices of some ethnic/religious groups are “too different” and are likely to threaten “community values” and social cohesion.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment, but this isn't racism. Pipes gives us three references:

American Heritage: “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

Merriam-Webster: “A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racial prejudice or discrimination.”

Oxford: “The belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.”

The charge of "racism" is increasingly being used by leftists and Islamists as an "all-purpose pejorative term, a magical insult that discredits without regard to accuracy..."to include the word "terrorist", political decisions such as worrying about too much immigration (even of poor whites), preferring one's own culture, fearing radical Islam, and implementing counterterrorist measures."

In other words, one must quietly accept without protest everything and everyone that thrown one's way regardless of how it will affect liberty and lifestyle. This contradicts human nature and common sense.

Read it all.

Vote in a Mosque

Whoo-hoo! Take a look at this article! It gives me some--make that a LOT of--petty pleasure that CAIR is offended (boo-hoo) because there are actually some citizens--from Murthra territory, no less!--who resist carrying out their Constitionally guaranteed right to vote in a MOSQUE!

Keep it up, Pennsylvanians!

Here it is:



Pennsylvania Voters Don't Want to Vote at Mosque
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Correspondent
November 15, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Some voters in Whitehall Township, Penn., were offended that the Lehigh Valley County election board had them vote at a local mosque on Nov. 8. The county uses 58 religious establishments for voting, but this was the first year that residents in the 12th District voted at the Islamic Center of Lehigh Valley.

"Anytime you have people objecting to a voting place merely because it's an Islamic house of worship, I think that is a symptom of anti-Muslim prejudice," Ibrahim Hooper of the Washington, D.C. based Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Cybercast News Service.

"It's something that religious and political leaders, not only in Pennsylvania, but nationwide, need to address," he added.

Betty Hillwig, the chief clerk of the county's election board, said the Islamic Center of Lehigh Valley was generous to offer its space for voting booths, and that the center would continue to be used in future elections.

"About a half dozen people called and said they weren't happy about it, but we were really lucky to be able to use the space," said Hillwig.

"They just didn't like the fact that it was in a mosque, because they didn't want to have to visit a Muslim house of worship," said Hooper.

The Morning Call, which reports Lehigh Valley local news, indicated that one-third of the voters at the mosque expressed concerns about voting there.

"It's a political thing, not a religious one. If the mosque is a radical one, then I've got a real problem with it, and chances are it is. The people of that community would know what's in their neighborhood," said Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank promoting American interests in the Middle East and a critic of radical Islam.

Want a Secure Border?

There is a campaign to elect Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, to Congress. Here's how you can help our country to retain its sovereignty, described in an appeal from the Minuteman organization:



You Can Help Jim Gilchrist
Get Elected To Congress in California’s 48th District.

Send a Minuteman to Washington!

Though you may not be able to vote in this election, you can make a difference!

In three days, over 60% of the voters in California’s 48th District will begin voting by absentee ballot, weeks before the actual, December 6th Election Day.

This weekend, before these absentee voters mark their ballots, we must speak directly to them and urge them to vote for Jim Gilchrist!

If you have two or even three hours free this weekend to place calls, you can make a direct and positive impact on this election.

Even if you live outside Jim’s district, you can still help. By using your cell phone’s free weekend minutes to place calls, you can help to ensure a Gilchrist victory.

We are appealing to everyone who has stood with Jim and me in the past to continue to stand with us now! Many Minutemen who share our dedication to solving our border crisis have made volunteering for Gilchrist for Congress their November mission. I personally have joined with Jim fulltime through December 6th as part of the campaign for the final push toward victory.

This is urgent! Your support may well make the difference in achieving victory!

Help us send Minuteman Jim Gilchrist to Congress!
Sincerely for America,

Chris Simcox

Please Call
949-588-VOTE (8683)

With your help, Jim Gilchrist will win!

For the Appeasers and Moderates

From the fertile mind of Jay D. Dyson.

Jordan's Anti-Terror Rallies

Another "So-What" Moment

Where were the street rallies in sympathy for the victims of Jihad in non-Muslim countries? Where were rallies in sympathy for the persecuted Christians of Egypt, the West Bank, Gaza, the Philippines, Thailand, Nigeria, etc.? The Jordanians are only reacting to the suffering of their people.

Their ox was gored and now they feel outrage and are finally repudiating their so, their progeny, the fruit of their social order. Big deal. Well, I must begrudgingly admit that at least they've made this effort to repudiate "terror."

Signs of Al Qaeda Desperation?

Richard Miniter at FrontPageMag:

Though the American media is slow to report it, U.S. forces are relentlessly destroying Zarqawi's senior leadership. A November 2 air strike killed two senior al Qaeda operatives in Iraq: Abu Zahra, the so-called Emir of Husaybah, ran all insurgent operations in that Iraqi city, and Asadallah, Zarqawi's key recruiter. U.S. forces have now confirmed the identities of both dead terrorists.

On October 23, U.S. forces captured Abu Hassan, the head of al-Zarqawi's media cell. Hassan was responsible for producing video tapes of insurgent attacks to give to al-Jazeera and other television networks. Hassan even produced forged police and press passes to allow insurgents to case targets and film the devastation following insurgent attacks.

Following these air strikes and captures, Zarqawi ordered the Amman attacks. Was it a sign of desperation? Was he trying to regain the initiative from weeks of reverses?

Another sign of desperation: Consider who Zarqawi sent to run the Amman operation, Mrs. Al-Rishawi's husband. He also a member of Zarqawi's inner circle. He is now dead. Why did Zarqawi send a top officer to die? He has already lost so many. It suggests that either he's running short of suicide bombers (typically Saudi recruits) or he's running short of people he trusts. Either way, it's a sign of desperation.

So what!!!

We are experiencing the opening salvoes of only the current round of the perpetual Islamic triumpalist jihad that has raged for more than 1300 years. The passing of one "terror" grouplet on which we have focused our attention is of little consequence. Step back and look at the big picture: the world is dotted with Islamic-Jihadist-inspired conflicts. This is a resurgence of the movement begun by the brigand himself.

The world has been lulled into a false sense of security during an interval of little activity by the world Ummah of Muslims some of whom believe the "religion of peace" propaganda, but they, as "good Muslims," will have to step up to the plate to be counted in the Jihad against the infidel of face hell.

Jihad is not only war and violence; Jihad is outreach, Da'wa. Jihad is commerce - Islamic banking system. Jihad is self-segregation: Muslim-only housing. Jihad is persecution or disrespecting of non-Muslims. Jihad is all of these and more.

The news that the grouplet Al-Qaeda might be desperate and fading away is of little consequence in the face of the big picture and the long view of history. Note that the patterns and trends developed in a long look back at the history of Islam are being duplicated and each will be replicated in the future. It is time that we wise up, get our acts together, and push back.

Newest Fashion Trend - Shoes For "Jumping" Across the Border

I thought I'd heard it all. I must have missed this in August:

Some disgraceful woman has designed a new tennis shoe that comes equipped with a flashlight, a compass and a map of the U.S./Mexico border.

The “Brinco” has a retail value of $215 but for now the designer is content to pass them out free of charge…yeah, at a “migrant shelter” in Tiajuana.

For some of you, this may be old news as the shoes were introduced last August at a show in San Diego.
[Yeah, I think I heard about that…it was something like the “Crook and Traitor World Expo of 2005” but I could be wrong—it may have been a symposium.]

It seems that the inventor is an immigrant from Argentina who claims that she "is not encouraging illegal immigration" and that the shoes are an "expression of the issues at hand today" and the Brinco shoe is art! ("Brinco" is Spanish for jump.)

You've got to love her initiative and that of the Chinese that are manufacturing the shoe. Don't you wonder who her sponsors are in the United States and how they sleep nights knowing all this cheap labor is sneaking into the United States aided by a pair shoes with a built flashlight, compass, and map of the border? Now this is intelligent design, don't you think?

A Report From the Immigration Front Lines

Want to know how bad it really is? Ask Joe Guzzardi, who has been working with adult immigrants and struggling to get the attention of policy makers to affect reform. Finally, after twenty years he has their attention...and ours.

Following this essay's internal links lead me to the conclusion that when it comes to idiotic immigration policy, we have business pointing the finger at any other nation and that our future as a nation is bleak.

Not War, But Not Peace

I'm in a dreadful hurry this morning, unfortunately, but I wanted to point out that we in the U.S. haven't been at war since WWII.

We've been at conflict, but we haven't been at war.

That's so because ever since our misguided association with the United Collectivist Nations, we have been involved with many armed conflicts, using the same human beings, the same weaponry, the same support services, BUT! we have NOT had the same legal standing.

A declaration of war involves certain legal responsibilities, the most important of which is to WIN. In all the conflicts since WWII, political games, not victory, have run the show. Under a state of non-declared armed conflict, we find ourselves blowing in the wind, bending to this poll or that, open to what amounts to treasonous efforts to bring us to our knees, and to tie the hands of our military behind their back.

The next time we decide to enter into armed conflict, we'd better damned well make sure that we declare war. If it's worth risking our citizens and our resources on, it's worth making every effort to be sure that the price we pay for their sacrifice is the only acceptable one--victory.

Gotta go.

Recipe for Victory

The Postmodernists have made a conscious decision to mount a campaign of deconstruction of our country, a campaign that is carried out day in and day out with a lack of respect for truth and integrity that is rivaled only by their soul-mate, Islam.

I hate to be a nag, but Colonel Ralph Peter's list of "must-dos" to achieve victory in any war, including the current one, is as follows (again):




1. Be feared

2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you can.

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful.

4. Speak bluntly.

5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable.

6. Do not be drawn into a public dialogue with terrorists.

7. Avoid planning creep.

8. Maintain resolve.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think is necessary.

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorist.

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with the ultimate mission accomplishment.

13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion.

14. Do not allow third parties to broker a "peace", a truce, or any pause in operations.

15. Don't flinch.

16. Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations.

17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear.

19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances.

20. Never declare victory.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves.

23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backwards towards past failures, not forward to future successes.

24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's.

25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion.




This is the kind of thinking we need in the Oval Office setting policy. If we don't HURRY UP and decide to elect someone with "attitude" who doesn't give a hoot whether anyone else "likes" us or not, someone who will give us the "permission" our current leadership has not given to win this thing, we will eventually have to deal with some really nasty consequences.

Lock and load. Thank goodness for the Second Amendment, even though it is in some disarray.

The Tunnel of Oppression

Multiculturalism and diversity gone mad. Thank God they didn't have thiis during my college days.

Will We Win or Not Win? The Enemy Wants to Know!

It has long been known that if something is repeated enough, and said loudly enough, that it will APPEAR to reflect the view of the majority, whether it is or not. For many months, the Postmodernists, made up mostly (but not exclusively) of Democrats, have been hammering the "talking point" of the lie that the President lied to get us into the war in Iraq. They attempted to sound as if they were speaking for a majority of Americans with repititions and volume.

Last night, the Republicans forced the Postmodernists' hand; they forced them to put their money where their mouths are by publicly showing the citizens of the United States where they stood on the issue of withdrawing our military from Iraq.

Along with Americans, the enemy watched the outcome of the vote on the resolution with baited breath; the result would be a benchmark on the progress made by one side or the other.

The result was a resounding rejection of the Postmodernists' attempt to do further harm to our country--at least for now, in this way. But a Postmodernist's work is never done; they will, as the Terminator said, "be back," with another issue, another method. Always, however, they will use the same strategy, that of trying to sound as if they represent majority views.

The problem, however, remains. By refusing to conduct the war in a manner that leaves no doubt that the goal is to win militarily, we leave ourselves open to the interpretation that we are willing to cut and run. Aristotle's "Law of Identity" states that "A is A"--something is either "A" or it is "not A;" it is not, as is so often misinterpreted, "A or B." In other words, we either win or we don't win; there is no middle ground. It isn't a matter of we "win or lose." I repeat: We win or we don't win.

If we withdraw before accomplishing the goal, we don't win.

At the beginning of the conflict, Our Leader promised that our military would be allowed to do what it does best--win. Such has, once again, not been the case, and we are now experiencing the consequences.

We can still pull the fat out of the fire, but will we? I stress the word "will." Given the mixed premises of Our Leader, there is serious room for doubt. At the very best, if he made the decision to get on with achieving victory, the indecisiveness, the lack of recognition of the nature of the enemy, has made this thing far more costly than was necessary. Bush 2 and Bush 1 share a potentially fatal flaw, and that is his failure to appreciate the importance of reality, never better illustrated than when Bush 1 said that he didn't understand "...the 'vision' thing." He just couldn't analyze an idea or problem, pick out the essential elements, then pull them all together to formulate, in a single sentence or two, the nature of the goal or solution.

We have only a short time until the next election, and as the Postmodernists continue the loud and continuous drumbeat of their efforts to "deconstruct" our country, to recreate it in a way that it is a 180 from what the Founders gave us, it becomes critical that we elect someone who understands the problem, and who has the vision to pursue a reality-based solution.

If we fail to do so... Well.

Here's a Winner

I am so angry that I am posting here a book review by Charles Martel, originally published on 6thcolumnagainstjihad.com.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army colonel--and it shows; here is his winning strategy, as presented in the review of his book, "Beyond Terror."

In addition to Martel's review, I am following it with a re-posting his article on "Islam in the Schools," since it plays into my concept of a "permanent solution" to Islam.




BOOK REVIEW: Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World
by Ralph Peters
Stackpole Books, © 2002
Paperback edition published 2004

"...needs to be read by every American...if you buy only one book this year, make it Beyond Terror."
Robert B. Loring in Leatherneck

It's hard to go against a ringing endorsement in Leatherneck, the award-winning magazine of the United States Marine Corps, and true to form, Beyond Terror, by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, USA (Retired), does not disappoint. In this collection of essays, written between 1994 and shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Peters brilliantly tackles myriad issues, including the stasis of Islamic civilization, practical versus apocalyptic terrorism, the impact of modern information systems, and the nature of contemporary military operations, while offering strategies to fight terror, to adapt US foreign policy to contemporary conflicts, and to transform the United States militarily to meet the demands of 21st Century warfare. Written by an American patriot for patriotic Americans, Beyond Terror is a penetrating analysis of the dynamics driving modern conflict and the role of the United States and its military in these troubled, yet promising times.


Before beginning, it should be noted that Beyond Terror needs to be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated, so this review intentionally avoids delving too deeply into its content. I agree with Robert B. Loring that every American should read this book, so this review will not attempt to serve as a substitute for adding Beyond Terror to your library.

Beyond Terror consists of an Introduction, Coda and two Parts. Part One, At the Walls of Jericho, is a collection of 11 essays that deals with a wide array of topics. Part Two, And Rumors of War, consists of 6 essays focusing primarily on military matters. Given that 6th Column Against Jihad is dedicated to confronting jihadism, we will limit this overview to the material pertinent to this subject, which is found primarily in the Introduction and the first two essays in Part One.

Introduction: A Small Matter of Honesty


In the Introduction, Colonel Peters provides us with a few of his own personal observations regarding the collection of the essays that make up Beyond Terror. This is, of course, the usual introductory fare, but since this was written shortly following 9/11, the author gives us a glimpse of what's to come in the book. Pointedly rebuking President Clinton and his do-nothing apparatchiks (the sanctimonious Richard Clarke immediately comes to mind) for their complicity in this catastrophe, Peters reveals that



"many of us took terrorism and Osama bin Laden seriously well before the attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon. The problem was not lack of awareness, but the most cowardly American administration in history, one that cared little for its uniformed dead - except as political liabilities - and wanted only to ignore what it lacked the courage to resolve. History will declare that a significant portion of the blame for the suffering and loss of September 11, 2001, lies with former President Clinton, who, despite his personal revisionism, disgraced himself and failed our nation. As terrorists successively bombed a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia, two of our embassies in Africa, and one of our warships, the Clinton Administration barely pretended to retaliate, encouraging gloating murderers to ever more daring attacks. Cowardice is never a good strategy, and one's enemies do not simply disappear. We must stand up to foreign threats wherever they arise, promptly and with ferocious resolve. We have learned that now, and let us hope that knowledge will not fade too swiftly."



Part One: At the Walls of Jericho


After his hard-hitting Introduction, Ralph Peters moves on to arguably the two finest essays in his book: Our Place in History and When Devils Walk the Earth (which is available in PDF format on-line). In Our Place in History, Peters analyzes Islamic civilization and violence in greater detail than all the other essays in Beyond Terror, and his views on the subject are worth exploring in detail here.

Unlike those who have been intimidated by the colossal death and destruction of 9/11 and the taqiyya emanating from the mouths of Tariq Ramadan and other Muslim supremacists, Peters does not view contemporary Islamdom as an ascendant civilization, but rather one that is sliding into further decline, ruin, and irrelevance.

"Bigoted, hopelessly corrupt, close-minded, uneducated, psychologically infantile, self-important, and incapable of dealing not only with the twenty-first century, but even with the demands and developments of the twentieth, Muslim states and societies are rotting while their ancient competitors flourish. Because it cannot progress without fundamental and pervasive changes in virtually every public and private sphere, the Islamic world will continue to be a source of trouble for every other civilization. The stasis of Islamic civilization is the most colossal failure of our time, a situation without precedent even in the early days of European Imperialism."

Peters concludes his analysis noting

"The world of Islam must now decide whether to wallow in a comforting, medieval form of religion that warms the heart with hatred of others and whose greatest strength lies in its ability to shift blame, or to make the far more difficult choice of attempting to build tolerant, more equitable, open and honest societies. Most Islamic states will make the wrong choice, and they will pay for it by continuing to crumble into irrelevance...The followers of Islam must decide for themselves whether to cling to a mythologized past or to embrace a challenging future. If we may be honest, the likeliest future role for the Islamic world is that of an irrelevant annoyance, which intermittently wounds others while building nothing of worth. Enmeshed within a religion frozen in time, and betrayed by their own viciously corrupt leaders and greedy elites, men, women and children throughout most of the Muslim world will continue to slide deeper into poverty and bitterness. And it is not our fault. A civilization that is anti-meritocratic, that oppresses and torments women, that mocks the rule of law, that neglects education and lacks a work ethic simply cannot prosper under modern conditions. Flawlessly intolerant and blithely cruel, the Islamic world does far more harm to its own people than it has done - or will ever be able to do - to the West. Occasionally, we will have to punish unruly bits of Islamic civilization for excesses that affect us; but, between our interventions, Muslims will continue to do far more damage to each other than we are apt or able to inflict."

After painting this bleak picture, Peters goes on to contrast it with the dynamic social and economic progress and success of the American people, and our prospects for an even brighter future. Near the conclusion of the essay Peters offers this advice:

"When men and women seek to improve their societies through legitimate means, we should do all that is reasonable to help them; when they ask for self-determination, we should support them, rather than their dictators; and when they ask for fairness, we should accommodate them, no matter the complaints of our own special interests. But when America is attacked, our retribution cannot be merely "proportionate". It must be stunning even to our allies. The occasional leveling of Carthage is the price not only of empire, but of the international rule of law, and of peace."


The second essay, When Devils Walk the Earth: The Mentality and Roots of Terrorism, and How to Respond, was written for the Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities in October 2001, and provides us with one of the most useful analyses of the nature terrorism and the mind of the terrorist. Peters breaks terrorists down into two basic classifications: the practical and the apocalyptic. The lesser of these devils, the practical terrorist, is defined as the idealistic, political terrorist, who is driven by worldly concerns, such as "bellies, wallets, security, land and authority." Myriad Leftist terrorist organizations operating in Europe and Latin America during the Cold War are typical examples of practical terrorist groups. The greater, and far more dangerous, of these devils is the religious, apocalyptic terrorist, who sees himself as a tool of divine retribution sent to inflict punishment on those whose belief is "less pure" - these are the religion-robed jihadis who are at war with the United States and the West today. "Jealous of our success and our power, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the twenty-first century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their religion and their God."

Peters goes on to add that the

"...health of any religious community can be gauged by the degree to which it rejects these bloody apostles of terror, and the Islamic world's acceptance of apocalyptic terrorists as heroes is perhaps the most profound indicator of its spiritual crisis and decay."

Moving on, we are presented with a variety of fascinating psychological profiles of the apocalyptic terrorist.

"No change in the world order will ever content the apocalyptic terrorist, since his actual discontents are internal to himself and no alteration in the external environment could sate his appetite for retribution against those he needs to believe are evil and guilty of causing his personal sufferings and disappointments - for such men, suicidal acts have a fulfilling logic, since only their own destruction can bring them lasting peace."

Peters also points out several psychological commonalities amongst practical and apocalyptic terrorists, such as

"The terrorist is always an egotist with a (desperate, fragile) sense of unappreciated superiority, aggravated by his inability to establish satisfying social, personal, or vocational relationships"

and the most striking, yet somehow unsurprising fact that they are, by and large, men who have either been unable to develop and maintain healthy relationships with women. Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, was a notorious misogynist.

"A review of historical terror cases makes it startlingly clear: Terrorists rarely have successful dating histories. Sexual fears and humiliation as young adults - and the consequent loneliness and alienation - may be the single greatest unrecognized catalyst in the making of a terrorist..."

Peters adds that

"...the general rule is that the more repressed the society and the more fervent its rejection pf reciprocity in sexual relations, the more terrorists it produces; and the greater the gap in social status between men and women in the society, the more likely it is to produce suicidal male terrorists. Societies that dehumanize women dehumanize everyone except those males in authority positions - and the ability to dehumanize his targets is essential to the psychology of the terrorist. While those who will become terrorists may wed to accommodate social norms or familial insistence, the rarest form of human being may be a happily married terrorist."


Colonel Peters concludes When Devils Walk the Earth with a list of recommendations entitled "Fighting Terror: Dos and Don'ts for a Superpower":


1. Be feared
2. Identify the type of terrorists you face, and know your enemy as well as you can
3. Do not be afraid to be powerful
4. Speak bluntly
5. Concentrate on winning the propaganda war where it is winnable
6. Do not be drawn into a public dialogue with terrorists
7. Avoid planning creep
8. Maintain resolve
9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think is necessary
10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot
11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorist
12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with the ultimate mission accomplishment
13. Do not allow the terrorists to hide behind religion
14. Do not allow third parties to broker a "peace", a truce, or any pause in operations
15. Don't flinch
16. Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations
17. Whenever possible, humiliate your enemy in the eyes of his own people
18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear
19. Do not allow the terrorists sanctuary in any country, at any time, under any circumstances
20. Never declare victory
21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising
22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves
23. Never accept the consensus of the Washington intelligentsia, which looks backwards towards past failures, not forward to future successes
24. In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West's
25. Do not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion

The remainder of Beyond Terror deals primarily with military matters and addresses jihadism in concert with American foreign policy and military strategy. The New Strategic Trinity, is a brilliant analysis of the "two salient factors that determine the success or failure of states and peoples in the postmodern age: the quality of the information available to the population and the ability of the population to discern quality information." Peters examines how the flow of accurate information and the ability of people to access, discern and act on accurate information is integral to the the success of individuals, peoples, economies and armies - this is illustrated by a comparison of information dynamics in the United States, Egypt, Russia and Saddam Hussein's Iraq circa Gulf War I.

The next four essays, The Hourglass Wars, Heavy Peace, The American Mission and Killers and Constables are important discussions concerning the nature of modern conflict and the role of the United States and its military. A passage form Killers and Constables is worth mentioning here: "We must prepare psychologically and practically for a century that is violent and irresolute. The disruption of the world in the wake of empire, aggravated by the accelerating pace of technological, social and economic change, will not subside into a new, more peaceful order for generations..." The eighth essay, The Plague of Ideas, is a return to the discussion of the role of Information in the 21st Century.

The ninth essay, Stability, America's Enemy, is another essay that is worthy of note. Peters points out that betraying America's finest values "to keep bad governments in place, dysfunctional borders intact, and oppressed human beings well-behaved...stands against the tides of history, and that is always a losing proposition." Interestingly enough, President Bush recently echoed these sentiments in a major foreign policy address in Riga, Latvia (discussed within the context of the failures of the Yalta agreements negotiated near the end of World War II) outlining changes in US foreign policy goals and initiatives.

The tenth essay, The Black Art of Intelligence, is an insightful look into our nation's intelligence community, and finally, The Rejection of the West, looks into the rejection of Western values and institutions throughout the world. This essay looks into the naive and arrogant expectations - which have been raised by Hugh Fitzgerald and others - that the United States is capable of bringing "freedom and democracy" to regions and cultures that are foreign and/or hostile to such concepts.


Part Two, And Rumors of War, is devoted to matters concerning military theory and strategy. The essays include The Seeker and the Sage, The Casualty Myth, Hard Target, The Human Terrain of Urban Operations, Hucksters in Uniform and The Future of War, and all are important essays that every American should read, contemplate and act upon.

While it is important to understand the role of Islam and jihadism in 21st Century conflict, it is equally necessary to understand how America, and the Free World, must respond to this existential threat to Life and Liberty. This is why Beyond Terror is an important book, and well worth adding to your library.



~~~~~

ISLAM IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Islam has become an increasingly important subject in America’s public schools, therefore it is critical that
parents and citizens ensure that the next generation of Americans be presented with a complete and accurate analysis of Islamic civilization. Unfortunately, an alliance of Muslim and multiculturalist pressure groups have persuaded textbook publishers and school officials to promote a whitewashed and misleading version of Islamic ideology and history that minimizes or eliminates reference to anything that Americans would find immoral, offensive or objectionable. Worse yet, some activists and school officials have turned classrooms into venues where students are subjected to Islamic religious indoctrination and forced to perform Muslim prayers and rituals, which is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State established in the United States Constitution.



Enhancing the Image of Islam in Textbooks

Critical analyses of widely used textbooks such as “Across the Centuries” and “World Cultures: A Global
Mosaic” reveal that students are being presented an incomplete, unbalanced and inaccurate portrayal of Islamic
civilization that prevents the development of a clear and comprehensive understanding of the ideology, politics and
history of Islam. For example, unflattering topics such as the deaths of tens of millions of people during the Islamist wars of expansion between 634-750 A.D. and 1021-1689 A.D., the systematic enslavement and persecution of non-Muslim populations and the incompatibility of the Shari’a (Islamic Law) with international human rights standards are largely ignored, trivialized or dismissed in what has been described as an effort to enhance the image of Islam at the expense of the education of America’s youth.


Islamic Missionary Activity (Da’wa) in Public Schools


Proselytizing in public schools is prohibited by law, yet Muslim missionary groups continue to succeed in
persuading school officials to turn public classrooms into venues where school children are forced to learn the tenets of Islam and perform Muslim religious rituals. The attitude and goals of Islamist missionary groups is articulated at www.DawaNet.com, where public schools are portrayed as “fertile grounds where the seeds of Islam can be sowed into the hearts of non-Muslim students”.


The Consequences of Academic Fraud

For students to understand the complex history, culture and ideology of Islam, the information they receive
in their textbooks and classrooms must be thorough and accurate. Withholding or sanitizing information to appease
cultural supremacists is a betrayal of children and their development into well-informed adults who are capable of
accurately evaluating issues concerning Islam. Furthermore, subjecting children to Islamic missionary activity
(Da’wa), often without the knowledge and consent of parents, is a perversion of the mission of public education and a violation of the United States Constitution. Since school officials are abdicating their responsibility to guard against proselytizing and academic fraud, it is incumbent upon parents to participate more actively in the oversight and education of their children.

Solutions


1) Be involved. Take the time to review the content of your child’s History and Social Studies textbooks and the
activities in these classes. Your child’s understanding of these subjects will have a profound impact on their view of the world and their place within it. Make sure you play an active and guiding role in this aspect of your child’s
development.


2) Be informed. Take the time to learn about Islam and the history of Islamic civilization. You cannot accurately
judge the content of your child’s textbooks and class activities if you yourself are ignorant of this subject.


3) Be firm with school officials. School officials have a responsibility to provide you with any and all information
that you request concerning the content of your child’s textbooks and classroom activities. Do not accept, under any circumstances, a lack of responsiveness from school officials regarding your inquiries or concerns pertaining to the education of your child. If necessary, seek legal assistance.

RESOURCES

TEXTBOOK REVIEWS

The American Textbook Council Overview http://www.historytextbooks.org/islam.htm

Textbook League By William Bennetta http://www.textbookleague.org/sp-nogo.htm

CRITICAL ANALYSES & HISTORIES

“Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide”
Bat Ye’or
Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002

“The Myth of Islamic Tolerance”
Robert Spencer
Prometheus Books, 2005

“Why I Am Not a Muslim”
Ibn Warraq
Prometheus Books, 1995

WEB RESOURCES

www.listislam.cjb.net (complete list of websites offering critical analyses of Islam)

WEB ARTICLES

“Islam Undressed”
http://www.islamundressed.com/

Islamist Plan to Establish an Islamic State
"Khaliplan”
http://islamistwatch.org/texts/khaliplan/24hrs%20Khilafah%20book.pdf.

TRANSLATIONS OF ISLAMIC SCRIPTURE

USC Translations of the Qur'an http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

USC Translations of the Sunnah and Hadith http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/




Updated: 08 August 2005

Copyright (c) 2005 6th Column Against Jihad--All rights reserved

GUEST BLOG: Jacques Chirac and the Second Battle of Tours

"Maxflack" sent us his take on the French civil war. We thank him for this fine article, which is also posted on his website.

France at the crossroads: JACQUES CHIRAC AND THE SECOND BATTLE OF TOURS

“I will not allow organized gangs to make law in the suburbs,” said French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. The authorities “will not give in” he told the French parliament; restoring order is the “absolute top priority.”

Jacques Chirac’s foreign and domestic policy birds are coming home to roost—big birds, nasty birds, vultures, buzzards; those that feast on the carrion of dying civilizations; not the wretched helpless pigeons, billing and cooing, on Brando’s rooftop in On The Waterfront; these are like the beasties Alfred Hitchcock unleashed on Tippi Hedren in The Birds.

“The Republic is quite determined, by definition, to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear,” French President Jacques Chirac said after a meeting with his ministers and top advisors. “The law must have the last word.”

Was Pepe ducking his head and looking up at the sky when he said that? Perhaps. Birds coming home to roost make an awful lot of noise. Ask Cauliflower McPug. Cauliflower was always hearing birds. Fortunately, for McPug the feathered creatures he heard were imaginary—he had taken one punch to the head too many; sort of like Chirac. Unfortunately for Pepe, the birds are far from imaginary and are of the most deadly and far-ranging species. Jihad ornithologists have spotted them attending Osama bin Laden seminars in the desert, gathering in the back rooms at Saudi Royal Palaces with the Muslim Brotherhood, and, most recently, lurking among the gargoyles atop Notre Dame Cathedral.

Nicolas Sarkozy, French Interior Minister, referred to the delinquents— Whoa! Delinquents? That’s a good one. It conjures up images of Potsy and Ralph-Malph about to take part in a Happy Days escapade…Anyway, Sarkozy referred to the delinquents as ‘rabble’ and ‘scum.’ Ah, at last, a man with a head on his shoulders! And he has promised a ‘war without mercy!’

So the birds have come home to roost—call them scum, organized gangs, those who want to sow violence and fear. Chirac and de Villepin and Sarkozy have a problem on their hands—a big problem; a national and cultural crisis—and unless they can muster up the courage to call a ‘Muslim’ a ‘Muslim’ they are going to fail.

Sure, call them scum. The New York Times prefers ‘insurgents.’ Call them ‘rabble.’ The Socialist Daily Worker prefers ‘ruthlessly exploited masses.’ Are they organized gangs? They are in a sense. The BBC uses words like poor, unemployed, underprivileged, disenfranchised, disaffected, victims of discrimination.

Al-Jeezera and its running dogs describe the ‘delinquents’ as immigrants from North Africa. That’s good—it’s bit more direct. They also describe them as Arab and African immigrants from North Africa. That is even better—but nobody calls them Muslims; that would be insensitive, politically incorrect and might needlessly alarm Irma La Deuce. Not that there isn’t cause for alarm. Some of the ‘delinquents’ have said scary things. “He (Sarkozy) makes us suffer,” said one. “He’s a racist. He’s put fuel on the fire.” “We’ll stop when Sarkozy steps down,” threatened another ‘delinquent.’ And from hundreds of throats came the cry, “This is our land!” and, of course, the ubiquitous “Allahu akbar!”

Let’s get this straight—Marie Antoinette’s land is their land? Louis XIV’s land is their land? Charles Martel’s land is their land? Jacques Chirac’s land is their land? Yes—it says so in the Qur’an. “Your land is their land.” Look under dhimmi and Dar al-Harb.

An editorial in the Tehran Times by Hassan Hanizadeh calls on Muslim countries to observe their religious and humanitarian duties and to form a committee to investigate the deaths of two Black youngster—thug A and thug B—and the living conditions of Muslims residing in France; the said report to be submitted to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Islamic Human Rights Committee, not to be confused with the Heinrich Himmler Human Rights Committee or the Ilse Koch Death Camp Watch.

The editorial warns: “France is in such a critical situation that the expansion of the demonstrations could lead to the collapse of France and its division into Muslim and Christian sections.”

This thing is getting seriously out of hand. It’s well past Hitchcock and Brando and is gaining steam. These are not ordinary birds—these creatures are straight out of the 7th Century; Islamic pterodactyls thirsting after dhimmi flesh with no more remorse for the fate of its victims than Rodan had for what was left of Tokyo. You have a problem, Jacques—just say so. You can explain later why you led France into Dante’s Inferno.

If Eliot Ness wasn’t afraid to call Al Capone a gangster and Shane had the courage to tell Wilson he was a dirty Yankee liar and the meathead, in spite of considerable family restraints, could call Archie a bigot, and Curly could give Moe the raspberries knowing full well he would get a finger in the eye, you, Jacques Chirac, the last, perhaps, in a long line of mostly uninspiring French leaders from Louis I and Charles the Fat to Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle, with a little courage, could go down in history as Jacques the Savior. One cataclysmic moment of truth would do the trick. Suck in your stomach, grab de Villepin with one hand and Sarkozy with the other, close your eyes, open your mouth and say, “ Islam is the cause of our problems and I’m not going to take it any longer.”

What’s the worst that could happen? Some dirty looks, a finger in the eye—didn’t bother Curly—a fatwa or two, a visit from a suicide bomber, slippage in the polls? That last could really hurt. Suppose Peewee Herman knocked down a half-dozen Harley-Davidsons while parking his bicycle in front of a Hells Angels bar. Would he survive the night? Not likely. Chirac’s chances of finding the political courage to successfully handle France’s current emergency are not any better. It’s a shame. France is at a crossroads—to the left is dhimmitude, to the right, Tours. Charles Martel is waiting.


---maxflack

We Are Betrayed

I am beyond angry. From this point on, I hold every Postmodernist, from Michael Moore to the Dishonorable John. P. Murtha, personally responsible for the death of every one of our people in the Middle East from now on.

I hold them all personally responsible for every act of terrorism that comes to our shores from now on, since their gross immorality is making it inevitable that the terrorists, encouraged by the collectivists' rejection of the principles that made this country possible, will now engage in serious attempts to breach our borders.

There is a weakness in our "war" policy that makes all these problems possible, that enables the anti-Americans to make headway in their campaign to destroy this country, and that is, ever since Korea, we have never fought to win.

People don't really object to war, they object to LOSING war. Nobody loves a loser, though, and when we allow the Postmodernist politicians to run wars, as we did in Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia, and now Afghanistan, which is receding into chaos, and Iraq, even those who believe that we are justified will begin to think in terms of cutting our losses.

Most of us believe it is wrong to sacrifice our sons and daughters on the alter of cut-and-run. We can at least consider that their deaths were not in vain if we win.

The plan being promoted by Duncan Hunter, R-CA, to build a three-thousand mile fence across our border with our Mexican friends, becomes a major issue. Our Leader has steadfastly refused to talk about, much less do anything about, the open borders which are nothing, if they are not an invitation to terrorists to invade our country.

Now, since we are in all likelihood the process of cutting and running, the concept of a barrier becomes front-burner material. Our only fall-back position is to become "Fortress America," and while the entire world around us succumbs to Islam, we--at least some of us--will take up arms with the goal of fighting to win instead of fighting to lose.

Our last best hope is to elect someone who knows how to win a war, someone like Colonel Ralph Peters, and then have that president select a Cabinet willing to support a winning, instead of a losing, policy--people like Robert Spencer and many others who understand what's going on.

We have wasted nearly two hundred years' worth of opportunity to keep our country as the shining beacon of reason in a world where the light has faded and flickered out. Our only chance to prevent our beloved country from becoming a flash in the pan is to establish a "holding action" with the election of appropriate politicians and wall-building, and then to implement the permanent solution.

The permanent solution is to educate our children according to rational philosophical principles. What is a "right"? What is the proper function of government? Why is capitalism virtuous, while collectivism is evil? Why are property rights important? What makes our country the best place in the world to live, and what threatens it? What is reason? Why do we need it? What is reality? Why is it important to know? What is it that encourages creativity and the advancement of knowledge, and what is it that discourages it? Why does the West have a monopoly on the legitimate Nobel Prizes, while the Middle East has none? Why does South Korea have over 16,000 patents in the U.S. in a single year, while Arab nations have fewer than 400? Why does Spain publish more books in one year than the Arab nations have in their entire history? Why have we adopted a policy of losing every conflict we engage in? Why are the Muslims so intransigent? How is it, having rejected reason, they are able to make so much headway?

These are the questions a philosophically sophisticated high school graduate can answer, and the ability to answer them is critical if we hope to rescue our country. It is from our pool of school children than our future politicians, judges, educators, journalists will come.

Philosophy--who needs it?

We do.

Action Each of Us Can Take for America Regarding Operation Able Danger

By sheer coincidence, last evening (16 October 2005), we tuned into the Michael Savage talk radio show in time to catch his interview with Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania about new developments regarding Operation Able Danger (OAD). We have covered OAD in "Update on Operation Able Danger," and Eleanor's "An Incomplete Investigation"--both on 16 November 2005. New developments since then need publicizing.

Rep. Weldon asks Americans to contact their representatives and senators to demand that there be a public hearing regard Operation Able Danger since this coverup could conceivably go down in history as one of the top perfidies against America from within the American government. He stated that he planned to present to Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, on 17 November 2005, a letter asking for OAD hearings, and that letter as of last night had been signed by 202 House of Representatives members! Rep. Weldon is watching real progress as Congress itself and the American people are joing the efforts to expose just what went on. Our contacts with our representatives and senators will help enormously.

Yesterday, we garbled the name of the Jamie Gorelick staffer who blocked efforts to get OAD material to the 9-11 Commission. Cong. Weldon identified him as Dieter Schnell, a top lieutenant on Gorelick's staff when she sat on the 9-11 Commission. As soon as the OAD coverup went public in August, Gorelick began making phone calls to the offices of Congressman Weldon, Senator Specter, and unnamed others to tell them that she had done nothing wrong. We must remember that she, in her capacity as assistant attorney general under Clinton, developed the infamous "wall" that blocked federal agencies from sharing information (1996). The 9-11 Commission drew their wagons around Gorelick when efforts were made to end her tenure with the 9-11 Commission because of how deleterious had been her work against national security.

Congressman Weldon and staff tried five times to pass OAD information to the 9-11 Commission only to have those data refused without reading a single word. Furthermore, none of the commission members would meet with Congressman Weldon. He got a very perfunctory five minutes with Chairman Keane who immediately dismissed everything the congressman said.

The coverup goes deeper, and this is just repeating what Congressman Weldon said. Lord knows how deep and extensive this perfidy actually goes. LTC Shaeffer, whom the Defense Intelligence Agency (DoD) has been trying to ruin, took OAD data to the then assistant director for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a man not identified by name as yet. That assistant director refused to look at or listen to the OAD intelligence or pass it to the FBI. Our speculation is that he felt himself at the Gorelick Wall. This fellow is now acting director of the DIA.

At a bare minimum, DoD rejection of OAD data prevented protecting the USS Cole in Yemen. Had the data not been blocked, it might have prevented the events of 11 September 2001. This can be learned through public hearings. Active blocking and rejecting OAD data by the 9-11 Commission throws complete doubt on their work and on the integrity of the members.

Obviously, people are scrambling to do the "Gorelick Shuffle," to avoid being blamed or even worse to avoid being found out. We must not let them get away with it.

NBC Is Making Murderers of the Minutemen and Hostage-Taking Terrorists Out of Christians

There is a war on Christians. Christians are depicted as stupid, illogical and bigoted. Christmas is under fire. Now entertainment television has created a new entity: the radical Christian terrorist.

Equally troubling is the trashing of the Minuteman. The historical Minuteman was not a professional soldier. He was a volunteer on the ready in his community to fight against attack. Today's Minutemen are still volunteers. They are putting themselves out there where of us are willing or able to go, putting their bodies in harm's way to look out for the United States as we have already been invaded by over 10,000,000 (count the zeroes folks!) illegal, unsupervised aliens, some of whom are gang members, drug smugglers, human traffickers, rapists, and murderers. It goes to figure that some are also terrorists. The fact that NBC considers this to be fit far for entertainment is troubling.

Michelle Malkin's Blog NBC's Law N Order did a "hit job on the Minutemen." I missed the program. But Debbie Schlussel caught it.

I also missed this one: Christian Mosque-invading terrorists on E-Ring.

This Stinks!! Speech By Commentators in the Blogsphere Not to Be Protected

The Outrage of the Day

Bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists under the proposed federal shield law, the bill's co-sponsor, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), told the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) Monday afternoon....

Lugar acknowledged that the legislation could amount to a "privilege" for reporters over other Americans.

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2005

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2005 covers "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service or any such station, network, system or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service. The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity.

Although we are freelance, does this mean that we are not doing the same work as the organized commercial agencies?

I learned about the coming impingement of our free speech rights while reading about a group formerly known as Pajama Media, now known as Open Source Media when accessing a favorite, Little Green Footballs. As time elapsed, more and more of my source bloggers joined up. Following links, source" will no longer stand I have discovered that the menace is coming not only from the U.N. and from overseas, but from the United States Congress!!!

Interested parties can contact Senator Lugar and your own Representatives.

Hattip: Belmont Club, TigerHawk and Technorati

An Incomplete Investigation

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh give the 9/11 Commission's report a grade of "Incomplete:" for some reason the Commission "overlooked" information provided from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger."

Could the attacks on 9/11 have been prevented? More than inquiring minds want to know. The implications and consequences of such a revelation could be far reaching. Certainly incensed families would have the right to compensation, careers would end, and those responsible would be incarcerated, or, if found guilty of treason, executed.

It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."

Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?

There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it?

The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself.

Read it all.

ACTION ALERT: Should We Trust the U.N. or Anyone But the United States to Control the Internet?

War for the World Wide Web

To the present we have enjoyed the freedom of unfettered access to information and opinion as well as the ability to make our view known on any subject to all corners of the connected world. There are powers afoot that wish to limit severely, and in many cases, shut down discussion, dissent, and the dispersion of information. The internet is also an economic pathway that can be taxed. The United Nations and others powers not only wish to control thought and speech, but wish to tap the very possible lucrative fees and taxes that will be imposed on all internet transactions, from reading e-mail to making a purchase, or to categories yet unknown.

The United Nations, rife with scandal on all levels, and other agencies are attempting to force the control of from the inventors' hands to be used for their UNKNOWN purposes. The web remains in control of the U.S....for now.

Less than nine months ago, the Tunisian government blocked Internet access to the opposition Progressive Democratic Party. Nevertheless, this week the United Nations (U.N.) hosted a summit in Tunisia to determine, among other things, how to maintain respect for online freedom of expression.


Apparently oblivious to the deep irony involved with hosting a conference on digital freedom in a country where such freedom is suppressed, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan describes the main goals of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference in lofty terms: "The main objective of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held this month in Tunisia is to ensure that poor countries get the full benefits that new information and communication technologies -- including the Internet -- can bring to economic and social development."
 
A major task of the WSIS is to insure that emerging nations get access to information technologies. But a more important matter is on its agenda: Who should govern the Internet?
 
At present, a semi-private entity called Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under minimal control of the U.S. Commerce Department, manages the assignment of Internet domain names and IP addresses, an important part of the Internet's ability to function. One of the proposals that was discussed ahead of the WSIS conference seeks to transfer that responsibility from ICANN to an organization operating under the aegis of the U.N.  Such a transference has been struck down for now, reported the Washington Times yesterday, but "it's clear that the ultimate goal of the U.N. is still to wrest control of the Internet," John T. Doolittle, California Republican, warned after the November 15th conference.
 
The U.S. has always overseen key aspects of the Internet since its invention and with good reason, since the Internet was primarily developed in America. It was the U.S.-based National Science Foundation that constructed the first wide area network (WAN) using the now standard TCP/IP network protocol, or instruction set, which allows separate computers in different locations to communicate with each other. That innovation was a key factor in the development of the World Wide Web (WWW) which is accessed by all countries today.
 
Though there are numerous infrastructures that comprise the WWW and allow the degree of interoperability that its users enjoy, that interoperability relies heavily on the task of managing and assigning the aforementioned domain names and IP addresses.
 
In the early days of the Internet, domain name and IP address assignation was handled by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). In 1998, however, ICANN assumed that responsibility. Throughout those changes and developments, the WWW has worked remarkably well, expanding exponentially with an absolute minimum of U.S. Government interference. Yet, this week in Tunisia, one of the proposals on the table involves the creation of a "Global Internet Council" (GIC) anchored in the United Nations.
 
The U.N. working group offering that proposal includes, among other countries, Cuba, Iran and China. The group says that the GIC would consist of "members from governments with appropriate representation from each region [that] would take over the functions relating to international internet governance currently performed by [ICANN]."
 
It is worth noting that though the GIC is being touted as a way for all nations to have a say in the assignment of domain names and IP addresses, the membership of ICANN already consists of broad international representation.
 
Realistically speaking, were the GIC to become a reality, countries like Cuba, China and Iran, which already heavily regulate and censor their population's Internet access, would be in charge of regulating the flow of information on the WWW to all countries.  And it is Cuba, China, Iran and other information-repressive nations that have been pressing hardest for the U.S. and ICANN to relinquish control of domain name administration. Their efforts have been aided by a reflexively anti-U.S. European Union (EU) endorsement of a second proposal similar to the GIC one.
 
The EU-endorsed proposal is based on a "multilateral arbitration" and "dispute resolution forum." It is interesting to note that since most European telecommunications companies are satisfied with the performance and reliability of the WWW under U.S. oversight of the domain name system, they strongly oppose the EU-sponsored proposal to shift control of that system away from the U.S.

Commentary is possible on some of the internal links of this story.

Read the Rest.

If you value your web access and disagree with fees and taxes and other outrages that could occur, please contact Congress and make your feelings known.

"It would seem that France's greatest failure has been one of recognition: Recognition of the true problem facing it!"

Block quotes are included and emphasises are mine:

In response to the half-measures that the Chirac government has made to the Intifada now raging within France and other parts of Europe, Mark Alexander at A New Dark Age Is Dawning, wrote:

Why does political correctness only go one way? How politically correct are Muslims? How much tolerance of non-Muslims do Muslims show? How many churches are built in the Middle East? How many Christian schools? Indeed, how many Christians are allowed to live there?

In the case of France, all troublemakers should be deported forthwith. Sarkozy has promised this. It is to be hoped that he acts on his promise. Further, it is to be hoped that the door through which they are sent is not a revolving one!

All illegal immigrants should be sent home. France is under no obligation to allow them to remain. Islam in France is growing apace. The riots have been a manifestation of this exponential growth. The growth needs to be stemmed; otherwise all good intentions, and all policies, however generous, will fail.

It would seem that France's greatest failure has been one of recognition: Recognition of the true problem facing it!

A failure of recognition to be sure, but what is the true problem? I agree with his statement but not in the way you would think. The problems that France and the rest of Europe have with their Muslim immigrants is a failure to recognize or take into account the law of unintended consequences. The French with their notion of a superior culture believed themselves to be immune and made a pact with the devil.

In 1973, the year that the "informal alliance between the countries of the Arab League and the nine countries of the European Community (EC), which became the EU in 1992," France didn't intend to be swamped with millions of Muslims that had no intention integrating and, in most cases, are incapable of integration into the "haute French culture" that is light years away from their world view, a view that leads them to despise that which makes French culture great and enviable in the eyes of many that have held in high esteem the enviable parts of French culture that are so admired: cooking, art, debate, scholarship, and so on. By importing millions of poor, uneducated and unskilled Muslims, France, and the rest of Europe, set themselves on a course that can only lead to further violence and pain regardless of who wins: the French or the Islamists.

The sad story begins:


The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), created in July, 1974, in Paris, with a working body composed of committees always presided over by a European and an Arab delegate, planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of decisions in a comprehensive collaboration to integrate the north and the south in an anti-American, anti-Zionist effort to dissolve Israel and thwart the United States.

According to Bat Ye'or, author of Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis, released earlier this year, European ambitions included the following:

...to play a defining political role in international relations in competition with the United States, and independent of its influence; maintain important spheres of influence in the former European Arab colonies; open huge markets for the European Economic Community’s products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries; secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe; make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by encouraging massive Arab immigration into Europe, and favoring Muslim immigrants; create Euro-Arab populations by promoting multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe; develop a powerful Islamo-Christian symbiosis against Israel, orienting Europe toward Islam, and liberating Christianity from  Judaism, which is viewed by some anti-Semitic factions as the embodiment of evil.

The Arab partners demanded of Europe:

...alignment with their anti-Israeli policy; modernization of their countries; access to Western science and technology; European political independence from the United States, and separation of the trans-Atlantic allies; measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Arab and Islamic culture in Europe. 

In 1967 Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become, "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy." By 1974, in Paris, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab rubric. There are now over 600 members from all major European parties, each active in a national parliament, as well as in the European parliament.


The Parliamentary Association’s explicit policies mimicked the 23 resolutions of the 1969 aforementioned Cairo Conference. This has become a permanent feature of how the Parliamentary Association operates- adopting identical positions, even verbatim language, derived from prior joint Arab League-Western European policy meetings, or even exclusive international Arab and non-Arab Muslim conferences.

The Parliamentary Association has endeavored to promote Arab interests and demands within each European party and Parliament, and in the European Council.  The Association functions as a powerful extension of Arab lobbying efforts against Israel, pressuring European governments, for example, to adopt economic and academic boycotts directed at the Jewish State.  The other principal organs of the Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute, the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission, and the MEDA program that manages substantial European funds allocated to Arab countries.

"These associations, through their committees and subcommittees, maintain complete coordination between the Western European and Arab parties in the political, economic, and cultural realms. As a result, the European Community stands apart from the United States by consistently backing Arab claims..."

This political agenda has been reinforced by (and now mirrors) the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted 20 to 25 years ago, i.e., in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983), included recommendations, below, that have been successfully implemented, accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants, in enormous numbers:

• Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe and to find the appropriate form of cooperation among the Arab institutions that operate in this field.

• Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals which will undertake the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture.

• Encouragement of European institutions either at University level or other levels that are concerned with the teaching of the Arabic language and the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture.

• Support of joint projects for cooperation between European and Arab institutions in the field of linguistic research and the teaching of the Arabic language to Europeans.

• Necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans.

• Necessity, when teaching Arabic, of emphasizing Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues.

• Necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present an objective picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to students and to the educated public in Europe which could attract Europeans to Arabic studies.

Now Europe, and France in particular, is reaping a bitter harvest that was predicted, yet hidden from the European body politic by their perfidious leaders.

The French arm of the European Intifada "has profound implications for Western Europe - which may be incapable of altering its Eurabian trajectory..."

Th[e] Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian [devshirme]-janissary slave soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy. Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global  jihad against America and Israel.

A Cautionary Tale: The Implications for America

Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities. Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization.

All should recognize that this "self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people." In other words, European leaders have served up Europe on a plate to Arabs, and in the opinion of Ye'or, out of greed and in the hope that such alliance could thwart the United States. Knowing this, would the elite of America and the American body politic choose to come to Europe's aide once more as Europeans and the French in particular continue trip over the same stones, but this time in a effort to do check and do harm to America?

It is unlikely that French politicians would have heeded the warnings of French academics that were familiar with the tenets of Islam in spite of the fact that they all had decades of experience with Muslims in their North African colonies. Surely they could have recognized the danger of inviting in poor, uneducated, and disposed peoples with a radically different world view and bellicose nature as well as an infamous history for taking over civilizations, but did not. Perhaps the French believed that French culture could trump human nature and Islam. History is rife with advanced cultures that made the same mistake and have been absorbed, swallowed whole by the maw of this predator.

Unfortunately the European and French elite failed to recognize that high culture is no match for primitive desert brigands brandishing swords and the Koran while they are tying the hands of the police. Instead they rely on their belief of the transformative power of high art, refined cooking, and scintillating debate, refinements that the invading population can appreciate nor accept as their world view sees these uplifting French accomplishments not as gifts to the world but as perversions.

Thanks to Andrew Bostom for his synthesis of Bat Ye'or's analysis.

The United States Is In No Position to Point Fingers At the Europeans Over Rampant Immigration and Unassimilated Migrants..And, Not Even Half Measures

The United States can not point a finger at France and Europe, for we are importing an identical class of poor, uneducated, and unskilled hispanics as well as poor, uneducated, the unskilled from many other parts of the world, some of whom are potential Jihadists. With ten million unaccounted for illegals, many of whom are Mexican peasants, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine how these immigrants could react in a copycat fashion to accomplish their demands.

Hoping to reap economic gain, our elite business and political classes are as much blinded by the images of dollar signs as the Europeans that hoped to use their immigrants for "cheap labor." Unfortunately neither we nor the Europeans now find such immigrants to be cheap. In Europe they are taxing the generous welfare state by day and, by night, rioting and destroying lives and property.

America's immigrants aren't quite a lucky as are the Europeans. They don't get a direct handout in cash, but, among other perks, are clogging the schools, healthcare system, and even applying for college scholarships, a luxury that often isn't available to the children of many citizens. They keep coming for the jobs and the opportunity to remit home millions of dollars yearly, and for that which is not available to them in their home countries: security, healthcare, and a more upscale lifestyle.

But they aren't happy campers. Many want more than the overtaxed system can supply and there is talk of "income redistribution," "free healthcare for all," "the ownership society," and all the rest, some of which is actually come from the Republican Party, making immigrants hopeful, and hope, when dashed, will lead to the spectacle that we are viewing now across the pond.

And the U.N. is putting in it's two cents. According to international human rights, the U.S. social system violates human rights.

"If the United States Government designed and implemented the policies according to the human rights standards much of the problem of poverty could be resolved," said Sengupta in a statement.

The U.N. obviously is in league with the rioters that want income redistribution and health care to be named a human right.

Among the lessons learned: don't promise more than you are able to give and don't expect that the disposed will graciously stop at asking for more than you offer.


U.S. to retain oversight of Web. How odd!

What kind of world we have to put up with is reflected in this article from the Washington Times: U.S. to retain oversight of Web, by Dan Caterinicchia, November 16, 2005.

Efforts to replace U.S. oversight of the Internet with an international committee were defeated yesterday during U.N.-sponsored meetings. Hundreds of government, nonprofit and industry delegates meeting at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis, Tunisia, agreed to establish a new international forum to discuss Internet issues, but it would not have any policy-making power.

More than 11,000 government, business and civic leaders are in Africa for the three-day summit, which was scheduled to officially begin today and is focused on identifying ways to bridge the global "digital divide" between technology haves and have-nots. But the potential fight over future Internet governance dominated the preparatory sessions. (Emphases mine)

Some things just cry out, nay, scream out. The verdammt UN holds some meeting to decide what to do with our property. That makes me wonder if they were emboldened by the SCOTUS Kelo decision. Next, they hold it, where? In that bastion of freedom, Tunisia, another Islamic cloaca.

Well, at least one Congressman got it right:

Rep. John T. Doolittle, California Republican, with two other members of Congress, has introduced a resolution urging that the U.S. remain in charge of the Internet's day-to-day operations. "Whether they call it a 'board' or a 'forum,' it's clear that the ultimate goal of the U.N. is still to wrest control of the Internet," Mr. Doolittle said last night.

That there could even be a question ought to enrage Americans. That we even sat down with these third world reprobates ought to enrage us even more. Our internet is NOT NEGOTIABLE.

These days, it is not easy to tell who is in the asylum and who is out, much less who is running it.

Update on Operation Able Danger

Today, Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania was interviewed on Fox and Friends about new information regarding Operation Able Danger.

If you recall, we have considered this issue to be profoundly important for America's security and for exposing the fifth column within American government. Operation Able Danger was a special Defense Intelligence Agency (DoD) project of data mining, using a very advanced computer program which culled non-classified materials found nationally and internationally. This project identified Mohamed Atta and his Brooklyn cell by January 2000 and identified that the USS Cole would be attacked in Yemen IN ADVANCE of its arrival in the Yemeni port. DoD killed Operation Able Danger, and the DIA has tried to destroy the many US military personnel who worked on the project who have stepped forward to expose the internal corruption involved in suppression of vital information for our security. Rep. Weldon almost single-handedly has taken up the heroic job of exposing the perfidy.

This morning, Rep. Weldon reviewed the USS Cole situation, which involved DoD simply ignoring the warnings, but he added a new element. The 9-11 Commission blatantly ignored information brought to it by patriotic military officers who worked Able Danger, as we have noted. However, we now learn that it was from within the 9-11 Commission itself, via the staff of one its members, that originated the coverup of the USS Cole information which Operation Able Danger uncovered.

It should surprise no one that the finger points to 9-11 Commission member, Jamie Gorelick, the Clinton assistant attorney general who established the infamous "wall" that prevented the FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. from sharing information, thus preventing timely detection of the 9-11-2001 events. It seems that her chief lieutenant, someone named Schneiderman, if I recall Rep. Weldon correctly, that actively suppressed the USS Cole information from the 9-11 Commission.
Stand by for more information. Rep. Weldon will out the treason.

The "Religion of Peace" Strikes Again!

Teacher Charged With Mocking Religion Sentenced to Jail and Lashing.

Lapidation for adultery, amputation and beheading for "criminal offenses," and lashings for criticizing, oops, mocking religion. How did he run foul of the law? This teacher tried to tell his students about the "terrorism and its consequences."

JEDDAH, 14 November 2005 — The controversial case of Muhammad Al-Harbi, a Saudi high school teacher accused of mocking religion, came to a surprising end on Saturday. Al-Harbi was sentenced to three years in prison and 750 lashes — 50 lashes per week for 15 weeks. The lashes are to be given in the public market in the town of Al-Bikeriya in Al-Qassim.

A number of 12th Grade students, along with some teachers from the same school, filed a lawsuit a year-and-a-half ago against Al-Harbi. He was accused of mocking Islam, favoring Jews and Christians, preventing students from performing ablutions. He was also charged with studying witchcraft. At the time, he was a chemistry teacher at Al-Fowailiq High School in the town of Ein Al-Juwa in Al-Qassim.

“This is a very cruel sentence,” Al-Harbi told Arab News. He explained over the phone that the students who filed the lawsuit had failed the monthly chemistry test. “They asked me to give them the exam again and when I refused, they went to the principal to complain but he upheld my decision,” he explained.

According to Al-Harbi, the students’ actions were triggered by some Islamic studies teachers who used the students’ anger at Al-Harbi and convinced them to file the lawsuit.

The reason for the Islamic studies teachers action has its roots five years ago when Al-Harbi joined the staff of Al-Fowailiq High School after graduating from King Saud University in Riyadh. Based on his academic record and extracurricular activities, the school principal appointed Al-Harbi as school activities organizer.

Deeply disturbed by the explosions at the Al-Hamra Compound in Riyadh in 2003, Al-Harbi felt it his duty as an educator to enlighten his students and warn them of terrorism and its consequences. He went to great lengths by talking to students, hanging anti-terrorism signs around the school and speaking against terrorism.

“The Ministry of Education has recently ordered all schools to lecture students on the dangers of extremism and terrorism in general, but I was a step ahead of their decision,” said Al-Harbi.

Apparently Al-Harbi’s actions and comments against terrorism upset a number of Islamic studies teachers known for their fundamentalist beliefs. After the Al-Hamra blast in Riyadh, Al-Harbi copied an article, “Cavemen Go to Hell” written by Saudi columnist Hammad Al-Salmi in Al-Jazirah newspaper, attacking terrorists and extremists. Al-Harbi posted the article on the school bulletin board but it was ripped off and torn to pieces.

Read the rest.

Mr. Contrition Skips Concord for Boston

Have you had your daily journalistic enema? If not, take this, from the Washington Post. Thanks to CAIR for alerting us to it, through their Daily Whine for today.

Mr. Hooper, it looks like time for you to pour a scotch, have another pork roast sandwich, and go play in the traffic.

As for the rest of Boston, pour a scotch, make another pork sandwich, and enjoy Michael Graham, like the rest of normal people do.


Mr. Contrition Skips Concord for Boston

By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts
Tuesday, November 15, 2005; C3

Michael Graham , the pugnacious radio yakker fired from WMAL-AM this summer after calling Islam a "terrorist organization," has landed at a Boston talk radio station.

"All I can say is, somebody better buy Ted Kennedy a drink," the former conservative campaign consultant exulted on his Web site.

We couldn't reach Graham before he debuted his afternoon drive time show on WTKK-FM yesterday. But in an e-mail to Post columnist Marc Fisher, he bragged: "Better gig, better station, better time slot, better money."

In a July 25 WMAL show, Graham repeatedly called the world's second-largest faith a terrorist group and said "moderate Muslims are those who only want to kill Jews." The comments drew immediate complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well as advertisers; Graham was suspended, then let go after he refused to apologize. He wrote on his Web site that he got a half-dozen job offers after his firing. "FINAL SCORE: Free Speech 1; Angry Islamic Radicals and the Radio Management Weasels Who Cater To Them, 0."

Matt Mills, VP and general manager for WTKK, said in a statement: "Michael has an edge to him that is going to captivate the Boston community like no one else."

But Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, said the group will be keeping tabs. "The radio listeners in Boston will judge what he says, and if he repeats it I think he'll be repudiated in the same way he was repudiated by the people in Washington."

"Eurabia" Defined

Andrew Bostom explains how Europe, frantic to thwart a now powerful America, willingly chose to enter into dangerous and self-destructive agreements with the Arab world that are now bearing bitter fruit: (The emphasis is mine.)

The flames consuming thousands of automobiles, and the occasional bus, nursery, warehouse, and school across France are the result of tragic – in the original sense of the word – set of decisions made by the leaders of Europe, motivated by greed, jealousy, and hubris. The dream of a Europe restored to preeminence, isolating and vanquishing the upstart Americans, via a rock-solid alliance with the Arab world, has become a nightmare. The French cannot acknowledge their problem precisely because they cannot admit the folly of the policies pursued for the last three decades as the bedrock of their highest diplomatic, political, and economic ambitions.

The intifada raging in France for almost three weeks, has been characterized by overwhelmingly Muslim rioters engaged in acts of wanton destruction, punctuated by claims of “territorial control” over sections of various French cities. In the context of this ongoing havoc, one sees repeated references to the term “Eurabia” by journalists and other media and academic elites, who, almost without exception, have no idea about the concrete origins, or significance of this term.

The use of the term “Eurabia”, as noted by the scholar Bat Ye’or (in her seminal analysis,  Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis, released earlier this year) was first introduced, triumphally, in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London).

The articles and editorials in this publication called for common Euro-Arab positions, at every level – social, economic, and commercial –   and were contingent upon the fundamental political condition of European support for the Arab (and non-Arab) Muslim umma’s jihad against Israel. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists – they in fact represented policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders, their ministers of foreign affairs, and European Parliamentarians.

Eurabia, as Bat Ye’or has demonstrated, now represents a geo-political reality, envisioned in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between the countries of the Arab League and the nine countries of the European Community (EC), which became the European Union (EU) in 1992. Various alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each European Community country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab counterparts within the Arab League. This system was synchronized under the rubric of an association called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), created in July, 1974 in Paris. A working body composed of committees always presided over jointly by a European and an Arab delegate, planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of decisions.

The comprehensive Euro-Arab collaboration included both domestic and foreign policy issues, ranging from economic matters to immigration. The joint Euro-Arab foreign policy, advanced at international forums and NGO meetings was characterized by anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, along with simultaneous efforts towards delegitimation of Israel, and promotion of Arafat’s PLO. The EAD also established close cooperation domestically between the Arab and the European print, television, and radio media, publishing houses, academic and cultural centers, student and youth associations, and the tourism industry. Church interfaith “dialogues” were a major influence on the development of this policy. Eurabia thus represents a strong Euro-Arab network of symbiotic associations which cooperate on political, economic, and cultural issues.

Eurabia involves not only an intricate web of agreements covering a remarkably broad range; it is essentially a political project for the total demographic and cultural symbiosis between Europe and the Arab Muslim world. Israel will eventually dissolve, according to the design of this project. America would be isolated and challenged by an emerging Euro-Arab continent, linked to the entire Muslim world, and invested with tremendous political and economic power in international affairs. The policies of “multilateralism” and of “soft diplomacy” express this deepening symbiosis. The Euro-Arab agreements are merely the tools for the creation of a new extended Mediterranean “continent.” Eurabia is also based on a vision of Christian-Muslim reconciliation, built on anti-Zionism, strongly advocated by major Christian religious bodies, and often espousing a new hybrid Islamo-Christian replacement theology.

Respective European and Arab goals for the Eurabian project, are summarized by Bat Ye’or. First, the European ambitions: to play a defining political role in international relations in competition with the United States, and independent of its influence; maintain important spheres of influence in the former European Arab colonies; open huge markets for the European Economic Community’s products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries; secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe; make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by encouraging massive Arab immigration into Europe, and favoring Muslim immigrants; create Euro-Arab populations by promoting multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe; develop a powerful Islamo-Christian symbiosis against Israel, orienting Europe toward Islam, and liberating Christianity from  Judaism, which is viewed by some anti-Semitic factions as the embodiment of evil.  The Arab partners, in turn, demanded from Europe: alignment with their anti-Israeli policy; modernization of their countries; access to Western science and technology; European political independence from the United States, and separation of the trans-Atlantic allies; measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Arab and Islamic culture in Europe. 

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become, “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy”. By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided

“…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric. [At present it has burgeoned to over six hundred members—from all major European political parties –each active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament.] The Parliamentary Association’s explicit policies mimicked the 23 resolutions of the 1969 aforementioned Cairo Conference. This has become a permanent feature of how the Parliamentary Association operates- adopting identical positions, even verbatim language, derived from prior joint Arab League-Western European policy meetings, or even exclusive international Arab and non-Arab Muslim conferences.

The Parliamentary Association has endeavored to promote Arab interests and demands within each European party and Parliament, and in the European Council. The Association functions as a powerful extension of Arab lobbying efforts against Israel, pressuring European governments, for example, to adopt economic and academic boycotts directed at the Jewish State. The other principal organs of the Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute, the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission, and the MEDA program that manages substantial European funds allocated to Arab countries.

In other words: The Europeans offered themselves up on plate to spite the U.S. Does "cutting off your nose to spite your face" sound familiar? The reasons for the lack of support for the War on Terror and the "War" in Iraq become clear as well as the justification for European support of Saddam Hussein and the U.N.'s Oil for Food Scandal.

Read it all.

Of Weak Leaders, Immigrants and Tragedy

We get the leaders we deserve and choose the immigrants that reflect our culture.

Why Western governments fall apart and the coming tragedy

Robert Spengler, an essayist at AsiaTimes:

Never have the governments of the old Atlantic alliance appeared as weak as they do today. President George W Bush, his popularity ruined and his political agenda junked, is boxed into a corner, but his position seems enviable compared to that of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who just lost a decisive battle over anti-terror measures. 

But both appear strong compared to President Jacques Chirac, who has let France slip into civil unrest. Germany, despite last week's appointment of Angela Merkel as federal chancellor, in effect has no government, for the parallelogram of political forces neutralizes all parties. Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi must do his best to avoid prison after the seizure of funds from his media company.

The leaders of the West seem to somnambulate through affairs of state, oblivious to the disaster around them. In her mercy, history anesthetizes those whom she intends to destroy, wrote Leon Trotsky in his History of the Russian Revolution. He had in mind Czar Nicholas II's diary entries for the days before the October Revolution of 1917, full of court gossip and the minutiae of family life, but without a glimmer of the doom soon to befall him.

No part of the political spectrum can take comfort from this predicament. Those who want to subject American policy to the counsel of the world community, as Senator John Kerry proposed, now have difficulty identifying who that world community might be ? surely not France, which has become an embarrassment, and surely not the United Nations, which has a black eye from its scandal-plagued Iraq oil-for-food program. Only in Beijing and Tokyo do we find strong governments in powerful nations.

Is it simple coincidence that the West cannot field a single functioning government? The punditry dismisses Bush as dumb, Blair as smarmy, Chirac as arrogant, Berlusconi as bent, and Merkel - well, when they discover some identifying characteristics of the new German chancellor, the punditry doubtless will find grounds to dismiss her as well. Perhaps it is just the luck of the draw, but the odds do not favor the interpretation that all the big nations of the West had the misfortune to find themselves led by ninnies at precisely the same time.

What is it about the personalities of Western leaders, though, that might explain their common predicament? Perhaps it is the fact that the leaders of the West mirror the qualities of the people who voted for them. Americans are obstreperously anti-intellectual, and chose a president with whom they can identify. The British always have been hypocrites, and elected the most hypocritical of prime ministers. The average Frenchman is no less arrogant than the president of the republic, while the Germans, at least since 1945, have devoted their storied thoroughness to becoming as nondescript as possible. Almost every Italian is on the fiddle, and it is fitting for their prime minister to be fiddler-in-chief.

That leads to a simple interpretation of the general crisis of Western politics, namely, that the people of the West, as it were, are the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is not the leaders of the West per se, but rather the voters who put them in office, who comprise the problem.

To make clear why the French are the wrong sort of people to begin with, consider why American Muslims do not sally out by night to burn cars. A very different sort of Muslim emigrates to the United States; according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, more than half of American Muslims hold a graduate degree. Among the brightest Arabs, Persians or Pakistanis, a high proportion seeks graduate training in the United States, especially in engineering, computer sciences, physics and chemistry. The median income of Muslim households in the United States is above average.

American immigration laws, to be sure, favor the rich, the talented and educated. But that sheds some light on the character of the United States, which absorbs immigrants directly into its elite. Europe, which allows barely one in eight of its school leavers into university, does not want immigrants who might displace the local talent. It has recruited an immigrant population of dustmen, whose children burn cars out of frustration...The reason that the leaders of France can offer no solution to the present crisis is that no solution exists...

Apparently Spengler is not familiar with the characteristics of most of the immigrants from Mexico. However, as many of them are illegal, and thus not chosen, Spengler's thesis should hold up.

The tragedy of the Americans, I have argued in the past, is that they cannot understand the tragedy of other peoples. With force as deadly as the mounted hordes of the past, America's influence has swept through the world and overturned the traditional order, leaving ill-prepared peoples to fend for themselves in the chaos...Americans selected themselves according to precisely the criteria that make democracy succeed.

Americans selected themselves according to precisely the criteria that make democracy succeed... it is clever Indians and Chinese who have emigrated, either by accumulating capital in business or by passing competitive examinations to obtain a university degree.

Spengler predicted that the War (really the Battle of) in Iraq would lead to a civilizational war by the tragic figure of George W. Bush.

Comparing the inevitability of World War I, Spengler avers that to counter the the rise of nuclear powered states in the Muslim world, Pakistan, Iran and others, the West is compelled to act, with the same tragic result...inevitable future conflict that will be "ruinous beyond imagination."

But an even deadlier threat is "Europe's demographic collapse and the replacement of European Christians by Middle Eastern and North African Muslims."
Tragic strategy extends to Turkey, Russia, the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union.

According to Spengler:

Washington believes that stabilizing Iraq will stabilize the entire region: Moscow knows that the Iraq war already has destabilized the region. In the 21st century version of the Great Game, Russia's winning chess move is to replace Turkey as the dominant power in Central Asia...

It is more probable that Turkey will revert to an Islamic model under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan than it is that Iraq will emerge as a secular democracy on the old Turkish model. Erdogan wants involvement in regional conflict less than anything in the world, except for one thing, which is the humiliation of Turkic populations in adjacent countries. He no more can remain indifferent to the plight of ethnic Turks in the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union than could Nicholas II of Russia abandon the Serbs to Austria in 1914. By the same token, Russia does not want to engage its weakened and demoralized army in a foreign venture. But it no more can remain indifferent to Turkish agitation in the Caucasus and Black Sea than could Austria tolerate Russian subsidies to Serbian terrorists in 1914.

Those are the characters in the next act of the tragedy, and their motivations. The role of tragic lead falls to George W Bush...

As we wait for the next shoe to fall, European Muslims are agitating to establish the Millet system as under the Ottoman Empire, self-segregated housing paid by public monies in the UK, Muslim-ruled cities in Sweden, Muslim inspired speech censorship in Australia, and lawsuits against authors critical of Islam and Muslims.

The tragedy is multifaceted. Not only do we have weak leaders at this point in the War of Civilizations, but as in the prelude to WWI, most deny the legitimacy of conflict in the West and refuse to take action. And, as in Europe, we are in danger of being taken over from within.

An Invitation

We have just published a lot of new material on our sister website, 6th Column Against Jihad. We invite readers to check us out.

An Absolutely Terrific Article Courtesy of FrontPage magazine.com

This is a first class article which gets beneath the banality about what is happening in France and why. We are referring to the attempted Muslim overthrow of France and the abortuses constituting French responses.

In the article, inset in blockquote format, all emphases are ours.

FrontPage magazine.com :: Gangs in Search of an Ideology by Michael Radu, November 14, 2005


Of the Muslim rioting that began in poor suburbs of Paris on October 27, Mohammed Rezzoug, caretaker of the municipal athletics center in Le Blanc-Mesnil says, "It's not a political revolution or a Muslim revolution... There's a lot of rage. Through this burning, they're saying, 'I exist, I'm here.' "[1]

Obviously, Mr. Rezzoug is well integrated in French culture -- or at least in its habit of theorizing ad nauseam over everything. However, things in France are not what they used to be -- hence the shift from Rene Descartes' famous dictum, "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am") in the seventeenth century to Mr. Rezzoug's "They burn, therefore they are."

Here we must interrupt Mr. Radu's flow to set the record straight. There is absolutely no shift whatsoever from Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum." Many people have erroneously attributed profundity to Descartes for that statement, but it represents the complete return to a primacy of consciousness way of thinking--contrasting with a primacy of existence way of thinking, in which consciousness is simply a part of reality. Descartes' way comes from Plato and sets the stage for Kant, Hegel, and now all the way to the French postmodernists and their intellectual offspring who are trying to take over France by force. No one thinks and then becomes. Consciousness does not create reality. It should state: I am, therefore I think.

This may seem to be a trivial distinction, but, in the history of mankind, the primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence viewpoints have had profound influences. Those raging through the streets of France in the spirit of "They burn, therefore they are" are living examples of how bad ideas create bad results via human behavior. The burners are truly Cartesian, among other things.

And burn they do. Youth gangs, overwhelmingly French-born and Muslim, have engaged in a nation-wide rampage that by November 8 had burned 5,000 vehicles, a few schools, kindergartens, police stations, shopping malls, and post offices. Police officers have been wounded and an older man beaten to death. Some 800 individuals have been arrested and a curfew locally imposed to stem this anomic wave of gang violence that is spreading all over France -- and beyond. But the riots increasingly and alarmingly suggest that Islamist radicals see criminality as an opportunity for recruitment, while the criminals see Islam as a legitimizer.

There are gangs, and there are Gangs...

The Independent tells of how in one Paris suburb, Aulnay- sous-Bois, 20-year-old Abdelkarim, the caid (leader in Arabic) of the local gang, boasts of the 2,000 euros he makes on each car stolen: "You want prostitutes, DVD players, jewelry? I can get anything you want." His talk is of poverty, discrimination, and dreams of his family's Morocco, but also of his anti-Semitism and hashish habit. "'Look around you -- there is nothing here. We live four to a room. Our parents go to work like zombies. But we have nothing. Even the jobs around here go to people from elsewhere. This parking lot is like our living room,' he said. One of his friends . . . held a mobile phone. 'Come and look,' he gestured, laughing. It was a short film of a Chechen guerrilla cutting off the head of a Russian soldier."[2]

No one is there to comfort and provide for them; therefore, they feel entitled to destroy.

If one replaces names like Abdelkarim or Karim with Pablo or Deshawn and Aulnay-sous-Bois with Watts or South Bronx, with a few extraordinary exceptions we have a similar profile: uneducated young men from broken families, deep involvement in criminality, contempt for their parents' low-paying jobs, identification with gangs, resentment of outsiders -- in short, the lost urban youth of the West. When a father from Aulnay-sous-Bois complains, "How am I supposed to inculcate the work ethic in my son, when his friends have Nikes given to them by their drug-dealer fathers?" that should sound very familiar to many parents in urban America.

However, while American gangs like the Hispanic Mara Salvatrucha, the Jamaican Posse, and the Crips or Bloods are racist (anti-white, anti-Hispanic or both, as the case may be), violent, and antisocial, their exclusive goals are money and turf control. That is also true of their French (or British) confreres, but in the latter cases Islamist beliefs play or could soon play a decisive justifying role.

These exceptions, however, are essential if we are to understand the importance of the events taking place in France's cities these past weeks. The most important of those exceptions are the gangs' religious identity and the elite's cultural attitudes. The criminally dysfunctional youths of la banlieue are made more potent because they operate in an increasingly dysfunctional society, which in the United States may be local but in France is national. And, as a British observer put it, "Mexicans are not Moroccans (think religion). . . . Nor are the fires of disintegration already burning, as they are in [Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy's France."[3]

Abdelkarim says "From my window I can see the Eiffel Tower . . . . But Paris is another world. This is Baghdad." He exaggerates (so far), but should be taken seriously. Especially when Jean-Louis Debre, the Speaker of the National Assembly and mayor of Evreux, seems to agree, calling the unrest "a true episode of urban guerrilla."[4] Meanwhile, the police union chimed in with its own alarmism: "Nothing seems to be able to stop the civil war that spreads a bit more every day across the whole country," it said, advocating the intervention of the army.[5]

What stops what is going on are reason-based ideas and behaviors, the opposite of the very ideas which started these behaviors and paralyzes the French to stop the civil war.

The "Evil Minister"

Naturally enough, for the hoods in the banlieues, "Ever since Sarko came into the government, life has been s--t," said Abdelkarim's friend Kamel, age 16. "He treats us like dogs. Well, we'll show him how dogs can react." On this point, he and the outspoken minister, who talks of "cleaning out" the racaille (riff-raff), are speaking the same language. The latter sees the riots as a clear attempt by the gang leaders to keep control, which he is determined to regain. The problem is that the false sense of victimhood felt by the gangsters is shared by many more Muslims. Thus, Murad, a Moslem leader in Aulnay, says "Islam has been insulted [by a tear gas canister which landed in front of a mosque] and nobody has yet asked forgiveness. . . . If there would have been a tear gas canister in a church or synagogue, Sarkozy would have gone there to apologize."[6] (Never mind that on November 7 a church in Lens was firebombed and no Muslim apologies were forthcoming.)

Islam is the French "schmoo," to borrow that mythical creation of Al Capp's. Islam provides all the ideology. Islam provides the excuses. And, Islam condones pathological narcissism because it is committed in the name of Islam. Get this: A tear gas canister lands IN FRONT OF a mosque, and these Muslim youth feel mortally offended and authorized to behave like savages to avenge some imagined insult to Islam. Oh yes, and there have been no apologies.

Worse still, the leftist opposition -- socialists, Greens, communists, human rights activists, and most of the intellectual elites also agree with Kamel,that the problem is not the gangs of arsonists but "the system": law and order, the police and, especially, Sarkozy.

The Interior Minister by what we see over here may be one of the few rational Frenchmen in the entire country. He wants to preserve and protect the citizens and their property. How utterly gauche. He calls the scum names, and they are offended. Poor things. It is clear that taking Sarkozy down and out means breaking what is left of rationality in France.

The next section of this fine article is so important that we want to single it out:

Le Monde writes, "To the provocations of Nicolas Sarkozy answers the stupidity of teenagers, who ruin the fragile economic tissue and burn the buses borrowed by their families. Some of the arsonists were victims of a system, before becoming small mafiosos taking advantage of the situation."[7] So, the mayhem was an "answer" to the Interior Minister's calling the criminals "criminals and hooligans"? Criminality becomes "stupidity" and criminals become victims." It is precisely this kind of language to which philosopher Jean-Francois Mattei refers below:

The betrayal of the language: when one does not have the courage to face things, one speaks to better obscure them. We apply the usual meaning of words to the violence we know in the urbanized banlieues and elsewhere. In France one does not speak anymore of 'riots' but of 'harassment actions'; not of 'delinquents' but of 'youths'; not of 'drug trafficking' but of 'parallel economy'; not of 'policemen' but of 'provocateurs'; . . . not of 'lawless zones' but of 'sensitive neighborhoods'; not of 'infringement of the right' to work: but of 'movement of legitimate
demands.'[8]

In his fine book Explaining Postmodernism (our review here), Dr. Stephen Hicks, explains how this Franco-America modern philosophy, which so permeates Europe and North America, implements its ideas via its distorted use of language. To postmodernist savages, language is a WEAPON, used not to express ideas or communicate, but to accomplish its socialist goals. The French philosopher referred to by Le Monde, Jean-Francois Mattei, utterly nails this phenomenon which empowers the rabble and paralyzes the French at all levels.

Or from the statement of the "anti-racist" MRAP (Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples):

MRAP has compassion for the victims of the riots [but] the words crime or riot are never used. Instead, all is explained through "social, ethnic and territorial 'apartheid,' the refusal to respond to a social fracture expanded by an ethnic one. If police were attacked, it is because there are 'tensions' between this daily victimized population and police. As for law, well, the only thing to do is check the circumstances of the deaths of the two teenagers self-electrocuted [in hiding from the police at a power station, which set off the riots] and of the tear gas canister falling in front of a Clichy mosque. Most importantly, MRAP demands 'total mobilization against racist discrimination' and against "any racist exploitation of these dramas and sufferings generated by violence.[9]

And then there is the communist newspaper L'Humanite:

Nicolas Sarkozy's arrogance evidently has no limits. . . . After having deliberately lit the fuse, he happily surveys the damage, and wants time to think about it. . . . The suburbs are not a special case. The suburbs are France, the France that suffers at work, is unemployed. . . . The future of the French model of social justice -- of all our futures -- lies in the suburbs. That is why Nicolas Sarkozy wants to break them. . . . Rather than endless images of burnt cars, we must give a voice to the suburbs. And we must listen to them![10]

Does this verbiage sound familiar? It is the stock in trade of the American Democrat Party, American media, and American academia. They are as far gone as are the French.

Once again, criminals have nothing to do with it. In fact the banlieues "are France." And it was the Interior Minister's fault for insulting the rioters. As for the leader of the opposition, Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande, he made it clear that he considers "intolerable" Sarkozy's words. His party asked President Jacques Chirac to make "strong gestures" and "apologies" in order to calm the violence.[11]

All of these "analyses" and solutions coming from the French Left -- the very same Left that was in power for most of the past quarter of century--are unconvincing, to say the least. The Left did try to "solve" the Muslim immigrant problem the only way it knows: by spending. Clichy-sous-Bois' mayor, Claude Dilain, a socialist and the vice-president of the French Convention of Municipal Authorities, is said to be a proactive mayor, setting up free soccer training for local youth, appointing youth leaders as mediators and making sure that the community's waste collection service functions properly. Clichy-sous-Bois is an amalgam of schools, daycare centers, welfare offices, parks and a college that looks like something out of an architecture competition. The community library is currently sponsoring a writing contest themed 'I come from afar, I like my country.'"[12] Result? The current wave of violence started in his very town.

As for the minister, his answer is quite simple: "I ask that we assess correctly the fundamental role of police presence in the suburbs. The police are the Republic's police. They keep order in the republic. If they don't do it, what order will replace them? That of the Mafias or fundamentalists." [13] Obviously, it is the latter.

You can demand of reality, i.e., existence, i.e. "Mother Nature," what you will, but reality pays attention only to the premises directing people's behavior. Reality always delivers, not necessarily when people think it ought to, but when the reality conditions are right. So, in a real sense, you always get what you ask for; only, its your premises doing the asking. Living substandard philosophy gives the French just what they are getting. Reality always wins.

Enter the Islamists

For many years, in the Paris region, Islamist ideology has tried to take advantage of unemployment and unrest. "It is time to open our eyes."[14] Now, youths crying "God is great" rampage and demand that areas where Muslims form a majority be reorganized on the basis of the millet (religious community) system of the Ottoman Empire, with each millet enjoying the right to organize its life in accordance with its religious beliefs. In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place, with women obliged to wear the hijab and men to grow beards; alcohol and pork products forbidden; "places of sin" such as cinemas closed down; and local administration seized.

The message in the suburbs is that French authorities should keep out.[15] Who will replace them? We have already some clear indications:

Suddenly 'big brothers' -- devout bearded men from the mosques who wear long traditional robes -- are positioning themselves between the
authorities and the rioters in Clichy-sous-Bois, calling for order in the name of Allah. As thousands of voices shout 'Allahu Akbar' from the windows of high-rise apartment buildings, shivers run down the spines of television viewers in their seemingly safe living rooms.[16]

Those citizens have good reasons to worry indeed. First, in France (as well as in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany) Muslims are wildly over-represented in prisons. In France they make a majority of inmates, and in jails close to the banlieues as much as 80 percent.[17]

Second, Islamist terrorists from France (and Spain, Netherlands, and Belgium) have a profile quite distinct from that of their counterparts in the Muslim world, inasmuch as they contain a far more significant number of (usually petty) criminals. The available data suggest that Islamist criminality in France has a history at least a decade long. Thus, Khaled Khelkal, considered the mastermind of the wave of bombings in France in the mid-1990s, who was shot by police in 1995, became a hero in the banlieues. Born near Lyons to Algerian parents, Khelkhal went to the prestigious La Martiniere lycee in that city but, he claimed, dropped out and engaged in a criminal career because he could not "tolerate being marginal and rejected by the others" -- and because he chose to follow the example of his brother, Nouredine, who was already in jail for armed robbery.[18] More recently, two French-born Algerian and two Tunisian immigrants were arrested in July 2005 for alleged terrorism and links to the main Algerian Islamist terrorist organization, which is part of the Al Qaeda nebula, while also being linked to a prostitution racket.[19]

How many of the hundreds arrested so far will become Islamists once they complete their ridiculously short prison sentences -- usually a few months --and how that prison time will help them on their path remains to be seen. What is clear is that the mass of present arsonists will vastly reinforce the ranks of Islamists in France and beyond.

Why?

The reasons for all this are often attributed to factors like "alienation from both parental roots and country of origin, and the society in which they live."[20] Sociologists call this phenomenon re-Islamization, and it is increasing in intensity among second and third generation Muslims in Western Europe. Those young Muslims who were born in Europe lost their ties with the country of their parents, while at the same time their families suffered the same disintegration as their native ones, with parents losing control over their children, to gangs and/or Islamists. Hence, such youths are no more Algerians, Moroccans, or Pakistanis, but neither are they French or British. Therefore Islam, however understood or misunderstood, becomes the default identity. Indeed, complaining of high unemployment and using it as an "explanation" of Muslim violence and refusal to integrate misses the point. Leaving aside the obvious fact that, since they are mostly teenagers and thus should be in school, not on the job market, these youths, "French against their will, products of Arab-African immigration, intend to maintain their cultural and religious specificities. Far from wanting to mix and integrate in a scared France which confuses indulgence with tolerance, they continuously look to their close origins, due to modern means of communication, and refuse to come out from their identity ghetto."[21]

Second, unemployment is not a result of "discrimination." Hence, when Hugues Lagrange of l'Observatoire sociologique du changement (CNRS) claims that "the main reason for these tendencies [to violence] lies in the unemployment of unskilled
youths,"[22] he misses the irony. Could it be that they are unemployed
because, instead of staying in schools, they prefer to skip or burn them and thus remain unskilled?

Ideas are important. Humans must have a structure of ideas to form a personal philosophy. Each human must have it. If it is not formed explicitly, eliminating conflicts, then it will be formed implicitly and struggle with the unresolvable, the conflicts. French society is intellectually bankrupt. Islam is intellectually bankrupt. Yet, of the two, Islam is more attractive because it gives youth what they call an "identity," what we would call a "raison d'etre," to borrow a little French. At the core of us all is the need to experience ourselves as having meaning, purpose, and value, even if it is something as corrupt as Islam.

What do you call it when people utterly reject the very means able to give them what the best within each wants? What do you call it when someone about to drown in tossing seas tears up the flotation device thrown him, instead of taking as his means of survival? In the case of the French and its new hoodlums, this is exactly what they are doing.

None of this is to say that unemployment, which has been running at 10 percent in recent years for those who actually want to work, is not a major problem in France. It is, and that is the result of France's massive rejection of capitalism. A recent poll shows that 61 percent of professionals, 68 percent of employees, 70 percent of industrial workers, a majority of merchants and artisans, and 60 percent of youths between 18 and 34 years of age oppose it.[23] That and many Muslims' rejection of integration are the two main reasons why it is so hard to be optimistic about any short-term improvement in France's situation -- and indeed Europe's.

Capitalism is the engine of progress, prosperity, ever improving conditions of life, and the means to implement the right to the pursuit of happiness. Its alternatives are communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, medievalism, Islam, the Dark Ages, all tribalism, and all other social systems which deny human freedom and the rights of the individual. Their finest product is misery. Yet, people like the French continue to long for the unhygenic world of their Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a premedieval world of misery, filth, disease, starvation, and the like. Why do they long for this anti-capitalism? Because they have absorbed centuries of European philosophy which taught them to put out their own eyes, to deafen themselves, and to deny all evidence of their senses about the success of capitalism. Postmodernism simply reinforces those rotten ideas.

Why Europe, and Not France?

The fundamental problems of the French banlieues are far from unique. Romano Prodi, the leader of the Italian leftist opposition, has already stated that similar developments in his country are a matter of when, not if.[24] Nor are the European elites' confusion and inability to leave political correctness behind different from France's. The even more serious problem is the "democratic deficit" within the European Union. Brussels and many national elites show disregard, if not contempt, for the anxieties of the majority, and for reality. A recent EU Commission paper echoes the French Left's approach. As The Guardian reports: "In an attempt to ensure that the vast majority of peaceful Muslims are not portrayed as terrorist sympathizers, the paper says: 'The commission believes there is no such thing as 'Islamic terrorism,' nor 'Catholic', nor 'red' terrorism. . . . The fact that some individuals unscrupulously attempt to justify their crimes in the name of a religion or ideology cannot be allowed in any way . . . to cast a shadow upon such a religion or ideology."[25]

This, after the very same commission identified a "crisis of identity" among young people born to immigrant parents as a key danger. "The document describes radicalization as "a modern kind of dictatorship", likens it to neo-Nazism or nationalism, and says the internet, university campuses, and places of worship are tools of recruitment. It says second-generation immigrants often feel little connection to their parents' country or culture but may also encounter discrimination in European countries.[26] In short, the commission correctly identified the nature of the threat -- Islamist terrorism -- but lacked the courage to name it. How very Brussels!

France has long been seen, and still sees itself, as a model for Europe. The present developments may well prove that Francophiles are right, but not for the reasons they usually have in mind. Geography, size, and its number of Muslims all make France a pivotal element in what amounts to a cultural conflict of continental dimensions. Following the Madrid bombings of 3/11/04 and the London bombings of 7/11/05, the riots in France force the old continent to realize that there is a "Muslim problem" related to, but not just, the Islamist terrorist
problem. So far, only hesitant steps have been taken toward recognition of the former. France, Denmark, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Austria have already witnessed, through the political rise of populist, nationalist parties, what happens when governing elite denial of the problem persists. In democracies, someone will always offer a solution when the public demands one. The present spectacle in France is not encouraging.

Notes:

[1] Molly Moore, "Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition: Spreading Rampage in Country's Slums Is Rooted in Alienation and Abiding Government Neglect," Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2005.

[2] Hugh Schofield, "La Haine: Schools, synagogues and hundreds of cars burn. It's Paris 2005," The Independent, Nov. 6, 2005

[3] Niall Ferguson, "You shouldn't have to burn cars to get a better life - ask my Bolivian cleaning lady," The Telegraph, Nov. 6, 2005.

[4] "Les violences urbaines gagnent du terrain, 1300 vehicules incendies," Le Point
http://www.lepoint.fr/static/afp/francais/journal/une/051106191936.ore1nwav.htm

[5] www.telegraph.co.uk, Nov. 7, 2005.

[6] C. G., "L'islam ne joue pas un role determinant dans la propagation des troubles," Le Figaro, Nov. 5, 2005.

[7] " Modestie et ambition, " Le Monde, Nov. 5, 2005.

[8] Jean-Francois Mattei, " Philosopher Violences urbaines, crescendo dans la barbarie, " Le Figaro, Nov. 3, 2005

[9] MRAP, " Violences: une insurrection previsible qui appelle des ruptures, " Nov. 4, 2005, at www.mrap.asso.fr.

[10] Editorial, L'Humanite, Nov. 7, 2005

[11] " Banlieue : le PS interpelle Chirac. Le Parti socialiste a reclame vendredi du
president de la Republique des "gestes forts" et des "excuses" afin d'apaiser le climat de violence de ces derniers jours, Reuters/Liberation.Fr, Nov. 4, 2005.

[12] Rudiger Falksohn, Thomas Huetlin, Romain Leick, Alexander Smoltczyk and Gerald Traufetter, "Rioting in France. What's Wrong with Europe?" Der Spiegel, Nov. 7, 2005, at www.Spiegel.de.

[13] Nicolas Sarkozy, Notre strategie est la bonne", Le Monde, Nov. 5, 2005

[14] Ivan Rioufol, " Cites: les non-dits d'une rebellion, " Le Figaro, Nov. 4, 2005.

[15] Amir Taheri, "Why Paris is burning," New York Post, Nov. 5, 2005.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Farhad Khosrokhavar, L'Islam dans le prisons (Balland, Paris 2004), p.11

[18] Jean-Marie Pontaut and Khaled Kelkal, " Itineraire d'un terroriste, " L'Express, Sept. 26, 1996.

[19] Colette Thomas, La France sur le qui-vive, Sept. 26, 2005, at www.rfi.fr.

[20] Stephen Castle, "Europe speeds up plan to clamp down on suspects," Belfast Telegraph, July 14, 2005.

[21] Jacques Myard, " Assez d'angelisme, adaptons nos methodes repressives sans mollir, " Le Figaro, Nov. 4, 2005.

[22] Cecilia Gabizon, " Emeutes : des meneurs au profil de recidivistes, " Le Figaro, Nov. 5, 2005.

[23] Herve Nathan, " Le capitalisme n'a pas la cote chez les Francais, " Liberation, Nov. 4, 2005.

[24] Prodi: "Qui le periferie peggiori d'Europa" Per il leader dell'Unione "non siamo diversi da Parigi, e solo questione di tempo". Le soluzioni: edilizia e protezione sociale , Corriere dela Sera, Nov. 11, 2005, at www.corriere.it.

[25] Nicholas Watt and Leo Cendrowicz, "Brussels calls for media code to avoid aiding terrorists," The Guardian , Sept. 21, 2005.

[26] Stephen Castle, "Europe speeds up plan to clamp down on suspects," Belfast Telegraph, July 14, 2005.

Kudos to the author for a superb article and to Front Page Magazine for publishing it.

Americans are not listening either. Few adults want to take the time to examine the ideas they have stuffed away in their heads implicitly and iron out the sabotaging contradictions. Mention personal philosophy, and watch adults glaze over.

We still have time before we hear the flap of wings, and each of us can arm ourselves with good ideas. As for the sound of the flapping of wings, it will be coming from the chickens--coming home to roost.

Subverting the Constitution

Beginning during the New Deal, the Supreme Court has eaten away at our Constitutional rights, creating appalling precedents such as the recent Kelo v. New London. The framers of the Constitution are probably spinning in their graves. The "Incorporation Doctrine," allows the justices to apply personal opinion that have trumped the original intent of the founders.

The rights and privileges of our children and grandchildren as slowly going down the drain because of changes made over many decades.

The Geology of Chaos

Human nature is behind the riots that are occurring throughout Europe. The erroneous belief that education, socialization, and the ideal of "understanding can create goodwill towards all men," can overcome the behaviors that programmed in our genes. Human beings will always be at odds with each other even within groups that are homogenous. Add to the mix thoughts conjured up by race, religion, culture, and the "foreignness " of immigrants, explosive situations are inevitable.

John Derbyshire see the current problems in France and Europe as a series of layers that are contributing to social disorder.

Europe is filled with immigrants from many places. Mr. Derbyshire doesn't explain why only Muslim "youths" are rioting. Although religion is one of his layers, he seems clueless about Islam. For the readers at this site know that Islam is not a religion like all the others. In fact, Islam is not just a religion: it's an entire social system rolled up in one ideology. Islam is a system that regulates every thought, word, and deed, and has an answer and a prescription for every eventuality.

He forgets to mention Muslim apartheid system. Not the self-segregation of Muslims when found living in a larger non-Muslim population. Muslim apartheid that is imposed upon non-Muslims living within a larger population or one in which Muslims have gained control or great influence.

As did the Nazis, Muslims suppress minorities by making them live in ghettoes, or wearing identifying markers, or following other rules that make them be apart and yet serve the interest of the larger group.

Because of great numbers, or demographics, Muslims in France are rioting because they can. They are attempting to force the French government to recognize that they are not in charge sections all over France. Moreover, Muslims are instructing the French that they are now creating a state within a state in the form of the millet system of the Ottoman Empire.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.
The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.
The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.
A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

This is classical Islam is action. Although many Muslims were "reverted" through the persuasion of reason, most were "persuaded" through intimidation and force.

Islam has a plan for the world they are confident that Europe mostly will be divided into Muslim kingdoms by 2015, and that total world Islamification will occur in 100 years. The fall of France is only the beginning.

Hanson on the Surly of the Earth - "Moving On - Rhetoric at war with reality.

A free trade zone in the Americas is touted to be a good deal for all. I'm not so sure. Here's the analysis of Victor Davis Hanson:

All these examples — and far more could be adduced — reveal a radical disconnect between rhetoric and reality. South Americans want unfettered access into America's markets, assume thousands will illegally cross into the United States, and welcome in return billions in cash remittances. Similarly, Spain assumes perpetual NATO protection. In reality that means that the U.S. nuclear deterrent and its vast conventional forces will keep the Mediterranean and Western Europe free from outside threats at little cost to Spain, with a relatively low American profile, and in consultation with Spanish officials. The bad cop United States is not unwelcome to anyone dealing with Iran, because all accept that the scary scenario — America is the only power with the capability and will to stop Iran's nuclear roguery — is not as bad as the worse alternative of the theocracy becoming a major nuclear power.

Why then all the dissimilation? The most obvious answer is pride, envy, jealousy, and all the other primordial emotions that the weak and the vulnerable harbor against the strong and autonomous.
Second, for all our pride, we are not like the once-powerful — and scary — Soviet Union, so Latin Americans and Europeans know that there is rarely any price to be paid for attacking the United States. Slandering us is a win-win situation — cowardly and expedient to be sure, but hardly like indicting bin Laden or embargoing Iranian oil. No Argentinean is furious over Chinese unfair trade; no Spaniard protests Russian oilmen for spoiling the arctic. And worse still, we know why.
Third, so far anti-Americanism is tactically smart. The heated rhetoric of the extremists makes others seem moderate. So Latin American leaders can grudgingly "take political risks" to "permit" America to accept their cheap products into the United States. The leftwing Spanish government can pose as responsible in opposing its own court's theatrics. The Europeans and U.N. can apologize to Iran that it is forced into such unpleasant dialogue by the alternative specter of American preemption and unilateralism.

Fourth, the world since the Cold War has become a much wealthier and safer place with the demise of nuclear and intercontinental Communism, and the onset of globalization. Latin Americans are furious not that they are starving in 1950s fashion, but that their glimpse of parity with the affluent United States is slipping away. Spaniards are safe and secure, but in typical human fashion of ever rising expectations, even more apprehensive that things are not as heaven on earth. And Europeans and internationalists are frustrated with Iran. It has oil and money and has been left alone, so why would it wish to ruin a good thing and call the bluff of their new enlightened order?

Are there any dangers to this game of rhetoric masking reality? Plenty. It is now old, tiring, and predictable. The American people are on to the fraud, and probably don't much care for another free trade agreement with ingrates who slander what benefits them. They are tired of NATO and want it to nobly die on the vine and allow utopians to get a taste of the real world they so disdain. And wisely or not, they are not too fond of the Middle East and pretty much want those whom Iran immediately threatens to deal with it on their own and count us out. Our critics forget that American foreign policy is ultimately simply a representation of collective will. Nations are simply people, and thus subject to emotional urges that often trump reason.

So by castigating the U.S., critics forget that their long-term welfare is not the same as the short-term interests of America. Open markets, military alliances between liberal democracies, and sober joint actions now to prevent worse threats later on are to everyone's advantage. But for right now, the United States might benefit by not welcoming any additional free and unfair trade with South America, or spending billions on European defense, or taking on any more burdens in the Middle East.

In contrast, an India, Japan, and Australia are proud and confident nations. They don't indict our citizens and often appreciate an American global role, whether outsourcing jobs or patrolling regional waters. Unlike the U.N., the EU, and South America, they spare us the sanctimonious lectures and look forward rather than nurse wounds of the past.
The world is changing as we speak. The great untold story of our age is that others need to get a life and the United States needs to move on.

Hanson in agreement with the President and the "experts" on free trade. I am looking for guarantees that don't seem to be there before fixing a seal of A-OK!

Learning From Each Other

The lessons of the effect of Islam that history SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT AND WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED are repeated before our eyes in Europe: Islam has bloody borders and those unfortunates that have Muslims living within their precincts will eventually suffers as have all other non-Muslims that ever lived.

Hugh Fitizgerald explains how we must explore these anew:

The lesson of the death threats against politicians in the Netherlands is this: Learn from each other. Every other Infidel country should be paying close attention to what is happening in the Netherlands. Every other Infidel country should be paying attention to what is happening in France. Every other Infidel country should be paying attention to what is happening in England. Jahjah in Belgium, the imam of Venissieux in France, the Australian imams who rant about Infidels and about Jihad, the Finsbury Mosque people – and also the oozing, "respectable" and even knighted Sir Iqbal Sacarnie, the Muslims threatening the leader of a political party in Norway, demanding the police stay away from Muslim "zones" in Denmark, or in Malmo, Sweden -- this is all of a piece.

The Western powers must begin to dare to discuss, perhaps at meetings of NATO, the ideology of Islam -- oh hell, go ahead and call it "radical" Islam if you will -- which is surely the greatest threat that the peoples and governments that constitute NATO now face. Oh, and is Turkey still a member of NATO? Well if that inhibits discussion, then form a new group. But the very notion that one cannot examine what is happening worldwide, and especially all over the Infidel countries, is suicidal. (What happens in the Muslim countries, where all political discontent and resentments are naturally expressed in Muslim rhetoric, with appeals to Muslim beliefs, and almost nothing takes place without reference to Islam, is not the key problem for Infidels -- it is the Infidel world itself that is being subverted, in the most classic sense, from within).

Read the rest. Then make your opinion known to your legislators while there is still time. Don't allow them to make the same idiotic mistakes as have others throughout history and as are the Europeans as we speak.

If You Blog And Like Freedom of Speech, Take Action, Please

ALWAYS ON WATCH has sounded the danger alarm. Once again, WE can turn to and make this right, just as the 9-11 Memorial was "taken back." All it takes is some time and elbow grease.


Friday, November 11, 2005

Action Alert!

The following information comes from GM's Corner from Online Coalition:

"Right now – there are TWO bills in Congress that will affect bloggers – one good, one bad. The bill that deserves our support is HR 1606 – The Online Freedom of Speech Act.

"The other bill – HR 4194 – is a substitute offered by those most interested in regulating the internet. Its supporters are engaged in an aggressive campaign to pass this legislation in Congress, in an effort to muddy the waters and distract Congress from passing real protections for bloggers. They're so terrified of your freedom to speak your mind that they've actually compared giving freedom to bloggers to the scandal involving Scooter Libby in the White House. No, we're not making that up."

Here's GM's advice:

"Write your congressmen in no uncertain terms. Put a notice on your blog, send e-mails to friends letting them know. Do something or this media that we love will change and not for the better. If you really value the First Amendment, do this now!!!!"

Hop to it, folks--be you righties or lefties!

Contact your Congressional Representative here.

VETERAN’S DAY MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT BUSH

Mr. President:

Most of the “explanations” of your current, very low approval ratings actually explain nothing. They are either excuses on one side or propaganda on the other.

Note how your numbers identically overlap Republican ratings, and vice versa.

If you want the explanation of why you and the Republicans are in deep trouble, as well as how to get back to proper numbers, ask us veterans. For sure, the answers lie outside the Beltway.

Summing it all up: Start doing what is good for America, and America will esteem you and the Republicans once more. More needs to be said, of course, than this.

First, for the Republicans in the House and Senate, read and follow the principles in
MEMO: From "Sunny Sue" to Republican Representatives and Senators. You could use these principles as well, Mr. President.

But, here is something special for you.

Two items are killing you: the borders and Iraq. For now, let’s deal just with Iraq.

Yes, you give speeches, but you still dance around identifying the enemy by misidentifying the enemy. WE KNOW that the ideology of Islam, call it a religion if you must, motivates ALL OF THE TERRORISM we are contending with. It is Islam and not some perverted, distorted, or radicalized Islam. If you can't bring yourself to speak the truth about Islam, please just say no more about it. We read, and we know the truth. We are tired of your carrying the water for Islamists who snicker behind your back about your apparent gullibility.

You must get back into the war, personally. Many Americans sense that you have washed your hands of the war and have put it on automatic. You never get mad, and it looks, we are sad to say, like nothing about this war is important enough to tick you off.

Here's a great place to start. A few days ago, Lt. General Tom McInerney, USAF (Ret), synopsized the situation in Iraq for Fox News:

Men and materiel continue to pour in from Syria, and very sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices) pour into from Iran. Our troops are not allowed to cross the borders (Borders, again, W), and we continue to throw military personnel at these IEDs while doing nothing else to Iran, or to Syria.

Start getting back into the fight in Iraq right here. Let our troops go into Syria and Iraq ad lib, as needed. Start doing something about border protection in Iraq. For those Iraqi borders, here is a way to “git-r-done.”

For every incident against our troops, take out something of value in Syria and Iran. You need not use a single troop on the ground because you own the air. Think of Syria and Iran as target-rich-environments, with ports, rails, utilities, and many other, very obvious, targets. Do it each time without fanfare ahead of time or any comment afterward. Make sure these happen immediately after incidents instigated in Iraq by Syria and Iran. Ignore anything coming from the United Nations. Feign ignorance and unawareness if you have to.

Also, do one other thing: Overtly and publicly support the overthrown of the Iranian regime. Provide materiel, intelligence, and psyops to them. If the UN or anyone else objects, give ‘em the finger.

Your best measure of success will come from the words and writings of Democrats, academics, journalists, and the UN. The more they hate you, the better you are doing, and the more Americans will cheer you on.

GET BACK INTO THE WAR AND GET FIGHTING MAD literally. SHOW US AND THE WORLD THAT YOU MEAN BUSINESS, AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE FROM THE ENEMIES. your poll numbers will go up faster than the oncoming tide at the Bay of Fundy. Americans will see that we have the president back and that he is doing what is good for America.

Students in Florida May Be Required to Take Spanish

Should English-speaking children in the United States be forced to learn another language under the pretext that "English used to be the language that's spoken and now it's something else?"

Bi-lingual education, teaching foreign or immigrant children in their own languages in the United States rather than in English, has been controversial for some time. Naturally, children educated in the home languages don't transfer as quickly to English as they would if they were immersed in English. The reason given for this strategy was to allow students to learn content and skills. Of course these students continue to maintain the culture of their home countries rather than become acculturated to the American mainstream.

Acculturation and participation as Americans in the citizenship process is why the Florida proposal is so troubling. Could it be that the United States is slowly being acculturated as Latin Americans and erasing the predominate Anglo and Northern European cultural characteristics, perhaps setting us up to become part of American free trade and culture conglomerate that has been quietly developing over last few decades. At present, the group includes North American countries, using NAFTA and CAFTA as the base. Talks are also including South American countries.

Immigrants groups are now in the driver's seat. Why should they learn English or acculturate to the mainstream when the government of the United States is planning to sell the mainstream down the river? These developments occur in tiny steps:

LEE COUNTY— A proposal in Tallahassee is causing a stir in schools in Southwest Florida. The state's top democrat is supporting a plan to make Spanish classes mandatory for all students in kindergarten through second grade, just like English or Math.

The youngest students in Southwest Florida's public school system could soon be saying hola to a new language. A proposed law would make Spanish mandatory for students in kindergarten through second grade.

"I frankly believe, the earlier you teach someone, the better it is," said George Muentes, an English as a second language teacher.

The law would make Spanish a core class like math and science. It would also force school officials to shuffle an already crowded schedule."

The length of the school day won't change, but the Spanish would have to be squeezed in somewhere, which means a few popular classes may have to be cut to make room.

"The options would be the specials, the arts, music and PE. But here in Charlotte County those are very important to us," said Mike Riley of the Charlotte County school district.

If the bill passes, it won't take effect till 2007. But the thought of mandatory Spanish classes is already a controversial subject with some parents.

The History Channel Morphs Into The Corporation for Public Broadcasting

We really do not know who owns the History Channel, but, if it is not the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, we can be forgiven our suspicions that CPB owns HC.

What this gets to is the recent History Channel presentation of a two-part, mini-series, "Crusades: Crescent and the Cross." We made it through the two hours of part one, but we had to bail out about 15 minutes into part two and expunge all parts from the TIVO. So, this is a mini-report of our experiences with this mini-series.

The last time we saw anything this pro-Islamic and anti-Christianity as well as anti-West was a set of programs about Islam and Muhammad put on a few years ago by public television, aka, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Past and present productions presented extreme propaganda: Crusaders were ceaselessly evil and picked on peaceful Muslims.

One silver-tongued bullshit artist named Tariq Ali constantly referred to the Crusaders as barbarians, but he never once, in what we saw, even hinted at so much as a single negative about Muslims. To him, Muslims were victims. He extolled Islam as an advanced and enlightened culture, tolerant of all. It was too much to take since that attitude permeated the mini-series.

The script was as bad as any we have seen in a very long time. It moved GLACIALLY. It was worse than Fox News reporting the progress of a California hillside fire, one foot at a time, with a review every five feet. To borrow and modify a terrific expression from a guy we knew once upon a time, the History Channel managed to compress a thirty-minute program into four hours.

The cinematography should have won the Leni Riefenstahl award, she being the lady who produced those fabulous films for Hitler. Everyone associated with the Crusaders and the era from Europe was dirty, unhygienic, and lived in dark, dingy, and gloomy sets. The Islamist world was sunlit, airy, and neat.

The Crusades were the physical clash of sets of true believers who fully believed that they were morally right and were on God's side. Barbarism followed. Also, by the time the Crusaders got to Islamia, Islamia had killed off its philosophers and scientists, and it had ossified Islam into the rigid death cult it is to this day.

We have been unable to find one positive thing to say about this mini-series.

The European Intifada

The riots in France and in other parts of Europe, an "intifada," or popular uprising, is merely the resuming of the Jihad in Europe that started more than 1,000 years ago. The fact that the Muslim invasion was repulsed and an interval of more five hundred years has elapsed is of no consequence in the minds of Muslims that are still smarting from the results of the Crusades that ended in 1291, the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in 1492, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Caliphate, in 1924: Muslims hold a grudge.

That the new offensive is starting in France is not a coincidence as, ironically, the "Islamic march up the Iberian Peninsula to conquer Europe ended in 732" with Charles Martel against the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman. The effort to conquer Europe was only put on hold:

There is a certain schadenfreude in the scenes of the rioting in France , a gleeful, malicious pleasure that comes from knowing that there is always payback for bad behavior, whether in this world or the next.  
Ironically, France is where the Islamic march up the Iberian Peninsula to conquer Europe ended in 732 AD. Had not Charles Martel stopped the Moorish general, Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army between Tours and Poitier, Europe and the whole of Western history would have been very different. Later, in 1492, a Christian army would recapture Grenada and put an end to the last Muslim stronghold in Spain . In 1683, Ottoman armies were defeated outside of Vienna , thus ending the efforts to conquer Europe. 

One would think, if life in Muslim North Africa “the Maghreb” was so grand, why would literally millions of immigrants have sought to gain access to Europe ? The former European colonies have been independent for more than a half-century. Surely they represent a far more homogeneous environment that the cold climes of Europe, but the reality is that Muslim enclaves have been growing in places like England , the Netherlands , Norway , Germany , for decades.
 
The difference between the Muslims who made new lives in new places and others is that they choose not to integrate into their new societies. They remained Muslims first and last, no matter what nation they called home. Their loyalty was to the “Uumma”, the great body of Islam, not a particular nation. They choose not to be English, French, or Dutch. They defined themselves in ways that insured they remained “the other” among those who took pride in their particular nation. 

As Tony Blankely, a Washington Times editor and author of a new book, “The West’s Last Chance”, noted in a November 9 commentary, “This is not about Muslim poverty. It is about radical Islamist self-confidence and contempt for the West. And, it is about Western weakness.” 

Read the rest.

The Great Ramadan Offensive Manifests

The Great Ramadan Offensive appears too hot to touch among journalists in the West. Nevertheless, here it is: Bali in October; France starting in October; Germany and Belgium now; Amman, Jordan; and business as usual in Baghdad.

What is happening in France is particularly instructive, including the various reactions to it. First off, this is not random rioting by disaffected youth. Intelligence is starting to be talked about that the planning for this started in September. Destructive materials have been prepositioned and stockpiled throughout France. Who is involved? MUSLIMS, MUSLIMS, MUSLIMS. What do these MUSLIMS have in common? ISLAM, ISLAM, ISLAM.

Islam prepared the civil terrorists in France. The Great Ramadan Offensive merely focused them and set them off.

Only now, two weeks later, is a single French newsmagazine publishing materials about the civil war. French broadcasting has either muzzled itself or has been muzzled so that the French learn only snippets in programs like the evening news, and details such as the numbers of cars incinerated are not detailed.

France is a country ripe for the take over, and the Muslims know it. We have stated previously that the only reasons they will back down, if they do, now is because they are not yet as strong as they need to be + France is not quite weak enough yet to surrender.

Minister of the Interior Sarkozy must go. Afterall, he wants to impose law and order. By contrast Prime Minister de Villefop wants to reward these Muslim rabble with more handouts and all sorts of unearned gimmes and bennies. It is imperative that the Muslims ensure that de Villefop replaces Chirac so that France can be taken to that final readiness, resembling rotting Camembert.

Note how French talking heads, Western European talking heads, and many fellow traveler apologists for Islam here and there stridently deny that the French situation has nothing to do with Islam. Methinks they protesteth too much. They desperately want you to believe that ideas do not count, when we know full well that ideas are everthing.

It is worth making brief mention of how Islam prepared the French Muslim rabble.

There is a vital principle that applies to all humans and applies to the current Muslim rabble in France. No one does anything that violates his own personal moral code in general. Violations create shame and guilt which motivate rectification.

What these rabble are doing is fully consonant with the Islamic moral code they accepted as small children.

From their families, to clerics, to their tribes and communities, Muslims have been programmed since birth to become ummah, i.e., world community of Islam. This is not simple membership. It is the purest and most extreme form of collectivism, in which those in the ummah BELONG TO ISLAM. Their only reason for existence is to serve Islam, and that is the sole source of their value as a human.

Islam provides a full philosophy for Muslims, one of the key reasons for its success. Part of that is a detailed and very strict moral code which becomes internalized in Muslim kids at a very early age. It is reinforced constantly. The dread of violating that moral code is more profound than most anything we Westerners ever encounter.

An essential element of internalizing Islam is the closing of the Muslim mind at an early age. We will just mention that there are several other, extremely important reasons that make Islam able to close young minds very early, but we will go into those later on.

Islam must await the final stage of human preparation for adulthood, i.e., adolescence, to gather its fruit. Adolescents and young adults feel great pressure, imposed by their nature as humans, to become something, to become persons of value. Islam by its nature thwarts every productive avenue, except living Islam itself. So, young, prepared minds, feeling the internal pressure, find ready-made excuses for why they feel so inferior. Islam tells them it is THEM, i.e., those outside Islam.

Those prejudices have been laid down and reinforced since Muslim kids could start understanding language, by family, tribal, cultural, and religion. They enter minds which eventually close to everything but Islam.

Only two elements are needed to activate these adolescents and young adults.

One is a focus, e.g., oppressive France, and the second is a trigger. In this case, the trigger in France was two stupid kids electrocuting themselves in a power station while aoiding arrest for their attempted car thieving.

Recall what the Jesuits have said for centuries: Give us your children until they are six years old, and they are ours forever, regardless of what you do. Jesuits long ago recognized that preparing young minds was critical, just as the multiculturalists, who are thick in our primary schools, are doing to America's kids right now.

=========

We have been provided links to some basic articles on Muslim mind control recently on Sixth Column.

Riots in France - A CIA Plot??

I knew that somehow the United States would held responsible for the riots in France as we are blamed for everything else.

MOSCOW (AFP) - the leader Russian ultra-nationalist Vladimir Jirinovski, usual of shocking declarations, delivered his interpretation of violences in the Parisian suburbs: it is about a plot of the American special services.
With the origin of the events which shake France one finds "a mixture explosive", composed of the "desire of the American special services to weaken Europe" and "favorable conditions offered to the immigrants", has it says on the radio operator Echo of Moscow Monday.

"I estimate that it is about an operation planned with the participation of the special services of the United States which wants to put at knees Europe become more solid and to destroy the European Union at the same time", still Mr. Jirinovski asséné. Theories of world plot, often anti-Russian, are relatively popular in Russia .

Read the French version.

Allons Enfant de la Jihad

From the desk of Paul Pelion at The Brussels Journal

Pelion has makes astute observations regarding the riots in France and multiculturalism.

I have pointed out before that multiculturalism cannot exist, except as several cultures living side by side in defined territories, where the laws of one culture do not apply in the territories of the others. It is easy to understand why the “youths” in the suburbs turned so violent when Sarkozy announced that he was going to establish law and order there. The “youths” have held sway there, unchallenged, for years. If they allow the French authorities to reassert their authority, they lose their power base. The police and the gangs are fighting over whose laws will apply in the neighbourhood: the laws of the French Republic or the laws of Eurabia. Unlike the Western intellectuals, the “youths” realise that everything boils down to the question of who wields power over a specific territory. In order to protect their turf the generals of Eurabia are now attacking the territory of the enemy, such as a psychiatric hospital in the town of mayor Pajon.

It is possible that Nicolas Sarkozy did not realise what was really at stake when, a week before the rioting started, he declared “war without mercy” in order to recapture the suburbs for the French Republic. However, for the Muslim radicals – invariably described in the media as “youths” – this is quite literally a war. It is not about social injustice, race or alienation, but about territory – a territory to establish a culture and a cult which are alien to the culture and the cult that gave France its European and, despite all its socialist flaws, Western character.

Read it all.
hattip: Fjordman

Could it happen here? You bet, except our problem in the United States isn't so much Muslim incursion as colonization by Mexico. There are more than ten million unsupervised aliens in the United States. The great majority of these are from Mexico. In point of fact, many have been encouraged to come by the Mexican government that offers them services to get to and cross the border. Hmmmm. Isn't this an act of war???

And how is it that Al-Qaida operatives have access to the Mexican territory to pass into the United States? Don't you find this strange????

The End of Western Civilization

hattip: Fjordman

Philip Atkinson, a citizen of the UK, describes what he feels is the inevitable demise of both Britain and the United States...and the rest of the West.

Once the citizens of Western Civilization were determined as well as able, so they dominated the countries occupied by weaker cultures. However as the citizens of Western Civilization became selfish they lost their resolve, so the control exercised by Western communities declined. This allowed the colonies to recover their independence and re-assert their own culture, which inevitably obtained the poverty and misrule, which had existed before colonialism. As Western Civilization has abdicated its rule over its colonies, wealth and peace have given way to poverty and anarchy. The example of the social collapse of South Africa has been repeated all over Africa. For many citizens of these colonies, modest means enjoyed in peace have been replaced by a perilous poverty, and the only escape from this misery is to go to where wealth and peace still exist. The tide of influence has reversed. It is no longer flowing from, but to, Western Civilization; and instead of peace and wealth, it is poverty and anarchy that is now being spread. The result of this migration is inevitable; the invaders take over their new homeland by sheer weight of numbers. The original manners, customs and traditions of the destination country are slowly replaced by those of their invaders. This can be easily seen in the USA where the actual border with Mexico is slowly moving further north every year. Miami is now a Spanish-speaking city even though it is technically in America— an English-speaking country. The failure of the Western countries to defend themselves, reveals the powerful understanding once created by Western Civilization has already dissolved. The two awful signs of impending communal death, the extinction of genius and the loss of the military spirit, are there for all to see. The mainly selfish citizens that now comprise Western Civilization may still possess the technology discovered by genius, but they no longer have the wit nor the resolution to employ it. The World Trade Centre attack is confirmation of Arnold Toynbee's claim that the decline of a civilization means the appearance of Barbarian war-bands. And it is clear that, in one way or another, it is only a matter of time before the increasing senility of the countries that make up the Western world, will see them succumb to invaders. The result will be the final extinction of Western Civilization, along with its wealth and power, and a return to the dark ages.

Although the tide seems relentless, this shouldn't mean that we should leave off trying to resist and repel the invasion. I know I won't.

Who Is Lying About Iraq?

According to Norman Podhoretz, the myth of the lies of George Bush and Republicans in general has a life of its own:

The main “lie” that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary “lie” that Iraq under Saddam’s regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even “imminent”) possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us and/or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.

This entire scenario of purported deceit has been given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had “outed” Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Wilson for having “debunked” (in his words) “the lies that led to war.”

Read all of this stunning piece concerning the dishonest left's narrative about the Iraq War.

French Riots: A Gift from the Open Borders Lobby

While there is no one cause for the French riots, none of the "experts" have considered decades of failed immigration policies as the cause of the riots.  France, similar to the United States and most western countries, has experienced decades of out of control legal and illegal immigration. 

France, similar to the United States, has responded with liberal and inadequate immigration enforcement that has caused the nations' demographics to change rapidly. Nations like France, the United States and other Western Nations must come to terms with their immigration policies. 

They can either strictly control and limit illegal and legal immigration or be willing to accept that uncontrolled immigration will change the makeup, values and culture of their nations.


Unlike past immigrant generations who quickly assimilated, today's immigrants take much longer to assimilate if they assimilate at all.  This is due to technology.  In the past, immigrants were generally cut off from their mother countries which made assimilation much easier. 

Today, satellite technology brings movies, news and culture from an immigrant's home country to the living room of his adopted country via TV, the internet and other forms of media.  In the United States for example, a Hispanic immigrant can live in the United States for decades without having to learn a word of English or adopt American culture.  They can turn on Spanish-only TV and radio, read Spanish news papers and read government forms in Spanish. This phenomenon is taking place all over the Western Nations.

 
   

The law of unintended consequences is at work. Perhaps the Open Borders Lobby never got the lesson of "cause and effect" in school and didn't foresee the effect of allowing tens of millions of migrants to flow over the borders in search of a new life...or perhaps they did. If they didn't, they should have.

History has given us many lessons. We should remember the lesson of the migration of the European Vikings as they moved from Scandinavia into the British Isles. First they came as marauders, seeking loot and slaves. Next they moved in with their families and took over whole sections of Britain, never to leave. Another more older lesson is that of the "barbarian hordes" that swept down into Rome, eventually overrunning and conquering the mighty Roman Empire. History has afforded us many such lessons. Even the settlement of the United States can be considered in the same light: a population from another location moves in and takes over. This is the nature of all life on this planet, plant, animal, and human.

Believing that process of civilizing will trump nature, especially human nature, we have forgotten that humans, as well as lions and other life forms, want to be in charge of their locality and will work to their own advantage to overcome and put down the group already there.

It's not that we couldn't or didn't see this coming. The veneer of civilization will never trump human nature. That's why we established borders and armies of defense to guard those borders. Weaker, but more shrewd groups can and have come out the winners in past migrations.

The point is that we have forgotten the lessons of history. Now will it be possible to turn back the tides of migration that we have allowed to flow over our shores? The lessons of history suggest that this is an unlikely outcome.

Humor Courtesy of CAIR

This has to be read to be believed. No one could make this stuff up:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CA SYNAGOGUE THAT HOSTED ISLAMOPHOBE URGED TO INVITE MUSLIM SPEAKER

Hate-filled comments on speaker's website compare Muslims to animals and Nazis


(ANAHEIM, CA, 11/8/2005) - The Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) today urged a Los Angeles synagogue that recently hosted the operator of a virulently anti-Muslim website to invite a Muslim representative who can offer a balancing perspective on Islam.

CAIR-LA has learned that Robert Spencer, who operates the "Jihad Watch" Internet hate site, spoke at Temple Shalom for the Arts during a Yom Kippur event. Spencer's website is notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace.

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald recently wrote on that site:

"To be sure, plenty of Believers in exotic creeds alien or new to the West have managed to fit in perfectly well, and be friendly neighbors and loyal citizens. . .Only one group, only one belief-system, distinguishes itself by appearing incapable of fitting in. And that is Muslims, and Islam. . . if one really knew what Islam contained . . .then how could any decent person remain a Muslim?"

He went on to recommend that western nations be "Islam-proofed the way a house is child-proofed," compared Muslims to Nazis and urged that they be boycotted: "[I]t should not be hard to find ways to limit the spread or practice of Islam. And if in addition to whatever local, state and federal government officials do, private parties simply conduct their own boycott of goods and services offered by Muslims, in the same way that they would have refused to buy, in 1938, a German Voigtlander camera. . ."

Comments posted on the site are bone-chilling in the raw hatred they espouse. For example, one poster described Muslims as being like animals, writing: "If they want students to learn about Islamic culture, what's wrong with a simple field trip to the city zoo?"

Other anti-Muslim comments on the Jihad Watch website include:

* "Islam strips its followers of all aspects of their identity and in short converts them into killer-Zombies."
* "Islam, the preferred religion of criminals."
* "If Mohammad were alive today and spouting his 'new' message from God in today's media he would be identified and branded as the lunatic that he was and be jailed or hospitalized."

"We would be glad to suggest the names of credible Muslim scholars who can offer Temple Shalom's congregation a perspective on Islam that is not tainted by hatred and bigotry," said CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush.

Ayloush also offered to give every member of Temple Shalom a complimentary copy of the Quran, Islam's revealed text, so they may learn more about what Muslims really believe. (A free copy of the Quran may be ordered or sponsored at: www.explorethequran.org )

He also called on Jewish leaders in California, many of whom are close friends and partners with the Muslim community, to publicly repudiate those who promote anti-Muslim hatred.

Send In The Clowns? Here They Are!

From CAIR's 8 November 2005 "Daily Whine":


CAIR CALLS FOR PEACEFUL END TO RIOTING IN FRANCE - TOP
U.S. Muslim group urges 'dialogue and mutual respect'

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/8/05) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on French authorities to employ "dialogue and mutual respect" in efforts to end rioting and violence in suburbs of Paris.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) joined Muslim leaders in France in calling for an immediate and peaceful end to the violence. CAIR also called for a national campaign to address the economic and social marginalization and exclusion that appear to be the root causes of the violence.

SEE: "Paris Heat Not from Muslims"
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/paris-heat-not-from-muslims/2005/11/07/1131212007304.html


In its statement, CAIR said:

"Dialogue and mutual respect, rather than senseless violence or repressive tactics, are the only answers to social, political and economic grievances. Islam seeks just and stable societies and condemns the wanton destruction of lives and property.

"We agree with French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin who said Tuesday that, 'The struggle against all discriminations must become a priority for our national community.'

"It is imperative that people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds in France come together to help address critical issues of unemployment, alienation, racial discrimination, and social integration."

===================

To spare readers the trouble of pursuing the article link cited in the "Daily Whine," here it is:

Paris heat not from Muslims
November 8, 2005

The violence erupting in France reflects social, not religious, grievance, reports James Button in Paris.

THEY wear hoods, baggy jeans and brand-name sneakers. Their heroes are American rappers like 50 Cent. They have begun to describe their assumed antagonists as "white". They have a particular hatred for police and when they go to fight them they say they're "dancing with wolves".

They are the young men who started the riots that have laid waste the outer suburbs of Paris, violence that is spreading across France and has now reached the heart of the nation's capital.

The riots, described as France's worst since May 1968, have been linked to the threat of radical Islam. But both descriptions are misleading. The violent unrest is better compared to the riots that burnt down African-American ghettos across the United States in the 1960s.

"It is nothing to do with radical Islam or even Muslims," says Olivier Roy, research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and one of the world's leading authorities on political Islam.

He says that although many rioters are from Muslim backgrounds, "these guys are building a new idea of themselves based on American street culture. It's a youth riot — they are protesting against the fact that they are supposed to be full French citizens and they are not."

While black Americans in the 1960s objected to police use of the word "boy", today's young French rioters have a similar demand: they want police to stop insulting them with use of the familiar form for you: "tu".

"The police in France are very badly trained on these issues," says Frenchman Jacques Reland, director of the European Research Forum at London's Metropolitan University. "They don't understand the culture of these estates. They are very rough and often racist."

The riots began after two teenagers were electrocuted after they fled a police identity check. An interim report has said the police did not chase the boys to their deaths.

Although unemployment in some suburban areas is as high as 40 per cent, so far the riots have lacked a political focus.

While the violence stayed out of the centre of Paris, the average French person could ignore it. One could walk boulevards at night and see the cafes full; six stops away on a suburban train the streets were in flames.

But on Saturday, the 10th night of the riots, youths whom a police chief called "prepared, structured and armed" came into the city centre and torched 51 cars, several close to the Place de la Republique, the square that is the symbolic heart of the nation.

As the riots spread they are taking on a life of their own, as young men from each suburb and even each high-rise block compete to be the toughest.

"We see what the others are up to on TV and we try to match them," said Moussa, a teenager of Malian background.

He said he and a dozen friends gathered every night to watch TV reports in their public housing estate in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux.

Dr Roy doesn't rule out the possibility of some of the young men turning to radical Islam. Some militant Muslims are using the riots as a recruiting tool, while others are trying to play a mediating role.

But so far the differences between the young men and the religious radicals is too great, says Dr Roy.

"Radical Islam asks these guys to give up their lives dealing drugs and going to nightclubs. Many of these guys don't want to do that. They want to have cars and girls and smoke hashish."

=============

That article has to be true, right? They couldn't print it if it wasn't true, right? If we all deny it, then it has to false, right? Truth is just opinion, right? Marx, Foucault, and Derrida had it right, right? They didn't learn all this from us, did they? Say "Non!" S'il vous plait!

At Last: The Real Reason for What Is Happening In France

Yesterday, news organizations did their damndest to report and explain what is going on in 274+ towns and cities in France, with satellite rioting popping up in other European countries. Even the in situ Fox News reporter in France mouthed the Marxist victimhood "explanation" over and over. It was not until mid-afternoon/early evening that a thinking mind, not pre-progammed with postmodernist pabulum, spoke the truth, and that truth was electrifying. The chances are pretty good that most people know nothing whatsoever about it, and that should cause great alarm.

News host, John Gibson of The Big Story on the Fox News Channel, interviewed Mr. Greg Copley of the Institute for Strategic Studies Association (ISSA). ISSA has been studing all matters concerning terrorism and more, and has been doing so for years. Apparently, this group is so well respected that our intelligence agencies and cardinal units of our government pay very close attention to what ISSA personnel have to say. In what follows, Mr. Copley indicated that the information came across a long time from multiple Islamic sources, some friendlies and some foes, and has been validated.

The breakup of the intended Muslim terrorist attacks in Australia and the civil breakdown, instigated by Islamists, in France and Europe are related. What is happening in France is not accidental as some would say--you know, pent up frustration bursting forth. That frustration is being used, of course, to fan the flames of havoc. Note that every "explainer" and apologist yesterday could not bring himself to go beyond the spontaneous outbreak of bad behavior by just kids.

What we are observing, as Mr. Copley outlined, is what the jihadists themselves call "The Great Ramadan Offensive." It is the beginning of a new type of UNRESTRICTED WARFARE to be waged on Western Europe, the USA, and South East Asia. This war will take place endlessly over a very broad front, with intentions of escalating "terrorism" where it has not gone before. This offensive began with the Bali bombings in late October.

Mr. Copley had just returned from Australia and France where he had been working with those who deal in these matters, and he made crystal clear that what is going on in these countries is part of "The Great Ramadan Offensive."

Most astoundingly new was Mr. Copley's revelation that the war against the West is being coordinated from BOSNIA. Obviously too few know this at large, but too few in American security either know it or want to acknowledge it.

Although Mr. Copley did not say the following, we are reminded that the Balkans mess was another Bill Clinton action, lead by his Perfumed Prince, Wesley Clark. The Clinton-Clark action suggests a surgical analogy in which the surgeon cuts out the healthy tissue and leaves the foreign body and festering tissue reaction in place. The Balkans takes us to the Trade Towers 1993, Khobar Towers, African embassies, the USS Cole, and the grand finale of 9-11-2001.

Going one step beyond what Mr. Copley presented, why are our governmental elements which are supposedly entrusted with protecting the rights of Americans, most particularly the right to life, not letting us know about The Great Ramadan Offensive? Are we supposed to suffer mayhem and death so they can twist themselves into pretzels to keep from naming, thus being able to deal with, the enemy? For the record, that enemy is Islam and its jihadists.

The Islamic Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost, and Europe Hasn't A Clue

The manure being shoveled on television news this morning has reached spectacular levels. Of course, this refers to the "rioters" in France. Now, deaths are piling up alongside the property destruction. And, it has spread from Normandy to Nice. Furthermore, it has jumped to Germany and Belgium.

Do these countries have something in common that pertains to these "rioters"? To anyone who can see and name the truth, the answer is "Yes," and that answer keeps coming up as Islam. For 14 centuries, Islam has taught people that their finest actions consist or murder, mayhem, destruction, conquest, enslavement--and the complete refusal to accept any responsibility for their own lives and behaviors. I am stripping away the trappings and excuses, and all the "yes buts." It's all right there for anyone to read. We have a web page devoted to outstanding books and websites devoted to the truth about Islam, from Robert Spencer to Ibn Warraq.

This morning, Fox News paraded out some old wheezes to "explain" what is going on over there. First, there was that paragon of objectivity Stephen Schwartz who can find nothing wrong with Islam, except the Wahabbi stuff coming from Saudi Arabia. Then, some Frenchman from Radio One, touted as "terrorism expert," came on to issue stale Marxism as an "explanation." Aside from these two, there were many minor deities opining ad libitum. Not a one, including Chirac and de Villepin, gave any reason to suspect that they have a clue about what is going on, nor what to do about it.

Every explanation involved Marxian victimhoodism.: You know, the poor, disaffected youth in a fundamentally hostile society which has alienated them.

It is always astonishing to watch grown people twist themselves into pretzels in order not to name the obvious or speak the truth, and it is not admirable, either.

OK, starting from Beirut in 1976, then 1983, then the 1993 Trade Towers attack, on to the embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the events of 9-11-2001, Madrid 3-11-2003, and now Europe itself, what is common to all of these? What set of ideas programmed all of the perpetrators in all of these events?

Marx is not the answer--to this, or to anything else.

The answer is Islam. We are watching the ideas of Islam in action. We are watching the real meaning of Islam, not some pabulum-ized "moderate" bastardization of Islam, but the real deal. That this behavior is not organized in some al Qaeda or Hizbollah styles matters not. It is what it is.

Strip all the window-dressing from it. Strip all the phony excuses. Strip away the socialism trying to take credit for any explanations. These are not ordinary indigenous French youth, nor indigenous German youth, nor indigenous Belgian youth. These are Muslims.

Europe brought this on itself with its rotten ideas and practices. Reality delivered on its premises.

The only question left is whether there are enough rational Europeans left to solve the problem.

Do we?

Washington Post's Daily Dose of Marxism: Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition

If we don't name it, it won't be so. Right? Shhhhh. Don't say "Muslim" or "Islam." Say something like "disaffected youth." Got it?

Hey, and if we dust off all that stuff from liberal arts courses when we last thought, we can explain anything. Right?

Take France and all that civil unrest. What else could it be but "alienation"? It surely is solely caused by anomie, by lack of importance in the eyes of the indigenous populace, and most assuredly by those French "haves" not redistributing enough to the "have-nots." Didn't every professor we had tell us this? It had to be true, or they couldn't have said it. Besides, we felt it to be true, and, because so many of us felt the same thing, we just knew that we had to be right. Right?

If you think this is exaggeration, read this article: Rage of French Youth Is a Fight for Recognition: Spreading Rampage in Country's Slums Is Rooted in Alienation and Abiding Government, By Molly Moore, Washington Post Foreign Service, Sunday, November 6, 2005.

Says "Ms Feelie," from the Washington Post, "Le Blanc-Mesnil is not a community where youths aspire to spend their lives. There is none of the glamour that most of the world associates with Paris, just a 25-minute drive or train ride away. It is an industrial city of boxy apartment complexes and strip malls. In a nation where unemployment has hovered at 10 percent this year, the rates are here four to five times as high among people under 25. The youths rampaging through France's poorest neighborhoods are the French-born children of African and Arab immigrants, the most neglected of the country's citizens. A large percentage are members of the Muslim community that accounts for about 10 percent of France's 60 million people." (Emphasis mine)


She adds from interviewing: "We feel rejected, compared to the kids who live in better neighborhoods," said Nasim, a chunky 16-year-old with braces and acne. "Everything here is broken down and abandoned. There's no place for the little kids to go."

And: "We don't have the American dream here," said Rezzoug [Mohammed Rezzoug, caretaker of the municipal gymnasium and soccer field, and a somewhat sensible adult], as he surveyed the clusters of young men. "We don't even have the French dream here." It's got to be the fault of the haves, right? The Post reporter continues: "As on most Saturday afternoons, there was little for Nasim or his friends to do." And: "Several of the older youths fingered pockets bulging with plastic packets of hashish for sale or trade. As they read local newspaper accounts of their previous night's exploits, they began discussing Saturday night's plans with more of an air of boredom than a commitment to a cause." Nobody has come to provide for them. Do it for themselves? Oh, how gauche!

At this point, throw in some white-wash: "This has nothing to do with religion," [Rezzoug] said. "But non-Muslims are afraid of people like me with a beard. I look suspicious to them. Discrimination is all around us. We live it every day. It's become a habit. It's in the air."

And what do they do about their circumstances, these mostly second generation children of immigrants? "We want to change the government," [one] said, a black baseball cap pulled low over large, chocolate-brown eyes and an ebony face..." Tellingly, this child of Islam and French postmodernism says, "We don't plan anything. We just hit whatever we find at the moment...There's no way of getting their attention. The only way to communicate is by burning."

What does it take to solve problems? It takes thought, then the coupling this thought with planning and lots of hard work. Wave after wave of American immigrants learned this until our own government in the latter 20th century converted American policy into French-lite policy. Now immigrants show up in the parasite (French) mode.

Marx would be proud to see how his ideas live among American journalists who haven't thought in years, since some time in college--if then. Marx would also be delighted to see how his ideas thrive among the French. He would be pleased to see how the French through philosophers like Michel Foucault "improved" his ideas and the worst of European philosophy into postmodernism, which the rioters have adopted as their guiding light.

No wonder they don't solve problems. "They" means the French government, the French intellectuals, the French, and these first and second generation immigrant Muslims in France. "They" have poked out their eyes and lobotomized themselves with worn-out, irrational sloganeering which keeps them blind.

Yet, even the Washington Post journalist let slip a little truth in that article:

"It's not a political revolution or a Muslim revolution," said Rezzoug. "There's a lot of rage. Through this burning, they're saying, 'I exist, I'm here." Islam fuels these rioting Muslims, so let's correct that right away; a Muslim revolution is indeed part of the mix. The rest, however, is pure narcissism from dependent personalities having no concept of or desire to utilize self-responsibility and personal productivity. These are like baby birds in a nest, with mouths open, waiting for the adult to poke sustenance into their mouths.

Islam fits right into dominant French cultural thinking: All human upkeep is the responsibility of someone other than oneself. In France, it is the government, with its mandated six week paid vacations, 35 hour work week, free medical care, free this and free that, with vast taxes and scandalous unemployment. Underlying this socialistic approach to life is the notion that you are not an autonomous human being. You are the property of others, most particularly the state, and your upkeep is their burder. Islam dumps autonomy anywhere but on the Muslim. Arab-Islamic thinking teaches Muslims not to be responsible for themselves; if things are not going right, as you want, then it is not your fault. Work is still a four-letter, dirty word in Islamia.

Such thinking fails wherever it is tried. In 1960s America, callow youth at mostly public universities tried to act out similar thinking to these French Muslims, with the same degree of thoughtlessness. Soiling their nests meant far less to them than just acting out the soiling, while trying to leave the consequences, including the cleanup, to others whom they demanded must take responsibility for them.

Prior to 1965 when America adopted its self-immolating immigration policy change, waves of immigrants came to America for the opportunity to better themselves. They were called "maggots," and much, much worse. Wave after wave of immigrants seized their opportunity and made something of themselves, by their own self-responsibility and diligence. Some became giants of industry, capital, science, and essentially in all fields. They did not wait for someone to do it for them. Productivity and self-responsibility are essentials required by the nature of humans as rational beings. Mother Nature sets the terms. Our only choice is to obey or take the consequences.

That approach seems unknown to the French and their immigrants.

It seems that one of two things might work out in France to quell this rioting. The government might get the fortitude to exert the appropriate force against the criminal activities and rioters who have made themselves criminals. The other is that the Muslims might stop this themselves because the time is not right for the takeover. For this latter, the French government needs to be weakened further, for example, by replacing Chirac with de Villepin and his ilk, and strengthening the physical means for Muslims to be able to take France by force at some future time.

France may be too far gone to save itself by doing the right, and obvious, things.

MEMO: From "Sunny Sue" to Republican Representatives and Senators

Recently, we received this advice from a reader from the Deep South.

MEMO to Republicans in the Congress and for that matter, in the Executive Branch:

Watching you Republicans stutter, stammer, flail, and flatulate-in-fear and uncertainty before Democrat brats really says that y'all need some good coaching. Of course, what I want to tell you can apply only to those Republicans with endoskeletons. Jellyfish Republicans can bail out right here.

Democrats in the House and particularly in the Senate act like badly spoiled and rotten children who have gone far too long without a strop applied to their buttocks--often--or a nice, green willow branch, if you like. Kids like this are overdue for disciplining, and the more you Republicans let them get away with this stuff, the worse they get. If you want 'em to act better, then you had better demand it--and back up your demands. In football--the real kind, not that sissy European kind--you take the offense to them, and you never let up until they get it that you mean business now and forever. That means, you set your bite, and you never ease off.

I've got some advice for you Republicans. You should study Southeast Conference (NCAA) football, and act accordingly. For those of you not blessed with knowing about SEC football, you need to know that football is a more than a religion with
those folks. It is a way of life, as my daughter always tells me. In the rest of the country, it is just a game.

So, here's the take-home strategy you need to stop being scaredy-cat compromisers against Democrats. That's a nice way of saying, stop being losers.

Do these:

1. Intend to win. That means, the next contest, then the division, the conference, the SEC championship, and the national championship. And that means this year, next year, the year after, and all the years that you can name. Winning is a habit. Get into that habit. Demand to win and accept nothing less than winning every time, all the time.

2. Keep your game plan to yourself. Don't brag. Don't talk "off the record." Never tip your hand. The best example I have ever heard came from Steve Spurrier about his last Florida-Georgia game at the UF. On the pregame call in show, a caller asked him what his game plan was going to be. Coach Spurrier said: "We're gonna get on the bus. Then we're gonna get off the bus and play the game. After the game, we're gonna get back on the bus and come home." Beautiful.

3. Do not let your opponents define you. They will talk smack and "leak" all sorts of stuff, some of which might even be true. You get there first. Leak and talk smack all the time. Make your opponents have to spend all their time defending themselves.

4. Enjoying your opponents' losing--every time. Their whole reason for them even existing is to give you an opportunity to kick the holy hell out of them. Never "let" them get any score of any kind at any time, if you can stop them. Never "let" them win a contest, ever. Make them win, if they can. If they win, make them beat you, and make that win cost them dearly and hurt badly.

5. Play the whole game--all four quarters. It "ain't over" until the clock reads 60:00 minutes of play, and you have at least one more point than they do. Take that attitude into overtime, if you can't avoid going into overtime. Winning is everything; losing is nothing. So win, whenever, and wherever.

6. Run up the score as much as you can, and enjoy the hell out of doing it. Even if you can win with 14 to 0, then humiliate them by getting 82 to 0. Kill their spirit and will to win. Make them quake at the very thought of facing you again.

7. Beat them to a pulp, when you play them--from the first play to the last. Never let up. Get your heels on their throats and grind. Hurt them in every way you can get away with. Remember that whatever you do physically is not nearly as important as what you do to them mentally, for now and all the next times you meet them.

8. Goad them into rage or fear. Remember: on the field, facing them, there really are no microphones. Oh, sure, if some player is "miked up," well, be careful around him. Around your opponents, get under their skin and into their minds. Make them lose control and defeat themselves. Give them hell all the time, without letup.

9. Gush with "Southern" congratulations over what a fine opponent they are after you kick the crap out them. Lay it on thick. That way they cannot forget that they are losers, and you made them losers. There is no such thing as a "win:win" situation, except for sissies.

10. Keep your opponents off guard at all times, using surprise, innovation, stealth, propaganda, and ceaseless intimidation. Get very creative and enjoy their aggravation.

11. Be very aggressive at all times. Never let up, ever. Be aggressive and do so severely. Be aggressive severely at all times. Never be nice, not even once. Nice is for losers. Make them be nice to you.

12. Be consistent in attitude toward your opponents and your dedication to winning. Compromising is big among losers but not winners. Remember that your opponents are not dumb, and they can figure out the same principles outlined in this memo. You have to grind them down by being better than them consistently and never giving them a break.

Oh, yes, this isn't all, and that has to be said for the "yes--but" crowd who always look for nickle and dime exceptions because they have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. There's more, indeed, but this is enough--for right now.

It really isn't hard, Republicans, not if you really want to be winners. You will need to bench some and red-shirt others who are party jellyfish. Don't hestitate. Recall that old saying which says that he who hesitates is lost. Drop "lost" and "loser" from your thinking about yourselves. Take the ball from the Democrats by great defense, including many interceptions and takeovers. Make them go three and out every time. Wear out their defenses, and dispirit their offenses. Kill them, so to speak with hot special teams and great offense. Make that end zone belong to you, every time.

Good Show!

From Christina Walsh of the Castle Coalition, the group within Insitute for Justice battle to restore, preserve, and protect your property rights. This is another example of Americans rising to the occasion, asserting themselves, and WINNING:

Friends,

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 - 38.

Below is the text of the bill as passed by the House. The amendments that would have substantially weakened the protections it affords were rejected. This tremendous outcome was a direct result of your calls and letters to Congress. But the battle is just beginning; the bill now heads to the Senate. We will need your support again to make sure that the Senate follows the House's lead in refusing to fund eminent domain abuse.

YOU made the difference yesterday, and we appreciate your efforts and dedication to protecting private property rights. So from all of us here at the Castle Coalition - thank you!

Sincerely, Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice

===========================


Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 4128

AN ACT
To protect private property rights.HR 4128 EH

109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 4128

AN ACT
To protect private property rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.

(a) In General- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds- A violation of subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and any such funds distributed to such State or political subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.

(c) Opportunity to Cure Violation- A State or political subdivision shall not be ineligible for any Federal economic development funds under subsection (b) if such State or political subdivision returns all real property the taking of which was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted a violation of subsection (a) and replaces any other property destroyed and repairs any other property damaged as a result of such violation.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain to be used for economic development.

SEC. 4. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

(a) Cause of Action- Any owner of private property who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act may bring an action to enforce any provision of this Act in the appropriate Federal or State court, and a State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any such action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. In such action, the defendant has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic development. Any such property owner may also seek any appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

(b) Limitation on Bringing Action- An action brought under this Act may be brought if the property is used for economic development following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the private property of such property owner, but shall not be brought later than seven years following the conclusion of any such proceedings and the subsequent use of such condemned property for economic development.

(c) Attorneys' Fee and Other Costs- In any action or proceeding under this Act, the court shall allow a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs, and include expert fees as part of the attorneys' fee.

SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) Notification to States and Political Subdivisions-
(1) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall provide to the chief executive officer of each State the text of this Act and a description of the rights of property owners under this Act.
(2) Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall compile a list of the Federal laws under which Federal economic development funds are distributed. The Attorney General shall compile annual revisions of such list as necessary. Such list and any successive revisions of such list shall be communicated by the Attorney General to the chief executive officer of each State and also made available on the Internet website maintained by the United States Department of Justice for use by the public and by the authorities in each State and political subdivisions of each State empowered to take private property and convert it to public use subject to just compensation for the taking.

(b) Notification to Property Owners- Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish in the Federal Register and make available on the Internet website maintained by the United States Department of Justice a notice containing the text of this Act and a description of the rights of property owners under this Act.

SEC. 6. REPORT.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every subsequent year thereafter, the Attorney General shall transmit a report identifying States or political subdivisions that have used eminent domain in violation of this Act to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate. The report shall--
(1) identify all private rights of action brought as a result of a State's or political subdivision's violation of this Act;
(2) identify all States or political subdivisions that have lost Federal economic development funds as a result of a violation of this Act, as well as describe the type and amount of Federal economic development funds lost in each State or political subdivision and the Agency that is responsible for withholding such funds;
(3) discuss all instances in which a State or political subdivision has cured a violation as described in section 2(c) of this Act.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RURAL AMERICA.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds the following:
(1) The founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken `for public use, without just compensation'.
(2) Rural lands are unique in that they are not traditionally considered high tax revenue-generating properties for State and local governments. In addition, farmland and forest land owners need to have long-term certainty regarding their property rights in order to make the investment decisions to commit land to these uses.
(3) Ownership rights in rural land are fundamental building blocks for our Nation's agriculture industry, which continues to be one of the most important economic sectors of our economy.
(4) In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, abuse of eminent domain is a threat to the property rights of all private property owners, including rural land owners.

(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development is a threat to agricultural and other property in rural America and that the Congress should protect the property rights of Americans, including those who reside in rural areas. Property rights are central to liberty in this country and to our economy. The use of eminent domain to take farmland and other rural property for economic development threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the United States. The taking of farmland and rural property will have a direct impact on existing irrigation and reclamation projects. Furthermore, the use of eminent domain to take rural private property for private commercial uses will force increasing numbers of activities from private property onto this Nation's public lands, including its National forests, National parks and wildlife refuges. This increase can overburden the infrastructure of these lands, reducing the enjoyment of such lands for all citizens. Americans should not have to fear the government's taking their homes, farms, or businesses to give to other persons. Governments should not abuse the power of eminent domain to force rural property owners from their land in order to develop rural land into industrial and commercial property. Congress has a duty to protect the property rights of rural Americans in the face of eminent domain abuse.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act the following definitions apply:

(1) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- The term `economic development' means taking private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health, except that such term shall not include--
(A) conveying private property--
(i) to public ownership, such as for a road, hospital, airport, or military base;(ii) to an entity, such as a common carrier, that makes the property available to the general public as of right, such as a railroad or public facility;
(iii) for use as a road or other right of way or means, open to the public for transportation, whether free or by toll;(iv) for use as an aqueduct, flood control facility, pipeline, or similar use;
(B) removing harmful uses of land provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to public health and safety;(C) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or a public facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building;
(D) acquiring abandoned property;(E) clearing defective chains of title;(F) taking private property for use by a public utility; and(G) redeveloping of a brownfield site as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (42 U.S.C. 9601(39)).
(2) FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS- The term `Federal economic development funds' means any Federal funds distributed to or through States or political subdivisions of States under Federal laws designed to improve or increase the size of the economies of States or political subdivisions of States.
(3) STATE- The term `State' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Severability- The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision or application of the Act not so adjudicated.
(b) Effective Date- This Act shall take effect upon the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any project for which condemnation proceedings have been initiated prior to the date of enactment.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the policy of the United States to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure that the constitutional and other legal rights of private property owners are protected by the Federal Government.

SEC. 11. BROAD CONSTRUCTION.

This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of private property rights, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.

SEC. 12. LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to supersede, limit, or otherwise affect any provision of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.).

SEC. 13. RELIGIOUS AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) Prohibition on States- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property of a religious or other nonprofit organization by reason of the nonprofit or tax-exempt status of such organization, or any quality related thereto if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds- A violation of subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and any such funds distributed to such State or political subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.

(c) Prohibition on Federal Government- The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain over property of a religious or other nonprofit organization by reason of the nonprofit or tax-exempt status of such organization, or any quality related thereto.

SEC. 14. REPORT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES ON REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency shall review all rules, regulations, and procedures and report to the Attorney General on the activities of that department or agency to bring its rules, regulations and procedures into compliance with this Act.

SEC. 15. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that any and all precautions shall be taken by the government to avoid the unfair or unreasonable taking of property away from survivors of Hurricane Katrina who own, were bequeathed, or assigned such property, for economic development purposes or for the private use of others.
Passed the House of Representatives November 3, 2005.Attest:Clerk.

Reality Visits France

That adage warning one to be careful what one asks for stalks France like a Titan. Faced with cataclysmic civil strife, possibly leading to civil war, the French Neros, such as Villepin strut and prance about, trying to milk this situation to personal advantage while twisting themselves into pretzels to keep from speaking the truth. The truth is that the problems are very obvious and have been self-inflicted both by Muslims and France.

France let in vast hoards of human vermin from Islamia. Following Islam, they militantly refused to assimilate, and they formed Muslim ghettos. Steeping themselves in French socialism, they adopted that "you-owe-me-everything-because-you-have-entitled-me-to-be-a-bum-on-your-nickle" attitude and became Muslims-as-Muslims-have-always-been. That means, for 14 centuries, Muslims have been bums and parasites, and France guaranteed that they could continue. The Leftists now bleat about how these people have insufficient education and no job opportunities, with some 20 - 30% unemployment. Oh, hand-wringing woe! The fact is, they will not get off their dead asses to become productive people. That is another manifestation of Islam.

Reality, however, always wins in the end. These Muslims, for all their Islamic poisoning, are still human beings. As human beings, they have the requirement to live in the distinctly human mode, as rational, productive beings. Who imposes this condition? It is Mother Nature herself. Call her reality, existence, or whatever, but you cannot fight Mother Nature, not and win. The anomie and discontent these young Muslim bums feel comes from trying to live in a non-human way, or in some sub-human way. The psychic pain they feel comes from trying to make the unworkable work. France is a country devoted to trying to make the unworkable work, and they have had some temporary success. But, Mother Nature may lose some battles, such as letting Muslims be Muslims and France be socialist, but she never loses any war at any time: reality always wins in the end.

The hatred these Muslims feel is pure psychological projection. They hate themselves, and they have earned every bit of that hate. Islam and Arabic cultures have taught them for centuries that nothing is their fault, that they need never take responsibility for themselves, that it is always the fault and responsibility of others for their pain and misfortune. Old socialist France played right into it, and is getting what it asked for. Of course, it did not just ask Mother Nature for this with so many words. Oh, no. But, the principles and actions France lives by were read by Mother Nature as a request to deliver on the premises. She did and is doing.


Paris Burning
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com November 4, 2005


Riots have now continued for eight days in and around Paris. Thursday night, November 3, Muslim rioters burned 315 cars. In the previous week, they torched 177 vehicles and burned numerous businesses, a post office, and two schools. They have rampaged through twenty towns and shot at police and firemen. In an episode that summed up the failure of France’s efforts to create a domestic, domesticated Islam, when moderate Muslim leader Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Paris mosque, tried to restore calm, his car was pelted with stones and he had to rush away.

The riots began on October 27 when two Muslim teenagers ran from police who were checking identification papers — why they ran is as yet unclear. The police did not chase them, but evidently the teenagers thought they were being chased; they eventually hid in an electrical power sub-station, where they accidentally electrocuted themselves. That night young Muslims took to the streets for the first time, throwing rocks and bottles at police, burning cars, and vandalizing property. The next day rioters, throwing rocks, bottles, and Molotov cocktails, injured twenty-three police officers in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. The violence continued over the next few days: more destroyed vehicles and injured police officers. Then on Sunday, October 30, a tear gas shell hit a mosque, further enraging local Muslims; French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy stated somewhat cryptically, “I am, of course, available to the imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque.” Since then the riots have continued unabated, defying appeals for calm from French President Jacques Chirac and others. The crisis now threatens to swamp the French government.

Why have the riots happened? From many accounts one would think that the riots have been caused by France’s failure to implement Marxism. “The unrest,” AP explained, has highlighted the division between France’s big cities and their poor suburbs, with frustration simmering in the housing projects in areas marked by high unemployment, crime and poverty.” Another AP story declared flatly that the riots were over “poor conditions in Paris-area housing projects.”

Reuters agreed with AP’s attribution of all the unrest to economic injustice, and added in a suggestion of racism: “The unrest in the northern and eastern suburbs, heavily populated by North African and black African minorities, have been fuelled by frustration among youths in the area over their failure to get jobs and recognition in French society.” Deutsche Presse Agentur called the high-rise public housing in the Paris suburbs “a long-time flashpoint of unemployment, crime and other social problems.”

One might get the impression from this that France is governed by top-hatted, cigar-smoking capitalists, building their fortunes on the backs of the poor, rather than by socialists and quasi-socialists who have actually strained the economy by spending huge amounts of money on health and welfare programs. Nor does the idea that the rioting has been caused by economic inequalities explain why Catholics and others who are poor in France have not joined the Muslims who are rioting. Of course, all the news agencies have either omitted or mentioned only in passing that the rioters are Muslims at all. The casual reader would not be able to escape the impression that what is happening in France is all about economics — and race.

The areas hardest hit by the riots, according to Reuters, are “home to North African and black African minorities that feel excluded from French society.” AP shed some light on this feeling of exclusion: “the violence also cast doubt on the success of France’s model of seeking to integrate its large immigrant community — its Muslim population, at an estimated 5 million, is Western Europe’s largest — by playing down differences between ethnic groups. Rather than feeling embraced as full and equal citizens, immigrants and their French-born children complain of police harassment and of being refused jobs, housing and opportunities.”

So evidently France’s failure to live up to its policy of playing down the differences between ethnic groups has bred the simmering anger that has now boiled over in the riots. However, in fact France has done just the opposite of playing down the differences between ethnic groups. In her seminal Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, historian Bat Ye’or details a series of agreements between the European Union and the Arab League that guaranteed that Muslim immigrants in Europe would not be compelled in any way to adapt “to the customs of the host countries.” On the contrary, the Euro-Arab Dialogue’s Hamburg Symposium of 1983, to take just one of many examples, recommended that non-Muslim Europeans be made “more aware of the cultural background of migrants, by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities or ‘supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula.’” Not only that: “Access to the mass media had to be facilitated to the migrants in order to ensure ‘regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country.”[1]

The European Union has implemented such recommendations for decades — so far from playing down the differences between ethnic groups, they have instead stood by approvingly while immigrants formed non-assimilated Islamic enclaves within Europe. Indeed, as Bat Ye’or demonstrates, they have assured the Arab League in multiple agreements that they would aid in the creation and maintenance of such enclaves. Ignorance of the jihad ideology among European officials has allowed that ideology to spread in those enclaves, unchecked until relatively recently.

Consequently, among a generation of Muslims born in Europe, significant numbers have nothing but contempt and disdain for their native lands, and allegiance only to the Muslim umma and the lands of their parents’ birth. Those who continue to arrive in Europe from Muslim countries are encouraged by the isolation, self-imposed and other-abetted, of the Islamic communities in Europe to hold to the same attitudes. The Arab European League, a Muslim advocacy group operating in Belgium and the Netherlands, states as part of its “vision and philosophy” that “we believe in a multicultural society as a social and political model where different cultures coexist with equal rights under the law.” It strongly rejects for Muslims any idea of assimilation or integration into European societies: “We do not want to assimilate and we do not want to be stuck somewhere in the middle. We want to foster our own identity and culture while being law abiding and worthy citizens of the countries where we live. In order to achieve that it is imperative for us to teach our children the Arabic language and history and the Islamic faith. We will resist any attempt to strip us of our right to our own cultural and religious identity, as we believe it is one of the most fundamental human rights.” AEL founder Dyab Abou Jahjah, who was himself arrested in November 2002 and charged with inciting Muslims in Antwerp to riot (Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said that the AEL was “trying to terrorize the city”[2]), has declared: “Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others.” He implied that European Muslims had a right to bring the ideology of jihad and Sharia to Europe, complaining that in Europe “I could still eat certain dishes from the Middle East, but I cannot have certain thoughts that are based on ideologies and ideas from the Middle East.”

What kind of ideologies? Perhaps Hani Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan Al-Banna and brother of the famed self-proclaimed moderate Muslim spokesman Tariq Ramadan, gave a hint when he defended the traditional Islamic Sharia punishment of stoning for adultery in the Paris journal Le Monde. In Denmark, politician Fatima Shah echoed the same sentiments in November 2004. That same month, filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, who had made a film, Submission, about the oppression of women by Islamic law, was murdered in Holland by a Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri. Bouyeri later declared in court: “I did what I did purely out my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted.” In other words, his problem was religious, not racial: Van Gogh had blasphemed Islam, and so according to Islamic law he had to die. Significantly, Bouyeri maintained during his trial that he did not recognize the authority of the Dutch court, but only of the law of Islam.

How many European Muslims share the sentiments of Mohammed Bouyeri? How many of these are rioting this week in Paris? Alleviating Muslim unemployment and poverty will not ultimately do anything to alter this rejection of European values by growing numbers of people who are only geographically Europeans. And the problem cannot be ignored. For France is not alone: Muslims in Århus, Denmark have also been rioting this week. And in France, Sarkozy recently revealed that this week’s riots are just a particularly virulent flare-up of an ongoing pattern of violence: he told Le Monde that twenty to forty cars are set afire nightly in Paris’ restive Muslim suburbs, and no fewer than nine thousand police cars have been stoned since the beginning of 2005.

Blame for the riots in France has thus far focused on Sarkozy’s tough talk about ending this violence. On October 19 he declared of the suburbs that “they have to be cleaned — we’re going to make them as clean as a whistle.” Six days after this, Muslim protestors threw stones and bottles at him when he visited the suburb of Argenteuil. He has been roundly criticized for calling the rioters “scum”; one of them responded, “We’re not scum. We’re human beings, but we’re neglected.” However, as a solution the same man recommended only more neglect, saying of the Paris riot police: “If they didn’t come here, into our area, nothing would happen. If they come here it’s to provoke us, so we provoke back.” Others complained of rough treatment they have received since 9/11 from police searching for terrorists: “It’s the way they stop and search people, kneeing them between the legs as they put them up against the wall. They get students mixed up with the worst offenders, yet these young people have done nothing wrong.”

But of course, all these problems are exacerbated by the non-assimilation policy that both the French government and the Muslim population have for so long pursued: the rioters are part of a population that has never considered itself French. Nor do French officials seem able or willing to face that this is the core of their problem today. It is likely that the riots will result only in intensification of the problems that caused them: if French officials offer an accommodation to Muslims, it will probably result only in further intensification of the Islamic identity, often in its most radical manifestations, among French Muslims. The French response to the riots is likely to unfold along the lines of a decision by officials in Holland last May: they declined to ban a book called De weg van de Moslim (The Way of the Muslim), even though it calls for homosexuals to be thrown head first off tall buildings. The Amsterdam city council did not want to contravene “the freedom to express opinions.”

That decision is a small example of what the Paris riots demonstrate on a large scale: the abject failure of the multiculturalist philosophy that disparate groups can coexist within a nation without any idea that they must share at least some basic values. The French are paying the price today for blithely assuming that France could absorb a population holding values vastly different from that of the host population without negative consequences for either.

That French officials show no sign, on the eighth day of the Paris riots, of recognizing that this clash of values is the heart of the problem only guarantees that before they will be able to say that their difficulties with their Muslim population are behind them, many more cars will be torched, many more buildings burned, and many more lives destroyed.

Notes:

[1] Bat Ye’or, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005. P. 97.

[2] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, “Ex-Hezbollah charged with inciting rioting,” London Daily Telegraph, November 30, 2002.

Did You Know That WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND in Iraq?

Several times in the recent past, an email advertisement for Human Events magazine has caught my attention. The ad, appropriately trying to recruit new subscribers, is using Richard Miniter's new book Disinformation as an enticement. Certainly there is no problem with either, and that is not the point. The point is the Kafka-esque lying to us coming from those within our own government and the fifth column in America, notably highly corrupted journalism.

It will never be easy for us to understand why Bush, et al, let the fifth column side, including the Democrats and RINO Republicans, pump lying propaganda into the culture, without so much as a whimper of protest. This administration lets the liars and other anti-Americans define them, the issues, and the country.

As of this writing, we are writing about the indubitability of hard core reality: FACTS. Saddam had WMDs, and we found them. What we have not found is ALL of them. Just look at what Miniter's book documents:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is... WHY do they believe this lie?

We have not read Richard Miniter's book, so we cannot comment in depth. After this ad, we are likely to get it and devour it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we must take back our government and soon. We are being done unto by Democrats and Republicans inside government and a big fifth column in the media and in academia.

We can start by stop buying the lies and let them know, wherever, that we have identified and rejected them, inside and outside government. Just this alone, if done in volume and across the expanse of America, from blue to red, to any other colored states and locales, takes a stand and puts them on notice. This is a necessary step, but it is far from sufficient.

We must, however, take back America asap, before the Kafka-esque collapse it around us.

Is Paris Burning?

THE NINE SIGNS AND TWELVE STEPS


As I write this, France has endured nine days of rioting by Muslims in and around Paris, yet the French government and members of the American media are falling all over themselves not to point the finger at Islam.

These two lists—“Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam,” and “Islam Knows How to Destroy Dar al Harb,” name activities we see and hear about every day, all over the world.

France has ignored warnings from the time of her earliest contacts with Islam that it spelled trouble. Explaining the dangerous nature of Islam to his countrymen was the purpose of Andre Servier in 1924, when he published his book “Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman” (a “must read,” available through used book searches; see the book review on http://thetruthproject.blogspot.com). France continues to ignore the danger even as Paris burns. France refuses to acknowledge that it is Islam, with its goal of the establishment of a world-wide caliphate, that is responsible for night after night of violence.

Two books, one by author Glen Reinsford (“Age of Tolerance,” set in the U.S. after a Gore victory in the 2000 presidential election), and a book still in progress by an Eastern European author and set in France well after the takeover by Islam, become prophetic with every night of continued violence in France. Both books, like Servier's, serve as warnings.

The lists also serve as warnings, alerting us to the steps Islam is taking right now to take over the U.S. We can look over the lists and see just where we are in the Muslim time-table.

The two lists dovetail so well that I felt compelled to present them together. The first—“The Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam,” deals primarily with “Phase One” of the game plan for the establishment of the world-wide caliphate; this is where the troops are set in place and the "softening up" process begins. The second list deals more with “Phase Two,” how the takeover is actually effected. Together, we get a good picture of the game plan Islam uses to first insert itself, and then take control.

Just in case anyone who reads this thinks that the notion of a world-wide caliphate is an exaggeration or some sort of conspiracy theory on the part of critics of Islam, you can see the actual plan from the horse’s mouth. “Khilifa: The First 24 Hours,” the actual blueprint of the plan, was written by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad of London bombings fame, and published by Al-Muhajiroun publications. It is available on line at: http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/khaliplan/24hrs%/20Khilafah%20book.pdf . The full title is “The First 24 Hours after the Establishment of the Islamic State: How can we transform the present ruling systems and government departments into an Islamic system and Islamic departments?”

Here are the two lists:

A) “Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam”

1. Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise

2. Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name

3. Promoting jihad for Muslims to fight against what they determine is "injustice" or "aggression"

4. Demands for Sharia law in the West, or denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women and members of religions other than Islam

5. Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices

6. Denying that Muslims were involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other attacks around the world

7. Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures

8. Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates.

9. Refusal to interact, converse, or socialize with non-Muslims.

Peace-loving Muslims everywhere agree on the need to be alert for any incitements to hate, violence, religious intolerance, or outright lying. We need your help to keep Islam a religion of peace.

One hopes that the laudable words of the above UAC material is interpreted without the nuances of "Differing Definitions." According to Islamic leader Sayyid Qutb,

"When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure."

And the last section of the Koran to be revealed contains Sura 9:5, which, back in the fourteenth century, was interpreted as follows:

"Mainstream and respected Qur'an commentator, Isma'il bin Amr bin Kathir al Dimashqi (1301-1372), known popularly as Ibn Kathir, declares that sura 9:5 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term....No idolater had an more treaty of promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed.'"

Furthermore, a search of the web sites of CAIR and MAS, two of the most prominent Muslim groups in the United States, indicates no support or endorsement of either the Senate hearings or the efforts of the UAC. But both CAIR and MAS are staunch advocates of Sign 5:

"Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices."

So, do we see a Sign 10 to add to "Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam"? In spite of more than four years having passed since 9/11, our elected representatives refuse to take decisive steps in investigating Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism.arch of the web sites of CAIR and MAS, two of the most prominent Muslim groups in the United States, indicates no support or endorsement of either the Senate hearings or the efforts of the UAC. But both CAIR and MAS are staunch advocates of Sign 5:

"Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices."



B) “Islam Knows How to Destroy Dar al-Harb"


1. - Immigrate - by the millions.

2. - Procreation – This is Islam’s greatest weapon against the kafirs (non-Muslims). Currently most Western nations think so little of their respective civilizations that they are failing to reproduce themselves above subsistence levels. As their birthrates continue to decline, breed them out. They will become so dependant on Muslim labor and so old demographically they will not be able to resist what will follow.

3. - At 5 - 10% of the population, force the host governments to set up special laws favoring the Muslims. Use the courts to gain special rights under the guise of "anti-discrimination", as other groups have successfully done in Western countries before.

4. - At 20 -30% of the population, elect Muslims to government and legislate additional laws that favor Muslims.

5. - Never Assimilate

6. - Always setup small Muslim communities to hide in. Even better, concentrate in small cities and take complete control of their governments, example, Dearborn, Michigan

7. - Never accept the host’s customs; make them accept Muslim customs.

8. – Use their liberal traditions against them whenever possible. Currently being labeled a “racist” is a fate that is worse than death in most Western countries. When they oppress Muslims and seek to stem their tide, use their fear of that word against them. They will never be able to convincingly assert that discrimination against one group is bad (e.g gays) while maintaining that discrimination against Muslims is good without appearing to be hypocritical and intellectually corrupt, thus they will lose the propaganda war. Recruit liberal academics and media outlets to assist in this campaign.

9. - Assassination - when the Muslim population exceeds 30 - 50% of the total population, start the terror killings & bombings as soon as possible. It will effectively weaken the host nation to the extent that it will no longer be able to function.

10. - If anyone is going to testify against a Muslim in court, kill him before the trial.

11. - At 50 -70% of the population, seek the total submission of the host society to Islamic Law by all means necessary (legal, military, terror, social coercion, etc)

12. - If step eleven fails initially, seek extensive international help from other Islamic states and the UN in order to create a separate Muslim Republic within the host country’s borders, using racial and religious discrimination against the Muslim population as a pretext. At a later date, when it is advantageous to do so, repeat step eleven until successful.



Suggested Solutions:

We have a single step that we can take that will turn the process of Islamification around and save civilization, and that is to actively teach our children the truth what Islam is all about and what is really going on. In order to do that, they must learn the facts about Islam itself, the basics of philosophy which explain why it is that Islam is the bad guy (not just a few Muslims, but Islam itself), and economics, which integrates all the above at a “real-life” level.

Obstacles to the above-suggested solution:

First, as mentioned in “Step Two” in the “Islam Knows…” list above, we are being out-bred. While this is a problem, merely increasing our own birthrate will not contribute to a solution. It isn't more bodies we need; we need more knowledge about the enemy. Unless we teach our children, our next generation, what the conflict is all about, we make easy pickings for Islam, and increasing our own breeding rate in the absence of this knowledge doesn’t put us in a better position to win, it merely provides Islam with more intellectually disarmed dhimmi cash-cows.

Second, our government clings to the lie that the murder and mayhem conducted in the name of Islam is because a "tiny minority of extremists has perverted a great religion of peace and hijacked it.”

Third, our government school system was infested virtually since its inception in the mid-1800s with utopian socialists (who later evolved, along with other collectivist groups, to become known as “Postmodernists”). These Postmodernists were then, and remain today, the guys whose basic principles are in agreement with those of Islam.

Fourth, generations of school children, including many of today’s politicians, journalists, lawyers and educators at all levels, have been raised under the influence of a Postmodernist-infested educational system. When this influence became dominant in the mid-1900s, the schools became Islam’s direct route into the minds of our children. It was under the Postmodern ideal of Political Correctness that the doors of our schools were opened to da’wa, the deceptive means by which Islam further softens us up for an Islamic takeover.

Fifth, nearly 50% of the population (in the U.S.) is unaware of the fact that Islam is a danger to us, and among this 50% there is a very large number that, thanks to the Postmodernist schools, is actively hostile to their own country. Yesterday (11/3/05), there was a nation-wide demonstration by school children, ostensibly to promote more government spending on education, but in reality, judging from the signs they carried and the interviews they gave, it was just another anti-American demonstration by young products of our educational system. Oh, and don’t forget the “party” aspect—it’s cool and fun to miss class to do something like that! Their numbers were few, but they represented a very large number of other children, their teachers, and their parents.


Some solutions to the above obstacles:

1) Establish a non-government controlled/influenced system whereby the 50% of those parents who think that the Postmodernist view is problematic could teach their children why this is so, including the fact that Islam is a bad thing.

There are several routes to achieve such a system:

a) Already in progress—home schools, the ultimate in customized private education.

b) The establishment of private schools founded especially to include in their curricula the truth about Islam in addition to whatever else they wish to teach.

c) The establishment of after-school or weekend classes to augment the curricula of schools which do not provide the truth about Islam.

d) Invite established private schools, including home schools, to include materials that teach the truth about Islam.

e) Establish an on-line resource especially designed to fill the needs of parents, parent-teachers, and teachers who wish to teach our children the truth about Islam, with plans to expand the resources in time.


These are just a few start-up examples; doubtless, there are many other paths that can be followed. Ultimately, this conflict will be won through education. Education of one sort—the Postmodernist sort--is what got us (and France and the rest of Europe) into the trouble we face today, and education of another sort (the kind we had until the mid-1800s, which was based on the Enlightenment values upon which our country was founded) is what will be required to get us back out of that hole.

The “Islam Problem” is just a bit of a “hole” we've dug for ourselves right now; we must act quickly to see that it doesn’t become a “black hole” from which we cannot escape.

The Supreme Court--A Series (Part One)

With the Kelo vs The City of New London, Ct. decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS hereafter) declared war on Americans by striking what could be a fatal blow to a free America. Specifically, the Kelo decision abrogated the right to property, one of the four cardinal Rights of Man (along with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

Because of how the right to property literally makes possible the other cardinal rights, the Kelo decision may well be among the WORST two or three decisions of SCOTUS in its history, along with sustaining slavery.

Since SCOTUS declared war on us, we hereby declare war on SCOTUS--until it reverses Kelo and returns to preserving and protecting the Rights of Man through rational interpretation of the Constitution. We have fired some shots already here on Sixth Column and our sister website, 6th Column Against Jihad. These were warmups.

We must do all we can to help provide the correct focus: on the principles involved. Without these principoles, we cannot hope to win. Without the relevant principles, we will argue details, "down in the grass," thereby missing the forest, while SCOTUS continues to slice Constitutional principles away from the Constitution, like slicing up a roast of beef.

To do our part, we are beginning this series. It will be open-ended but not a daily occurrence.

Since there may not be a contextually relevant opportunity in this series to present an interesting observation, we will address it here and now.

While gathering background materials for this series of articles to come, we were able to compare two important SCOTUS decision. One was the 1965 Griswold versus Connecticut, the one that established the "right to privacy." The other is the 2005 Kelo versus The City of New London, Ct., which abrogated the right to property (and much more). 40 years separated these decisions, and the quality differences are more than "night and day."

The Griswold decision along with its concurrences and dissents presents good Constitutional history, law, and principles. The Kelo decision, except for its dissents, reads like a term paper from a mediocre first year law student. While Griswold is lofty and principled, Kelo is expedient and pedestrian. Griswold highlights judicial thinkers and Constitutional scholars. Kelo, in Justice Stevens' decision, reads like the back of a cereal box and want-ads and raises the huge question of how and why this man sits on SCOTUS.

Later in this series, we will get into some of the details of these decisions, but not now. For now, we want to present some impressions and right a grievous wrong previously not mentioned.

In the Kelo decision, most of the concurring justices wrote nothing. They rubber-stamped what Justice Stevens wrote. The only good part of the decision comes from the dissenting justices. Justice O'Connor wrote one, and Justice Thomas wrote the other.

Justice O'Connor's dissent has been widely publicized compared to that written by Justice Thomas. Her dissent is good, but his is much better.

Justice Thomas' decision was in the spirit and tenor of those who wrote for and against the Griswold decision. It drew on Constitutional scholarship, including historical origins and the string of bad SCOTUS decisions against property over the years. It was eloquent, and we look forward to quoting from Justice Thomas on Kelo later on.

Now to righting a wrong, and it involves Justice Thomas. The Left have done everything they can to vilify that man since his confirmation hearings. Even yesterday, Rush Limbaugh read from a newspaper that tried to assert that Justice Thomas must not be considered in any consideration of any aspect of SCOTUS because he is "not black," and he does not represent the views of his race. Pause on that bit of tribalistic thinking.

Senator Harry Reid, who took over for Senator Daschle who got fired by his constituency, early in his new tenure launched an attack on Justice Thomas. You may remember how Reid indicated that Thomas could not think or write at the SCOTUS level. He left the distinct impression that he considered Justice Thomas to be some poor sharecropping Negro, existing on some sort of super-welfare.

Many people at the time pulled Justice Thomas' decisions to see for themselves, including "Best of the Web" from the Wall Street Journal. Others commented on television. No one could back up Senator Reid's comments--for lack of evidence.

After reading Justice Thomas' dissent on Kelo, I bow to his intellect and writing as excellent. Senator Reid showed himself when he made his first comments about Justice Thomas to be a bigoted fool at best, and he has done nothing but go downhill in perfidy as a rotten human being and lousy senator since. Thus, Senator Reid's hatred of Judge Alito is a huge backhanded complement to Judge Alito.

The other important point about the comparison between the Griswold and Kelo decisions comes from wondering about that 40 year gap. Has SCOTUS deteriorated intellectually that severely in 40 years?

Saving You and Your Property Through Reversing Eminent Domain--Urgent Support Needed!

This email just arrived from the Institute of Justice's Castle Coalition, the IOJ unit working to restore our property rights--the ones taken away by the Supreme Court via the Kelo decision on 23 June 2005. THIS IS A BIG DEAL AND URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR ACTION.

Here is the text of the email just received:



Dear Friends,

Last week, Congressman Sensenbrenner joined together with Congressmen Bonilla and Conyers, Congresswoman Waters and others to introduce H.R. 4128, the new Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. This legislation replaces Congressman Sensenbrenner’s H.R. 3135, and is now the main vehicle for eminent domain reform on the Hill. The current version of the bill will cut off federal economic development funding for governments using the power of eminent domain to take property and transfer it for private commercial development. It will strongly discourage the kinds of abuses we are seeing now.

H.R. 4128 will be debated in the House this week, and a vote will probably take place on Thursday. It is crucial that you act now and call your congressional representative to express your support for this vital piece of legislation. You can find contact information for your representative here: http://www.house.gov/.

The text of the new bill is below. Please let me know if you have any questions.



Best,



Christina Walsh

Assistant Castle Coalition Coordinator

Institute for Justice









109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 4128

[Report No. 109-262]

To protect private property rights.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 25, 2005
Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. WATERS, Mr. BONILLA, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. DELAY, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

October 31, 2005
Additional sponsors: Mr. POMBO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. BONNER, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. POE, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BARROW, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CARTER, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. WAMP, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. PENCE, Mr. JENKINS, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. STEARNS, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. SODREL, Mr. CAMP, Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. KLINE, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. OTTER, Mr. PITTS, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SHIMKUS, Miss MCMORRIS, Mr. WOLF, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. BUYER, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr. HALL, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. RENZI, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. MACK, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. WICKER, Mr. FLAKE, and Mr. MCHENRY

October 31, 2005
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on October 25, 2005]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To protect private property rights.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.
(a) In General- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds- A violation of subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been violated, and any Federal agency charged with distributing those funds shall withhold them for such 2-year period, and any such funds distributed to such State or political subdivision shall be returned or reimbursed by such State or political subdivision to the appropriate Federal agency or authority of the Federal Government, or component thereof.

(c) Opportunity to Cure Violation- A State or political subdivision shall not be ineligible for any Federal economic development funds under subsection (b) if such State or political subdivision returns all real property the taking of which was found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted a violation of subsection (a) and replaces any other property destroyed and repairs any other property damaged as a result of such violation.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain to be used for economic development.

SEC. 4. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
(a) Cause of Action- Any owner of private property who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act may bring an action to enforce any provision of this Act in the appropriate Federal or State court, and a State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any such action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. Any such property owner may also seek any appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

(b) Limitation on Bringing Action- An action brought under this Act may be brought if the property is used for economic development following the conclusion of any condemnation proceedings condemning the private property of such property owner, but shall not be brought later than seven years following the conclusion of any such proceedings and the subsequent use of such condemned property for economic development.

(c) Attorneys' Fee and Other Costs- In any action or proceeding under this Act, the court shall allow a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs, and include expert fees as part of the attorneys' fee.

SEC. 5. NOTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Notification to States and Political Subdivisions-

(1) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall provide to the chief executive officer of each State the text of this Act and a description of the rights of property owners under this Act.

(2) Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall compile a list of the Federal laws under which Federal economic development funds are distributed. The Attorney General shall compile annual revisions of such list as necessary. Such list and any successive revisions of such list shall be communicated by the Attorney General to the chief executive officer of each State and also made available on the Internet website maintained by the United States Department of Justice for use by the public and by the authorities in each State and political subdivisions of each State empowered to take private property and convert it to public use subject to just compensation for the taking.

(b) Notification to Property Owners- Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall publish in the Federal Register and make available on the Internet website maintained by the United States Department of Justice a notice containing the text of this Act and a description of the rights of property owners under this Act.

SEC. 6. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every subsequent year thereafter, the Attorney General shall transmit a report identifying States or political subdivisions that have used eminent domain in violation of this Act to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate. The report shall--

(1) identify all private rights of action brought as a result of a State's or political subdivision's violation of this Act;

(2) identify all States or political subdivisions that have lost Federal economic development funds as a result of a violation of this Act, as well as describe the type and amount of Federal economic development funds lost in each State or political subdivision and the Agency that is responsible for withholding such funds;

(3) discuss all instances in which a State or political subdivision has cured a violation as described in section 2(c) of this Act.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING RURAL AMERICA.
(a) Findings- The Congress finds the following:

(1) The founders realized the fundamental importance of property rights when they codified the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that private property shall not be taken `for public use, without just compensation'.

(2) Rural lands are unique in that they are not traditionally considered high tax revenue-generating properties for State and local governments. In addition, farmland and forest land owners need to have long-term certainty regarding their property rights in order to make the investment decisions to commit land to these uses.

(3) Ownership rights in rural land are fundamental building blocks for our Nation's agriculture industry, which continues to be one of the most important economic sectors of our economy.

(4) In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, abuse of eminent domain is a threat to the property rights of all private property owners, including rural land owners.

(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the use of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development is a threat to agricultural and other property in rural America and that the Congress should protect the property rights of Americans, including those who reside in rural areas. Property rights are central to liberty in this country and to our economy. The use of eminent domain to take farmland and other rural property for economic development threatens liberty, rural economies, and the economy of the United States. Americans should not have to fear the government's taking their homes, farms, or businesses to give to other persons. Governments should not abuse the power of eminent domain to force rural property owners from their land in order to develop rural land into industrial and commercial property. Congress has a duty to protect the property rights of rural Americans in the face of eminent domain abuse.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act the following definitions apply:

(1) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- The term `economic development' means taking private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another private person or entity for commercial enterprise carried on for profit, or to increase tax revenue, tax base, employment, or general economic health, except that such term shall not include--

(A) conveying private property to public ownership, such as for a road, hospital, or military base, or to an entity, such as a common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right, such as a railroad, or public facility, or for use as a right of way, aqueduct, pipeline, or similar use;

(B) removing harmful uses of land provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to public health and safety;

(C) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or a public facility, such as a retail establishment on the ground floor of a public building;

(D) acquiring abandoned property;

(E) clearing defective chains of title; and

(F) taking private property for use by a public utility.

(2) FEDERAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS- The term `Federal economic development funds' means any Federal funds distributed to or through States or political subdivisions of States under Federal laws designed to improve or increase the size of the economies of States or political subdivisions of States.

(3) STATE- The term `State' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Severability- The provisions of this Act are severable. If any provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision or application of the Act not so adjudicated.

(b) Effective Date- This Act shall take effect upon the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, but shall not apply to any project for which condemnation proceedings have been initiated prior to the date of enactment.

SEC. 10. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the policy of the United States to encourage, support, and promote the private ownership of property and to ensure that the constitutional and other legal rights of private property owners are protected by the Federal Government.

SEC. 11. BROAD CONSTRUCTION.
This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of private property rights, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.

Union Calendar No. 143

Remembering What Mahathir Said - Muslims Are At War With the West

The then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad opened the Tenth Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in October of 2003 with a key note speech in which he states unequivocally that Muslims believe that they are at war with the West.

48. In any struggle, in any war, nothing is more important than concerted and coordinated action. A degree of discipline is all that is needed. The Prophet lost in Jabal Uhud because his forces broke rank. We know that, yet we are unwilling to discipline ourselves and to give up our irregular and uncoordinated actions. We need to be brave but not foolhardy. We need to think not just of our reward in the afterlife but also of the worldly results of our mission.

49. The Quran tells us that when the enemy sues for peace we must react positively. True the treaty offered is not favourable to us. But we can negotiate. The Prophet did, at Hudaibiyah. And in the end he triumphed.

50. I am aware that all these ideas will not be popular. Those who are angry would want to reject it out of hand. They would even want to silence anyone who makes or supports this line of action. They would want to send more young men and women to make the supreme sacrifice. But where will all these lead to? Certainly not victory. Over the past 50 years of fighting in Palestine we have not achieved any result. We have in fact worsened our situation.


51. The enemy will probably welcome these proposals and we will conclude that the promoters are working for the enemy. But think. We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.

52. Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make mistakes, will forget to think.

53. They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make more mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future. We must seize these opportunities.

54. But to do so we must get our acts right. Rhetoric is good. It helps us to expose the wrongs perpetrated against us, perhaps win us some sympathy and support. It may strengthen our spirit, our will and resolve, to face the enemy.

55. We can and we should pray to Allah S.W.T. for in the end it is He who will determine whether we succeed or fail. We need His blessings and His help in our endeavours,

56. But it is how we act and what we do which will determine whether He would help us and give us victory or not. He has already said so in the Quran. Again Surah Ar-Ra'd verse 11.

57. As I said at the beginning, the whole world is looking at us, the whole Muslim ummah is placing their hopes in this conference of the leaders of Islamic nations. They expect us not just to vent our frustrations and anger, through words and gestures; not just to pray for Allah's blessings. They expect us to do something, to act. We cannot say we cannot do anything, we the leaders of the Muslim nations. We cannot say we cannot unite even when faced with the destruction of our religion and the ummah.

58. We know we can. There are many things that we can do. There are many resources that we have at our disposal. What is needed is merely-the will to do it, As Muslims, we must be grateful for the guidance of our religion, we must do what needs to be done, willingly and with determination. Allah has not raised us, the leaders, above the others so we may enjoy power for ourselves only. The power we wield is for our people, for the ummah, for Islam. We must have the will to make use of this power judiciously, prudently, concertedly. Insyaallah we will triumph in the end.


59. I pray to Allah that this 10th Conference of the OIC in Putrajaya, Malaysia will give a new and positive direction to us, will be blessed with success by Him, Almighty Allah, Arahman, Arahirn.

Read it all.

Are Islamists Are Using Hollywood's Dream Machine to Subvert the American Psyche?

Are Islamists Are Using Hollywood's Dream Machine to Subvert the American Psyche?

During both World War I and II, Hollywood made propaganda films to bolster America's war effort AGAINST the enemy. Today's Hollywood is making films that justify suicide bombing and subvert America's effort to defeat the Islamic Jihad against the West.

They must be working tandem with the L.A. Times. Have these people no shame?

Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats Shamelessly Promote Illegal Entry Into the U.S.

Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats Shamelessly Promote Illegal Entry Into the U.S.

"Diplomacy may be the art of lying for one's country, but Mexican diplomacy requires taking that art to virtuosic heights."

If meddling in the internal politics of another country can be considered an act of war, why haven't we declared war on Mexico? Why hasn't the State Department called in these "diplomats" and sent them packing? Why aren't tanks and battle groups poised along the border to rebuff the waves of illegal entrants that are using Mexico as a launching pad into the U.S.?

Heather MacDonald at FrontPage has given us yet another explanation of how this is being done by the Mexicans. Why they would be involved is clear: Remittances and La Reconqista. Why we continue to allow this invasion is also clear: cheap labor. Who exactly is allowing this to happening isn't. As yourself: Who are the treasonous politicians and businessmen that have sold out our country for the sake of cheap labor?

Read the entire piece.

And add this. Could it be that it's to late to declare war as there are already ten million or more enemy agents in this country?