Descent into Dhimmitude

The troubles with immigrants began in Denmark began BEFORE the cartoon controversy.

While most media accounts of the "cartoon jihad" focused on the publication of the cartoons, and on the ensuing violent reaction by some Muslims -- who were depicted by the much of the press as victims! -- few reporters have ventured to describe the increasingly hostile climate that Muslim extremists had succeeded in creating in Denmark before the publication. In fact, an examination of Jyllands-Posten's own pages reveals why its editors likely decided to publish the cartoons in the first place -- as well as why the obscurantist rioters were so confident that they would prevail.
In late 2004 -- a University of Copenhagen professor of Moroccan Jewish descent -- was kidnapped in broad daylight and brutally beaten by three Muslim youths for the "crime" of having read from the Quran during a lecture. A few months later, a Danish publisher used anonymous translators for an essay collection critical of Islam for fear that any named assistant would suffer a similar fate. And in an incident immediately preceding Jyllands-Posten's decision to run the cartoons as a test of self-censorship, Danish artists refused to illustrate a children's book about Muhammad.

These incidents, all disturbing, don't even scratch the surface of the appeasement Danes have made to accommodate the people who unleashed violence against them. In Copenhagen's public schools, the only food available to students -- regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof -- are Halal (prepared according to Islamic dietary requirements). In Denmark, a country which enjoys well-deserved praise for the courage with which citizens came together to save its small Jewish community during World War II, Danish Jewish students today cannot attend certain public schools because their very presence is viewed by administrators as >"provocative" to radicalized Muslim peers. The country's only Jewish school, Copenhagen's 300-pupil Carolineskolen, founded in 1805, nowadays is constrained to operate behind a double ring of barbed wire.

There has been little time and less effort made to assimilate the flood of millions of dissimilar immigrants into Europe. That the Danes have been unable to assimilate their immigrant population has had a detrimental effect on Danish society should be an object lesson for us all.

From Cox and Forkum

Business as Usual

Are You Suspicious?

Is anyone beside me and mine suspicious about the motives and methodology of Jill Carroll, the Christian Science Monitor reporter released by her captors in Iraq today? Something began stinking about this from early on into her "captivity." Something in the pleading videotapes just failed to ring fully true. Her appearance and behavior today after her alleged release also failed to ring true-as-presented. In some ways, Carroll reminds us of the story of that Georgia girl who became known as "the runaway bride," even though the Carroll situation is not the same in terms of concrete details. The Georgia girl story began stinking early on also. Of course, only time will tell the truth, if the truth differs from what is being presented.


We are curious to see if others are willing to acknowledge suspiciousness of Carroll before the truth comes out fully.

The Demonstrations Came Just in Time for Talks in Cancun

Graphic via: Michelle Malkin

The timing is perfect. Today, in Cancun, Mexico, President Bush meets Mexican President Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss topics of mutual concern.

Last week hundreds of thousands of migrants "spontaneously" decided to get to get together in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities to flex their collective muscles. Yeah, right!

These demonstrations were planned long in advance with the collusion of individual American citizens, American Leftist Groups, American Business Associations, American politicians, but not in the fulfillment of the will of the people.

However, for decades Mexico's Fox and other Mexican politicians have been determined to create social policy in the United States, meddling and influencing the political process and demanding accommodation for Mexican citizens that he and his cronies should be caring for in Mexico. Instead these unfortunate people are sent north so that the American taxpayer and the American economy should provide what the Mexican elite refuse to do.

How do they convince their citizens to go north? Certainly by pointing out the disparity of wages in the U.S. vs. Mexico and by reminding their citizens in the United States and those remaining in Mexico that a very prosperous part of the United States once was part of Mexico and that Mexico should have jurisdiction over all American citizens of Mexican origin: Mexicans, regardless of place of birth should put Mexico first and maintain their "Mexicanness."

During World War II, President Roosevelt interned Japanese-American citizens, German-American citizens, and Italian-Americans for fear that they would sabotage the war effort. Some American citizens still held close emotional ties to both Japan and Germany and did spy for the enemy and did sabotage. Both governments found it to be in their interest to promote "Japanese-ness" and "German-ness" in the 1920's and 19330's, with predictable result.

But Germany and Japan did not abut the United States. Immigrants from those countries had to cross an ocean and enter in an orderly manner. Mexican immigrants must only step across a line in the sand.

Many Mexican-Americans are loyal citizens, but, again, others have been influenced by the policies of Fox and his cronies. They have refused to give up their emotional and legal ties to Mexico and are working against the United States. The recent demonstrations are proof of this pudding!

In Flag of Their Fathers by John Fonte at FrontPage, we see another graphic example of manipulation. Unconscionably school children from all over the United States have been recruited. Reminiscent of the Vietnam War Anti-War marches, students in school all over the Southwest and as far away as Wisconsin, students have been encouraged to walk out of class "in support of immigrants' rights."

Is immigration a right? Is citizenship a right? Is receipt of benefits at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer a right of immigrants? Of course not. None of these are rights, only possibilities, and machinations of meddling Mexicans and collusion of various Americans have made illegal immigrants hopeful of twisting the arms of the American taxpayer and extracting the goods and treasures of hard-working Americans, some of whom are Mexican-Americans that have lived here for centuries.

This is the hope that the Mexican government and others is holding out, benefits that they refuse to create for their own people. Instead, the constantly remind their citizens and former citizens that they are Mexican, "living in a stolen land," and Americans, the "gringoes," can pushed off into the sea or returned to Europe.

Michelle Marquez, a young Dallas student sums up the problem from a report in the Dallas Morning News. Although instructed to carry an American flag, she was rebuked by her classmates during a recent rally. As a defense, she replied to the crowd: “My heart is with the Mexican flag and with Mexico, but I’m standing on American ground and I’m Mexican-American.” Fox and the others are counting on that.

The recent demonstrations are a reminder to the American people and to President Bush of the riots in France. Could further machinations by meddling politicians set off that kind of violence? Surely that topic will come up in Cancun discussions at some point. How will our President and our Congress respond?

Twins

It's hard to tell them apart, isn't it? (hat tip to The Religion of Peace)

Nuclear Islamia

This morning, the Front Page Magazine War Blog carried two related stories: OUR FRIENDS THE NUCLEAR SAUDIS and HEAD OF ARAB LEAGUE PUSHES NUKE PROGRAMS. We looked back into our archives and found an article we published 22 July 2004, just a week after we started this blog. Bottom Line? Folks, this nuclear mess involving the Middle East Muslims is much farther along than our press have been reporting, and we are in much deeper trouble with a nuclear Islamia than anyone in "high places" dares acknowledge.

Our blog article, Words of Victor Mordecai, 22 July 2004, cited an Israeli terrorism analyst, Victor Mordecai, and his inside information. Victor wrote a book in 1997 predicting the events, in detail, of 11 September 2001, and he has been literally black-balled by all of the standard media, print and broadcast.

"He lives in Israel. His wife is an Egyptian Jew whose native tongue is Arabic; she has been monitoring Arabic and Farsi broadcasts for 20 years, gathering intelligence-applicable information. He obviously gets information from many other sources as well.

The conflict in the Middle East is fundamentally that between Shia and Sunni Islam. Since Ayatollah Khomeini set off the Iranian revolution, that revolution seeks now to take the heart of the Middle East, the oil producers. Iran stirs Iraq to get Shia Muslims to take it over, for its oil. However, Iran's biggest enemy is Saudi Arabia, because it is Sunni Islam. This conflict has been going on since the day Muhammad died, and the Shias have smouldered for revenge for 1400 years.

"Iran has nuclear weapons, mounted on missles, as does Saudi Arabia. Iran made its with the help of the Russians while Saudi Arabia got its from Dr. Khan in Pakistan and help from China. Shia Iran plans to annihilate Sunni Saudi Arabia which is 50% Shiite. The goal is to have a huge nuclear and oil empire taking in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, as one huge Shiite expanse.

"Common talk across the Middle Eastern airwaves is that] as soon as is possible, Jerusalem must be destroyed by nuclear bombs. This will prove that the God of the Jews and Christians is weaker, reaffirming "Allahu Akbar," which means "Allah is greater." Greater means greater than the God of the Jews and Christians. On the other hand, if the Kaaba in Mecca should be nuked first, then it will prove that the Jewish and Christian God is greater. Muslims will abandon Islam and convert to Judaism and Christianity.

"The USA will have to invade Saudi Arabia to seize the oil fields to prevent global economic collapse. The USA remains in severe danger from Islam because of what the USA represents, which itself threatens Islam, and for what the USA can do to thwart aggressive ambitions in the Middle East."

From War Blog (Front Page Magazine), 29 March 2006
OUR FRIENDS THE NUCLEAR SAUDIS

"BERLIN (AFP) - Saudi Arabia is working secretly on a nuclear programme, with help from Pakistani experts, a German magazine reports in its latest edition, citing Western security sources. The German magazine Cicero says that during the Hajj pilgrimages to Mecca in 2003 through 2005, Pakistani scientists posed as pilgrims to come to Saudi Arabia in aircraft laid on by the oil-rich kingdom...Saudi bar codes can be found on half of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons “because it is Saudi Arabia which ultimately co-financed the Pakistani atomic nuclear programme”."

AND

HEAD OF ARAB LEAGUE PUSHES NUKE PROGRAMS

"KHARTOUM, Sudan - The head of the Arab League called on Arab states Tuesday to work toward “entering the nuclear club” by developing atomic energy — a new concern for a Western world already trying to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and fretting about a possible Mideast arms race. Just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer envisioned a nightmare future, not of nuclear proliferation but of hyperproliferation. That future is headed toward us, and it’s coming fast."

Put it all together, and the final statements from above bear repeating:

Just yesterday, Charles Krauthammer envisioned a nightmare future, not of nuclear proliferation but of hyperproliferation. That future is headed toward us, and it’s coming fast.

Women 'go missing' and Are Brutalized by the Millions

Via: LGF

Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali Dutch member of Parliament is living in hiding under treat of her life since collaborating with Theo VanGogh who produced Submission,a film critical of the treatment of women in Islam. She has become an outspoken and controversial advocate for the plight of women. Her article follows below:

As I was preparing for this article, I asked a friend who is Jewish if it was appropriate to use the term "holocaust" to portray the worldwide violence against women. He was startled. But when I read him the figures in a 2004 policy paper published by the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, he said yes, without hesitation.

One United Nations estimate says from 113 million to 200 million women around the world are demographically "missing." Every year, from 1.5 million to 3 million women and girls lose their lives as a result of gender-based violence or neglect.

How could this possibly be true? Here are some of the factors:

In countries where the birth of a boy is considered a gift and the birth of a girl a curse from the gods, selective abortion and infanticide eliminate female babies.

Young girls die disproportionately from neglect because food and medical attention is given first to brothers, fathers, husbands and sons.

In countries where women are considered the property of men, their fathers and brothers can murder them for choosing their own sexual partners. These are called "honor" killings, though honor has nothing to do with it.

Young brides are killed if their fathers do not pay sufficient money to the men who have married them. These are called "dowry deaths," although they are not just deaths, they are murders.

The brutal international sex trade in young girls kills uncounted numbers of them.

Domestic violence is a major cause of death of women in every country.

So little value is placed on women's health that every year roughly 600,000 women die giving birth.

Six thousand girls undergo genital mutilation every day, according to the World Health Organization. Many die; others live the rest of their lives in crippling pain.

According to the WHO, one woman out of every five worldwide is likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.

Here are three challenges to overcome before countering these horrendous crimes that are occurring worldwide in all societies:

1. Lack of Organization:

Women are not organized or united. Those of us in rich countries, who have attained equality under the law, need to mobilize to assist our fellows. Only our outrage and our political pressure can lead to change.

2. Revival and Spread of Shariah

The Islamists are engaged in reviving and spreading a brutal and retrograde body of laws. Wherever the Islamists implement Shariah, or Islamic law, women are hounded from the public arena, denied education and forced into a life of domestic slavery.

3. Cultural and Moral Relativism Instead of Universal Human Rights

Cultural and moral relativists sap our sense of moral outrage by claiming that human rights are a Western invention. Men who abuse women rarely fail to use the vocabulary the relativists have provided them. They claim the right to adhere to an alternative set of values - an "Asian," "African" or "Islamic" approach to human rights.

This mind-set needs to be broken. A culture that carves the genitals of young girls, hobbles their minds and justifies their physical oppression is not equal to a culture that believes women have the same rights as men.

How to Begin to Turn Around the Situation

1. "A tribunal such as the court of justice in The Hague should look for the 113 million to 200 million women and girls who are missing."

2. "A serious international effort must urgently be made to precisely register violence against girls and women, country by country."

3. "We need a worldwide campaign to reform cultures that permit this kind of crime. Let's start to name them and shame them."

History and current events tell us that although these crimes occur in all societies of the world, the number of incidents will only increase with the spread of Islam, and it is obvious that more women will "disappear" or become the survivors of the brutality described above.

"Round Two of Dubai Investment Issue Begins, This Time for U.S. Defense Plants"

Via The Counterterrorism Blog -- UPI reports the following:

Dubai International Capital, an investment company owned by the emirate's ruling al-Maktoum family, inked a deal last year to acquire a privately held British aerospace company called Doncasters Group, Ltd. The company owns nine plants in the United States, and makes parts for U.S. tanks and military planes, including for the Joint Strike Fighter -- currently at the center of a transatlantic row about contracts and technology sharing.

After senators questioned officials about the Doncasters deal earlier this month, the secretive inter-agency panel known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is responsible for assessing such takeovers, announced that it was launching a special 45-day national security review of the purchase. The attention led Dubai International Capital to announce last week it was postponing the $1.2 billion takeover for two months while the CFIUS review went ahead.

The lobbyists at Hill & Knowlton have their work cut out for them.

What Do Colleges (And Obviously High Schools) Forget to Teach?

The answer: Civics

Without instruction and discussion, how else can expect them to understand the system of rights and responsibilities?

What is the source of this educational breakdown? The trouble isn’t the students—they’re bright and eager to learn. It’s that too few teachers are presenting students with the Founders’ philosophy, much less introducing them to the great issues, some still with us today, that divided the Founders.
And if teachers aren’t teaching the Founding’s principles, where will students learn them? They’re not likely to get any sense of the distinction between the delegated powers of the national government and the general jurisdiction of the states from any newspapers, national magazines, or television news networks, that’s for sure. Have the editors of the New York Times and the folks at CBS News even heard of that distinction yet? News travels slowly, true; but it shouldn’t take 218 years.
The solution to this educational breakdown is straightforward: we need to make a commitment at every level of schooling and within the public media to promote a deep awareness of the principles of the American Founding. Why educate students into archaism? some will doubtless object. Surely governing principles set forth in the eighteenth century have little relevance to us in the twenty-first. But American ideals, as embodied preeminently in the Declaration of Independence, are universal and timeless. ...”

Read it all.

Our schools are in a progressive decline.

Greater Islamia

Here is your Sand Savage Moment of the Day: The United States of Islam (thanks to Foundation for the Defense of Democracy).

And here is the hot link page text (unformatted) from the Islamic website that goes with the map:

A Few years from now, by the turn of the 21st century most part of the world shall be united into strong multipower blocks of nation. I.E. the power full federations and the confederations of states.

These powerful blocks shall not just dominate the world political scene but shall rule the world in all aspects trade and commerce, economic, defense and security issues and other spheres.

Who are these powerful blocks of nations?

They are:
The North American Alliance (NAFTA)
Comprising:
• USA
• MEXICO
• CANADA

Russian Federation

The largest single nation state in the world
China

The biggest economy of the 21st century and the world’s most popular country
European Union , A powerful confederation of rich prosperous European states having a single currency

Do we have an answer to these powerful blocks of Nations?

Do We think standing alone as individual Muslim nation states we could withstand their ever increasing influence and dominance?

No

There is only one answer

Unites States of Islam !

A Powerful confederation of all 55 Muslim nation states andl Islamic people. Uniting in all aspects of trade, commerce, economics, foreign policy, defense and security issues.

But does United States of Islam exists

No-------------it does not

Why does it not exist, when we have these blocks of nations:
• United States of America (NAFTA)
• Russian Federation
• China
• European Union

Why? Because we never sincerely worked for it? & They did…………………….. .?
Still we don’t want to work for it and they do-------------------------------?

Why dont we ?
Because we are often lethargic lacking in ambition, failing to find the right kind of political will necessary to achieve United States of Islam.

Recommendation
A Secure future for the Muslim world lies in Unity not disunity
United States of Islam is not an illusive dream, an utopia, as everyone would tell you.
It is a simple idea, a rational plan which if implemented with sincerety of purpose shall achieve what it should achieve.
The ultimate unity of all Muslim beings.
It does not demand "A radical Islamic Revolution"
Or a political movement
Any unlawful act or anarchy
Its essential are sincerity of purpose and a strong political will to be appred by Muslim Nation States and Islamic people.

Allah's Animals

A UK pet shop owner has found the markings on one side of his tropical fish appear to spell the word "Allah" in Arabic and a fortunate cockerel in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgystan has saved itself from the pot after crowing what its owner claimed was "Allah."

To be even handed, Christians also find likenesses and figures in unusual places: 'Virgin Mary' toast; 'Christ-like' shell.

Meanwhile, Off the EAST Coast, U.S. Wants Own Inspectors at Bahamas Port

The Bush administration will negotiate to station American customs inspectors at the largest seaport in the Bahamas, where the United States is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo, a senior customs official said Monday.

Any such agreement will require approval by the Bahamian government. Diplomatic talks are expected to begin soon to give agents from U.S. Customs and Border Protection a presence at the sprawling Freeport Container Port, just 65 miles from Florida's coast...

The administration has acknowledged the deal represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running sophisticated U.S. radiation-detection equipment at an overseas port without American customs agents present.
Ahern was expected to testify Tuesday at a Senate oversight hearing on radiation detectors in the United States. He said the Homeland Security Department originally intended to station U.S. customs inspectors in the Bahamas by spring under its port-security program, called the Container Security Initiative.

The pending diplomatic talks were confirmed by John Meredith, the group managing director for Hutchison's port subsidiary, which runs the Bahamas port.

"They are getting close to fixing up a deal between the Bahamas and the U.S.," Meredith told the AP. "If they want to put American people out there to have a look at it, that's fine. But people should respect also that you've got to have trusted partnerships, both with the private sector and with foreign governments."

The Bahamas contract is being finalized by the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Energy Department. It has said employees of Hutchison -- the world's largest ports operator -- will drive the towering, truck-like radiation scanner at the port under the direct supervision of Bahamian customs officials...

The GAO urges the installation of radiation monitors at ports pronto if not sooner!

The Islamic Threat Is Greater Than German and Soviet Threats Were

via: JihadWatch

The understatement of the day: "There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living."

One is the number of people who believe in it. This is a new phenomenon among organized evils. Far fewer people believed in Nazism or in communism than believe in Islam generally or in authoritarian Islam specifically. There are one billion Muslims in the world. If just 10 percent believe in the Islam of Hamas, the Taliban, the Sudanese regime, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, bin Ladin, Islamic Jihad, the Finley Park Mosque in London or Hizbollah -- and it is inconceivable that only one of 10 Muslims supports any of these groups' ideologies -- that means a true believing enemy of at least 100 million people. Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism? Outside of Japan, who believed in Japanese imperialism and militarism? And outside of universities, the arts world or Hollywood, how many people believed in Soviet-style totalitarianism?

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones.

But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.

Prager's analysis falters here: "The evils committed by Nazism and Communism were, of course, greater than those committed by radical Islam." As do many, he does not understand that in reality there is no radical Islam, only the Islam that can not set aside any part of the Koran, that disdains all non-Muslims and take offense at even mild criticism of Islam, Muslims, and Mohammed, propelling so-called moderate Muslims into a frenzy of retribution in the name of "justice." (Retribution does not have to be violent.)
Spengler of Asia Times reminds us that "Islam does not know moderation or extremism: it only knows success or failure" and that "the Muslim either is a soldier of the ummah, or he is nothing." All or nothing.

Islam does not have to produce an Auschwitz or a Gulag system to as proof of its greater danger, for entire civilizations and uncounted cultures have been destroyed in the maw of Islam since Mohammed left his cave.

What Is the Frankfurt School?

A plague be on your house! The now-in-power Baby-Boomer generation is infected with "cultural Marxism," created by a tiny group of Nazi-German philosophers.

...Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture?  What is it that is changing our American civilization?...
Just such a core group did, indeed, exist.  That is, history identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture.  Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals.  They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923.  They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture.  It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'

'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923 in Germany, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University.  The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [3].  In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States.  While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley).  These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.

By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [4].  "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality."  Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence.  The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible.  As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [5] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study."  This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction...

The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family.  A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down.  This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence.  This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud.  Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America.  This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years.  While America slept!

What is 'cultural Marxism?'  Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism?  Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism?  The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT.  We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society.  And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad.  They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere.

The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement.  These New Totalitarians [7] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation.  But that is getting ahead of the story.


The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation.  They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus.  The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [8,9].,  Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States.  The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.


William S. Lind relates [10] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots.  It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s.  Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [11].  These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse...


But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933?  Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school?  Look at some of the evidence.


 As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School.  This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack.  Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers.  What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [14].  George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found."  He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [15] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times."  We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture....


 Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world.  These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [26].  They now control every public institution in the United States of America.  Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete.  It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School.  Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'


The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [27] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male.  It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.


If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for.  We are forewarned.  A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.

Stomach churning stuff! /Read it all.


Does Dual Citizenship Erode American National Identity?

In a recent speech, President Bush naively stated that the rapid influx of different cultures would not affect American identity. What a foolish thing to say. Cultural identity is created over the span of decades and sometimes generations and to believe otherwise demonstrates an ignorance of history and the principles of acculturation. Someone should slip him a copy of this symposium.

There will be an effect on the established population regardless of where the migrants are from. Just as in Europe, the many millions of migrants now realize that there is more than safety in numbers; they realize that they have power and are now able to make demands of the government and of the citizens of the country into which they have wandered.

Apparently American high schools and universities skipped the chapters on the falll of Rome. The "final blows" were administered by tribes moving in from the borders. The Romans couldn't or wouldn't defend their borders and were summarily overrun. For some reason our political, business, and religious elite can't grasp the reality of our situation. Nor do they understand the principle, paraphrased: those that don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

A Picture Is Worth a Million Words

This time it's a set of maps.

Then, contemplate this.

Malkin - Welcome to the Reconquista

She has pictures tand video feed as well. Read it all.

Center for Immigration Studies: Current Numbers includes links to various articles on the subject of debate.

During the 1990s, an average of more than 1.3 million immigrants — legal and illegal — settled in the United States each year. Between January 2000 and March 2002, 3.3 million additional immigrants have arrived. In less than 50 years, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will cause the population of the United States to increase from its present 288 million to more than 400 million.

The foreign-born population of the United States is currently 33.1 million, equal to 11.5 percent of the U.S. population. Of this total, the Census Bureau estimates 8-9 million are illegal immigrants. Other estimates indicate a considerably higher number of illegal immigrants.

Approximately 1 million people receive permanent residency annually. In addition, the Census Bureau estimates a net increase of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually.

The present level of immigration is significantly higher than the average historical level of immigration. This flow may be attributed, in part, to the extraordinary broadening of U.S. immigration policy in 1965. Since 1970, more than 30 million legal and illegal immigrants have settled in the U.S., representing more than one-third of all people ever to come to America's shores.

At the peak of the Great Wave of immigration in 1910, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. was less than half of what it is today, though the percentage of the population was slightly higher. The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth.

A day without Americans. Now there's and idea!

A Trans-Atlantic Conversation

Today, we received this email. We have removed sender identifications.

Subj: Just keep up the blog and information

I am a fairly liberal minded United Kingdom citizen, but in 1989 I became concerned at the reaction of what I once thought were my friends and nieghbours (mostly from Pakistan) against Salman Rushdie, an Indian that wrote the Satanic Verses, which was a novel revolving around the lives of some minor Indian actors and their thoughts and reactions to Islamic rules. I bought and read the book, and thought it nothing special, but the Islamicists said it denigrated their religion. I was very confused as I didn't read anything bad about religion.

Until I saw the taliban destroying statues of Buddha, I was quite happy living alongside my Muslim friends, then I started asking 'why do these taliban destroy these statues' and had vague half-hearted replies. Then along came 9/11. I met an Islam friend at a curry house (UK curry restuarants are run by people from Pakistan or Bangladesh, all Muslims) and was surprised that the guy that owned the place was quite happy that the US had been "hit at last."

I was quite upset about the attitude of some people I thought were my friends and colleagues. Why did they react like this? Was the US such a bad place? So I embarked on a research of Islam, and was very surprised at what I learnt. The "religion of peace" was nothing like that, and I looked at my friends in a different light. I still hate to dislike them because of their "religion," as I like them and have had many good times with them.

So I remain friends, but have become alittle bit removed from them, which saddens me. I hope we can sort it all out.

Regards

~~~~~

6thCAJ & Sixth Column Response

Thank you for writing. What an agonizing journey your have described for yourself. Although so many of us have taken differing routes, we have ended at the same destination, along with you. I knew precious little about Islam and Muslims until the events of 11 September 2001. I bought my first koran and was so horrified by what I found in it that I began what has felt like a quest-without-end to learn all I could. It did not take long to discover that Islam has no redeeming aspects, that its contradictions are played up to unsuspecting and ignorant Westerners to mollify them, and that there is NO "moderate" Islam. That has made me totally suspicious of all Muslims. Given their proclivity for sanctioned deception, I can never tell when a "nice" seeming Muslim is for real or is just playing me, waiting for the awakening of his sleeper cell. It sounds so paranoid to write this, but I have to put the blame onto them.

Best to you//George Mason

What Muslims create for themselves world-wide is bad press and rotten reputations. Do they care at all? Or is their obsession to destroy and rule the ruins all they can manage? Have they not read any of their own history--do they not know that Islam paralyzes their minds and productivity so that they can only destroy but are cursed never to create and build? If they actually took over the world, anything worthwhile would quickly become rubble, and they could never rebuild because they are total parasites. Why would anyone want this? Why have they wanted this for 1400 years?

Malkin - Shame on President Bush

What did he do? His pecados include those he did and those he failed to do.

Read Malkin.

Stay tuned for further developments.

The War Against Swedes

Fjordman posts this time at Gates of Vienna. (Fjordman used to post at his own blog which he is unable to update because of lack of time. He posts intermittently on cooperating blogs.)

Social disintegration is occurring all across Europe as young Muslims rape, bomb, and pillage, violent crimes as a form of warfare.

....“I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they are robbing other youths. It usually doesn’t involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.

Almost 90% of all robberies that are reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals.

“When we are in the city and robbing, we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as much as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth view Swedes as stupid and cowardly:

“The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers don’t plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”

Read it all.

100 More Saudis to Enroll at Arizona

The UA will enroll about 100 new Saudi Arabian students this summer, which could signal the reverse of a post-Sept. 11 trend of having fewer international students in the United States, especially those from the Middle East. 

The students are part of a new large-scale scholarship program by the Saudi government, which will send about 6,000 students to American universities this year after just 1,442 Saudi students had visas to study in the United States in 2004.

About 80 of the students are already at the UA, enrolled in English-immersion classes before they start their academic programs in the fall. More are expected by the start of next semester as they secure visas.
"International education and student mobility are critical to a lot of positive initiatives worldwide," said Joanne Lagassé Long, director of the Office of International Student Affairs. "The best way to do that is have students study in each other's countries."

The Saudi scholarship program comes at a time when international student interest in American universities is rebounding nationwide. After Sept. 11, 2001, new federal procedures and delays in obtaining U.S. visas caused a decline in foreign students in the United States.

International-student enrollment at the UA surged from the late 1990s until 2002, but has dropped sharply since. The UA had 3,011 international students in 2002 but was down to 2,446 last fall. There's a distinct economic benefit to international students, with the new Saudis expected to have an impact of about $3 million a year on the Tucson economy.
But with this new crop of Saudi Arabian students, it's clear the UA is a hit.
"U of A is famous in Saudi Arabia," said Abdullah Alshammari, 35. "All of them didn't come by chance. They made a plan."

Alshammari, who will be a doctoral student in environment engineering, said he chose the UA because of its reputation. Teachers of his in Saudi Arabia studied here and recommended it highly.

Most of the students at the UA had positive recommendations from alumni in Saudi Arabia, including family members, friends and teachers. Aside from the academic quality, many remember Tucson as a comfortable place.
"Arizona is like the Saudi climate," he said.

The UA had a large number of Saudi Arabian students in the 1970s and early 1980s, but that number declined in the mid-1980s as Saudi Arabia began building universities to keep its own students, said Alfred Stover, assistant Center for English as a Second Language director for outreach and development.

"Now they really want to foster positive relations with the U.S. and that's one of the many reasons they want to send students here," he said. "We're hoping this is positive because the purpose is to facilitate a relationship between countries, just like international education does."
The program grew out of an agreement in April by President Bush and then-Crown Prince Abdullah, with the more open policy part of larger efforts at improving relations between the two nations.

Hattip: LGF

Read the rest.

Not surprising as Tucson was also the favorite destination of bin Laden followers and others with terrorist connections. Saudi Arabia also has extensive investments in the United States, sort of like the fox providing for the chickens in the henhouse its about to raid!

Kiss Me, I'm Illegal

From New York Times

Too Late? Deconstructing America

A sea of humanity 500, 000 strong, floods the streets Los Angeles and many American cities, demanding "with powerful voices" their rights. They want a better life, a better education, etc., etc. The mayor of Los Angeles Villaraigosa, who swore to uphold the Constitution and to protect the U.S. from all threats, backs up these people.

They say that we are a nation of immigrants. Not true. We are a descendants of immigrants. The great majority of Americans were born and some are descendants of immigrants who have lived within these borders for hundreds or thousands of years.

During the early days of our republic, our founding fathers feared the effect of unchecked and indiscriminate immigration into the United States.

The Founders’ Views of Immigration and Assimilation
In the late 18th century, the young republic needed a larger population and encouraged immigration. At the same time, America's founders were concerned with assimilating immigrants. Thus, George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be integrated into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."  In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society." In Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 
 
Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

Alexander Hamilton insisted that "the safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on the love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family." The ultimate success of the American republic, he maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character," among native born and immigrant alike.

Hamilton opposed granting citizenship immediately put to new immigrants: "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."  Instead, he recommended that we gradually draw newcomers into American life, "to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs."

Clearly, Washington's call for "one people," Madison's insistence that the immigrant "incorporate himself into our society," Jefferson's concern that some newcomers might not be prepared for "temperate liberty," and Hamilton's emphasis on the "safety" of our republic and the "love of country," are all more or less of one piece. They are a clarion call for "patriotic assimilation."  Given the founders' forthright insistence on patriotic assimilation, it is not surprising that the Naturalization Law of 1795 required that before becoming American citizens, aliens would have to "renounce under oath" all previous sovereign allegiances.  This "renunciation clause" remains today part of the naturalization law and part of the oath to the U. S. Constitution that all new citizens must take.

(Hattip) Michelle Malkin

Obviously their words have been forgotten.

Not forgotten, though, are the words of foreign leaders who are exhorting their citizens to move in.

In 1997, then Mexican president, Ernesto Zedillo told Mexican nationals in Chicago, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important--a very important--part of this." (Scroll down and listen to the RealAudio Sound Clip)

During the 19th century, Mexico invited immigrants from the United States to settle its territories in the north. Land was given to entrepreneurs with the understanding that attracted settlers would become loyal Mexican citizens. Mexico expected that these settlers would: learn Spanish, follow the Catholic faith, and follow all laws created by the government in Mexico City. A few thousand settlers came and some decided that they didn't want to adhere to the rules and regulations of settlement and that the laws promulgated in Mexico City were tyrannical and they fomented an armed rebellion.

Now we have a reverse of fortune for the United States. Rather than a few thousand, we have more than ten million settlers who find the rules and regulations of migration to be unworthy and the laws promulgated in Washington D.C. and the various state legislatures to be tyrannical. Will these millions remain peaceful or will they follow the example of the 19th century Texans and Texicans?

For several troubling decades, the people of the United States have been in a state of unease because of the lack of will demonstrated by the Federal Government. Next month George W. Bush goes to Mexico to "negotiate" an immigration policy. With millions of its citizens on this side of the border, it appears that Mexico is in a position of strength.

Jorge Castenada, Mexican Secretary of State in 2001, is one of the meddling Mexicans who attempts to make policy for the United States. Castenada on democratic ideals: It is "undemocratic" for California to exclude non-citizens, specifically illegal aliens, from voting."

Ironically he is supported in this view by the former US Immigration and Naturalization General Counsel, T. Tlexander Aleinikoff, who declared that

"[we] live in a post assimilationist age," adding that majority preferences simply "reflect the norms and cultures of dominant groups," (as opposed to the norms and cultures of "feminists and people of colour.") In effect what is being said is that American democracy is not authentic and that "real" democracy is yet to be created when the different "peoples" or groups within America "share power" as groups.

In other words, over the decades, people within and without various administrations and power elite groups have been deconstructing America, discounting the feelings of ordinary Americans, the majority.

What we have here is also "denationalization" and "transnationalization."

"Denationalised" citizenship 
  
          Another concept which is being advanced, writes Fonte, is that citizenship should be "denationalised." In the name of "inclusion," "social justice," "democratic engagement" and "human rights" some theorists argue for "transnational citizenship," "postnational citizenship" or even "global citizenship" embedded in international human rights accords and "evolving" forms of transnational arrangements. To this end, a number of books have been published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, dealing with such matters as "challenging traditional understandings of belonging and membership" in nation-states and "rethinking the meaning of citizenship." These essays by authors from countries such as France, Germany, Britain and Canada argue for new and "evolving" transnational forms of citizenship as a normative good. 
  
          Fonte believes that the theory of transnationalism will be the next stage of the multicultural ideology and he expects it to be for the first decade of the 21st century what multiculturalism was during the last decade of the 20th century. A kind of multiculturalism with a human face, a concept that gives the elites an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). My dictionary defines plausible as being "apparently right, using specious (pleasing to the eye) arguments." Those who argue in favour of transnationalism believe that globalization requires some form of transnational "global governance" because, like our Mr Martin, they think that the nation-state and the concept of national citizenship are not suited to dealing with the global problems we may expect in the future.  
  
          We can expect to be bombarded with all kinds of combinations of terms preceded by the word transnational such as "t-citizenship," "t-actors," "t-organisation," "t-migrants,"and "t-jurisprudence." Academics at public policy conferences will be spouting these words, just as during the last decade they wittered on about multiculturalism and education, law, literature and citizenship. A distinguished anthropologist from the University of Chicago has opined that the USA is in transition from being a "land of immigrants" to "one node in a post-national network of diasporas." 

Enough of theory. The practical application is already in place with reality of the many millions that are just here. What are we to do with them? There is no practical way to solve the problem without creating something worse. Too late. The noises being made is legislatures of the land are nothing but "sound and fury." America is falling apart, devolving into interest groups. The commonality decreed by the founders has been put aside.. Yes, the United States exists as an address, but the concept of America has been sold out to the highest bidder. Get used to it.

Joe Guzzaardi's Promise: "I'll Never Give Up!"

Yes, the shape of immigration is important for we have seen how the shape has transformed Europe in the past few decades. We should all be concerned about pending Senate legislation.

Read all of Guzzardi's Promise and the informative internal links.

Then check out We hate gringos. (Caution: explicit language and gestures) and "Without immigrants, this country wouldn't be anything."

Are Hispanics Becoming American?

Mexican flags are waving in the streets of the United States. This part of the problem. Linda Chavez states that Hispanics are "becoming Americans" as did those of previous waves of immigrants. Are they? The answer is "maybe." The answer is "sometimes." Some Hispanic immigrants are choosing to become Americans while others are here to exploit and even to undermine the American system.

For example, irredentist groups such as Maldef and MEChA are decidedly interested in the latter choice, openly advocating a position of creating a separatist state. Meddling Latin American governments such as Mexico claim that "immigration" is problem that must be solved "in partnership with the United States" while also advocating positions that are undermining and hostile to the United States. For instance, Mexico is making four demands: (listen to Four Mexican demands)

1. The documentation of regularization of Mexicans currently in the United States. (As many rights as possible, to as many Mexicans as possible, as soon as possible and many rights listed on the ram audio file.)

2. Border safety and violence;

3. Permanent visas for Mexicans and removing Mexico from the country quota or country quota or country ceiling category because of the "special relationship" that exists;

4. Guest worker programs or temporary worker programs.

The Mexican economy benefits from the billions sent home in remittance. Dual citizenship divides immigrants loyalties. Are they Americans or are they Mexican, or Guatemalan, or Russian, or what ever?

In the case of Mexicans, who can really know as Mexico encourages immigrants to run for office in Mexico while residing in the United States, as Mexican officials proudly boast that America (meaning the United States) is becoming more Mexican every day. The Mexican government has set up Consulares throughout the United States that issue and ID card and help Mexican citizens to obtain services and rights in the United States while "maintaining their Mexicaness." an obvious hostile act to the interest of the United States. Unfortunately Mexico is not the only government that hold these policies. The importance of focusing on Mexico is that Mexico is the only country that shares a long border over which pour millions of its citizens!

Mexican migrants are not unique in their refusal to assimilate to the United States. I hesitate to call them immigrants for an immigrant is one that willingly and enthusiastically embraces that culture, language, and mores of the adopted country. Today's Hispanic migrants are choosing not to learn English and have self-segretated into metropolitan areas in which Anglos feel uncomfortable or even fear to go. They have become "no go areas," or neo-cultural and political zones, hence fulfilling the aspirations of groups such as Maldef and MEChA. Some are warning Hispanics that Anglos will turn on them in a shooting war.

IMMIGRANTS AND MIGRANTS ARE DEMANDING THEIR RIGHTS. Mainstream Americans aren't anti-immigrant so much as they are against those that refuse to assimilate, refuse to learn English, refuse to abandon parts of their culture that are not appropriate to life in the United States, or refuse to offer to the United States an undivided loyalty by forgoing dual citizenship, in whom the citizenship oath has from a true home.

Next week Bush travels to Mexico to "negotiate." Shouldn't he, as does Mexico, make demands that Hispanics from this country come in the interest of the United States and not the interest of their home country?

Protecting U.S. Strategic Assets

Did you know that "most U.S. ports are managed by foreigners and that Saudi Arabia has 50% ownership in the Houston-headquartered Motiva Enterprises LLC?

According to an article by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen published March 24, 2006 in FrontPage, Motiva is a "joint venture of the Shell Oil Company and Saudi Refining, a subsidiary of Aramco, the Saudi government-owned company, shipping petroleum products, including gasoline and aviation fuel into Connecticut where it owns and operations portions of the New Haven and Bridgeport ports.

In addition, Motiva operates:

portions of 15 other ports nationwide in Tampa; Fort Lauderdale; Dania, Fl.; Hollywood, Fl.; Baltimore; Lawrence and New York, N.Y.; Newark and Sewaren, NJ; Convent and Norco, La.; South Portland, Me.; Providence; Port Arthur and Port Nechas in Texas; Since 2002, Motiva received in one year alone,  at least 14 port security grants totaling at least $4 million from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, according to undated DHS documents. The grants were awarded for “surveillance” and “physical enhancement.”  Finally, Motiva owns two Louisiana refineries and full or partial interests in 47 product terminals. Motiva also owns above-ground storage tanks in the port of Baltimore, as in the other ports. Motiva and its partner Shell Oil, “collectively account for about 10 percent of total U.S. refining capacity and a 13 percent share of U.S. gasoline sales.”

Saudi Arabia also owns and operates:

In the New Haven port, Motiva owns storage tanks containing a portion of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve—the part set aside as the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve – the second largest heating oil reserve in the Northeast. And according to a December 2004 letter from Senator Christopher Dodd to then Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, New Haven harbor is also the starting point for “the jet fuel pipeline that provides 2.7 million gallons of petroleum liquids per year to Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Bradley Airport.” Bridgeport serves as a major import hub for perishable goods, and as a passenger ferry terminal. Motiva, like other companies operating in Bridgeport and New Haven, manages its own security.
 
In Delaware, where until last year Motiva owned a facility, the company pleaded guilty “to negligently endangering workers at its former refinery in Delaware City, Delaware, discharging pollutants into the Delaware River and negligently releasing sulfuric acid into the air .” Motiva was fined “$10 million and to serve a three-year term of probation.”

It seems that we are inextricably tied to a nation that "continues to fund the spread of radical Islam around the world," an Islamic nation, by definition, one that is duty bound to destroy us.

If that's not enough:

No less troubling is the 10 North American shipping terminals managed by the Riyadh based National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia (NSCSA). Established  in 1979, it operates eight of these terminals in the U.S.: Newark, NJ; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Wilmington, NC; Savannah, GA: Baltimore, MD; Newport News, VA; Houston, TX, and New Orleans, LA.
 
Despite these substantial properties in strategic locations, the Saudi holdings sailed below the radar when the controversy arose over the DP World debacle. Moreover, little complaint was heard regarding the 2004, DP World acquisition of several U.S. port terminals in its $1.1 billion purchase of the international terminal business from U.S. railroad and shipping giant, CSX Corp.

Saudi Arabia's holdings "sailed below the radar" during the controversy over the DP World.

It gets worse. Dubai is involved again. Read it for yourself.

"Operation First Responder" Needs Your Help!

Folks,

Many of you already know about the extraordianry symposium to be held by America's Truth Forum on 29 April 2006. FrontPageMagazine has published the story of just how difficult the combined forces of PC and Islam have made it to pull off something like this - you know, the TRUTH!

They have been using the usual tactics, especially fear and intimidation. Potential symposium sites have pulled out, and even the biggest corporations have been scared off of supporting this amazing conference. If the Big Boys are too afraid to help out, who's left?

WE ARE! As usual, if you want a job done right, do it yourself. Borders, ports, and now, meetings and freedom to tell the truth.

This is just me - no one has asked me to go begging, but this meeting is so important for all of us that I am proud to beg: PLEASE DONATE WHATEVER YOU CAN TO HELP. It might be too scary for Boeing, General Dynamics, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Dupont, and so on (see list below), but if we all pull together, it isn't too scary for Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Sally, and Mary.

Please send whatever you can to support this magnificent and daring effort. What an investment! The long-term benefits are incalcuably great!

Here is the full report from FrontPageMagazine:


DENYING THE TERRORIST REALITY
By Joe Kaufman FrontPageMagazine.com March 21, 2006


America's Truth Forum's symposium, The Underlying Roots of Terrorism: Terrorism's Threat to World Peace and National Security, is set to take place April 29th. Speaking at the event will be some of the biggest names in the counter-terrorism field. While those involved in the symposium understand the reality of the terrorism threat, there are many that have, whether out of fear or ignorance, chosen to ignore it.

The event was originally scheduled to be held in Connecticut on September 21st of 2005, but it was sidetracked by CBS/Infinity Radio, who at the last minute, refused to air paid advertisements from America's Truth Forum (ATF). "Too many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matter. It's too controversial to be aired at this time," was their response. This being the case, Jeffrey Epstein, the group's President, decided to move the symposium, both time and location.

The new venue didn't come without its own snags. On November 4, 2005, Epstein flew into D.C. to sign a contract with the GeorgetownMarriottConferenceCenter. But during negotiations with the hotel, Epstein was abruptly ushered out of the Marriott's office. Two weeks later, Marriott Corporate Headquarters issued the following statement: "Due to the high density of Muslim students on the Georgetown campus, members of the staff at Marriott Georgetown were afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured hotel employees and property damage. This is the official stance of the Marriott Corporation."

Today, a new venue in the Greater Washington, D.C. area has been secured, so far without a hitch. But just as things seemed to be going smoothly, a new problem arose - finding sponsorships for the affair.

The war on terror has affected so many different areas of our everyday lives. Many industries have had to change the way they run, especially with regard to security. With this in mind, who better to solicit sponsorships from than those that have had to deal firsthand with the extremist threat?

Epstein worked the phones, calling every entity he figured would be interested in such an important event as his organization was planning. But when one takes a glance at the list of those corporations that have declined to get involved, one is faced with a terrible foreboding for our future.

The following companies, according to Epstein, were contacted for support and showed no interest. Stock answers included "lack of funds" or "terrorism isn't high on their list of priorities," while others chose not to respond at all.

ATK - not involved in war on terror. makes ammo for military and law enforcement.
Boeing - no interest. then refused to purchase seats for first responders due to budgetary considerations.

BAE systems - not interested.
General Dynamics - left messages. no interest.
Halliburton - unable to fund our request at this time.
Maersk Line - no formal reply.
Northrop Grumman - no interest.
Lockheed Martin - no money.
Raytheon - already budgeted out - most likely no funds.
Dupont - declined, because they can't favor every request; subsequent requests for purchase of a couple of seats for law enforcement agents went ignored.
Motorola - no response.
DRS technologies - won't fit with their overall plans.
Zodiac - no funds.wished us well.
Honeywell - no outside solicitation accepted.not interested in program.
L3 Communications - no response.
Rolls-Royce North America - no response.
United Technologies - can't support due to budget limitations.
Pepsi-Cola Military Sales - can only afford to support a small number of worthwhile projects.
Voight Aircraft Industries, Inc . - no interest.
Red Lobster - our request doesn't fit into their brand's strategy.
Anheuser Busch Companies - directed me to local distributors. no response.
Coors - no interest or funds.
American Airlines - no money.
Southeast Airlines - no response.
Wynn Las Vegas - Mrs. Wynn had no interest.
Wal-Mart - no response.
National Beer Wholesaler's Association - no response.
Airline Pilot's Association - no response.
International Association of Firefighters - no response.
Outback Steakhouse - no response.
Wendy's Restaurants - no response.
Yum Brands - no response.
Brinker International - no response.
National Truckers Association (NTA) - no response.
Chevrolet Corporate Relations - no interest.
Insurance carriers that underwrote 9/11 losses:
QBE - won't support.
Chubb Insurance - no response.
American Reinsurance - no response.
Zurich American - no response.
One Beacon Insurance - no response.
Crum & Forster - no response.
Oil companies contacted:
Sunoco - no response.
BP P.L.C. - terrorism isn't of concern.
Bresnan Communications - no response.
Kantor Fitzgerald (securities company that lost employee in trade center) - no interest.
Hotels that suffered recent bombings:
Radisson Hotel - no response.
Grand Hyatt - no response.
Days Inn - no response.

The list is overwhelming to say the least. It would be comical, if the subject being discussed were not so serious!

To work around this unfortunate response from those that should, but are not, concerned, America's Truth Forum has had to get creative. One of the ways the group did this was by implementing a new initiative titled, 'Operation First Responder.'

According to Epstein: "'OPERATION FIRST RESPONDER' effectively bridges the gap between concerned citizens that share ATF's concern for future generations, but can't attend due to a variety of reasons, and those law enforcement agencies that lack the financial wherewithal to be adequately represented at the forum. We are simply providing folks with a viable alternative - the opportunity to purchase seats on behalf of first responders and law enforcement agents, who would greatly benefit from being in attendance. After all, experts like Dr. Harvey Kushner and Dr. Bruce Tefft have dedicated their careers to training thousands of law enforcement agents worldwide. The information they intend to share might eventually prove to be life-saving."

Epstein continued: "We are fighting for the very survival of Western society. Yet, American corporations refuse to support educational initiatives designed to assist those on the front lines. In consideration of the 3000 victims who perished on 9/11, it's not acceptable for these corporations to not step up to the plate and, in the very least, purchase a few seats for law enforcement agents and first responders - people that have shown great interest in the symposium and would benefit from being in attendance. Once again, the burden falls on our citizenry."

If you would like to attend this event, or if you want to take part in 'OPERATION FIRST RESPONDER,' go to www.americastruthforum.com to register for the April 29, 2006 symposium, 'The Underlying Roots of Terrorism: Terrorism's Threat to World Peace and National Security.'

The terrorism threat is real. If we continue to turn our backs on those that are fighting the war, then how will we ever win?

Right to Life or Right to Consign One's Country and Culture to the Dustbin of History?

We will have to make a choice.

Mark Steyn: Salute Danna Vale

Demography is destiny, the theme that Spengler of AsiaTimes keeps hammering is being painfully brought home by others who are noticing that there are "fast-growing and culturally confident Muslim populations in Scandinavia" and other unexpected places in the world.

Demography doesn't explain everything but it accounts for a good 90 per cent. The "who" is the best indicator of the what-where-when-and-why. Go on, pick a subject. Will Japan's economy return to the heady days of the 1980s when US businesses cowered in terror? Answer: No. Japan is exactly the same as it was in its heyday except for one fact: it stopped breeding and its population aged. Will China be the hyperpower of the 21st century? Answer: No. Its population will get old before it gets rich.

Check back with me in a century and we'll see who's right on that one. But here's one we know the answer to: Why is this newspaper published in the language of a tiny island on the other side of the earth? Why does Australia have an English Queen, English common law, English institutions? Because England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality.

Why are we reading this and other publications in English? Why has English become the world's lingua franca, the language of mass transportation and mass communication? Why is English now the langauge of the educated and the sophisticated rather than...Cree, Moldavan, or even Arabic? The answer will surprise you:

By 1820 medical progress had so transformed British life that half the population was under the age of 15. Britain had the manpower to take, hold, settle and administer huge chunks of real estate around the planet. Had, say, China or Russia been first to overcome childhood mortality, the modern world would be very different.

The concept of conquest by population has been noted by another culturally confident group. Look at these numbers:

What country today has half of its population under the age of 15? Italy has 14 per cent, the UK 18 per cent, Australia 20 per cent - and Saudi Arabia has 39 per cent, Pakistan 40 per cent and Yemen 47 per cent. Little Yemen, like little Britain 200 years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world - one way or another.

Danna Vale, Australia backbencher, "unsensitively" pointed out the obvious: "Australia is aborting itself out of recognition and that therefore Islam will inherit (Australia and the world) by default. Her remarks were termed: "outrageous," "insensitive," "offensively discriminatory," and "bigoted."

Here we walk in a minefield for to opine on abortion, one way or another is an invitation to blow one's self up.
Look at the evidence. Earlier generations of women concluded that personal ambition, her "right to choose" was most important. They didn't consider beyond that consequence. They didn't consider the possibility of conquest by demographics, national bankruptcy, or cultural annihilation brought on by the power of other women's wombs.

... given that today's wee bairns are tomorrows funders of otherwise unsustainable social programs, all responsible governments should be seriously natalist. The reason Europe, Russia, and Japan are doomed boils down to a big lack of babies. Abortion isn't solely responsible for that but it's certainly part of the problem...seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call "lowest-low fertility - 1.3 births per woman, the point at which you're so far down the death spiral you can't pull out.

In theory, those countries will find their population halving every 40 years or so. In practice, it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there's no point sticking around a country that's turned into one big undertaker's waiting room: not every pimply burger flipper is going to want to work himself into the ground to pay for new shuffleboard courts at the old folks' home.

And here's the nitty gritty:

In 2005, some 137 million babies were born around the globe. That 137 million is the maximum number of 20-year-olds who'll be around in 2025. There are no more, no other sources; that's it, barring the introduction of mass accelerated cloning (which is by no means an impossibility). Who that 137 million are will determine the character of our world.

The shape's already becoming clear. Take those Danish cartoons. Every internet blogger wants to take a stand on principle alongside plucky little Denmark. But there's only five million of them. Whereas there are 20 million Muslims in Europe - officially. That's the equivalent of the Danes plus the Irish plus the Belgians plus the Estonians.

You do the mathematics. If you want the reality of Europe in a nutshell, walk into a supermarket belonging to the French chain Carrefour. You'll be greeted by a notice in Arabic: "Dear Clients, We express solidarity with the Islamic and Egyptian community. Carrefour doesn't carry Danish products." It's strictly business: they have three Danish customers and a gazillion Muslim ones. Retail sales-wise, they know which way their bread's buttered and it isn't with Lurpak.

For retail sales, it's "strictly business," but for real politick and for real culture, the shape of those "outsourced reproducers" does matter. It's a hell-of-a lot-more-than-business!!

Greek, Vietnamese, Korean, Ibo, Italian, Mexican, and so on, are all tribes and nationalities that have come under scrutiny and eventually have eased themselves into society. But, and there is always a but, for Islam, the "shape" is different. As Steyn points out while paraphrasing Vale:

But Islam is a religion, and an explicitly political one - unlike the birthplace of your grandfather it's not something you leave behind in the old country. Indeed, for its adherents in the West, it becomes their principal expression - a Pan-Islamic identity that transcends borders.

But Islam is a religion, and an explicitly political one - unlike the birthplace of your grandfather it's not something you leave behind in the old country. Indeed, for its adherents in the West, it becomes their principal expression - a Pan-Islamic identity that transcends borders.

When the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet is also the one most resistant to the pieties of the social-democratic state that's a profound challenge...

"That's a profound challenge" is understating the problem. Steyn points out the condition of the aging populations of uni-cultures such as Japan and bi-cultural Europe, he also reminds us that multicultural London, Gaza, and a Bali are in a "literal baby boom" as they did not fall victim to those "silly books about overpopulation," and I would add, those books on self-actualization that created the mindset of postponing or forgoing parenthood that have caused the problem in the first place.

The Americas, Australia, and Southern Africa will be the beneficiaries of the fleeing European talent, but as Islam has arrived to those shores as well and Muslims are beginning to play the same tricks that made them so successful in Europe and other parts of the world, these societies don't have the luxury of time to figure out how to reverse the effects of "me culture" and at the same time neutralize and thwart Islam and the Muslims on their shores.

The Evolving Al Qaeda Threat

There Are Others, but Al Qaeda is Bush's pick for the nastiest and most low down of the bunch. There inspirational and nominal leader, Osama bin Laden is hiding or may even be dead. A wealthy Yemeni, whose many sons and son's-in-law could carry on the fight. Right now a co-hort, an Egyptian doctor Ayman al-Zawahir is his second in command.

Al Qaeda goes with the flow, adapting to circumstances and to the enemy. For them, here's the rub: we are also adapting.

emaah Islamiah, captured in Thailand; and Hamzah al-Rabbiyah al-Masri, a key operational leader killed in Pakistan. More than 4,000 suspected al-Qaeda members have been arrested worldwide since September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda cells have been uncovered, dismantled, and disrupted in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. More than $140 million of its assets have been blocked in over 1,400 bank accounts worldwide.

Al-Qaeda remains a potent threat to the United States, its allies, and a wide variety of other states. But al-Qaeda's leaders increasingly must focus on their own personal security and have less time for plotting mass murder. It is more difficult for bin Laden and his lieutenants to recruit new members, train them, communicate with them, or carry out new operations. The isolation of al-Qaeda's top leaders, believed to be hidden along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, has reduced their ability to supervise the network's activities in other regions. They often must resort to unsecure low-tech communications such as letters carried by couriers. A letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's second in command, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq, was intercepted last year. Zawahiri chastised Zarqawi in that letter, dated in July 2005, for unleashing indiscriminate violence on Iraqi civilians, whose political support would be important for turning Iraq into a radical Islamic state.

Despite their tactical differences, al-Qaeda's leaders share the same long-term goal: the creation of a single, unified Muslim state governed by a harsh brand of Sharia (Islamic law). To recreate a version of the caliphate and build a radical Islamic empire, bin Laden and his associates seek to play the role of a vanguard party that will serve as a catalyst to inspire other Muslims to join in building their new utopia. Just as fascist and communist revolutionaries were willing to kill tens of millions of people to impose their utopian schemes in the 20th century, al-Qaeda's leaders are willing to spill the blood of millions to create their own radical vision of an Islamic empire in the 21st century.

According to Philips, the author, we must destroy the center of gravity, the leadership structure and finally the ideology which won't be easy:

Capturing or killing AQC leaders is more of an intelligence problem than a purely military one. Neutralizing the top leaders would not end the threat posed by al-Qaeda's network of quasi-independent cells, but over time it would diminish the scale of the threat, hinder their ability to coordinate operations, restrict their financing, and set back the recruitment, training, and deployment of new terrorist operatives. Capturing or killing bin Laden could demoralize his followers and deprive the organization of its charismatic recruiter, fundraiser, and financial backer. Without its top leaders, the network could fracture into independent franchises that would each pose less of a threat to the United States and its allies than al-Qaeda's present threat, which remains substantial.

The war against al-Qaeda will be a protracted struggle. There is no silver bullet, nor a single target that the U.S. could hit to win the war in one stroke. Even if Osama bin Laden is captured or killed tomorrow, Muslim extremists will continue to attack the United States for decades to come. "Bin Ladenism" has become a threat that will outlast bin Laden. It is important that he be caught or killed, but it is even more important that his ideas, his ideology, be decisively discredited.

Bin Laden is not just a terrorist, but an Islamic revolutionary...a very serious statement. The conclusion is that bin Laden movement is a true revolution, revolting against apostates all over the world, corruption in Middle Eastern States, the existence of foreign troops on "Muslim lands," the "occupation of lands formerly in Muslim hands at any time in history by Muslims, immoraltiy, and the destruction of Muslim values through the polution of modernity and the corrupting presences of other cultures that lure Muslims away from Islam.

There is a method is his madness:

He seeks not only to kill Americans, but ultimately to overthrow every government in the Muslim world, with the possible exception of the radical regime in Sudan, which once gave him sanctuary. His ideological fantasy is to unify the entire Muslim world in one state, ruled under his harsh and radical brand of Islam.

There are four crucial fronts in the war against Al-Qaeda

1. Pakistan/Afgjanistan.

Al-Qaeda emerged as an organization during the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan and was based there after the Taliban movement seized power in 1996. The defeat and ouster of the Taliban in 2001 led many al-Qaeda members to flee to neighboring Pakistan, where they have been hidden and assisted by Pakistani sympathizers who seek to build radical Islamic states in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan is an extremely important front because it is one of the largest, most powerful Muslim countries and already possesses nuclear weapons. The coming to power of an extremist Islamist government possibly could lead to the transfer of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaeda or other terrorists favored by that regime.

2. Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is an important front in the struggle because Saudis have provided leadership, financing, and ideological indoctrination to al-Qaeda members. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is the strategic storehouse of roughly one-quarter of the world's proven oil reserves. If the Saudi royal family were overthrown by a regime sympathetic to al-Qaeda, the future economic security of all oil-importing countries would be put at risk. If al-Qaeda gained control of Saudi oil wealth, or the two holy places (Mecca and Medina), it would be in a much better position to boost its jihad.

The Saudi ruling dynasty has made a Faustian bargain with the Wahhabi religious establishment in which it lavishly funds Wahhabi efforts to spread their fundamentalist brand of Islam in exchange for the Wahhabis turning a blind eye to the corruption and un-Islamic behavior of many members of the royal family. The Saudi government initially was happy to deflect bin Laden to attacks on American, rather than Saudi targets. But after al-Qaeda's May 2003 bombings inside Saudi Arabia, the Saudis cracked down on al-Qaeda supporters and undertook limited reforms in religious charities that had been funding bin Laden.

3. Iraq

Iraq is a critical front in the war against al-Qaeda because it has become a rallying point, a major propaganda issue, a staging area, and a potentially fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. The United States and its allies cannot allow Zarqawi's al-Qaeda thugs to establish a permanent base in Iraq, which would become a strategic springboard for al-Qaeda to penetrate the heart of the Arab world, threaten moderate Arab regimes, and disrupt Persian Gulf oil exports.
In an audiotape released on December 27, 2004, bin Laden named Abu Musab Zarqawi as his deputy in charge of al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, met bin Laden during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but had retained his independence, in part because he believed bin Laden was too soft. Although they shared the same long-term goal of building a global Muslim state under a new caliphate, Zarqawi held a fierce hostility to Shiite Muslims, whom he regarded as heretics who should be converted or slaughtered, while bin Laden was willing to paper over sectarian differences until the "far enemy," the United States, was defeated.

As a former prison enforcer, Zarqawi also displayed a ruthless streak that shocked even some of bin Laden's supporters. He deployed truck bombs against Shiite mosques and religious ceremonies in Iraq in an attempt to provoke a civil war that would make Iraq ungovernable. Zarqawi also has made extensive use of videotaped beheadings of hostages in Iraq, which became a kind of popular jihadist pornography on extremist Islamic Web sites.

4. The European Front

he United States and many European countries have developed different perceptions of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. While the United States considers itself to be at war, many Europeans continue to view the threat as a law enforcement problem. The United States itself took this approach before 9/11. Indeed, al-Qaeda's first attack on the World Trade Center, a truck bombing in 1993 that killed six people and injured over 1,000, was treated as an isolated criminal incident. Al-Qaeda's local allies were arrested and brought to justice, but Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader dispatched from Al-Qaeda Central, escaped to plot more attacks until he was captured in Pakistan in 1995. Once the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were convicted of their crimes and put in jail, the American law enforcement authorities went back to sleep, unaware that American intelligence agencies were uncovering mounting evidence of al-Qaeda's threat to U.S. national security.

Europeans now have a greater sense of urgency about combating terrorism after the Madrid and London bombings. Europe's growing population of alienated Muslim immigrants forms an important reservoir of potential recruits for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Britain has reversed its long-standing policy of granting sanctuary to radical Islamic ideologues, which allowed them to use mosques in "Londonistan" to poison the minds of Muslims born in Britain. The London and Madrid bombings also demonstrated the need to combat al-Qaeda's ideology, not just its organized killers, because both terrorist attacks appear to have been carried out by local members of the Muslim immigrant community who were inspired by, but not formally affiliated with, al-Qaeda.

But Europe remains an important front for al-Qaeda, which essentially used one of its cells based in Hamburg, Germany, augmented by thugs dispatched from the Middle East, to launch the 9/11 attacks. Some of al-Qaeda's most dangerous members are believed to be European Muslims, who tend to be better educated, more capable, more mobile, and better able to blend into Western societies than those who grew up in the Middle East or South Asia. Abu Musab Zarqawi's predominantly Palestinian/Jordanian terrorist network, which merged with al-Qaeda in 2004, is reported to have relatively strong support from European Islamic radicals, and poses a growing threat not only to Europe, but to the United States and the Middle East.

WMDs are out there, being built, for sale, and eventually will be smuggled in to cause destruction and chaos. We must be ready for our citizens and to counter the threat.

Deterrence is a Countermeasure

The United States and many European countries have developed different perceptions of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. While the United States considers itself to be at war, many Europeans continue to view the threat as a law enforcement problem. The United States itself took this approach before 9/11. Indeed, al-Qaeda's first attack on the World Trade Center, a truck bombing in 1993 that killed six people and injured over 1,000, was treated as an isolated criminal incident. Al-Qaeda's local allies were arrested and brought to justice, but Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader dispatched from Al-Qaeda Central, escaped to plot more attacks until he was captured in Pakistan in 1995. Once the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were convicted of their crimes and put in jail, the American law enforcement authorities went back to sleep, unaware that American intelligence agencies were uncovering mounting evidence of al-Qaeda's threat to U.S. national security.

Europeans now have a greater sense of urgency about combating terrorism after the Madrid and London bombings. Europe's growing population of alienated Muslim immigrants forms an important reservoir of potential recruits for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Britain has reversed its long-standing policy of granting sanctuary to radical Islamic ideologues, which allowed them to use mosques in "Londonistan" to poison the minds of Muslims born in Britain. The London and Madrid bombings also demonstrated the need to combat al-Qaeda's ideology, not just its organized killers, because both terrorist attacks appear to have been carried out by local members of the Muslim immigrant community who were inspired by, but not formally affiliated with, al-Qaeda.

But Europe remains an important front for al-Qaeda, which essentially used one of its cells based in Hamburg, Germany, augmented by thugs dispatched from the Middle East, to launch the 9/11 attacks. Some of al-Qaeda's most dangerous members are believed to be European Muslims, who tend to be better educated, more capable, more mobile, and better able to blend into Western societies than those who grew up in the Middle East or South Asia. Abu Musab Zarqawi's predominantly Palestinian/Jordanian terrorist network, which merged with al-Qaeda in 2004, is reported to have relatively strong support from European Islamic radicals, and poses a growing threat not only to Europe, but to the United States and the Middle East.

There are many goals and objectives in the deterrence factory: deterring the harboring and supporting of terrorists through state sponsorship or by individuals; the appearance of victory is a deterrence and the overthrowing of tyrannical regimes and improving the lives of targeted peoples is a deterrent who hopefully will not cooperate with the insurgents.
And we must evolve

he United States and many European countries have developed different perceptions of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. While the United States considers itself to be at war, many Europeans continue to view the threat as a law enforcement problem. The United States itself took this approach before 9/11. Indeed, al-Qaeda's first attack on the World Trade Center, a truck bombing in 1993 that killed six people and injured over 1,000, was treated as an isolated criminal incident. Al-Qaeda's local allies were arrested and brought to justice, but Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader dispatched from Al-Qaeda Central, escaped to plot more attacks until he was captured in Pakistan in 1995. Once the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were convicted of their crimes and put in jail, the American law enforcement authorities went back to sleep, unaware that American intelligence agencies were uncovering mounting evidence of al-Qaeda's threat to U.S. national security.

Europeans now have a greater sense of urgency about combating terrorism after the Madrid and London bombings. Europe's growing population of alienated Muslim immigrants forms an important reservoir of potential recruits for al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Britain has reversed its long-standing policy of granting sanctuary to radical Islamic ideologues, which allowed them to use mosques in "Londonistan" to poison the minds of Muslims born in Britain. The London and Madrid bombings also demonstrated the need to combat al-Qaeda's ideology, not just its organized killers, because both terrorist attacks appear to have been carried out by local members of the Muslim immigrant community who were inspired by, but not formally affiliated with, al-Qaeda.

But Europe remains an important front for al-Qaeda, which essentially used one of its cells based in Hamburg, Germany, augmented by thugs dispatched from the Middle East, to launch the 9/11 attacks. Some of al-Qaeda's most dangerous members are believed to be European Muslims, who tend to be better educated, more capable, more mobile, and better able to blend into Western societies than those who grew up in the Middle East or South Asia. Abu Musab Zarqawi's predominantly Palestinian/Jordanian terrorist network, which merged with al-Qaeda in 2004, is reported to have relatively strong support from European Islamic radicals, and poses a growing threat not only to Europe, but to the United States and the Middle East....

Bush Steps Up

By identifying the enemy specifically as Islamic radicalism, rather than the more generic "terrorism," Bush's speec was a step forward in the evolving U.S. approach to defeating al-Qaeda. The change signifies a recognition that terrorism is only a part of bin Laden's revolutionary strategy for imposing his harsh Islamic ideology on the Muslim world, and that "bin Ladenism" will outlast bin Laden. A wide variety of radical Islamic groups have copied al-Qaeda's terrorist tactics and share its revolutionary ideology. To defeat al-Qaeda, the U.S. and its allies must not only destroy its leadership, but also destroy its ability to recruit replacements by discrediting its violent ideology.

Bush also restated his five-point strategy for defeating Islamic terrorists: prevent attacks before they occur; deny terrorists weapons of mass destruction; deny terrorists sanctuary; prevent terrorists from gaining control of any nation; and promote democratic reform, respect for human rights, and enforcement of the rule of law in the Middle East to undermine the ability of terrorists to recruit new followers.

President Bush's October 6 speech was important proof that his Administration recognizes the importance of the global war of ideas as well as the war against terrorists in Iraq and other battlefields. The President set crucial long-term goals and outlined a broad strategy for defeating Islamic radicalism. Now the U.S. government must follow through with effective operational plans to build a stable democracy in Iraq; encourage democratic, economic, and educational reforms in the Middle East; and work with a broad coalition of allies in the Muslim world and elsewhere to discredit and defeat the lethal ideology of radical Islam.

March 21, 2006, in a Presidential Press Conference, George Bush identified the enemy as killers with an agenda to destroy America. He told us in plain words that this war would last a very long time. Mistakes were made and we are adapting as is the enemy. Victory is this war is essential.

The focus is on Al Qaeda now, but there are many, many other groups that will for the gap when the destruction is complete. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely battles in the war which the President labeled WWIV, pausing and regressing to name the time period after WWII known as the "Cold War," WWIII. But he still persists in calling WWIV the "War on Terror" and Al Qaeda our main enemy whose ideology is with which we are at war.