Europe: Let Uncle Do It

Europe: Let Uncle Do It

By James Lewis

Europe gets forty percent of its oil through the Persian Gulf. But by an accident of history (and civilized policy – ours, that is) it is the United States that guards the Gulf from madmen like Ahmadinejad. Well, so be it. We gain from world peace and free trade, and it is better to keep the maniacs far away from our shores.

But it is now way past time for Europe to step up to the plate again. They have the economic might, the population, the brains — but not the guts — to behave as a decent actor on the world stage. And the British “hostage crisis” — which was not a crisis at all, but a staged provocation, an invitation for the Brits to kowtow, which they did — should spell the end of our patience. 
Europe’s response to Ahaminejad’s game tells us all we need to know. Tony Blair tossed the hot potato to the UN, which tossed it right back again. Then he tried his good friends in the EU, and they ducked it altogether. Then, secretly, he got George W. to trade Iran’s Quds thugs, who were imprisoned in Iraq for directing IED attacks on Americans, in trade for those 15 clueless Brits. Result: The West looked helpless against the ruthless blackmailers of Qom.
So in the end, Europe got away again with letting Uncle Sam do it.
We can shrug off the screaming anti-American hate mongering of the media in Germany, France and (on the Left) in Britain. We can ignore the fact that Britain is selling its sovereignty to the EU, about as feckless a bunch of political con artists as ever exploited a badly indoctrinated population. What we cannot allow, over the long term, is to get stuck with all the adult work of maintaining the peace around the world, while the Europeans exploit our generosity and we pay the price in blood and treasure. It’s past time for Europe to grow up.
That includes Britain. Tony Blair has tried his best to maintain the Anglo-American alliance in the face of rising nuclear proliferation among the mad hatters in the Middle East. Good for Tony Blair, but his socialist party long ago walked away from him. So Blair has been out there on his own, and even the Tories are now pretending to be Mahatma Gandhi, whose lifelong principled pacificism, incidentally, led to some 4 million dead people in 1948. In the real world, pacifism kills, and the mere pose of pacifism is just another front for cowardice.
The United States must be prepared to rethink our alliances. Europe has been on a US-paid vacation from reality now for sixty years. We are subsidizing its welfare state, and its grandiose and fraudulent poses. One moment the EU is a grand new Empire, then it’s the new incarnation of Marxist hope for mankind, then it’s the self-righteous denouncer of American warmongering, and always, without fail, it’s a fraud. Sane Europeans know that.

If Britain wants to throw in its lot with the phony-baloney EU farce, it must be willing to take the consequences of permanent weakness in the face of serious adversaries like the aggressive jihadis of the Sunni or Shi’a variety. As Mahmoud puts it so plainly, you must ‘You must bow down to the greatness of the Iranian nation.’  Well, friends, you have a choice.
Alternatively, Britain and its new continental masters must get serious. Sometimes we see a little sign of that — Angela Merkel is potentially serious, and so is Blair — but it just gets swamped by the self-indulgent hoopla from the socialist demagogues who really run the place. Europe is on an endless drunken spree, and we are its enablers.
How do we get serious?
First, we must make strong alliances with other serious powers who share our values and understanding of the world. Australia, India, and Japan are the obvious candidates. All are currently helping to develop anti-missile defenses (while Europe is moaning about the free defense systems we are offering to Poland against the Iranian ICBM threat.)

In the Middle East, besides Israel, the Sunni Arabs need our help — and in exchange, we must get their commitment to stop Wahhabi anti-Western hate propaganda around the world, including in the United States itself. No more anti-American games from CAIR and its ilk.

The Iranian people, who have been terrorized by the mullahs for thirty years, deserve as much support as the oppressed Poles and Czechs did during the Cold War. Eastern Europe is sandwiched between the growling Russian Bear and the hopeless EU. The Poles and Czechs are therefore a pretty sober lot. Those are our real allies, not the grandstanding demagogues of Brussels.
Second, we must make it very clear to Europe, including Britain, that we expect their serious help when we are attacked, as on 9/11, and whenever we risk our military assets to protect their oil supplies. One way to send that signal is simply to stay passive the next time they are assaulted — when and if another Madrid or London Underground bombing happens. We can send them our best wishes, and do absolutely nothing. If they will not even spend enough money to build a usable defense force, if they keep pretending to have a military without putting them at risk, we can simply let them find their own way to perdition. NATO must be more than an excuse for milking Uncle.
Third, we must insist on a much more serious effort by Europe to fight nuclear proliferation to terrorists and their sponsors. That includes a major economic squeeze against Tehran, even if Europeans have to reduce their profitable trade with the terror sponsors.  That is the very least we must expect from them. If not, they can try to defend their own oil supply.
Fourth, we have to insist that Europeans fish or cut bait when they are confronted with a public challenge from an enemy. No more hot potatoes tossed between national capitals and the EU. No more hiding behind the hopeless UN fraudocracy as a front for imaginary “international law.” Publicly proclaiming “international law” means nothing if you cannot enforce it, or if you lack democratic legitimacy to make it in the first place.
Fifth, we cannot conceded the propaganda war — the narrative of our time — to the fantasy-prone Left. The Left is merely  European imperialism in another guise. It is too destructive, too exploitive, and too wrong about the nature of the world. Serious powers don’t live in fantasy land.

So the next President of the United States will have to voice our national vision just as Reagan did: With clarity, eloquence, and honesty. Our UN Representative, following Jeanne Kirkpatrick, should shock the dizzy dips of the UN by simply telling the truth. With a rising blogosphere in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, truth-telling can become our single most effective instrument of policy. Reagan told the truth to bring down the Berlin Wall. Nobody thought it would work, but he appealed to what everyone on the other side secretly knew to be true. That is how a democratic leader should act.
All that comes down to electing a new president for 2008. It should be someone who can articulate the American vision and back it up with grand strategy. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are the obvious models, but human beings are unique and not cloneable. The next Reagan won’t look like Reagan, but he or she should be clear and firm and courageous, just like our soldiers in Iraq. We have the right stuff here at home. We only need to discover it.
The challenges we face are Reaganesque. With the right leadership, the American people will know how to act. And Ahmadinejad will go the way of Marx and Lenin. With only a mad 7th century ideology to peddle, he has long outlived his sell-by date.
James Lewis is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. He blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

Anti-globalists reach out to Islamists Cooperation between Islamists and the left is growing

Anti-globalists reach out to Islamists

Cooperation between Islamists and the left is growing, reports Eric Walberg


What is striking about this latest conference is the growing cooperation both within the Muslim world and between the anti-global left and Muslims. This should come as no surprise, considering the traditional focus of the left on defending victims of torture. Who are the biggest victims of torture in the world today? Of course, Muslims, primarily in Iraq and Palestine, but everywhere in the West, and just about in every country that is predominantly Muslim.

The left realises this and is finally overcoming its traditional resistance to the cultural conservatism of Islam, and likewise Muslims are reaching out to the left — clear examples are Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) prominent role in this conference and Lebanon, where Hizbullah was prominent at a similar anti-imperialism conference last November in Beirut. Organised by Al-Karama (Dignity), Al-Ishtirakyin Al-Sawryin (Socialist Revolutionary Party), Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) and Al-‘Amal (Labour), and held at the Egyptian Press Syndicate, the conference attracted close to 600 participants and observers from around the world, including a delegation of 80 South Koreans and 20 Canadians.

But what can we make of the overwhelming prominence at the conference of the MB and their very professional brochures and CDs, well translated into English? One pamphlet quotes MB deputy Khairat El-Shater assuring the reader “No need to be afraid of us” and “We do not promote an anti- Western agenda”. Certainly we can condemn the military tribunals where 40 prominent MB members are being tried under emergency laws, in violation of the constitution. Belal Diaa Farahat, a business student at the American University of Cairo told Al-Ahram Weekly how his father Diaaeddin Farahat, a prominent businessman, was arrested along with 39 others “merely because he was successful and a member of the MB.” After three months in prison and acquittal in a civil court, these men were re-arrested and will face a military tribunal next week.

Ahmed Shawqi, a student activist at Al-Azhar, said that all the delegates at the conference were unanimous in condemning the tribunals. Delegates from London, Canada and Greece promised to demonstrate, and organise petitions to protest against the military tribunals and invite MB representatives on speaking tours in order to explain their position. Shawqi added, however, that an important aspect of the MB’s platform is not to work against Egypt in its international relations. In a sense, the Brotherhood “stole the show” at the conference, with their very real oppression fitting the international delegates’ human rights agenda. Coincidence or act of God?

The key forum at the conference: “bridge building between the left and Islam” focussed on re-evaluating the relations of the left and the Islamists, as well as on practical ways to increase cooperation.

Mohamed Ghozlan, an MB Al-Azhar student activist, described the underlying misunderstanding: “the left thought Islam was just an anachronism, while Muslims accused the left of trying to destroy their way of life. However, with both sides being repressed by dictatorship, we are able to cooperate now on the basis of human rights and the fight against the war in Iraq and globalisation. Such Latin American leaders as Hugo Chavez have accelerated the cooperation, reaching out to the Muslim resistance.” He explained the greater repression of Muslim than leftists in Egypt to be due to the fact that “the government sees us as the greater threat to it.”

In an interview with the Weekly, conference organiser Nada Kassass said, “the turning point in the relations of the left and Islamists was the Intifada in 2000, when the committee to support the Intifada brought (the two parties together). The wars in Iraq and Lebanon increased the collaboration, and the struggle around the 2006 elections in Egypt showed the success of this strategy, with six nationalists and 88 MB candidates elected. Earlier, when MB members were arrested, the left did little — the government was able to use religion to keep the left afraid of the Islamists and the Islamists afraid of the ‘godless’ communists. Both sides were at fault here in Egypt. Ironically it was actually easier for Islamists to work with European leftists than Egyptians, but all that has changed. The bad blood between the MB and the left dates from the 1960s and is now being overcome.” Kassass related how left, liberal and Muslim students at Cairo University, Al-Azhar and Ain Shams joined forces to scuttle student council elections which were rigged by the government earlier this year, though some were expelled, arrested and beaten. “People are joining together to defend their rights.”

Kassass’s evaluation of the situation in Egypt was echoed in the exchanges of Sadala Mazraani of the Lebanese Communist Party, and Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah. Mazraani admitted that during the civil war in Lebanon, Islamists and socialists were fighting each other, and argued that we should learn from the successes of the anti- fascist front of WWII, the nationalist revolution of the 1950s in Egypt and the non-aligned movement of the 1960s, when imperialism was on the defensive. He pointed out how Latin America is uniting with the Middle East against the common enemy, and said it was more a matter of coordinating movements that have recognised common goals. “The Lebanese Communist Party actively works with Hizbullah against the occupation and in elections, both trying to unite Lebanese society to fight Israel and Zionism.”

Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah backed up Mazraani, though he complained that, “many socialists in Europe still refuse to work with us, calling us ‘terrorist'”. He admitted that Islamists are conservative and often don’t want to work with the left, especially extremists like Al-Qaeda, which “will not work with anyone and will fail”. Then there are the liberal Muslims who don’t care about the war and occupation, lack a clear position on imperialism, and as a result, actually ally with it. “The differences of Hamas and Hizbullah with the left are minor — family and social priorities — and at the same time, the Islamic movement must apply democracy, which is really the same as shura. Democracy is a bridge to cross to a better world. We should avoid intolerance in governance, whether it’s Islamic or not, and forcing religion upon people.” He referred to Gramsci’s argument about creating a common front at important historical junctures to induce historical change, after which the different groups can go their separate ways.What a lovely irony to have an Islamist quoting a Western communist theorist.

“By working with Islamic groups in an open way, the left can have a positive impact on Islamic movements, and vice versa.”

The international left, as represented at the conference, emphasised practical ways to reach out to the broader Muslim community, as reflected in conference forums on such projects as twinning UK and Palestinian cities, countering the boycott of the Hamas government in Palestine with a boycott of Israel and Western firms that provide military equipment to Israel, countering Islamophobia — in a word, citizens’ diplomacy.

James Clark of the Canadian Peace Alliance described how the anti-war coalitions are now supportive of Muslims who find themselves targets of racial and religious profiling and no-fly lists, and that there is active work in the peace movement to counter Islamophobia, “which the governments use to fan the flames to generate support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are committed to defend all civil liberties. “On the wall of the prayer room at Ryerson University in Toronto, someone’s spray painted ‘Die Muslim’. The administration refused to condemn this as hate crime, so we organised a petition and a campaign to counter Islamophobia, and as a result, the head of the Islamic students’ organisation was elected president of the students’ council. So you can use such incidents to educate and mobilise people.” Clark vowed that the Canadian peace movement, inspired by the Arab resistance in Lebanon and Iraq, would work with Muslims to defeat imperialism.

Johannes Anderson of Denmark criticised the Danish left for not standing behind Muslims during the cartoon controversy, allowing a weak prime minister to emerge unscathed. “I’ve changed through the past years and grown through criticism. We should not be afraid of it. We fight for democracy in the Middle East and Europe against neo- liberalism which is taking away our rights everywhere.”

Wafaa El-Masri of Al-Karama Party saw a new Islamic message emerging at the conference — shared principles to build society, emphasising our commonalty. “The Egyptian national movement works with the Islamists to fight the constitutional amendments, to end the Mubarak regime, to unite against the Iraq war, and to support Iran against the threat of US attack.”

While the conference’s criticism of the repression of the host government would hardly merit a comment if it were held in, say, Toronto or Moscow, the lack of fear by the MB and Egyptian opposition representatives was impressive — they realise that at any moment they too could be arrested and possibly tortured, yet they did not fear speaking out. Belal Farahat’s father, one of the 40 MB prisoners awaiting next week’s military tribunal, had his assets seized and stores closed by the government, yet Belal continues to study at AUC: “The whole point of the Brotherhood is that we are one and must help each other.”

In an interview with the Weekly, George Hajjar, a political philosophy professor at the Lebanese University and head of the National Rally in Support of the Resistance Option, though optimistic about the growing understanding between leftists and Islamists and supportive of the conference as a whole, criticised it for not having representatives from the Iraqi resistance, “because the resistance is primarily nationalist, and the MB and Shias in Iraq are members of the occupation government.”

Cheney is Absolutely Correct

Cheney is Absolutely Correct

By Ray Robison

On the Rush Limbaugh radio program, VP Cheney restated his position that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. The Vice President is completely correct. Specifically, he spoke of Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi’s presence in Iraq before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. As much as a year earlier, al Qaeda affiliated jihadists lead by Zarqawi began aggressive attacks on the Kurdish regions in the north of Iraq. Why would this committed jihadist leader bring his fighters to Iraq to attack Saddam’s enemies?  

While researching for our new eBook Both In One Trench we realized that there seems to be a confluence of prominent terrorists emanating from Kuwait after it was occupied by Saddam’s armies. Many of these men are of Palestinian ethnicity. The Palestinians living in Kuwait had favored Saddam because he was a prominent proponent of the Palestinian cause. Their allegiance to Saddam was so thorough that the Kuwaiti government kicked out its Palestinian population after liberation because they collaborated with Saddam. Saddam’s support of Palestinian terrorism is incontrovertible.
A large number of these Palestinians, over a hundred thousand, made their way to Jordan where they began to radicalize the moderate Jordanian population. One of these Palestinians – part of the Palestinian migration from Kuwait which has been  termed the “returnees from Kuwait” – was Sheik Abu-Mohammed al-Maqdisi (or Isam Mohammad Taher al-Barqawi). He would later become a major al Qaeda leader.
Barqawi became the spiritual leader for the newly radicalized Jordanians like Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi. Zarqawi would organize a group of radicalized Jordanians and other “returnees from Kuwait” called tawhid, which would align itself with al Qaeda for the Millennium Plot (or before).
Barqawi, a Palestinian-Jordanian, a “returnee from Kuwait” sympathized with Saddam. Barqawi sent Zarqawi to Iraq with other Palestinian-Jordanian “returnees” to fight jihad against Saddam’s enemies, not to fight Saddam. It may very well be that Zarqawi had no personal love for the Ba’athists. But Osama bin Laden himself has called for the jihadists in Iraq to work with the Ba’athists to defeat the Christian crusaders.  
A study  reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute explains what happened next:
 The Jihad fighters “related that Abu Mus’ab [Al-Zarqawi] used the experience of the [Iraqi] Ba’th[ists] in his war on the Americans and Iraqis, including regarding the security issue. [A man named] Ahmad clarified that this was particularly true regarding the city of Al-Fallujah, which contained hundreds of former Iraqi military intelligence officers with great experience in the security sphere.
According to one of Zarqawi’s own followers, Zarqawi traveled to Iraq where he joined with Saddam’s intelligence agents – with great experience – not new recruits but senior level intelligence officials, loyal men who would only have been there if they had been sent by Saddam.
The evidence of this alliance is the insurgency itself. The Iraqi government has many times tried to inform the American public that the leaders of the insurgency are Ba’athists working with al Qaeda. Such reports are ignored or criticized by the US media. Typically, the US media trots out a retired, senior CIA official who made rank under President Clinton to deny these reports because they don’t want the American public to know that Ba’athists and Islamic terrorists were working together before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. To acknowledge such a connection would be to demonstrate that certain intelligence officials who said that this type of combined operation could not happen – in fact made careers off the theory after the 1993 WTC attack – were wrong.
Some time after the Saddam regime fell and Zarqawi began to slaughter Iraqis, Barqawi (Maqdisi) got cold feet. He tried to rein-in Zarqawi which caused a split in the Palestinian-Jordanian branch of al Qaeda. In late 2004, Zarqawi distanced himself from the Jordanian branch of al Qaeda by swearing allegiance directly to al Qaeda. In other words, he quit the Barqawi branch of al Qaeda and went to the Ayman al Zawahiri branch because he still needed jihad recruits to fight in Iraq.
Upon breaking away from his mentor, he began to set himself up as the Islamic authority in Iraq (the pupil became the teacher). Those Iraqi intelligence agents who had worked with him since before OIF had themselves become radicalized, realized the Ba’athist regime wasn’t coming back, and began to swear loyalty to Zarqawi. Thus, Zarkawi, who had come to Iraq to support the Saddam regime would abandon his directives from his mentor and attempt to take direct control of Iraq.
But why would Saddam send senior IIS agents to work with jihadists? Because they were already working with Islamic jihadists long before the start of OIF. This Dar al Hayat article, “The Resistance In The “Sunni Triangle”,  makes clear that because the Iraqi economy was strangled by UN sanctions. Saddam’s senior military officials, many of them with land grants in Fallujah – where Zarqawi teamed up with them – had smuggled oil in cooperation with Islamic extremists. These Islamic extremists were joined to Anbar province by religious and tribal affiliation.
These extremists, already living under the radar in places like Jordan, were the perfect smuggling partners. Thus, as the sanctions dragged on, senior Iraqi military leaders and even a few close advisors to Saddam began to adhere to the extremists’ Islamic teachings. Initially, Saddam tried to shut it down. But because these Iraqi officials were Saddam’s support base, he eventually had to come to terms with them to protect his power. These Islamic extremists and smugglers were from places like the Palestinian “returnee” camps in Jordan. They were feeding Saddam’s support base.
Our research points to these Palestinian-Jordanian “returnees” as one of many portals of influence between Saddam and the global Islamic jihad movement. Other portals of influence to the movement include Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (Islamic Party) and Mulla Omar (Taliban) in Afghanistan, Maulana Fazlur Rahman and his jihad political parties in Pakistan, Hassan al Turabi and his National Islamic Front followers in Sudan, and Ayman al Zawahiri himself with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later when it became al Qaeda along with Bin Laden’s followers.
To not see the portals means averting the eyes. Too many people who should know better have done so.
Ray Robison is co-author of the forthcoming book Both in One Trench, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker

Illegals Demand Blanket Amnesty and US Citizenship

Illegals Demand Blanket Amnesty and US Citizenship


by Sher Zieve

 

As US political leaders become more and more feckless with regards to the illegal immigration problems plaguing the country, illegal aliens are becoming increasingly bolder and more vocal in their demands. On Saturday, a purported 15,000 member-strong group of illegal aliens and their leftist supporters once again took to the streets of Los Angeles. In the past, the illegal groups had issued “or else” ultimatums to the US government that it must pass an “illegal immigrant reform” bill. The “or else” involved the illegal immigrants’ refusing to work—but, still expecting to be paid—if the US did not meet their commandments. Now, however, they are demanding a blanket amnesty that entails no fines for being in the US illegally and no returns to Mexico in order to apply for US positions and residencies—nothing. Instead, the illegals carried signs commanding “Amnesty Now!” With regards to the proposed fines to be paid by illegal immigrants for having enjoyed—at no charge—the benefits of the United States of America (which include but are not limited to healthcare, public schooling and college tuition credits for illegals), protestor Armando Garcia shouted: “Charging that much, Bush is going to be even more expensive than the [illegal alien smuggler] coyotes!” Note: Mr. Garcia, other illegals and their attendant supporters blatantly ignore the fact that the costs associated with free illegal healthcare has closed and is closing multiple hospitals and emergency rooms throughout the country. Long ago, the “rights of illegals” supplanted the rights of American citizens.

 

The illegals and their friends are also balking at (horror of horrors!) having to pay $3,500 for a three-year US work permit—a permit that is said to be renewable. As many Latino groups (including MEChA, the Mexica Movement and La Raza) teach their adherents that the United States really belongs to Mexico, illegals have been led to believe that their presence in the USA is never illegal. However, they are also being taught that all of the “European settlers” are really the interlopers. Therefore, the illegals should not only be allowed to enter the United States but, they must be given all of the resources of our country—free of charge. As a side note, the Mexica Movement plans to deport the “illegal white squatters” back to Europe. The actual from-across-the-border illegals and their supporters refuse to even acknowledge that there is any differentiation between legal and illegal entry into the United States. As long as one is of “the race”—la raza—one should be allowed into our country, without question.

 

As strong indications of the growing attitude that illegal aliens should be “left alone” by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and/or any other group, long-time illegal immigrant Maria Lopez commented: “Last year, we were fighting for legalization, and this year we are fighting for legalization and against all these raids!” And illegal alien Alfredo Gonzalez added: “We need full legalization and need it now!” Immigrating illegally into the USA is now being promulgated by multiple leftist groups as a “human right” and I trust the ACLU—if not some legal-Eagle United Nations group—will be the next to argue this preposterous case in court. However, considering the liberal and leftist-oriented makeup of much of our judicial system, the possibility of a win for illegals is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Besides, there would then be no need to protect our borders. Congress could spend all of that allocated Border Fence money on their own pet projects and our US Border Patrol Agents would be able to find new lines of work—instead of, currently, being placed in jail for doing their jobs! We could, also, do away with that pesky US Constitution that has plagued and stands in the way of the Left—and their leader-group the Democrat Party—accomplishing its goals. Note: This annoying document also stands in the way of Islamic terrorists entering the country. But, as they’re already here and are some of the new entrants into the Democrat Party that should be an additional incentive to do away with the “outdated” piece of paper.

 

After the Constitution has been dissolved the USA will have effectively lost its sovereignty. So, our once-elected leaders will be able to set up their own fiefdoms and collect all the taxes they wish from a newly-impoverished serf class. In that way, the Left, at least its now-wealthy leadership, will have placed the USA just where it wants it to be—in the same position as any other third or fourth-world country. Even without a feudal system, largely due to the influx of illegal workers into our country and their subsequent hiring, the US has already experienced a stagnation or significant drop in construction industry, farming, cleaning and food preparation wages.

 

In order to avoid the real and present possibility that there may soon no longer be any differentiation affected between legal and illegal US residency, it is essential that you contact your Congress people and US Senators to voice your opposition to the insanity and termination of the independence and rule of the United States of America. And we had best do it soon. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is attempting to push yet another bill through Congress—H. R. 984—that will stop the public from voicing opposition to any of their elected officials. The 2006 version failed, so the Democrats are trying it again. Shouldn’t this bill should be re-designated “H. R. 1984”—in memory of George Orwell?


Does Hillary Clinton Pass the Kitchen Test?

Does Hillary Clinton Pass the Kitchen Test?

by Carey Roberts

 

Just because she has assembled a well-oiled political machine and holds a commanding lead over the rest of the pack, doesn’t mean Hillary Clinton should go out and order the invitation cards for the inauguration ball. No, not by a long shot.

 

The true measure of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential stock is whether she can pass the Kitchen Test. You remember the Kitchen Test, right?

 

A couple years ago, president Bush nominated John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. I’ve met Mr. Bolton, and he seems to be a decent, straight-talking fellow.

 

But following Bolton’s senate confirmation hearing, senator George Voinovich of Ohio saw things differently: “I’ve heard enough today that I don’t feel comfortable about voting for Mr. Bolton. I think one’s interpersonal skills and their relationship with their fellow man – it’s a very important ingredient in anyone that works for me. I call it the Kitchen Test.”

 

Mr. Bolton flunked the Kitchen Test, which led to his eventual undoing. So I think it’s only fair that we also ask Mrs. Clinton to take the Kitchen Test. The voting public wants to know, how does Hillary Rodham Clinton treat her associates, aides, and family members?

 

So I’m sharing this remarkable compendium, with a hat-tip to my friends at Gateway Pundit. [http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/hillary-clinton-get-fcked.html]

 

I will warn you, however, that many of these statements are coarse, unladylike, and entirely inappropriate for children. Gentle reader, proceed with extreme caution:

 

– “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!” — Hillary ordering a Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.

 

– “What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!” — Hillary screaming to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans had been invited to the Clinton White House.

 

– “Son of a b*tch!” – Hillary’s opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly visited Iraq on Thanksgiving just days before her trip in 2003.

 

– “Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise.” — Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991.

 

– “You sold out, you mother f**ker! You sold out!” — Hillary yelling at a Democratic lawyer.

 

– “F**k off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.” — Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good morning.”

 

– “If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!” — Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.

 

– “Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!” — Hillary’s comments to her Secret Service detail agents.

 

– “Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don’t come within 10 yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?” — Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.

 

But it turns out Hillary’s abusive tendencies go beyond brow-beating and foul-mouthed intimidation. Hillary Clinton is also a batterer.

 

The first incident happened in 1993 when Hillary went after Bill with her fingernails, leaving a “mean claw mark along his jawline.” White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers later explained that Hillary’s vicious attack had been provoked by singer Barbara Streisand’s visit to the White House. [www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200205/COM20020507c.html]

The second assault occurred on August 13, 1999 after Bill’s confession of the Monica Lewinsky affair. According to author Christopher Andersen, “Hillary rose to her feet and slapped him across the face — hard enough to leave a red mark that would be clearly visible to Secret Service agents when he left the room.”

 

Then there are the accounts of Hillary hurling ashtrays, lamps, and books, once leaving a mark on Bubba’s face that required make-up. On one occasion Bill implored his Secret Service agent, “Keep that b*tch away from me!” The First Lady’s press secretary subsequently declined to deny these accounts. [http://home.comcast.net/~philip.cook/essays/the_whole_truth_about_dv.htm]

 

As we all know, there’s no excuse for domestic violence. By any standard, these incidents are shocking and deplorable.

 

Mrs. Clinton, I’m afraid you don’t pass the Kitchen Test, especially for a job as demanding as Commander in Chief. And the U.N. ambassador post is obviously out of the question. Have you considered running for county dog-catcher?

An African Asks Some Disturbing`Questions of Islam

An African Asks Some Disturbing

 Questions of Islam

It is true that there is a lot of anti-black racism in Britain, and sadly some churches and misguided Christians have at times allowed other people’s anti-Black and anti-poor attitudes to mould them. The Bible, though, tells us to love the poor, the stranger, the foreigner and the defenceless. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ was Himself a child refugee in Africa (Matthew 1-2).

To equate Biblical Christianity with anti-Black racism is absurd. We must remember that Moses, the prophet, married an African, and God was angry at the racism of Moses’ own sister Miriam. In fact, God punished her with leprosy for seven days (see Numbers 12). The God of the Bible hates racism.

Yet what puzzles me is how Black people in Britain are jumping so easily into what I believe is a real racist religion: Islam.


* A Disturbing Question Concerning the Muslim QUR’AN
* A Disturbing Question Concerning African HISTORY
* A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim SLAVERY
* A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim CULTURE
* Conclusion

Click here to download a Windows ‘Help’ version of this document.


*A Disturbing Question Concerning the Muslim QUR’AN

Take for instance the Muslim holy book the Qur’an, which says:

    “On the day when some faces will be whitened and some faces will be blackened, say to those whose faces will be blackened, ‘Did ye reject faith after accepting it? Taste then the penalty for rejecting faith.’ But those whose faces will be whitened, they will be in God’s mercy: therein to dwell.” (Sura Al-i-Imran, 3:106-107)

The question which I ask as a black man is why is white equated with goodness and black equated with evil? (see Yusuf Ali, footnote 432)


*A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim HISTORY

As an African I am also very puzzled at the lack of balanced historical research by Muslims concerning the African people.In North Africa we know that the whole Saharan region of Morocco, Libya, Algeria and Egypt to the Sudan and Ethiopia used to be Christian, before Islam came and destroyed the local churches. Why do we not hear about it in Muslim literature?

And consider this: Africa produced great thinkers like Augustine of Hippo (Algeria), Clement and Athanasius of Egypt, and Tertullian of Carthage (Tunis), while Ethiopia had the first African church totally independent of Europe (Acts 8). In fact, I find it most interesting that an African church was planted first before there was ever a church in Britain, Canada, the USA or Spain, or any other European state. So why do we not hear of this African church, and why do we not continue to see any remnants of it today?

Perhaps we need to go to the Qur’an again to find the clue. Consider this verse in Sura Tauba, 9:5:

    “Fight and slay [those who associate another with God (Shirk)], and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.”

It fits the pattern of Islam which fights against all those who choose to follow their own beliefs, an idea we find well expressed in Sura Imran, 3:28:

    Let not the believers take disbelievers [Christians and Jews] for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself.

The history of the Sudan is a case in point. Before the Muslim invasion of 1275 A.D. by the Islamic Mamluks of Egypt, the Sudan had three mini-Christian states called:

NOBATIA in the north, the capital of Qustul,
MAKURIA, the capital of old Dongola, and
ALODIA or ALWA, the capital of Soba.

These three Christian countries, from 300 A.D. to 1500 A.D. had their own written language, great centers of learning, international commerce with Egypt, Ethiopia and other Middle East states, and sent out missionaries to other African states (see K. Milhalowski,Faras, vol.2, Poland, 1965 for extensive archaeological and historical documentation on these states).

Even the Arab, ibn Selim al-Assuani, was impressed when he saw Soba, describing it as having, …fine buildings, roomy houses, churches, and the land is more fruitful than Makuria…[and it has] much meat, and good horses.

But all this was destroyed by Muslim invaders in 1275 A.D., not European colonialists! The same type of massive destruction happened all over Africa, yet we never hear anyone holding the Muslims responsible! Why? Arab Muslim racism is just as obnoxious as that of the Europeans, so why is it allowed to continue?

For it is continuing. In the 1990’s Sudan in north-east Africa has been suffering a Muslim jihad-war, whereby thousands of Christians and unbelievers have died, many by crucifixion, or have suffered by having their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off. Is it only coincidental that we find in the Qur’an, Sura 5 (the Table Spread) verse 33, the sanction for this very practice?

    “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and his Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off…”

While this is going on, Muslim states have never once told off the Islamic government of Khartoum. Why the silence? Yet there has always been a lot of noise about the apartheid of the old South Africa. Why the double standard?


*A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim SLAVERY

That then brings me to the question of slavery. Muslims say it is only a Christian phenomenon. Yet while the British Empire was abolishing slavery under pressure from British Christians like David Livingstone and William Wilberforce, Arab Muslims were enslaving Africans (i.e. following the promise by Allah concerning the (captives) that your right hand possesses from Sura Nisaa, 4:3). Have you not read about the islands of Zanzibar and Pembe in East Africa, during the nineteenth century? Or have you not questioned why Muslim countries have never been involved in the movement for the abolition of slavery?Let me set the record straight. While Europeans were involved with the slave trade for a few hundred years, the existence of the traffic of African slaves had been well established one-thousand years before.

The Muslim position which places the entire blame for the invention and practice of black slavery at the door of Christian Europe, is simply not historically tenable. Both the Grecian and Roman societies were slave states, yet most of their slaves were Caucasian. In fact, the word slave meant a person who was of Slavic origin. Robert Hughes, in his essay on The Fraying of America in the February 3, 1992 issue of Time magazine corrects this false impression when he says:

“The African slave trade as such, the black traffic, was an Arab invention, developed by traders with the enthusiastic collaboration of black African ones, institutionalized with the most unrelenting brutality, centuries before the white man appeared on the African continent, and continuing long after the slave market in North America was finally crushed… Nothing in the writings of the Prophet [Muhammad] forbids slavery, which is why it became such an Arab-dominated business. And the slave traffic could not have existed without the wholehearted cooperation of African tribal states, built on the supply of captives generated by their relentless wars. The image promulgated by pop-history fictions like Roots – of white slavers bursting with cutlass and musket into the settled lives of peaceful African villages – is very far from the historical truth. A marketing system had been in place for centuries, and its supply was controlled by Africans. Nor did it simply vanish with Abolition. Slave markets, supplying the Arab Emirates, were still operating in Djibouti in the 1950’s; and since 1960, the slave trade has flourished in Mauritania and the Sudan. There are still reports of chattel slavery in northern Nigeria, Rwanda and Niger.”

The argument by some Muslims that slavery was God’s way of converting Africans to Islam, is much the same argument suggested by certain misguided Christians in the 19th century who said that, bringing Africans to America gave them the opportunity to hear the Gospel; an argument which holds no credibility in the Bible, and dishonours the character of God.

Unfortunately Islam still hasn’t learned, as today the slavery of foreign nationals still exists in the heartland of Islam: Saudi Arabia. (UN Report on Slavery, 1994)


*A Disturbing Question Concerning Muslim CULTURE

Muslims claim that the Christian West wishes to control Africa. Yet why is it that we Africans must not like the Coca Cola culture of the West, but we are obliged to start wearing seventh century Arab dress once Islam is taken on? What’s wrong with my good African cultural dress? And why is it that Black African Muslims are obliged to pray facing a Saudi Arabian city: Mecca? Who is dominating who? Why not face the local town (i.e. Nairobi or Lusaka, etc.)? I thought God was everywhere, and that prayer should be directed to Him who lives in heaven above the earth. Remember, Jesus, the Truth once said I am from above, you are from beneath.Furthermore, why are we required to read God’s word and speak to Him only in Arabic? Does God only speak Arabic? Is He not capable of understanding my African language? Thank God that the Holy Bible is now in over 2,000 known languages around the world. Because I know my God is able to speak every language. It’s not a problem for Him.


*Conclusion

This letter has been written out of love–love for the truth, even when it hurts. The Bible tells us that we African people have a tremendous African heritage, which at times in our history has been hijacked. Yet God is our creator and He believes in us. After all, He chose Adam and Eve to be the African people’s first parents.God has also used Africa for other purposes, such as allowing Egypt to be a refuge for the Jews at the time of Joseph (Genesis 39-50). And when God (Jesus) became incarnate as a man, He took refuge in Egypt, Africa, during part of His childhood. Ethiopia, another African state, has possessed the Bible in her own language for many centuries, even before Islam began.

In the future place of Heaven we are told many nations are there, including African ones (Revelation 21:24). The Bible, furthermore, tells us that we (all nations) are set free in the blood of Jesus, who died on the cross and was raised from the dead.

Unlike the God of the Qur’an, Jesus never ordered any Christians to kill for Him or to take (the captives) that your right hand possesses. Everyone was given the choice to choose Him or reject Him. Throughout the Bible we find God saving all that call upon His name (the name of Jesus). This included the Ethiopian of Jeremiah 38-40 and the Ethiopian in Acts 8, and it includes me and you today.

Now that I have asked my questions, you too ask yours. Who indeed has helped me as an African the most: Islam or Christianity? You need to choose wisely, because your life depends on it.

Brother Banda

The Great Al-Qaeda “Patriot”

The Great Al-Qaeda “Patriot”
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 9, 2007

A man identified as “Esam Omesh” spoke just before Cindy Sheehan at last month’s antiwar rally that Sheehan headlined in Washington.

Following chants of “Impeach Bush!” from shivering protesters, Omesh took the podium and exhorted “brothers and sisters” to condemn Bush for the deaths of “more than 650,000 Iraqi lives.” He demanded the White House “pull our troops out of Iraq now” and “end the war today.”

The speaker counted himself among the “great American patriots” who braved the cold to march on Washington and protest the war that day.

While there may have been legitimate voices there, this speaker decidedly was not one of them. Not because he’s Muslim, but because he’s an Islamist tied to an al-Qaida fund raiser and the spiritual adviser to the 9/11 hijackers.

Turns out it his real name is Esam S. Omeish, and he runs a nonprofit group in Washington called the Muslim American Society, which the FBI believes is the U.S. branch of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that operates like the mafia. The secret Islamist society counts Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and blind sheik Omar Abdel Rahman among its members. Its motto: “The Quran is our constitution, the prophet is our guide; Death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition.”

His office is right next door to the old office of one of Al-Qaida’s top fund raisers in America, Abdurahman Alamoudi, before he was jailed a few years ago. And it’s located in the same Alexandria, Va., business park as the former office of Osama bin Laden’s nephew, before he hightailed it back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11.

“Omesh” is not the legal spelling of his name. He may spell it that way for the media, but that’s not how it’s listed in court documents I’ve examined. The correct spelling is Omeish with an “i.” Perhaps he leaves it out to avoid links to his brother, Mohamed S. Omeish.

As I first reported in my book, “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” Mohamed Omeish headed the U.S. branch of one of bin Laden’s favorite Saudi charities, the International Islamic Relief Organization, which was raided after 9/11. Tax records I’ve obtained show Omeish shared an office with Alamoudi, the convicted al-Qaida-tied terrorist and godfather of the Muslim mafia in America. This is the same “moderate” Muslim leader who federal prosecutors caught on tape complaining bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans.

It gets worse. Esam S. Omeish also sits on the board of the 9/11-tied mosque in Washington that helped the hijackers get licenses and housing, and whose imam prepared them for martyrdom operations in private closed-door sessions. Omeish personally hired the imam, Anwar Aulaqi, who fled the country on a Saudi jet about a year after 9/11 (the FBI now wants another crack at questioning him).

Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, which tax records show has received large donations from the Islamic Relief Organization, is a Muslim Brotherhood bastion. Another former imam and current prayer leader, for example, is an admitted Brotherhood member from the Sudan. The mosque’s deed was signed by an Alamoudi crony who has admitted participating in the Brotherhood’s “Ikhwan” movement in America.

Dar al-Hijrah is a turnstile for terrorists and terror suspects. A prayer leader, Sheikh Mohammed al-Hanooti, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing. Other dubious mosque members have included: Alamoudi, Abdullah bin Laden, Osama’s nephew; Hamas leader and fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook and his partners Ismail Elbarasse and Abdelhaleem Ashqar, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in February; convicted Virginia Jihad Network leader Randall “Ismail” Royer, a former CAIR official; and Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an al-Qaida operative recently convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush.

Leaders of the mosque rallied around Ali, calling the trial a Zionist “witch hunt,” even after it became obvious he was guilty.

What’s more, the phone number to the mosque was found in the German apartment of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, roommate of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. Atta’s deputy “emir” in the “raid” on America, Nawaf al-Hazmi, worshipped at Dar al-Hijrah, along with the pilot who crashed the plane into the Pentagon.

Back to mosque leader Esam Omeish, the “American patriot.” Court records I’ve obtained show he put his home up for bond collateral in 2004 to help spring from jail a terrorist suspect who was caught allegedly casing the Chesapeake bridge for attack. His dubious pal Ismail Elbarasse is a founding member of Dar al-Hijrah.

Omeish’s house is just down the road from the mosque in Falls Church, Va., and just a few blocks in the other direction from the Islamist business park in Alexandria. One of Omeish’s neighbors on his cul-de-sac is the former bookkeeper for terror banker Soliman Biheiri. He started an Islamic investment bank that included Hamas leader Marzook and Abdullah bin Laden as major investors. Biheiri, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, was recently convicted of lying about his connections to Marzook in an investigation into his terrorist ties.

It’s one big happy Islamist family in Omeish’s neck of the woods.

This is who is rallying opposition to the war. Omeish may claim to be an “American patriot,” but even Cindy Sheehan should know better. The people she’s consorting with would not have shed a tear had her son been beheaded in Iraq.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers