AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

AGENDA OF ISLAM – A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS

By Professor Moshe Sharon

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear. There is no fundamental Islam.
“Fundamentalism” is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the language of Islam.

 Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God.
But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour. If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other. But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this fact of salvation. Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God. Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam
Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world.
Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions. Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. “Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions.” The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years – 640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat, which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament.
 

The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now]. Nevertheless, the laws a very clear – Jews and Christians have no rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it. The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar al-Harb – the house of war. Not the “house of non-Muslims,” but the “house of war.” It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict. In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war.These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

 Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be perpetually Islamic.This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear – territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created. Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how he dies, because – and this is very important – this is an eternal word between the two civilizations. It’s not a war that stops. This was is there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution – a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel. Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace – you wouldn’t believe what you are reading! You would think that you were reading some science fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with Islamic policies and civilization. A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.” Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hudaybiya.” The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext. Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the “peace” agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems. It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the mechanisms of politics.”
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that. Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.  

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What’s happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war, but there’s also war by infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside. And if America doesn’t wake up, one day the Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an atomic war – inside the U.S.

End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah – peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed – a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That’s the vision.
I’m speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final victory.
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by somebody and they’ll be replaced by the Christians. The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should be killed. I’m quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be killed. They’ll be running away and they’ll be hiding behind trees and rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees and they will say, “Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill him.” Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental of Islam. Is

There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet. But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule, now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule; Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema. And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to salvation. 

Turkish President and Military Warn of Increasing Islamism in Turkey, Point to AKP Government Note George Soros involved in Turkey

October 10, 2006 No.1313

Turkish President and Military Warn of Increasing Islamism in Turkey, Point to AKP Government

Addresses by Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer at the opening of the new session of the Turkish parliament and by the Turkish Chief of General Staff at the opening of the academic year at the Turkish War Academy had a common theme: the growing threat of Islamism to Turkey as a secular state.Tension and concern among Turkey’s secular circles are on the rise because of numerous phenomena: the Islamization of national education and of state institutions such as Turkish radio and television and Turkey’s national airlines; the appointment of imams and other Islamists to government positions, including in the security forces; the increasing number of religious schools and of once-banned Koran courses; the government’s preoccupation with Islamic issues (such as the Islamic headscarf); and the rift between the government and the universities.(1) Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and members of the AKP government have denied that any such threat to Turkey’s secularism exists.The warnings expressed by President Sezer and by Chief of Staff Gen. Buyukanit in their addresses – which came during an official visit by PM Erdogan to the U.S. – seemed to draw the lines between the sides in the controversy about the upcoming election by parliament of a new Turkish president, slated for May 2007. It is expected that PM Erdogan, an Islamist and a former member of the banned Islamist party Erbakan,(2) will be elected – and this would mean the AKP’s capture of the presidency. Secular circles in Turkey fear that if the AKP has both a majority in parliament and the presidency, it will then have the power to change the country’s constitution.

The Islamist press has expressed dismay at these warnings of an Islamic threat in Turkey voiced by President Sezer and Gen. Buyukanit. On the other hand, most of Turkey’s secular press applauded and supported the addresses.

The following are excerpts from Turkish media reports on the addresses:
President Sezer: The Fundamentalist Platform is Expanding Day by Day

On October 1, 2006, Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer opened the new legislative year of the Turkish parliament; in his address, he emphasized that Turkey was facing many internal and external threats against the country’s integrity, national unity, and political system. He cautioned that the fundamentalist platform was expanding day by day, and reiterated that the Turkish Armed Forces were the guardian of the regime and of the country.

President Sezer’s speech and the reactions to it were widely reported in the Turkish media. The following are excerpts from the report by the Islamic daily Zaman:(3)

“[…] In his speech, Sezer dwelled on issues such as freedom of the judiciary, secularism, and Turkey-U.S. relations. He underlined the existence of a steadily growing threat of religious [Islamist] fundamentalism in Turkey, emphasizing that the principle of secularism does not need to be redefined [as is frequently demanded by AKP officials]. […]

“The president expressed that Turkey’s E.U. membership goal still has priority, and its accession process should not be hindered by superficial problems. […] ‘The religious fundamentalist threat, which has existed since the establishment of the Turkish Republic, has recently increased,’ said Sezer […] ‘Fundamentalism aims to change the core principles of the state.’

“He also talked about increased efforts [by the Islamists] against the achievements of the secular republic… ‘These have included the appointment of Islamist-minded officials to key civil service positions; recent statements by AKP officials questioning the definition of secularism; and efforts to make religion part of society and politics,’ said Sezer.

“Sezer particularly focused on the issue of secularism in the state’s regime and future, underlining that secularism was functionally defined in the constitution and did not need to be redefined – which contradicts the AKP government’s desire to redefine secularism. ‘Turkey has adopted secularism, with its very appropriate content, in the context of its traditions, social structure, social realities, and circumstances,’ said Sezer […].

“Sezer explained, ‘Religion cannot be allowed to exceed beyond the individual’s spiritual life and influence social order. Restrictions can be imposed […] to protect public order, safety, and public interests. Abuse and exploitation of religion can be banned.’ The president emphasized that Turkey was a state of law and that the president and the judiciary act as a power balance […]

“[On the importance of the judiciary,] Sezer said that all the legislative amendments were made not to elevate the judiciary above the legislative and executive branches, but to restrict the authority of government over the judiciary and to harmonize it with the laws. ‘Because,’ he said, ‘in modern societies that have adopted the supremacy of law, the final decision is to be taken by the judiciary. […] Turkey has taken important steps on the path of being a respected and trusted member of the modern world, with the contributions of our foundations established in light of Ataturk’s philosophy. We will proceed towards the future with great self confidence, by being aware of the values that we have, by protecting our democracy, by preserving our unity, by sustaining national reconciliation […] These are the duties and responsibilities of all our citizens.'”
Chief of General Staff Buyukanit: “A Fundamentalist Threat Exists”

Marking the opening of the new academic year at the military academy in Istanbul, Turkish Armed Forces Chief of General Staff Gen. Yasar Buyukanit delivered a strongly worded speech warning of increasing Islamist fundamentalism. His speech came in response to PM Erdogan’s recent assertion that there was no fundamentalist threat in Turkey. Gen. Buyukanit’s speech was broadcast live on 10 Turkish television channels, and was widely reported in the Turkish media. The following are excerpts of the reports:

“[…] Gen. Buyukanit made the following thinly veiled jabs at the AKP government: ‘Are there not those who take every possible opportunity to cry out, ‘Let us redefine secularism!’? Don’t these same people occupy the highest levels of government? Isn’t [it true that] the great founder of our republic, Ataturk, and the mentality he put into place, as well as the basic principles of the regime of our republic, are under attack? Are there not those who grab every chance they get to chip away and wear down the Turkish Armed Forces? Are there not elements that want to destroy our societal structure, and drag our people back into anachronistic ways? If you cannot answer all these questions with a ‘no’ and say ‘these things do not happen in Turkey,’ then yes, there is threat of religious fundamentalism in Turkey, and we must do everything we can to fight it.'”(4)

“Chief of General Staff Buyukanit accused the government of encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, and rejected E.U. criticism that the military had too much influence in politics.”

“Turkey’s generals have been speaking out in defense of the military’s role as guardian of Turkey’s secular regime and pro-Western vision, amid E.U. calls for Turkey to curtail its generals’ outspokenness. The military is deeply suspicious of both PM Erdogan’s government, which has appointed Islamic-minded officials to all key civil posts, and governing party members – including Parliamentary Speaker Bulent Arinc – who have questioned the definition of secularism. Military leaders suspect that the government is giving priority to an Islamist agenda over Turkey’s bid for E.U. membership. Buyukanit justified the military’s actions by saying that they were based on laws empowering it to protect the secular regime against both external and internal threats.

“‘Which action of the military is undemocratic?’ he asked […] ‘I am a soldier and I am carrying out the duties given to me by law. As soldiers, we have nothing to do with politics; however, there are those who are disturbed by our assessments on security and [our secular] regime […]’ The military has urged the government to crack down on radical Islam, saying that demanding such action was part of its role of protecting [Turkey’s secular] regime. […]”(5)

“[…] [In response to comments by some E.U. officials, Gen. Buyukanit said] ‘They are trying to portray the Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] as a roadblock on the way to democratization. The Turkish Armed Forces support [Turkey’s] E.U. membership. As soldiers, we do not interfere in politics. What statements were ever made by TSK outside the framework of democracy? It is very clear to whom the chief of staff reports [i.e. the prime minister].'”(6)
The Taqiyya of PM Erdogan

Columnist Burak Bekdil, of the centrist, English-language Turkish Daily News, wrote in an article titled, “Is There an Islamic Fundamentalist Threat in Turkey?”:(7)

“There isn’t, according to the prime minister, parliament speaker, deputy prime minister, probably the rest of the cabinet and those who sit on the government’s bench in parliament. [But] according to the president and the head of the military and three service commanders, there is. Somebody […] must be ‘abstaining from the truth.’ […] One may agree or disagree on whether there really is a threat from Islamism against Turkey’s secular regime. But the ‘who is abstaining from the truth’ part is unambiguous.

“Last year, the National Security Council drafted a security threat paper […]. The draft was discussed at various meetings of the Council, took its final shape, was sent to the ministers for approval, and was eventually sent to the prime minister for the final signing. Earlier this year PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed the white paper. The document clearly defines Islamic fundamentalism [Islamism] and separatism […] as principal domestic security threats to Turkey. So, if Mr. Erdogan has any doubt as to whether that threat exists in the country he governs, he can always look in the document he himself signed only [a few] months ago. However, Mr. Erdogan is certain that the Islamist threat does not exist.

“If Islamism is not a security threat, why did he sign the most sacred of all security documents that says that it [is]? Does he – and how often – sign policy papers of supreme significance despite his disagreeing with their contents? If yes, which ones are they? […]

“Or, did he believe Islamism was a threat earlier this year but no longer does? […]For example, does he believe Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a security threat?[…]

“[…] The answer that helps us understand the difference between Mr. Erdogan who signed the white paper that says Islamism is a threat and Mr. Erdogan who says it is not can be found in the Arabic word taqiyya. For some dogmatic Muslims, cheating is not a sin if committed ‘for the good of Islam.’ It is no secret that remaining in power, for Mr. Erdogan and his men who think Islamism is not a threat, is the sine qua non, a prerequisite, to change Turkey’s demographics in favor of Islam. These men are perfectly aware that demographics is the mother of all politics.

“It’s like hating America but trying to look pretty to the men who govern America ‘for the good of Islam’ [and for themselves, of course]. How else […] can they serve Islam if they are not in power? It’s like defending the headscarf but fearing to remove the ban on the headscarf. How else can they serve Islam if they challenge too much the ‘other’ – ‘the other’ being the powerful men who say Islamism is a threat? It’s like dogmatically believing in the Koran that tells [Muslim] believers ‘not to make friends with Jews and Christians’ but boasting good friends who are non-Muslim statesmen – all those ‘my good friend Silvio’s,’ ‘my good friend Costas’s,’ and ‘my good friend ‘George’s…’

“[…] Fortunately, we ‘have generals who think democracy is not what Mr. Erdogan thinks [it is] […]”
“Has a Party Like the AKP Ever Come to Power in the U.S. or E.U. Countries?”

Columnist Ozdemir Ince, of the secular, mainstream, high-circulation Hurriyet, wrote:(8) “[…] Mr. [Hansjorg] Kretschmer [head of the Delegation of the European Commission to Turkey] has said that the [Turkish] military performs not only the duties assigned to it, but thinks itself the protector of the Turkish Republic. He emphasizes that civil control over the military is one of the ‘key’ issues in Turkey’s membership process. […]

“I have a question for Mr. Kretschmer: In the U.S. or the E.U. countries, can a political party that clearly is against their constitutional order and against the founding principles of their states come to power? It would not be able to. But let’s assume that [such a party] did come to power. Would this party be allowed to execute policies against the republic?

“Has a party like the AKP ever come to power in the U.S. and the E.U. countries? I wouldn’t want to compare, but I cannot think of any examples other than Mussolini’s fascist party and Hitler’s Nazi party.

“Let Mr. Kretschmer note this: It is the Turkish Armed Forces that is protecting Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP from the fate of Mussolini and Hitler.

“Mr. Kretschmer should read the history of Turkey’s Sunni Islamic sects and communities. Let him learn about the Islamist plots and uprisings. Let him examine the political ambitions and claims of sects such as Nakshibend-ism and Nur-ism and Fethullah-ism.(9)

“And then let him answer my question: Can a political party that represents un-democratic [Islamist] sects be respectful of democracy? Wouldn’t it seal the door to democracy, at the first opportunity? Is this gentleman our friend or a saboteur?”
PM Erdogan, Ministers, Parliamentary Speaker Say “There is No Fundamentalism”; President Sezer, Chief of Staff Say “There is”

Turkish columnist Guneri Civaoglu, of the secular, mainstream daily Milliyet, wrote in a column titled “Who Has the Right to Speak?”:(10) “PM Erdogan and his ministers, and the parliamentary speaker, say, ‘There is no fundamentalism.’ [But] according to President Sezer, Chief of Staff Buyukanit, and the commanders of the armed forces, ‘there is.’

“In the minds of the first [group], there is no clear definition of ‘secularism.’ According to them, ‘fundamentalism’ is not a Turkish reality. They associate fundamentalism with ‘radical Islam,’ such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hizbullah… bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, Ahmadinejad’s Iran, the Taliban’s Afghanistan… Saudi Arabia [where] they practice flogging, cutting off arms or heads […] Sudan with the strictest religious rules… The label of ‘fundamentalism’ does not fit Turkey, which does not belong to this category.

“In contrast… For the second group – and the majority of the Turkish people – ‘fundamentalism’ is abandonment of Ataturk’s principles; [it is] the slippery ground on which we have found ourselves sliding for quite some time. It is our knowing where this is leading us. It is the emptying of Ataturk’s definition of modernity.

“It is about the beginning [in this country] of ‘subordination of individuals to other individuals’ in a network of relationships of ‘hodjas [religious sect leaders] and followers,’ and of gathering under such religious sects, orders, and cults that had no place in Koranic times and that were banned by the laws of [Ataturk’s] Turkish revolution… [It is about] exploiting relationships with these religious sects and communities for political and economic gains… [It is about] exploiting the faith of sincere believers… the brainwashing of children and the young with irrationalities and myths… the rejection of the country’s founder and leader of its independence, Ataturk, and [the excommunication of] all his followers – the military, the university professors, the teachers, the judges, the prosecutors, the administrators…

“Does the fact that the perpetrators of these things can use computers, speak foreign languages, and have diplomas make them ‘modern’ or contemporary?

“The Turkish Armed Forces have an important place among the republic’s institutions that defend Ataturk’s principles, beginning with secularism. Gen. Buyukanit’s speech must be evaluated in this light.

“[…] In the recent period, there has been a campaign to wear down the armed forces, waged from within and from without. […] Has anybody in the government voiced anything at all to defend the armed forces? […] If ‘soldiers should not speak politics and must be silent,’ why didn’t those who should speak, speak? Why are they silent? Shouldn’t at least the defense minister say something?

“Buyukanit complained about a TESEV(11) report accusing the Turkish Armed Forces of ‘influencing politics,’ and he mentioned that nine chapters of the report were prepared by people under the civil authority [i.e. the police]. If the civil authority, which should defend the Turkish military, remains silent, and furthermore, if there are suspicions that it supports these reports targeting the military, should the soldiers remain silent and appear to agree with these accusations?

“It is laws enacted by the free will of the Turkish parliament that have given the armed forces certain duties and responsibilities, and reminding the students and officers of the military academies of this is legitimate – and does not constitute opposition to democracy or to the E.U.”

Endnotes:
(1) See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1048, “The AKP Government’s Attempts to Move Turkey from Secularism to Islamism (Part II): Defying European Human Rights Court Decision on Headscarf Ban; PM Erdogan: ‘Ulema, Not Courts, Have Right to Speak on Headscarf,'” December 13, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP104805 ; MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 1014, “The AKP Government’s Attempt to Move Turkey From Secularism to Islamism (Part I): The Clash With Turkey’s Universities,” November 1, 2005, http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101405 .
(2) The political Islam (Milli Gorus) movement was founded by former PM Necmettin Erbakan. In 1980 and, more recently, in 1997, Erbakan was removed and banned from politics by military intervention, due to fears of the Islamization of Turkey. The AKP and PM Erdogan are offspring of this movement, and now share an electoral base with the Saadet Party.
(3) Zaman (Turkey), October, 2, 2006, October 1, 2006.
(4) Hurriyet (Turkey), October 3, 2006.
(5) Turkish Daily News (Turkey), October 3, 2006.
(6) Hurriyet (Turkey), October 2, 2006.
(7) Turkish Daily News (Turkey), October 4, 2006.
(8) Hurriyet (Turkey), October 3, 2006.
(9) Turkish Islamist sect leader Fethullah Gulen is known to be a sworn proponent of the shari’a and the establishment of a caliphate in Turkey, but has in recent years been a relatively moderate voice advocating interfaith dialogue. (This is regarded as taqiyyah by Turkey’s secularists.) Following his indictment in Turkey for Islamist activity against the secular regime, he fled to the U.S., where he has lived since 1999. His sect owns many media organs in Turkey, including the Islamic daily Zaman, Samanyolu TV, many magazines, and radio stations. Many of his followers occupy positions in Turkish government ministries, the police, and the military. There are thousands of Islamic-Turkish Fethullah Gulen schools in Turkey, and hundreds more in over 70 countries worldwide.
(10) Milliyet (Turkey), October 3, 2006.
(11)TESEV, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, is a non-governmental organization sponsored by George Soros.

Nancy Pelosi: Anatomy of a Trainwreck

Nancy Pelosi: Anatomy of a Trainwreck
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006

The Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi told the Washington Post last month that this year’s midterm congressional campaign “shouldn’t be about national security.” Thanks to an obliging mainstream press that continues to make the Foley cybersex page scandal the lead story day after day, she and her fellow leftists are escaping accountability for doing everything in their power to tilt our legal system in favor of terrorists’ rights while undermining our military and intelligence services.

One of Pelosi’s most shocking votes was against consideration of appropriations for intelligence and intelligence-related activities in fiscal year 2007 since there was no funding for something called a “Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.” Declaring that the NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program is illegal (which is an issue still on appeal before the courts), Pelosi also voted against a compromise that would have required judicial oversight but still provided the President with some additional flexibility during wartime. She even voted against the bill sponsored by our current Speaker Denny Hastert adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission! In Pelosi’s world – which will turn into nightmarish reality if she becomes the next Speaker of the House – the privacy rights of terrorist suspects and their friends under surveillance would trump our right to be protected against the execution of their murderous plans.

 

Pelosi believes that we should deal with the terrorists as a law enforcement matter – with all the trappings of rights for suspected terrorists that defendants in criminal trials are entitled to under our Constitution. Thus, she has called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo, declaring, “I think that we need a fresh start…a clean slate for America in the Muslim world.” No matter how she tries to explain it, the net effect of her “clean slate” approach would be to let the detainees go free, crouch into a defensive position and allow our country to become a sitting duck for a fresh attack on our soil.

 Pelosi voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. She also vigorously opposed Congress’ establishment of procedures to govern custody and interrogation of detainees and the military tribunals to try them – although the procedures are entirely within the framework of the Supreme Court’s recent decision vesting Congress with such authority and are within the provision of the Constitution itself permitting Congress to suspend habeas corpus rights “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Al Qaeda’s attack against our nation’s capital and financial center, killing 3000 innocent people, should qualify as an invasion of our homeland under any common sense definition, but apparently that is not so for the most ardent protectors of terrorists’ civil liberties like Pelosi. It is no surprise, then, that Pelosi was given a 100 percent rating for supporting the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in 2005. While CAIR has undertaken some beneficial educational projects and has issued bromides against extremist acts of violence, there have been credible reports of CAIR’s post-9/11 ties to terrorist groups, including funding of terrorist front groups. Moreover, a number of CAIR officials have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, offenses related to the support of Islamist terrorism. Pelosi’s full-fledged support of terrorist suspects’ civil liberties comports very nicely with CAIR’s needs at the moment.  

In keeping with her radical civil liberties philosophy, Pelosi voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was aimed at stiffening federal laws to protect against terrorists’ entry to the country and their abuse of the state driver’s license process to obtain false identification. She also led the Democratic opposition and voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, to establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States, including the building of a 700 mile long fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. Her alternative has been to push acceptance of a dubious ID card issued by the Mexican consulates for aliens crossing over our border called the “matricula consular.” The problem with those cards is that they provide the perfect cover for terrorists and common criminals alike seeking to enter our country and to set up phony identities under which they can get drivers’ licenses, open bank accounts, apply for jobs and social services, etc. That is because Mexico is not authenticating the documents used to obtain the matricula cards against any computerized databases and therefore not verifying the applicant’s real identity, according to a background paper published by the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies.

 

Ignoring the lessons of how the 9/11 hijackers used various IDs to facilitate their operations, Nancy Pelosi proudly announced on January 3, 2003 her pet pilot program allowing individuals carrying the questionable matricula cards to access the Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse in San Francisco.

 

According to the testimony of an assistant director of the FBI’s Office of Intelligence before a House immigration panel just six months later:

 

            Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different countries in possession of the matricula consular card…At least one individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested in possession of the matricula consular card. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula consular to create a well-documented, but fictitious, identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers. It allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity. (Emphasis added.)

 In spite of such evidence detailing how these cards are being abused and placing the security of the American people at risk, Pelosi has continued to promote them. She actually issued a press release on September 14, 2004 – right around the third anniversary of 9/11 – in which she bragged about how the Democrats under her leadership “defeated Republican attempts to restrict the Matrícula Consular identification card.”  

While we are on the topic of Pelosi’s lending a helping hand to illegal aliens who may turn out to be terrorists, Pelosi is evidently confused on the proper role of law enforcement. In 2003, she accused immigration officers of conducting “terrorizing raids” on a Wal-Mart retail chain, which led to the arrest of over 300 illegal aliens. A spokesperson for Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, sought to educate the San Francisco lawmaker about what it means to enforce the law: “Our job as an enforcement agency is to enforce the law, whether that’s immigration, homeland security or customs. That’s what we’re tasked to do.”

 

Pelosi has also supported outright amnesty for illegal workers, including granting citizenship status to 500,000 illegal workers in the agriculture industry. Indeed, Nancy Pelosi has a special affection for illegal aliens, no doubt thinking how liberalized entry for poor migrant workers could help in staffing the non-union vineyards that Pelosi and her multi-millionaire husband own in Napa Valley. Pelosi, the ardent advocate for labor causes, apparently has chosen not to hire members of the United Farm Workers to pick her vineyard grapes while at the same time she has chosen to sell those grapes to non-union wineries. She has an obvious conflict of interest every time that she votes on an immigration security bill because she and her husband personally benefit from the influx of cheap labor without whom “[N]ot one bottle of wine would get made here,” according to a farm worker advocate with Napa Valley Community Housing. [1] Is Pelosi looking out for her own financial interests, calculating how a law imposing strict penalties on employers of illegal aliens might affect her vineyard business instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?

 

If Pelosi wants the current House leadership to disclose under oath what they knew about the Foley e-mails, how about she disclose under oath the details about each of her vineyard workers to determine whether she and her husband are using undocumented aliens illegally, what kind of background checks were conducted and what they are being paid. By the way, in the posh neighborhood of Pelosi’s multi-million dollar Napa County grape vineyards, illegal aliens are being permitted to use their Mexican matricula consular cards for identification purposes, helping to insulate their employers from charges of hiring “undocumented” workers and helping the aliens themselves to obtain local services at taxpayers’ expense. Did Pelosi abuse her public trust to help expand the use of these questionable cards for her private benefit?

 

Beyond giving free passes to terrorists and other aliens seeking to enter our country illegally and establish an identity here, Pelosi has consistently opposed a strong military. Her votes are too numerous to catalogue, but here is a sample. She voted NO on a measure to protect U.S. citizens, including our soldiers, from being arbitrarily arrested and brought before the unaccountable UN-sponsored International Criminal Court for a kangaroo trial. In recognition of that vote, and for others that included unconditional support for U.S. funding of the dysfunctional United Nations at the expense of our defense budget, she received a 2006 rating of A+ (with additional extra credit, no less) from the Citizens for Global Solutions, an ultra-left organization which advocates one-world government.

 

Pelosi voted NO on deploying a national missile defense system, even in the face of North Korean and Iranian development of long-range missile and nuclear capabilities. She voted NO on continuing military recruitment on college campuses, even though this would upgrade the quality and breadth of our military forces.

 

Pelosi opposed both the first Gulf War to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991 and the second war twelve years later to forcibly remove him from power altogether – even after Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of a succession of UN Security Council resolutions on weapons of mass destruction and genocide against his own people. Despite her own warnings about Saddam Hussein’s dangerous WMD program while Clinton was President and her stated recognition that “the citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein’s activities”, she even voted NO on a bill affirming that the United States and the world have been made safer without Saddam Hussein’s regime in power and expressing gratitude for the valiant service of U.S. troops in liberating the Iraqi people.

 The upcoming midterm election presents a choice between two very different visions of how to protect our country. It is no wonder that Pelosi wants desperately to change the subject of this campaign to anything but national security. Coming from someone who scoffs at traditional moral values by voting against the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on partial birth abortions, Pelosi’s sudden protestations of moral outrage over Foley’s salacious e-mails would be laughable – until her political strategy becomes clear. With her self-righteous posturing, she wants to distract people from asking whether they are willing to take a chance on a leftist clique that places terrorist rights before the security of our families and believes that using our military to take the fight to the terrorists abroad is a bad thing. “I don’t really consider ourselves at war,” Pelosi has said in describing her views on the struggle against global terrorism. With such a philosophy governing the House and creating more obstacles to defeating the Islamic-fascists, the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack reaching us soon in our homes, at work, at school, while traveling or in our places of worship will increase exponentially – a debacle in the making that we simply cannot afford at this crucial time in our history.  

ENDNOTES:

 

1. San Francisco Chronicle article by Glen Martin entitled “Grapes of Wrath” (December 19, 2004).

The ISM-Terror Connection == The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was founded in August 2001 by Adam Shapiro, Huwaida Arraf; Ghassan Andoni, and George Rishmawi. The organization describes itself as “a Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles

Up to now, the ISM has been permitted to use our colleges and universities to find recruits to send to the
Middle East to interfere with Israeli soldiers and border police. For example, every Friday, the ISM organizes riots in the West Bank. ISM members openly boast about having been arrested for vandalizing and destroying Israeli security fences and equipment. In March 2003, fugitive Islamic Jihad terrorist Shadi Sukiya was arrested in a house the ISM rented in Jenin. Two suicide bombers from the
UK met with the ISM in
Gaza before blowing up Mike’s Place, a bar in Tel Aviv, killing three people and wounding more than fifty in the process.

http://www.stoptheism.com/Default.asp?M=21

The Shadow Party — Notice John McCains role with this group

The Shadow Party
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 29, 2006

A new book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe has enraged the Left and alarmed many conservatives.  It exposes the machinations of a radical clique working at the highest levels of government and finance to undermine American power.  That book is The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party.  It hit the New York Times bestseller list in its first week in print. Here to tell us about The Shadow Party is co-author Richard Poe, our esteemed colleague at the David
Horowitz
Freedom
Center, where he serves as director of research.  Mr. Poe has written a number of bestselling books.  His last two releases were Hillary’s Secret War and The Seven Myths of Gun Control.Preview Image
FP: Richard Poe, welcome to Frontpage Interview.Poe: Thank you, Jamie. FP: So what exactly is the Shadow Party? 

Poe: The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine.  It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is multibillionaire George Soros.  He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control.  The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control. FP:  How does it work? Poe:  It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros.  He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit.     

In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party.  It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth.  However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money.  By controlling the Democrat pursestrings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, “Now it’s our party.  We bought it, we own it…” FP: Everyone knows that Soros has poured money into MoveOn.  Can you name some other Shadow Party groups? 

Poe: The Shadow Party is always changing.  New groups form and old ones dissolve. For instance, America Coming Together — which raised $135 million for Democrat get-out-the-vote drives in 2004 – has been mothballed, at least for now.  The most active Shadow Party groups today are probably the Center for American Progress, America Votes, Democracy Alliance, the New Democrat Network, the New Politics Institute, ACORN and, of course, MoveOn.org. FP: How does Soros use his influence over the Party? Poe: He uses it to push the Party leftward.  He is systematically purging the Party of moderates and packing it with radicals. For instance, the Shadow Party ousted Senator Joseph Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont, because Lieberman refused to support a “cut-and-run” policy in
Iraq.
 FP: Isn’t that just politics as usual, though – wealthy fat cats funding their favorite candidates? 

Poe:  Funding ordinary candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, would be politics as usual.  Funding radical candidates who seek
America’s destruction is not.  Money is a tool.  It can be used for good or evil.  The Shadow Party is using it for evil.
 FP:  Does the Shadow Party really seek to destroy
America?
 
Poe: Judge for yourself.  In his new book The Age of Fallibility, Soros writes, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the
United States.”  He announced in 2003 that it is necessary to “puncture the bubble of American supremacy.”  Soros is working systematically to achieve that goal.
 On the economic front, he is shorting the dollar in global currency markets, trying to force a devaluation.  At the same time, Soros is orchestrating a nationwide movement to encourage mass immigration into the
United States, and to mandate the provision of free social services to illegal immigrants.  These measures alone have the potential to bankrupt the nation.  However, if they fail, Soros has another program that will certainly finish the job.  A long-time Soros operative named Jeffrey Sachs has been placed in charge of the United Nations Millennium Project – a global war on poverty designed to transfer wealth from rich countries to poor ones.  Sachs is currently demanding that American taxpayers turn over $140 billion per year to his global welfare bureaucracy.
 

On the political front, Soros has poured massive funding into such groups as the ACLU, which uses lawsuits to hamstring the War on Terror.  Soros also funds Amnesty International, whose
US executive director has called for the arrest of President Bush as a war criminal.  Another Soros-funded group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, has drawn up detailed articles of impeachment against the President.
 FP:  Why don’t more Americans know that Soros is pushing these destructive policies? Poe: The Shadow Party operates through deception.  It uses the Democratic Party as camouflage. By posing as ordinary Democrats, Shadow Party candidates trick mainstream voters into supporting them.  Their true agenda remains concealed.  As Soros writes in The Age of Fallibility, “[T]he Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected.” The fact is, Soros aspires to establish a neo-socialist order in
America.  In the Atlantic Monthly of February 1997, he wrote, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.” 
 

FP: Tell me about Soros’ efforts to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Poe: Mr. Soros advocates deep structural change in our system of government.  In April 2005, Yale
Law
School hosted an event called, “The Constitution in 2020”, whose stated goal was to formulate “a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.”  Of the event’s five institutional sponsors, one was Soros’ flagship foundation The Open Society Institute, and two others were Soros-funded Shadow Party groups; the Center for American Progress and the American Constitution Society.  We nicknamed that event the Shadow Constitutional Convention.
 FP: What parts of our Constitution does Soros want to change? 

Poe: He appears to have a special animus against the Bill of Rights. Take freedom of worship, for instance.  Soros seems to favor some sort of religious apartheid, with fundamentalist Christians banished to a socio-political
Bantustan.  For example, in a New Yorker interview of October 18, 2004, he said of President Bush, “The separation of church and state, the bedrock of our democracy, is clearly undermined by having a born-again President.”
 Then there’s the Second Amendment.  Soros has provided massive funding to anti-gun groups and anti-gun litigators.  The unprecedented assault on gun rights during the 1990s was largely bankrolled by Soros. FP: You and David Horowitz have also accused Soros of promoting political censorship in
America.
 Poe: Most Americans do not realize that the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 was a Trojan Horse.  Its stated purpose was to reform campaign finance law. Its actual effect is to regulate political speech.  McCain-Feingold was a Shadow Party initiative. Soros and a group of leftwing foundations spent over $140 million to get it passed.   

Here’s how it works.  McCain-Feingold authorizes federal election officials to decide who may or may not run political advertisements during election season, and what sorts of ads they may run.  In September 2004, a federal judge expanded McCain-Feingold’s reach by ordering the FEC to begin censoring the Internet.  Blogger outrage forced the FEC to back down, but McCain-Feingold remains on the books. Sooner or later, it will be enforced, to the full extent its creators envisioned.  We can thank Mr. Soros for these developments. FP: Of course, we can also thank Republican Senator John McCain, who co-sponsored the bill. Poe: Yes, but McCain has a long history of collusion with the Shadow Party. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Soros sponsored two so-called “Shadow Conventions,” held at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in
Philadelphia and
Los Angeles respectively. Their purpose was to promote campaign finance reform. John McCain gave the keynote speech at the
Philadelphia “Soros Convention” (as columnist Robert Novak dubbed it), while Russ Feingold did so at the LA event.
 

McCain’s service to the Shadow Party brought him financial benefits. In 2001, McCain founded the Reform Institute for Campaign and Election Issues.  The Institute’s major funders were mostly leftwing foundations.  Prominent among them was George Soros’ Open Society Institute. FP: It seems ironic that Soros spent ten years lobbying for campaign finance reform, only to emerge as one of the biggest influence buyers in
Washington.
 
Poe: As I said, the McCain-Feingold Act was a Trojan Horse.  It made the Shadow Party possible.  Among other things, it forced the Democratic Party into a financial crisis, enabling Soros to swoop in and buy up the Party at a bargain-basement price. Democrats have traditionally relied on large, soft-money donations from unions, while Republicans relied more on small, “hard-money” donations from mom-and-pop donors.  When McCain-Feingold outlawed soft-money donations to the parties, Republicans were not unduly hampered, but Democrats flew into a panic.  They faced the real possibility of bankruptcy. 

Enter  George Soros.  After forcing the Democrats into a fiscal crisis, he then offered to rescue them.  He set up a network of non-profit, “issue-advocacy” groups – the Shadow Party – and invited all the big Democrat donors to contribute to his network.  Thus they could still contribute to the Democrat cause, but without giving directly to the Party.  The Party became dependent on Soros to raise campaign contributions which the law now forbade the Party itself to raise. FP: You and David Horowitz charge that Hillary Clinton has a secret alliance with Soros. Poe: That’s right.  They have to keep their alliance secret because any political coordination between them would violate federal election law. Soros’s Shadow Party is barred by law from coordinating its activities with official Democratic Party candidates, such as Hillary. It’s a poorly-kept secret, however.  At the annual Take Back
America conference on June 3, 2004, Hillary gave Soros a glowing introduction, saying, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless, and willing to step up when it counts.” More importantly, her right hand man, Harold Ickes – who served the Clinton White House as deputy chief of staff – now serves Soros as de facto CEO of the Shadow Party. Ickes plays a significant role in running Hillary’s political machine and Soros’ Shadow Party simultaneously. This is arguably illegal, but no controlling authority seems willing to intervene.
 

The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House.  Hillary has no official connection to the Center.  However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists.  One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.”  Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.”  The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact,  Soros’ brainchild. FP: You and Mr. Horowitz have said that the Shadow Party purged Joseph Lieberman, in retaliation for his pro-war stance.  How do you square that with the fact that Hillary supported Lieberman? Poe:  Hillary supported Lieberman only with lip service.  She was just hedging her bets.  What mattered was her announcement that she would support whomever won, be it Lieberman or Lamont.  Please note that, within 24 hours of Lamont’s victory over Lieberman, HILLPAC became the first Democrat political action committee to pledge money to Lamont’s campaign.  With friends like that, Lieberman doesn’t need enemies. FP: Some conservatives welcome Soros’ intervention.  They say that the farther left he pushes the Democrats, the fewer people will vote Democrat. 

Poe:  It would certainly be nice if we could just sit back and wait for the Shadow Party to fizzle out of its own accord. Given what is at stake, however, I think a more energetic approach is in order. In my view, the farther left Soros pushes the Democrats, the more dangerous they grow.  The Party is becoming more cult-like and fanatical by the day.  History teaches that a fanatical minority can prevail over a moderate majority.  The Bolsheviks proved that in 1917.  Before our eyes, the Democratic Party is transforming into a totalitarian cult, bent on seizing power by any means necessary.  This is a time for vigilance, not complacency. FP: Are we talking Red Guards in the streets?  That’s a little hard to imagine. Poe: Actually, the Shadow Party funds a number of groups which specialize in street action.  Last March, about half a million protesters brought Los Angeles to a standstill, calling for open borders and free immigration.  Some burned American flags and fought with police. Similar protests occurred simultaneously in many cities.  The whole extravaganza was a Shadow Party operation.  Virtually every sponsor was a Soros-funded group – at least eight organizations – including ACORN, La Raza, MALDEF and others.  One of the organizers, the Center for Community Change, has received $5.2 million from Soros’s Open Society Institute. 

FP: What is their plan?  How does the Shadow Party intend to take power in America? Poe: They appear to be pursuing a three-phase plan.  The first two phases are based upon the successful strategy which the left used to force regime change in America during the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.   Phase One is to impeach President Bush for allegedly deceiving the nation into war.  We call this phase Watergate II. Phase Two is to force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to cut off aid to the Iraqi Republic, just as Democrats cut off aid to South Vietnam after Nixon resigned.  We call this phase Vietnam II. 

Phase Three is velvet revolution.  This is a term used in Eastern Europe to describe the sort of bloodless coup for which Soros is well-known in that part of the world.  He has used these methods to topple regimes in many countries, such as Yugoslavia, Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. Soros’ velvet revolutions always follow the same pattern.  The rebels wait for an election, then precipitate a crisis by charging voter fraud. We believe the Shadow Party may attempt something similar in the USA. If they fail to win legitimately in 2008, they will likely cry voter fraud, fomenting an electoral crisis similar to the Bush-Gore deadlock of 2000. We must expect, however, that the left has learned a few lessons since 2000.  It seems doubtful that they will stake their revolution on a decision of John Roberts’ Supreme Court.  More likely, they will press for international arbitration this time, possibly under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. This group actually monitored our elections in 2004.  Its relations with Soros – and with the Democratic Party – are extremely cordial, to say the least. 

In normal times, Americans would never accept foreign arbitration of an election, but a destabilized America,  demoralized by military defeat, discouraged by the fall of a president, and alarmed by orchestrated unrest in the streets, might just go along with any plan that promised to restore order. The 2004 election almost seemed like a dress rehearsal for such a maneuver, given the raucous demand by some Congressional Democrats for UN election monitors, and the so-called Boxer Rebellion, in which Senate Democrats challenged Bush’s electoral vote count.  FP: Will Hillary be the Shadow Party candidate? Poe: That is likely, but not inevitable.  Even a “velvet” candidate needs the illusion of mass support.  That could prove difficult for Hillary to conjure up.  Even so, Hillary can only benefit from these machinations.  If the Democrats win, we can rest assured that Soros and Hillary will be pulling the strings behind the scenes, no matter which figurehead they choose to sit on the throne. FP: How can we fight these kinds of radical tactics? Poe: In the short time left before 2008, we need to learn everything we can about the Shadow Party and open the eyes of as many Americans as possible to its plans. FP: Richard Poe thank you for joining us. 

Poe: My pleasure.

Teaching Teachers to Hate Israel

Teaching Teachers to Hate Israel
By Aaron Hanscom
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006

The United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) might finally be learning that bashing
Israel isn’t a job for teachers. 
It is no secret that the teachers union did everything in its power to defeat Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his educational reforms during last year’s special election in
California.  What wasn’t as widely known until this month was that UTLA has also been doing its part to bring
Israel, a country many of UTLA’s radical leaders detest, to her knees.  
Not until it was bombarded by complaints from concerned citizens did UTLA cancel its decision to host a meeting sponsored by the Los Angeles Chapter of Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS).  The purpose of the upcoming event is not to help spread democracy in the
Middle East, but to hurt the lone democracy in the region by “launching a local boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in support of the Palestinian people.”  The MDS can boast about having on its National Board Noam Chomsky, whose book Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States was praised by Hugo Chavez last month at the United Nations.  Indeed, Chomsky, Chavez and the MSD all share a deep hatred for
Israel.  While Chavez has accused
Israel of committing a “new Holocaust,” the MDS believes that “
Israel’s apartheid and racist system of oppression closely resembles that which
South Africa once had.”
 

Apparently, for the MDS, such methods as “boycotting companies that are invested in
Israel” and “working to end
US government foreign and military aid to
Israel” aren’t the only acceptable ways of bringing about the country’s destruction.  On the flier for the event, which was originally posted on the UTLA Human Rights Committee website, there is no condemnation of the never-ending terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent Israeli citizens.  In fact, the only mention of the intifada can be found at the bottom of the notice:  “Meeting endorsed by: Los Angeles Palestine Labor Solidarity Committee      Café Intifada.”
 Café Intifada is an arts events organization that aims to “unite art with critical consciousness.”  An example of this infusion of politics into art can be found on Café Intifada’s website: a photo of a small Palestinian child facing an Israeli tank.  The organization’s goals are to “raise funds for Palestinian Programs” and to “highlight…the current plight of the Palestinian people.”  It is little wonder that Café Intifada blames
Israel entirely for the struggles of the Palestinian people when members of controversial pro-Arab groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee are on its advisory board.
 

But what might come as the real shocker to
Los Angeles teachers, who are required to pay union dues to UTLA each month, is that the founder of Café Intifada, Emma Rosenthal, is a UTLA Human Rights Committee member.  Rosenthal is so militarily anti-Zionist that she endorses the International Solidarity Movement — this in spite of the fact that it has refused to condemn “armed struggle” and has harbored known terrorists.  (Some of its members have also been photographed with terrorists.) 
 For the Jewish Rosenthal, however, the only true terrorists are Jews. Her explanation for anti-Semitism is that “[a]nimosity towards Jews, in whole or in part, coming from the Middle East is not much more than a century old, in reactions to the imperialist intentions of Zionists such as Herzl and Jabotinsky and the terrorists activities of Jewish groups.” Parents who are already concerned enough about failing
Los Angeles schools now have to worry about the fact that radicals like Rosenthal are involved with teacher training. Last April 22, the UTLA Human Rights Committee hosted their annual Conference with the theme “Human Rights and The Environment.”  Rosenthal was the Conference Chair. LAUSD teachers earned salary points for attending workshops focusing on such themes as “climate change, sustainable agriculture, Katrina, The Gulf War and the environmental impact of the Israeli occupation on Palestinian communities.”  The keynote speaker of the event was Adam Shapiro of the International Solidarity Movement.  Rosenthal promoted the Conference on the radio station Uprising Radio, saying that the workshops would provide “the kind of information that activists need to get the word out.”  Why teachers should be promoting politics over educations went unexplained.  
 

Mere criticism is unlikely to put the brakes on UTLA’s social activism.  In October of 2005, Linda Tubach, a Los Angeles
Unified
School District staffer and one-time advisory-board member of Café Intifada, put together a professional development course for teachers called “Teaching About the Middle East.”  Jewish organizations complained then that teachers were earning salary points for receiving the standard left-wing treatment of non-violence, human rights and so-called peace movements. The course went on as planned. 

While UTLA President A.J. Duffy was correct to move (however belatedly) the MDS meeting, much more needs to be done to ensure that the public trust is not breached again. The American Jewish Congress explained why this is so important: Parents must be assured that their children’s teachers are not misinformed and encouraged to bring political bias into the classroom. Taxpayers must be assured that the public school teachers’ union is not being used to promote prejudice and misinformation. UTLA’s 44,000 members must be assured that their union cannot be co-opted by a Committee with politicized, extremist views that do not reflect their sentiments and they must feel secure that the Human Rights Committee will remain neutral and professional. 


Los Angeles schools aren’t providing students with quality educations. The last thing they need to be concerned about is turning out the next generation of anti-Israel activists.

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off

The Left’s Diplomacy Pays Off
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 9, 2006

SCORE ONE FOR BILL CLINTON and Jimmy Carter.

As of this writing in the early morning hours of October 9, President Bush is expected to announce that North Korea has conducted an underground nuclear test. Unlike the abortive launch in July, last night’s explosion netted the Stalinist gulag valuable information and packed a lethal impact. At 9:35 p.m. EST, the U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude disturbance approximately 240 miles northeast of Pyongyang.

The Left quickly attempted the shopworn tactic of pinning the blame on the Bush administration’s rhetoric or unwillingness to bribe Kim Jong-il. Early this morning, Joseph Cirincione of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress told CNN, “They had numerous opportunities to negotiate a deal…They did not.” He concluded, “I think the North Koreans came to that conclusion: that there is no deal to be had with this administration, and they decided they had nothing to lose.”

By way of commentary, the popular left-wing blog The Daily Kos quoted Selig S. Harrison from the international edition of Newsweek:

North Korea’s missile tests in July and its threat last week to conduct a nuclear test explosion at an unspecified date “in the future” were directly provoked by the U.S. sanctions. In North Korean eyes, pressure must be met with pressure to maintain national honor and, hopefully, to jump-start new bilateral negotiations with Washington that could ease the financial squeeze. When I warned against a nuclear test, saying that it would only strengthen opponents of negotiations in Washington, several top officials replied that “soft” tactics had not worked and they had nothing to lose.

 The Kos feels no need to explain which U.S. provocation justified the birth of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994 – during Bill Clinton’s presidency – nor that the DPRK’s “‘soft’ tactics” entailed firing a missile over the Japanese mainland and threatening to strike the United States.  Worse yet, Kim Jong-il’s methods have paid off handsomely. Each act of brinksmanship has brought cash, supplies, oil, nuclear reactors, or additional concessions from the West. Within two months of the Taepo Dong missile scraping across Nippon in August 1998, President Clinton sent North Korea a multi-million dollar aid package and reopened bilateral negotiations.  

The Dear Leader’s nuclear test could not have occurred without Bill Clinton’s decade of dalliance. Clinton could have obliterated the Yongbyong reactor with one strike when he first learned of North Korea’s covert nuclear program in 1994. Instead, he allowed Jimmy Carter’s private foreign policy to preempt him. Upon completing the “Agreed Framework” in 1994, Clinton stated, “This agreement will help achieve a vital and long-standing American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula.” We now know the $4.6 billion bribe gave the Communists the two nuclear reactors they used to create their current arsenal.

If the Left’s policies allowed Stalinists to arm, they left Americans defenseless. The Democratic Party has defined its defense policy in opposition to the concept of defense. For more than two decades, the Democratic Party has worked in concert to block any missile defense program and castigated those who tried to shield the United States from a doomsday device. When President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, Ted Kennedy promptly denounced it as “Star Wars.” The New York Times called it “a projection of fantasy into policy,” and other outlets fretted the abandonment of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would encourage the United States to pre-emptively attack the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton pledged his support for a missile shield in theory during his 1996 re-election campaign, then withheld critical funds and scheduled deployments in his second term. When George W. Bush pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty – negotiated in the 1970’s with a nation that no longer exists – the Left branded him a “unilateralist.” During the 2004 campaign, John Kerry adviser Rand Beers said North Korea was able to acquire a nuclear weapon, not because naïve leftists insisted on bribing its playboy despot, but because “Bush and his closest advisers were preoccupied with missile defense.” Twenty-three years after President Reagan’s vision of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete,” the United States remains vulnerable to madmen like Kim Jong-il…or whoever purchases his wares. Ironically, the Left’s got it wrong on SDI twice: the mere idea of missile defense caused the Soviet Union to spend itself into bankruptcy, and the fact that it remains merely an idea emboldens tinhorn dictators to engage in nuclear blackmail.

 The Left has specialized in sidelining those who would conduct a vigorous foreign policy, so impugning this president’s integrity as to render anything he says suspect. When the media dubbed the assessment of every intelligence agency in the world that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs “wrong,” it could not merely acknowledge that statesmen must act on the best information available to them at the time. Instead, they had to brand the commander-in-chief a “liar” and “fraud.” Ted Kennedy famously thundered, “Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie.” Congressional Democrats demanded an investigation into whether President Bush coerced intelligence agents into “sexing up” Iraqi intelligence. (Multiple reports proved he did not.) Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid then shut down the Senate last November 1st to demand investigations into whether the Bush administration twisted intel ex post facto. Sen. Pat Roberts’ Senate Intelligence Committee recently released two documents that exonorated him on that point, as well. Yet the current cover story of Mother Jones magazine is, “Lie by Lie: How Our Leaders Used Fear and Falsehood to Dupe us Into a Mideast Quagmire: A Timeline.” Having claimed Bush “lied” about Iraqi WMDs, he finds himself circumscribed in dealing with other rogue regimes; after all, who would follow a “liar” into war twice? 

Even this has been insufficient for today’s partisans, who demand Bush’s full demonization. Comparisons to Hitler early became ubiquitous. Al Gore bellowed, “He buhtrayeed Amurrucuh”; Howard Dean referred to Bush-43 as “Big Brother”; and Air America, the British Guardian newspaper, and a new motion picture have pined for his assassination. If Kim Jong-il is insane, in the Left’s view, he is not materially worse than our president.

Not all blame can be placed on the Left, though. This administration’s foreign policy has sent an uncertain message in its second term. The Bush team has offered Kim Jong-il bilateral relations, the Dear Leader’s penultimate goal. (The ultimate goal being U.S. aid. Such prominent Democrats as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also advocate rewarding Korean belligerence with direct talks.) Having dealt with the result of the Clinton-Carter Agreed Framework of 1994, President Bush offered Iran essentially the same deal. At stages, the war in Iraq has been carried out half-heartedly: backing off Fallujah, allowing anti-Americans prominent governing positions, doing little to stop supplies and terrorists from crossing the Syrian and Iranian borders, etc. There are even reports Yemen “will generate power through nuclear energy in cooperation with the United States and Canada.”

And there are troubling signs of a creeping failure of nerve. Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought in to “shake things up,” has publicly advocated firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in favor of James A. Baker III. Jim “F-ck the Jews” Baker’s Iraq Study Group will soon release a study reported to call, in broad strokes, for the president to back down in Iraq, “the central front in the War on Terror.”

Today’s crisis has also raised eyebrows. According to early leaks of today’s UN Security Council proposal, the administration’s requested sanctions would exclude China’s oil trade, which provides some 85 percent of Pyongyang’s fuel.

The Bush administration could present a robust plan of action to the United Nations Security Council today as its needed rebound. China will likely veto any measure to curtail its oil exports, but the U.S. could support Japan’s desires to build an appropriate defense. We could and should do the same for Taiwan, as well. In addition to providing a counterweight to Pyongyang, this would apply long-term geopolitical pressure to Beijing. The president would also be well advised to use the crisis to push through greater funding for missile defense, the only ultimate hope of “rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.” 

Or he could acquiesce to Foggy Bottom’s wisdom and issue yet another empty threat or ineffective sanctions package, followed by offers of diplomatic carrots, which would reinforce the growing perception that, rhetoric aside, the United States is too paralyzed by internal debate to prevent apocalyptic madmen from acquiring nuclear weapons. Like a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, backing down before Kim Jong-il’s pressure will send a clear message to people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and other aspiring tyrants.

 Before making such a move, President Bush must remember there is something worse than meeting the advance of evil with inaction: that is resisting evil only strenuously enough to give the enemy the thrill of victory.