Iran TV broadcasts ‘US ship spy plane footage’

Iran TV broadcasts ‘US ship spy plane footage’
Nov 11 4:07 PM US/Eastern

Iran’s Arabic language television station broadcast footage it claimed showed a US aircraft carrier cruising in Gulf waters it said was taken by an unmanned Iranian drone.The brief minute-long film, which was shown on Al-Alam television’s evening news bulletin, showed wobbly aerial footage of an aircraft carrier stacked with war planes as it sailed.

The television’s anchor said the film, the property of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, showed a vessel from “the US fleet in the Persian Gulf“.

“A source in the Revolutionary Guard said the drone carried out its mission without US fighter pilots reaching it,” the television said.

It said there were 10 such films taken by the drone which showed “more precise information and details about military equipment, foreign forces, and their activities in the Persian Gulf.”

The station did not name the vessel nor did it say when the footage was shot.

The broadcast comes near the end of Iran‘s latest 10-day war games, “Great Prophet II”, which military chiefs have said were aimed at showing off Iran’s defensive prowess and testing new military hardware.

The war games coincided with US-led naval manoeuvres in the Gulf off Iran aimed at halting arms-trafficking, the first time such an exercise has been held in the area.



By Julia Gorin | The Hispanic-supremacist group La Raza, or “The Race,” has been making more and more headlines with the advent this year of pro-illegal-immigrant rallies. Among the chants that can be heard as people march for lawlessness is “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” or “A united [Hispanic] race will never be defeated!” The Race openly declares its intentions to “reconquer” the American Southwest, demands that illegals be allowed to get drivers’ licenses and free in-state tuition and health care, that state agencies and ballots be bilingual, and that the post-9/11 immigration laws be rolled back so that more illegals and terrorists can get in. The Race has been courted by both Democratic and Republican politicians, and actress Eva Longoria has hosted its award ceremonies.
Given these current socio-political realities–along with our earnest, ongoing dialoguing with representatives of a religion that seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate in which everyone is either Muslim or dead, isn’t it about time we reached out to the other supremacists in our midst, whom society has shunted aside–the white supremacists, skinheads, neo-Nazis, KKK and other affiliates? Why do we discriminate against them? Why the double standard? It’s long past time to bring them into the political fold and establish dialogue. After all, wouldn’t the same logic apply to them that applies to immigrants and Muslims: when people are marginalized, it fuels their sense of otherness, and their anger festers. Besides, talk about traditionally disadvantaged products-of-their-environment who need a self-esteem boost! Yet in the case of redneck racists, the words “poor and ignorant” are said with contempt rather than a self-blaming social responsibility to “help.” So why is one dismissed out of hand while others are “dialogued” to death — especially when the intention of the former is to preserve the country rather than to undermine it?
Apparently, the problem for white supremacists is that they don’t propound their views in Spanish or Arabic, and to Americans, primitive ideas are more palatable when uttered in a foreign language–including Dios or Allah instead of God or Jesus. To be less of a pariah, the disorganized white nationalist groups should unite under an umbrella organization and call itself Raza Blanca, which sounds much more romantic than KKK or Stormfront. They’d also have an easier time espousing their views if they converted to Islam, as former Klansman Clinton Sipes, now Abdus Salam, has done. After all, consider how much more unsettled we are by blonde, blue-eyed 13-year-old twins who sing pop songs about white pride than we are about Arabic toddlers modeling belt-bombs. Lynx and Lamb Gaede, the duo that forms “Prussian Blue,” say they’re proud of being white and “want to preserve [their] race.” That was enough to earn their talents a label as “preaching hate,” while songs about black power or suicide bombers are indulged and tolerated, respectively. Can anyone recall a talk show host laying into an Islamist with the zeal that Donny Deutsch went after the Prussian Blue girls on his CNBC show in December? No, we are infinitely more freaked out by a pair of back-woods-minded white girls than we are by children holding placards reading “Death to Israel and America” and “Islam will Dominate.”
On that subject, at least for the white nationalists it can be said that they cherish their children–a fundamental value they share with us normal folk. And whatever perverse ideas are included in their patriotism, at least they’re patriotic (though this could be what doomed them from the start with the arbiters of good taste). Meanwhile, loving America is more than can be said for illegal (and plenty of today’s other) immigrants, or for the fastest-growing religion, whose adherents have already modified the Pledge of Allegiance at some of their schools.

Donate to JWR
Even more uncomfortably, there’s truth to at least part of what the white racists say. Note the deafening silence that greeted the 1998 film “American History X.” It was the most provocative but least talked-about drama of the year, not least of all because of statements like the following from the protagonist, played by Ed Norton: Today’s immigrants “don’t give two s—- about this country. They come here to exploit it, not to embrace it. I mean, millions of white European-Americans came here and it flourished, you know, in a generation.” Norton’s Derek Vinyard lives in Venice Beach, CA, where black and Latino gangs have taken over. His father was shot and killed while putting out a fire at a Compton drug den by, Derek surmises, “a drug dealer who probably still collects a welfare check.” Referring to the illegal immigrants who would become today’s entitled marchers, Derek says, “This state spent $3 billion on services for those who had no right to be here in the first place….Our border policy is a joke. So is anyone surprised that south of the border they’re laughing at us, laughing at our laws?” Though the recovering-racist protagonist adds these facts up to a vile outlook and destructive solution, Derek describes America not inaccurately as being “raped.”
And so it is that while the founder and principal of a taxpayer- and La Raza-funded Los Angeles charter school sneers at the idea of racial integration and tells non-Spanish-speaking reporters “I would be very careful before I came down here,” and while Virginia’s Saudi Academy produces aspiring presidential assassins, and Fresno State holds separate “Latino commencements,” we’re more disturbed by John Birch schools and Bob Jones University.
The co-sponsor of the charter school Academia Semillas Del Pueblo is the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or MEChA, which Michelle Malkin has described as operating “an identity politics indoctrination machine on publicly subsidized college and high school campuses nationwide.” Its members have rioted in Los Angeles and “editorialized that federal immigration ‘pigs should be killed, every single one’ in San Diego, and they refer to themselves as a bronze people with a bronze culture on a bronze continent. The group even has a twist on the old Marxist axiom “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs”: “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.” Dismissed as a social club, the group’s activists have directed racist verbal attacks against every non-Latino group, including blacks, Asians and Jews.
Speaking of which, why is white supremacists’ anti-Semitism considered more specious than Islamic, Hispanic or black anti-Semitism when it’s the least active? In fact, if one had to compare, anti-Semitism by the “minorities” is worse, considering it’s also a betrayal–of a people who for generations have bent over backwards to improve the lives of these “disadvantaged groups,” something that Jews haven’t done for the Maya Angelou-dubbed “po’ white trash.”
So it’s time to ask ourselves: Should there really be a singled-out race “for whom racial pride is a social taboo,” as Wendy McElroy describes it? Why do we find white racism to be so much more unsettling than racism by the Other? Is it self-hatred? Or are we just pumping up people whom we truly do find inferior — thereby tacitly buttressing the premise of the white supremacists?
Rather than alienate the white power crowd and relegate them to the peripheries of society, shouldn’t we be accommodating their views as we do the others’, and trying to explain to them that there are more constructive ways to fight for one’s country? Why pile on when skinheads probably already feel impotent and upstaged by Islamic terror, bewildered how these third worlders managed to hijack their movement, along with the swastika and Hitler salute.
Given the taxpayer-subsidized racial war against “the Anglos,” as La Raza and MEChA have declared it, it’s time to stop discriminating against our embarrassing white brothers. In fact, maybe it’s time to give the Others the superiority contest they’ve been gunning for — and see who’s for real, and who’s just bluffing to cover up an inferiority complex. That would be worth buying front-row seats to.


1111  19th Street NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC
Phone :202-785-1670

  • Largest Hispanic organization in the
  • Lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate crimes laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens
  • Named as a key member of the Open Borders Lobby in the pamphlet The Open Borders Lobby and the Nation’s Security After 9/11, written by William Hawkins and Erin Anderson

  • Principally funded by the Ford Foundation

Currently the largest Hispanic organization in the U.S., the National Council of La Raza (“the Race”) was established originally in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza, for the purpose of “improv[ing] life opportunities for Hispanic Americans.”The group was initiated by a research project funded by the Ford Foundation. Today La Raza has more than 270 formal affiliates serving 40 states, and a broader nationwide network of more than 30,000 groups and individuals who reach at least 3.5 million Hispanics in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Notwithstanding this large base of support, more than two-thirds of La Raza’s funding comes from corporations and foundations, and much of the rest stems from government sources. Between 2001 and 2003, the Ford Foundation alone gave La Raza some $9.83 million, including a single grant of $8.05 million.In turn, each year La Raza grants large amounts of this money to “Hispanic cornmunity-based organizations,” some of which are quite obscure. Of the $1.3 million it gave out in 1996, for instance, $126,000 went to El Hogar del Nifio, $9,000 went to Chicanos por la Causa, and $30,000 was earmarked for Cabrillo Economic Development.

La Raza’s politics are at the far left of the political spectrum. Its Policy Analysis Center lobbies for affirmative action, bilingual education, stricter hate crimes laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. La Raza characterizes increased immigration control as a violation of civil rights, and the reduction of government handouts to immigrants as “a disgrace to American values.” 

La Raza was a signatory – along with more than 120 other leftwing organizations – to a 2000 campaign to increase the minimum wage. La Raza was also a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress “to oppose the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA), also known as ‘Patriot [Act] II,’” which was then under consideration. These signatories stated that the new legislation “fail[ed] to respect our time-honored liberties,” and “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers . . . that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.” In addition, La Raza has given its organizational endorsement to the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project of the California-based Coalition for Civil Liberties (CCL). The CLL tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions creating Civil Liberties Safe Zones; that is, to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act.

La Raza has also endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. The statement called upon the U.S. government to “[r]ecognize the contribution of immigrant workers, students, and families, and [to] end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”; to “[g]uarantee and provide relief to the loved ones of the victims and those unemployed in the World Trade Center attacks, regardless of immigration status, without intimidation or threat of deportation”; and to adopt “the Plan of Action from the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerancewhich was largely a forum for angry anti-American and anti-Israel tirades.

Furthermore, La Raza endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA) of 2004, which was introduced by Democratic Senators Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Russell Feingold, Richard Durbin, and Jon Corzine, and Democratic Representatives Howard Berman and William Delahunt. The CLRA was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

La Raza is also a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for undocumented workers, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate restrictions on immigration.

In addition to the Ford Foundation, La Raza also receives funding from: the American Express Foundation; the AT&T Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the W. K. Kellogg Foundation;  the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; and the Verizon Foundation.

Moreover, in 2005 La Raza received some $15.2 million in federal grants; it took in more than $30 million in such grants between 1996 and 2005.

ISLAMIC SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA (ISNA) — Enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America’s mosques

P.O. Box 38
Plainfield, IN
Phone :317-839-8157
Fax :317-839-1840

  • Enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in
    America’s mosques

Established in 1963 by the by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) calls itself the largest Muslim organization on the continent. Its annual convention draws more attendees — usually over 30,000 — than any other Muslim gathering in the Western Hemisphere. ISNA’s mission is to function as “an association of Muslim organizations and individuals that provides a common platform for presenting Islam, supporting Muslim communities, developing educational, social and outreach programs and fostering good relations with other religious communities, and civic and service organizations.”

ISNA devotes much of its energy to providing Wahhabi theological indoctrination materials to some 1,100 of the approximately 2,500 mosques in
North America. Many of these mosques were recently built with Saudi money and are required, by their Saudi benefactors, to strictly follow the dictates of Wahhabi imams – an edict that affects the tone and content of the sermons given in the mosques, the selection of books and periodicals that may be read in mosque libraries or sold in mosque bookshops, and the policies governing the exclusion or suppression of dissenters from the congregations.
Through its affiliate, the North American Islamic Trust — a Saudi government-backed organization created to fund Islamist enterprises in
North America — the Saudi-subsidized ISNA reportedly holds the mortgages of between 50 and 79 percent of all mosques in the U.S. and Canada. Thus the organization can exercise ultimate authority over the mosques and their teachings.

Writes Kaukab Siddique, the editor of New Trend, an Islamic periodical of extremist views that is nonetheless opposed to Wahhabi domination of American Islam: “ISNA controls most mosques in
America and thus also controls who will speak at every Friday prayer, and which literature will be distributed there.” Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the
United States.”

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation”; “convenes annual conferences where Islamist militants have been given a platform to incite violence and promote hatred” (For instance, al Qaeda supporter and PLO official Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi was invited to speak at an ISNA conference); has held fundraisers for terrorists (After Hamas leader Mousa Marzook was arrested and eventually deported in 1997, ISNA raised money for his defense); has condemned the U.S. government’s post-9/11 seizure of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad financial assets; and publishes a bi-monthly magazine, Islamic Horizons, that “often champions militant Islamist doctrine.” Adds Emerson: “I think ISNA has been an umbrella, also a promoter of groups that have been involved in terrorism. I am not going to accuse the ISNA of being directly involved in terrorism. I will say ISNA has sponsored extremists, racists, people who call for Jihad against the
United States.”

WTHR, an Indianapolis television station located close to ISNA’s Plainfield, Indiana headquarters, said it had found “about a dozen charities, organizations and individuals under federal scrutiny for possible ties to terrorism that are in some way linked to ISNA.”

In December 2003, U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Max Baucus listed ISNA as one of 25 American Muslim organizations that “finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.” ISNA is known to have permitted the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (and a number of other Islamic charities with terror connections) to set up booths at its conventions, and in some cases has helped raise money for them.

Upon learning of the arrest of Sami Al-Arian, the
University of
South Florida computer science professor eventually found guilty of conspiring to fund the terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, ISNA issued a statement criticizing the
U.S. government.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former ISNA President Muzammil Siddiqi appeared as a goodwill ambassador at an official ceremony at the National Cathedral in
Washington, DC.  But several months earlier (on October 28, 2000), Siddiqi had publicly stated: ”
America has to learn, if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please, all Americans. Do you remember that? If you continue doing injustice, and tolerate injustice, the wrath of God will come.”

ISNA was a signatory to a February 20, 2002 document, composed by C. Clark Kissinger’s revolutionary communist group Refuse & Resist, condemning military tribunals and the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations. In ISNA’s estimation, the Patriot Act constitutes an assault on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans and ought to be repealed.

ISNA endorses the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure amnesty and civil liberties protections for illegal aliens, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate restrictions on future immigration.

ISNA chose not to endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005 “Free Muslims March Against Terror,” an event whose purpose was to “send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered . . . [and to send] a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them.”

Former ISNA President, Sheikh Mohammed Nur Abdullah, who immigrated to the U.S. from Sudan in 1978, received a B.A. degree in Sharia, or Islamic Law, from the Islamic University in Medina, and a Masters degree in Sharia from the

University in Makkah. He is a member of the Sharia Scholars Association of North America.

The organization’s current President is Ingrid Mattson, professor of Islamic Studies at the
Center for Islamic Studies, and of Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary in

Other notable ISNA members include Jamal A. Badawi, Ihsan Bagby, Muzammil Siddiqi, and Abdullah Idris Ali. Hadia Mubarak, former President of the Muslim Students’ Association, sits on ISNA’s Board of Directors. Muslim Youth of North America Chairman Omar J. Siddiqui is also a member of the ISNA Board.

In July 2006, ISNA Secretary General Sayyid M. Syeed joined Sojourners leader Jim Wallis and National Council of Churches General Secretary Robert Edgar in opposing any U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program — instead advocating “direct negotiations” with

Iran: Enemies can’t “do a damn thing” to stop nuke program

Iran: Enemies can’t “do a damn thing” to stop nuke program
Can’t or won’t? 1938 Alert. “Iran: Enemies cannot stop our nuclear work” from YNet News:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday Iran’s enemies could not do a “damn thing” to stop its nuclear program.
The United States and European powers are leading efforts to impose United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt sensitive nuclear work that the West believes is aimed at producing an atomic arsenal.
“In the nuclear issue, they wrongly express concern about Iran’s possible diversion from a peaceful path,” the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
Tehran insists it has a right to nuclear power and only wants it to generate electricity.
“By God’s grace our powerful nation will continue its path and the enemy cannot do a damn thing on the nuclear issue,” he said.
His comments echoed those of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late founder of the Islamic Republic, who said “America cannot do a damn thing” after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in 1979 and took dozens of diplomats hostage.
Key UN Security Council members are currently debating a European draft sanctions resolution. The United States wants the text beefed up with stronger language, but Russia is resisting and instead wants large chunks deleted to exclude the seizure of Iranian assets and travel bans on Iranian officials.
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator said on Friday his country would review relations with the UN’s nuclear watchdog if the Security Council backed the European draft resolution.
Iran ended snap inspections of its nuclear facilities in February after its case was referred to the UN Security Council. It has threatened to curtail IAEA inspections altogether if the Security Council took action against it.

Israeli deputy defense minister: Strike on Iran possible

Israeli deputy defense minister: Strike on Iran possible

Unfortunately, a government spokeswoman was quick to note that Sneh’s comments “did not necessarily reflect the view of Israel’s government or of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.” Perhaps with more minds like that of Ephraim Sneh in the Israeli government, Iran would not be so sure that its enemies would not do a “damn thing” to stop its nuclear program. “Israel official: Strike on Iran possible,” by Amy Teibel for The Associated Press:

JERUSALEM – The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran’s disputed nuclear program — the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.

“I am not advocating an Israeli pre-emptive military action against Iran and I am aware of its possible repercussions,” Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, a former general, said in comments published Friday in The Jerusalem Post. “I consider it a last resort. But even the last resort is sometimes the only resort.”

Sneh’s comments did not necessarily reflect the view of Israel’s government or of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said government spokeswoman Miri Eisin.

Olmert, who was arriving in Washington on Sunday, said he was confident in the U.S. handling of the international standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. The Bush administration and other nations say is a cover for developing atomic weapons, but Tehran says the program is peaceful.

“I have enormous respect for President Bush. He is absolutely committed,” Olmert said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show. “I know that America will not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons because this is a danger to the whole Western world.”


Israel crippled Iraq’s atomic program 25 years ago with an airstrike on its unfinished nuclear reactor. Experts say Iran has learned from Iraq’s mistakes, scattering its nuclear facilities and building some underground.

Sneh’s tough talk is the boldest to date by a high-ranking Israeli official. Olmert and other Israeli leaders frequently discuss the Iranian threat in grave terms, but stop short of threatening military action.

Romney’s Mormon Faith Could Hurt ’08 Run, Political Observers Say

Will Islam Dominate the Future?

Will Islam Dominate the Future?
November 11th, 2006

In his compelling new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, conservative commentator extraordinaire Mark Steyn analyzes the current state of the “clash of civilizations” (in Samuel P. Huntington’s much-used phrase) between Islam and the West.  Steyn focuses on the demographic, cultural, and political forces that are rapidly moving Europe towards an Islamified future, and the United States towards a lonely position as the only western country with the size and strength to withstand the Islamic onslaught.

It is a stark and sobering vision.  Steyn’s writing, as the readers of his columns have come to expect, is informed, witty, and full of insight.  I highly recommend America Alone.

Unfortunately, like so many other conservative commentators who take a hard line in the present “war on terror,” Steyn does not come out and say what he surely must mean – which is that Islam itself is the enemy.  Islam is the world’s second largest religion, and claims to be growing faster than Christianity, Hinduism, or Buddhism.

But Islam also is a totalitarian political ideology, akin to communism, that is fundamentally inconsistent with Western understandings of individual freedom, sexual equality, material prosperity, and representative government, not to mention our Judeo-Christian heritage.  Since 9/11, just five short years ago, the conflict between the West and Islam (especially in Europe) has become much more pronounced, and much more violent.

Granted, most Muslims are not terrorists.  Nevertheless, it is clear that many Muslims, including some portion of those living in the West, sympathize with terrorists and support the global jihad.  As Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, David Yerushalmi, and many others have explained, the jihadist impulse is found throughout Islamic theology, history, and culture. 

Islam divides the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam), where Islamic law (sharia) reigns supreme, and the House of War (dar al-harb), where sharia does not yet prevail.  Muslims are enjoined by Allah and Muhammad to wage war upon the House of War until it is brought within the House of Islam.  This religious-political project – and not the P.C. troika of poverty, tyranny, and discrimination – is the root of jihad.  (For an excellent introduction to the theology and history of Islam, see here.) 

It should not be surprising, then, as Steyn emphasized in a recent column, that the vast majority of Muslims worldwide feel primary loyalty to their religion (“Pan-Islamism”), instead of to the particular nations in which they live.  For example, according to a recent poll (cited by Steyn), only 8 percent of Muslims living in Great Britain consider themselves British first, whereas 81 percent consider themselves Muslim first.  Given the stark differences between what it means to be British and what it means to be Muslim, these poll results portend a disastrous future for the British nation.  Indeed, given the gulf that exists between Western culture and Islamic culture, the growing size and influence of the Muslim world portends a disastrous future for us all.

The main focus of Steyn’s book is on the underlying demographic trends, including low native birth rates and rising Muslim immigration, that are steadily transforming Europe into an Islamic stronghold (what Bat Ye’or calls “Eurabia”).  In Steyn’s view,

“demography doesn’t explain everything, but it accounts for a good 90 percent.” 

Steyn emphasizes that, with birth rates among native Europeans well below “replacement level” (2.1 children per woman), the Western populations in these countries will shrink with each new generation.  At the same time, millions of Muslims are moving into Europe (naively welcomed by the existing governments as a source of labor to maintain their lavish welfare states), and are having many more children than their neighbors.  Steyn reports that Western women in Europe have an average of 1.4 children, whereas Muslim women have an average of 3.5 children.  The result is a “baby boom” among Muslims that, within our lifetimes, will completely change the European countries in which they live.  Steyn’s analysis (though not original) strikes me as right on the mark (no pun intended).

Yet after spending page after page highlighting the demographic disaster that awaits Europe (and to a much lesser extent the United States), Steyn fails to state the logical conclusion, which is that Muslim immigration must be stopped.  Period. 

If one believes, as Steyn clearly does (with strong support from the evidence), that Muslims as a group not only are not assimilating into Western culture but are actively hostile toward the very principles upon which our societies are built, then it is “suicidal” (a term frequently used by Steyn) to permit millions of Muslims to take up residence within our countries.

Of course, such a blanket policy would be unfair towards the many individual Muslims who do not share the militant worldview of their co-religionists.  Nevertheless, if 80 percent of Muslims cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the Western nations in which they live (to use the British poll numbers cited above), then the only rational policy is to exclude Muslims altogether.  However, nowhere in America Alone does Steyn dare utter this obvious, if uncomfortable, truth.

The other principal focus of Steyn’s book is on the inability of contemporary multiculturalism to provide a meaningful, vigorous base on which to sustain and defend Western civilization.  On the contrary, as Steyn sharply remarks,

“multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own.”

Hence, “the governing principle of multicultural society” is that “Western man demonstrates his cultural sensitivity by pre-emptively surrendering.”  This already is happening in Europe, which Steyn thoroughly documents.  But it even is happening in the United States – see the craven response by our political and media establishment to last year’s Cartoon Intifada, and the continued refusal by our law enforcement agencies to engage in “racial profiling” as part of a sensible anti-terrorism strategy.  Steyn surely is correct that multiculturalism, and its philosophical twin internationalism, cannot provide the ideological meat needed to maintain a healthy body politic.

What can?  Steyn doesn’t really say (a weakness in his analysis), although he strongly suggests that we need to take greater pride in our Anglo-American traditions and show greater respect for the Christian religion.  Indeed, in the context of our conflict with Islam, it is difficult to conceive of anything less than a full-blown resurgence of American and European nationalism being sufficient to hold off the Islamification (or dhimmification) of much of the West.

With any significant resurgence of nationalism, however, will come, inevitably, ethnic and religious chauvinism.  While such chauvinism does not have to devolve into murderous fascism, it will result in a less tolerant and accommodating attitude towards foreigners.  For many Americans and Europeans, schooled for decades in the self-denying pieties of multiculturalism, this will be seen as something very bad, worse even than Islamic domination. 

But ethnic and religious chauvinism is at the heart of the “civilizational confidence” that Steyn rightly ascribes to the Muslim world.  Recall the Muslim protesters in London last year boldly holding signs that read “Behead Those Who Insult Islam” and “Europe You Will Pay” (all because of a few “blasphemous” cartoons in a Dutch newspaper).  Without a similar sense of “civilizational confidence,” the West – including the United States – will be unable to preserve its distinctive way of life.  It’s as simple as that.

After spending nearly 200 pages describing the dire threat to the West posed by Islam, Steyn begins the final chapter of America Alone by assuring his readers that his book

“isn’t an argument for more war, more bombing, or more killing, but for more will.” 

This statement is either naïve or disingenuous.  Because Steyn is a very smart fellow, I opt for the latter interpretation.  After all, Steyn then goes on to recount his favorite anecdote about a British general in colonial India who, when faced with the traditional Hindu practice of “suttee” – the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands – told his Indian subjects: 

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows.  Very well.  We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them.  Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.  You may follow your custom.  And then we will follow ours.” 

For Steyn, this is the quintessential example of Western “will” that we need to emulate today.  But if this isn’t a call for more killing in the service of Western values, I don’t know what it is.

Whether we like it or not, large parts of the Islamic world have declared war on the West.  Because Muslim countries, to date, have lacked the military and economic capability to wage conventional warfare against us, they have engaged in vicious acts of terrorism designed to intimidate and undermine Western society.  They may soon be in position, through developments in Iran and, perhaps, Pakistan, to commit acts of nuclear blackmail or actual nuclear warfare.  (And just imagine if, a few decades from now, a Muslim majority took control of France or England’s nuclear arsenal, with the capability to destroy large parts of the United States.)  The West can either submit to this violence and intimidation, or we can fight back.

But what does “fighting back” mean?  On this vital question, Steyn’s book, quite frankly, is disappointing.  Steyn offers an ambitious 10-point list of options, but he does not explain what they would entail in practice.

Steyn’s list includes: 

(1) supporting women’s rights in the Muslim world;

(2) “roll[ing] back Wahhabi, Iranian, and other ideological exports that have radicalized Muslims on every continent”;

(3) supporting economic and political liberty in the Muslim world;

(4) ensuring that Muslim nations that persecute non-Muslims are “denied international legitimacy and excluded and marginalized in international bodies”;

(5) “throttl[ing] the funding of mosques, madrassas, think tanks, and other activities in America and elsewhere by Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others”;

(6) creating a “civil corps” for “countering Islamism on the ideological front”;

(7) “marginaliz[ing] and euthaniz[ing]” the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and similar “transnational organizations”;

(8) “transform[ing]” our domestic energy industry to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil;

(9) “end[ing] the Iranian regime”; and

(10) “strik[ing] militarily when the opportunity presents itself.”

Steyn’s list leaves many questions unanswered.  Consider options 1 and 3.  How are we supposed to promote freedom and equality in the Muslim world?  What political, economic, and military policies should we pursue to achieve these ends?  And why would these policies be any more successful in the future than they have been in the past?  Steyn doesn’t say. 

Or consider option 6, Steyn’s call for the creation of a “civil corps.”  This sounds an awful lot like the Peace Corps, only with an emphasis on ideological rather than economic development in the Third World.  How would this work exactly?  What ideology would we be exporting?  Christianity?  Capitalism?  Secular humanism?  Again, Steyn does not say. 

Or consider option 8.  How are we to achieve energy independence?  Through higher taxes?  more regulations?  the nationalization of the energy industry?  Steyn offers no blueprint for action in this important area (which should be a much easier nut to crack than “reforming” the Middle East).  And so on.

I am not suggesting that Steyn’s list of options is wrong, only that it needs much more explanation and justification than he offers in America Alone. Of course, there is only so much one can do in one highly readable book.

My most serious criticism of Steyn, however, is that he refuses to acknowledge the dramatic implications of his own analysis.  Take another look at items 2, 5, 9, and 10, on Steyn’s list of options.  Together these would amount to a declaration of war against Islam.  Obviously, the Muslim world will not take kindly to our “throttling” their funding of Islamic institutions in the United States and Europe, let alone our “rolling back” such institutions in other parts of the world.  Nor will the Muslim world perceive our “ending” the Iranian regime or our “opportunistic” use of military power against other Muslim targets in benign terms. 

We can be sure that any escalation of this conflict by the West (however necessary for our own security) will be met with an intensification of the global jihad.

Thus, contrary to Steyn’s earlier denial, his book plainly is “an argument for more war, more bombing, [and] more killing.”  Only Steyn won’t admit it, probably because he wants to retain some “mainstream” credibility.  This may be an understandable concern for a professional commentator, but it undermines the power and coherence of his book.

Tragically, unless the Muslim world suddenly reforms itself – an unlikely prospect given the nature of Islam – I am afraid that civilizational war is where we are headed in the coming decades, as the Muslim world gains even greater strength and confidence.  While Mark Steyn’s America Alone helps open our eyes to certain aspects of this conflict, it does little to prepare us for the full scope of what lies ahead.  For if the West decides to fight this war, rather than accept Islamic domination as the price of peace (an open question), the bombing and killing are going to be on a scale that makes the current war on terror look like a preliminary skirmish.

“I believe Mr. Al-Arian’s request is part of the attempted Islamization of the American Justice System”

“I believe Mr. Al-Arian’s request is part of the attempted Islamization of the American Justice System”

This forthright and unapologetic anti-dhimmitude and refusal to kowtow from Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, will no doubt not go unpunished. Expect calls for his resignation, if not his head. “Al-Arian attorney charges bias: He says a U.S. prosecutor openly condemned Islam and is aiming to stretch his client’s sentence,” by Meg Laughlin in the St. Petersburg Times, with thanks to PRCS:

Documents unsealed in the Sami Al-Arian case Thursday raise questions about an assistant U.S. attorney’s motives for requiring Al-Arian to testify before a federal grand jury in Virginia.Al-Arian’s Tampa attorney, Jack Fernandez, wrote that on Sept. 18 he asked Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, to delay Al-Arian’s transfer 30 days until after the Islamic religious holidays of Ramadan.

According to a court motion filed by Fernandez, Kromberg responded: “If they can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury, all they can’t do is eat before sunset. I believe Mr. Al-Arian’s request is part of the attempted Islamization of the American Justice System. I am not going to put off Dr. Al-Arian’s grand jury appearance just to assist in what is becoming the Islamization of America.”

Kromberg declined to comment Thursday.

According to the unsealed documents, Fernandez called Kromberg back the same day and told him his comments “called into question (his) objectivity.” Two days later, Fernandez said, he asked Kromberg to recuse himself from the part of his investigation involving Al-Arian. Kromberg refused.

On Oct. 19, Kromberg called Al-Arian before a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., and questioned him about his knowledge of the workings of an Islamic think tank in Northern Virginia. Al-Arian refused to answer, saying his “forced cooperation violated the plea agreement” he had made with prosecutors in Tampa.

In April, Al-Arian pleaded guilty to one count of aiding the terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad with nonviolent activities. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison.

Al-Arian and his attorneys say that during plea negotiations it was clear to all parties that “Dr. Al-Arian would not cooperate with the government.” Eastern Virginia was mentioned specifically.

They say Kromberg’s words about Muslims raise questions about his motives and suggest he is trying to catch Al-Arian in “a contempt trap” to lengthen his sentence.

Florida congresswoman stands up to CAIR

Florida congresswoman stands up to CAIR

It is good to know that Congress still holds some who are not dhimmis. Florida Congresswoman Brown-Waite has written a marvelous letter to CAIR bullyboy Ahmed Bedier (whose love notes to me you can read here and here), refusing his demand that she condemn Hernando County Commissioner Tom Hogan and his wife, Mary Ann, for calling Islam a “hateful, frightening religion.”

Summary from the St. Petersburg Times here (all links thanks to Sugarquub). More details here. And here is a pdf of Brown-Waite’s letter.

Some choice excerpts from it:

Mr. and Mrs. Hogan have shown tremendous fortitude by resisting the pressures of your group to retract their statements. I am sorry that Jeb Bush and Carol Jean Jordan from the Republican Party were so quick to also forget that we have freedom of speech and that the Hogans were made to feel that they are the ones who were in the wrong. The Hogans have a right to their opinion just as you have a right to yours. Mrs. Hogan expressed in her statements the views of many of my constituents, and while they do not encourage harmony in the community, they should demonstrate to you how many United States citizens perceive your faith. Your area of concern should not be focused on the statements of the Hogans, but rather upon the actions of many in your community who created these beliefs….You may recall our meeting on May 29, 2004, when I met with you and other members of your organization…You should also remember that I was invited over to the home of a prominent doctor in Hernando County to allegedly “have some tea and see how his children were doing.” Imagine how surprised I was upon entering the home to find a group of eight or more men sitting in a semicircle preparing to have a discussion with me. It certainly was not the casual social event I was invited to, but not being the type to shy away from a healthy discussion, I joined in and listened.

It was suggested to me that the group needed a Member of Congress who would be sympathetic to the CAIR-Muslim view….

When it became apparent to you that I was not willing to champion your cause in Washington, you Mr. Bedier, made the following statement, which was so outrageous I remember it almost verbatim. You told me that you had done research on me and found that I was Catholic and then went on to say, “Catholic priests pose more of a terrorism threat by having sex with young altar boys than those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.” I found the statement so bizarre that I asked you to repeat it and, without hesitation, you did. It was at this point that I stood up and told you that the meeting was over. I also pointed out the fact that the Catholic priests did not kill 3,000 innocent people, and that we knew where the guilty priests were located and they were not hiding in caves. I then left…

I suggest you not only review the U.S. Constitution but also the Florida Constitution and statutes.

Mr. Bedier, in closing, I know many fine Muslims who would be well served by your resignation from the local CAIR office. Your militancy and manipulation of facts does not serve them well.

In this post I took issue with the Hogans on points of Islamic theology, as well as strategy. Those remarks were correct as far as they went, but on reading Congresswoman Brown-Waite’s reply to Bedier I don’t think they go very far. Her approach is vastly superior, and I’m sorry I missed the initial opportunity the Hogans’ remarks presented to stand up more strongly for freedom of speech — and against CAIR intimidation. Apologies to the Hogans, and kudos to Congresswoman Brown-Waite.