The Muslim Assault on Germany

The Muslim Assault on Germany

February 25, 2007 03:27 PM EST

In the small village of Hahlen, in the German State of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), church records from the 4th and 5th centuries indicate the presence of a family named “Hole den Rahen,” (“Hole” meaning, “give me,” and “den rahen” meaning “the fields” or “meadows”). Hence, the early German name “Holrahen,” meaning, “give me new land.”

Through the centuries the name was shortened to “Holrahe” and later to “Holrah.” A spelling error by either a quartermaster or a paymaster during the American Civil War added an additional “l” to the middle of the name, and it has been “Hollrah” ever since.

I only mention the roots of my family name because it can be traced back to a time in northwestern Germany at least a hundred years before the Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca, in northern Arabia, in the year 570 AD.

The lands that my Saxon forbears occupied were marshy and not suitable for cultivation. Huge peat bogs stretched for miles, but the industrious Saxons cleared the arable lands and drained the marshes, using drainage canals and terracing. My people have been living on those lands for more than 1,500 years, since before Muhammad was born, and now his followers want to take it away from them.

One farm, near the village of Menslage, has been in my family, continuously, since the year 1245. I have visited those places on two occasions and on each visit I have been overwhelmed by the thought of my great-great-grandfather and my 10-year-old great-grandfather walking away from their home, with only the clothes on their backs and their few possessions in hand, seeking a better life in America.

Germany is the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and with the exception of the years that encompass the Nazi era of the 1930s and 40s, and the years of communist domination of East Germany during the Cold War, Germany has always been a devoutly Christian nation. Moreover, no nation has contributed more to music, to the arts, to literature, to science, to religion, to philosophy, to the expansion of human knowledge, than have the Germans.

During the 20th century, Germany has been the instigator of two brutal and costly world wars. And as a result of those two great wars, Germany has also acquired a well-deserved reputation as a warrior nation. The Germans were seen as great battlefield tacticians; culturally, they were well-suited to military discipline; and, intellectually, they were unequalled in the production of advanced weaponry.

It is a reputation which, if true, would serve the Germans well today… as it would all of Europe. However, with the close of World War II and the disclosure of the horrors of the Nazi holocaust, the German people have been clothed in a mantle of shame unknown to any ethnic group in history… much of it self-imposed.

Now, after years of liberal immigration policies, Muslims are overrunning Germany, as they are all of Europe. And when the world needs a Germany that can live up to its reputation as a tough, nationalistic state, that nation no longer exists. They have become a nation of sheep… as have the Dutch, the French, the Italians, the Belgians, the Scandinavians, and yes, even the British.

There was a time, in the past century, when the Germans and the British were warriors. That is no longer true of the Germans. And in Great Britain, where the government struggles mightily to play a major role in the fight against Islamic fascism, radical leftists threaten to overthrow even a socially liberal Labor government.

In an interview with a Brussels newspaper (De Standaard, October 23) Dutch author, Oscar Van den Boogaard, described what appears to be the attitude of most post-WWII Europeans. He said, “I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As John Stuart Mill has said, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

It is a sad picture, a Europe where so many of the people have never learned to fight for their freedom… where people were only good at enjoying it. But it is sadder still to realize that nearly half the American people – liberals, Democrats, the anti-war radicals with the loudest voices – agree with them… relying for their freedoms on the exertions of better men than they.

So what is it about the term “miserable creatures” that liberals, Democrats, and anti-war radicals find so appealing?

February 25, 2007 03:27 PM EST

In the small village of Hahlen, in the German State of Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), church records from the 4th and 5th centuries indicate the presence of a family named “Hole den Rahen,” (“Hole” meaning, “give me,” and “den rahen” meaning “the fields” or “meadows”). Hence, the early German name “Holrahen,” meaning, “give me new land.”

Through the centuries the name was shortened to “Holrahe” and later to “Holrah.” A spelling error by either a quartermaster or a paymaster during the American Civil War added an additional “l” to the middle of the name, and it has been “Hollrah” ever since.

I only mention the roots of my family name because it can be traced back to a time in northwestern Germany at least a hundred years before the Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca, in northern Arabia, in the year 570 AD.

The lands that my Saxon forbears occupied were marshy and not suitable for cultivation. Huge peat bogs stretched for miles, but the industrious Saxons cleared the arable lands and drained the marshes, using drainage canals and terracing. My people have been living on those lands for more than 1,500 years, since before Muhammad was born, and now his followers want to take it away from them.

One farm, near the village of Menslage, has been in my family, continuously, since the year 1245. I have visited those places on two occasions and on each visit I have been overwhelmed by the thought of my great-great-grandfather and my 10-year-old great-grandfather walking away from their home, with only the clothes on their backs and their few possessions in hand, seeking a better life in America.

Germany is the seat of the Protestant Reformation, and with the exception of the years that encompass the Nazi era of the 1930s and 40s, and the years of communist domination of East Germany during the Cold War, Germany has always been a devoutly Christian nation. Moreover, no nation has contributed more to music, to the arts, to literature, to science, to religion, to philosophy, to the expansion of human knowledge, than have the Germans.

During the 20th century, Germany has been the instigator of two brutal and costly world wars. And as a result of those two great wars, Germany has also acquired a well-deserved reputation as a warrior nation. The Germans were seen as great battlefield tacticians; culturally, they were well-suited to military discipline; and, intellectually, they were unequalled in the production of advanced weaponry.

It is a reputation which, if true, would serve the Germans well today… as it would all of Europe. However, with the close of World War II and the disclosure of the horrors of the Nazi holocaust, the German people have been clothed in a mantle of shame unknown to any ethnic group in history… much of it self-imposed.

Now, after years of liberal immigration policies, Muslims are overrunning Germany, as they are all of Europe. And when the world needs a Germany that can live up to its reputation as a tough, nationalistic state, that nation no longer exists. They have become a nation of sheep… as have the Dutch, the French, the Italians, the Belgians, the Scandinavians, and yes, even the British.

There was a time, in the past century, when the Germans and the British were warriors. That is no longer true of the Germans. And in Great Britain, where the government struggles mightily to play a major role in the fight against Islamic fascism, radical leftists threaten to overthrow even a socially liberal Labor government.

In an interview with a Brussels newspaper (De Standaard, October 23) Dutch author, Oscar Van den Boogaard, described what appears to be the attitude of most post-WWII Europeans. He said, “I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

As John Stuart Mill has said, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

It is a sad picture, a Europe where so many of the people have never learned to fight for their freedom… where people were only good at enjoying it. But it is sadder still to realize that nearly half the American people – liberals, Democrats, the anti-war radicals with the loudest voices – agree with them… relying for their freedoms on the exertions of better men than they.

So what is it about the term “miserable creatures” that liberals, Democrats, and anti-war radicals find so appealing?

Why Europe Won’t Be Running the 21st Century

Why Europe Won’t Be Running the 21st Century

By Soeren Kern

For a number of years now the European think tank world has been busy churning out report after report with ever more grandiose proposals for turning the European Union into a global superpower.

One of the more provocative essays in this genre is titled ‘Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century‘, which was written by Mark Leonard of the London-based Centre for European Reform. Leonard’s thesis is that Europe will dominate this century because it is based on a new understanding of power, which is embodied in the institutions and norms of the European Union. He argues that the economic, political and social models of the European Union are irresistibly attractive to the countries around it, and as they adopt the European economic and legal framework, they are transformed from the inside out. By contrast, Leonard asserts, even though the United States might be able to use its military power to change regimes, it cannot change societies, and thus it is weak when compared to the ‘transformative’ power of the European Union. This is why Europe will dominate the 21st century, or so Leonard would have us believe.
But is Europe really destined to become a global superpower? A growing body of research says no. Indeed, overwhelming evidence supports the view that contemporary Europe is beset by a mix of problems that is so complex, that apart from dramatic changes in public policy, Europe is headed toward certain decline, not ascendancy.
Demographic Collapse?
Although European elites imagine that their political and social models are so obviously attractive that they will be adopted by the rest of the world, ordinary Europeans don’t seem to think so. In fact, demographic trends suggest that most Europeans don’t even believe in the European ideal in sufficient numbers to want to pass it on to the next generation.
According to the European Commission, the average birth rate for the European Union as a whole is now 1.4 children per woman, which is well below the 2.1 replacement rate. By way of example, the country with lowest fertility rate in the world is Spain, where women have an average of only 1.07 children.
As a result, deaths will start out-numbering births in every member state of the European Union by as early as 2010. But some countries have already reached that point. According to Germany’s Federal Statistics Office, more people died in that country in 2005 than were born. And Germany’s demographic decline is the norm, not the exception in Europe. Indeed, Europe’s population is forecast to decrease by more than 100 million by 2050.
But not only are Europeans declining in number, they are aging as well. According to the US Census Bureau, Europe in 2000 had the highest percentage of people aged 65 and older, and this figure is set to double by 2050.
Economic Uncertainty
Why should Europeans be worried about declining birth rates and aging populations? Economic stability is one reason. A shrinking workforce will find it increasingly difficult to pay for the rising costs of ever more retirees. Indeed, economists predict that European budget deficits will balloon as governments strain to reconcile declining tax bases with millions of elderly people who force up spending on pensions and health care.
But that’s not all. German business leaders, for example, are already worried that the population decline with hurt their country’s competitiveness. German demographers predict that by 2030, their country will have 7 million fewer people of working age than today, but 8.5 million more people of retirement age. So although today there are two workers supporting each retiree, within one generation the ratio will be one-to-one. Many economists say this will spell the end of the European social welfare state as we know it. And because Germany is Europe’s largest economy, it serves as the benchmark for Europe as a whole.
Political Instability
As European countries edge closer to a pension crisis, political stability is another reason why Europeans should be concerned. Germany, for example, was brought to a standstill more than once by citizens protesting the Harz IV reform package. The aim of those reforms was to reduce payouts to unemployed people and to make it more difficult for them to refuse job offers. Although the government held firm, it was also voted out of office. In any case, two years later there is still no sign that the reforms have made Germany’s stagnant economy any more competitive.

 
Economic frustrations among French and Dutch voters also contributed to their rejecting the European Constitution. Indeed, European citizens seem unwilling to sacrifice their social security benefits on the altar of further European integration. Der Spiegel, the leftwing German news magazine, recently ran a story in which it observed:

“Europe has become a continent of political crises with governments in Italy, France, Britain and Poland all suffering from paralysis or a lack of voter approval. Is the continent about to abandon its integration project and return to the old era of national rivalry?”

Geo-Political Decline
Europe’s demographic situation is in stark contrast to that of the United States, where the population officially passed the 300 million mark in October 2006. The United States is now the third most populous country in the world, behind China and India. Moreover, the United States is growing faster than any other industrialized nation… in fact, it is virtually the only developed country expected to grow this century. All analysts agree that America’s demographic dynamism will have major geo-political implications, especially for Europe.

 Some Europeans are beginning to acknowledge this reality. The Paris-based EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025, Europe will represent only six percent of the world’s population and that its relative share of global wealth and trade will have shrunk. It says that

‘the ongoing debate on the future of Europe suffers from a lack of perspective on the global developments that are changing the context of European integration itself…the risk is that the Union and its Member States will be increasingly subject to, rather than agents of, change.’

The False Promise of Immigration
How did the United States, which turned 230 years old in July 2006, get so big so fast? American growth has been fuelled by a combination of economic stability, high birth rates and immigration. Indeed, the United States is the largest immigrant-receiving country in the world. Some 50 percent of the 100 million newest Americans are recent immigrants or their descendents.
Europe, however, is also a magnet for immigration: It will attract up to 1 million newcomers this year. But the European experience with immigration is quite different from that of America. Part of the reason is that many immigrants to Europe end up on welfare, while in the United States, almost all immigrants take one or more entry-level jobs and work their way up the economic ladder. Welfare is simply not the American way.
Islamic Conquest of Europe?
Moreover, most immigrants to the United States are fully integrated into American society by the second generation, regardless of their country of origin. By contrast, most immigrants to Europe are Muslims who refuse to assimilate and instead tend to cluster in marginalized ghettos on the outskirts of cities across the continent.
Here, too, the American experience is quite different. The best available estimates show that there are between 1.9 million and 2.8 million Muslims in the United States. And unlike their European counterparts, American Muslims generally do not feel marginalized or isolated from political participation. According to a 2004 Zogby Poll, American Muslims are more educated and affluent than the national average, with 59 percent of them holding at least an undergraduate college degree. Moreover, the majority of American Muslims are employed in professional fields, with one in three having an income over $75,000 a year.
But back to Europe: The Muslim population of Europe has more than doubled since 1980, and according to some estimates, there are some 25 million Muslims living on the continent today. Demographers predict that this figure may double by 2015, and that the number of Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in all of Western Europe by mid-century. This prompted Princeton University’s Bernard Lewis to tell the German newspaper Die Welt that ‘Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.’
This reality is already influencing European foreign policymaking and does not auger well for the future of transatlantic relations. Indeed, many analysts believe that the steady weakening of Europe is the underlying cause for the widespread anti-American and anti-Israel bigotry found among Europe’s elites, many of whom are bowing to pressure from Muslim residents as a way to buy a fake peace with radical Islamists. Says Fouad Ajami, a well-known authority of the Arab world: ‘In ways both intended and subliminal, the escape into anti-Americanism is an attempt at false bonding with the peoples of Islam.’
A European Crisis of Spirit
Some analysts believe that what ails Europe is not primarily a crisis of demography, but rather a crisis of spirit. Michael Novak of the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI) says that in their blind pursuit of reason, secularism and materialism,

“European elites have done their withering best to empty Europe of its Christian spirit. They have swept Europe clean just in time for the rapid rise of a rival faith [Islam] prolific with children, vitality, passion and confidence in long-term victory.”

But by removing Judaism and Christianity from European cultural, intellectual and public life, secular Europeans are largely responsible for the lack of confidence ordinary Europeans have in the future. Indeed, the lack of faith not only in tomorrow-but also in God-begets hopelessness. And without hope for the future, one is less likely to want to bring children into the world.
Will Europe Become More Like America?
Most economists agree that demographic decline goes hand in hand with economic decline, and that economic decline, by definition, leads to a loss of influence on the global stage. Although European elites dream about a day when Europe will act as a counterbalance to the United States, the facts imply that Europe’s future will be considerably more modest.
There are solutions to almost every problem facing Europe today. But ironically, those solutions imply that Europe must become more (not less) like the United States in its political, economic and social models.
That is to say, as long as European elites insist on building a Europe whose main purpose is to check American power, Europeans are certain to lose over the long run. But if they can bring their ambitions more into line with reality, both Europeans and Americans are set to win.
Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group

Global Warming as European Imperialism

Global Warming as European Imperialism

By James Lewis

The great Global Warming scare is only the latest eructation of European imperialism. Euro-imperialism used to be known as socialism. Before that, it was just called British or French imperialism, because those countries were very proud of it. There was no need to lie. The only reason today’s huge European effort to control the world isn’t called “imperialism” any more, is that its supporters hate that word. The reality of imperial control is fine with them.
According to one dictionary, imperialism is

“the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”

That is exactly European policy today with regard to Global Warming.
But that’s only the dictionary. The media don’t follow the dictionary definition of imperialism. They follow Vladimir Lenin’s definition instead. For Lenin, imperialism had to be a capitalist plot. Only capitalists could exploit colonies for their resources; the fact that this is plain unvarnished nonsense was part of its charm. It’s like the slogan that Blacks can’t be racists. It makes no sense, but to certain people bigger nonsense means more profundity. 
So Lenin told the world that a proletarian power can only conquer other nations to liberate them, not to exploit them. So it must be true that the Soviet Union was not imperialist, regardless of the Hungarian and Czech invasions, the wholesale carting of East German industries to Russia after 1946, and 70 years of the immiseration of Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea (even today). Assuredly, Moscow’s centralized control of worldwide communist parties didn’t count as imperialism. Got that? The Soviet Empire could not be imperialist, no matter how it acted; US leadership was imperialist regardless of the facts. If you don’t get that, you’re just not thinking like a media clone.
Everybody in the media knows the US attacked Saddam in Iraq to steal the oil. That’s imperialism. It would have been a lot easier to keep our troops in Kuwait in 1992, because Kuwait has plenty of oil and is easier to control than Iraq. We could have cut a deal with Saddam and divided it in half. But thinking is not the strong suit for these folks.
There’s another little word missing in the Global Warming discussion: Europe.
All self-respecting capitals of 19th century Europe had their empires. There was the Habsburg Empire, Napoleon’s French Empire, Bismarck’s Reich (Empire – later the Nazi Reich).  Queen Victoria reigned over the British Empire, on which the sun never set. The Dutch had an empire in the East Indies. The Belgians owned the Congo (and behaved brutally even by European standards). Even the Swedes and Danes had empires.  The Russian Tsars were Emperors (the word “Tsar” comes from “Ceasar.”) The Turks had the Ottoman Empire. Spain and France tried but failed to get theirs in South America; and the Germans were just boiling mad that the British Navy ruled the oceans so they couldn’t get an empire in Africa. Poor disunited Italy had to wait until the 20th Century to catch up with its empire, too late for the respectable 19th century club . They all felt deserved their own colonies. Imperialism was in.
So the next time you tour Europe to goggle at the public buildings, the equestrian sculptures, the museums, the Eiffel Tower, Nelson’s Monument, the castles and the palaces, just remember one little word: “imperialism.” Many of  those famous tourist spots are mementos of bloody conquest and violent domination of subject peoples. That will help anchor your Europhilia in reality.
Comes the Bolshevik Revolution in 1914, and suddenly no progressive intellectual wants to be an imperialist any more. But here’s the kicker: nothing changes but the words. Europe still sees itself as the center of the world and the most advanced human civilization. Each European capital has the right — nay, the duty — of imposing its language, its utter conviction of superiority, its educational system and its ruling class on properly obedient colonial peoples. Today that pervasive sense of superiority still inspires the European Union — the new empire-to-be — and it is a lifelong obsession among French politicians like Dominique De Villepin. French foreign policy is shot through with old-fashioned imperialist ideology. It’s why they’re so nasty.
Even though Moscow had all the trappings, the world-conquering mission, the bullying of neighbors, the goose stepping Red Army, the KGB, the worldwide espionage (which got Stalin his atom bomb), the egomania, the global export of self-glorifying ideology — it could not be imperialist because the USSR was not a nation, verstehen Sie? It was the harbinger of Peace on Earth. It was Socialism in One Country, until Stalin found it regrettably necessary to appeal to Russian patriotism to stop the Nazi Blitzkrieg.  Russian peasants wouldn’t die for the Party, but they would risk all for Mother Russia. In any case, the True Believers never dropped the pretense that Soviet imperialism of the worst kind could not be imperialism, because the USSR was not a nation, but a hope.
Today’s European Union also denies being a nation. Like the USSR, the EU is something never heretofore seen. It is a Platonic Ideal realized in flesh and blood. It is the Transubstantiation of the Da-Sein to the Nichts-Sein. It is the socialist meme applied to Brussels rather than Moscow. And it’s something Americans better get straight, because we will be flooded with EU-propaganda for the next fifty years arguing that the European Union is not an imperial enterprise, contrary to all appearances.
Now Europe has two practical problems, imperialism-wise. One is that it’s pathetically weak and occupied with bitter arguments behind the scenes, between the French, the Germans, the Brits, the Low Countries, and now the Poles-Czechs-Greeks-Spaniards-Italians-Serbs-Austro-Bulgo-Hungarians. (See: Airbus, Concorde, German subsidies for French farmers, etc., etc., etc.). The EU is not a union; it’s a vendetta.
The second weakness is that Europe has relied on the United States for its real defense since 1946. And still does. So the European Empire can’t resort to the imperialist shtick of expansionist warfare. Instead, its tax money goes to universal health care, welfare payments for the fast-growing offspring of Muslim immigrants, the latest vote-buying schemes, plus sex, drugs and rock n’ roll to distract the people. The Romans called it “bread and circuses” — keep the common folk well-fed and staring at the boob-tube, and you can do whatever you want.
Bottom line: Europe needs the United States but despises us. Not because of anything we do — anti-Americanism goes back long before we were a power to reckon with. It’s a major historical theme. You can see it in European literature — in the Sherlock Holmes stories, for example, where a disproportionate number of its sex-obsessed villains come from the American West and the colonies. Thomas Jefferson as Ambassador to Paris was outraged to hear that the French intellectual class was convinced that American animals are invariably smaller than European ones — because they were degenerate offspring of the Euro originals. That conviction of innate superiority has always been part of the European psyche, and nothing has changed today.
So Europe needs to control America in order to carry out its imperial mission. Don’t ask why; that’s the wrong question. Europe needs to control us because they do. The explanations change from time to time. Today the explanation is that the US is just not as peace-loving as the hopelessly weak and gutless elites of Europe. In the 19th century it was the opposite: The US was not warlike enough compared to the Prussians, the Russians, the French and the English. Europeans felt sure about it. They were the proud aristocrats. We were their weakling rejects, remember?
So how does one control America from Brussels? One way is to shout at us until we give in, a method pioneered by the Soviets and other bullies. A closely related method is to apply all the principles of agitprop, learned during the Soviet phase, from spontaneous popular demonstrations (these days it’s polls) to the voices of “world renowned scientists” to put their stamp of approval on the Global Warming scam.  Give Al Gore a Nobel Prize, and stack international gathering spots like the UN and Davos with party members. 
We can’t forget how close the European Left came to exporting Eurosocialism to America: Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest advisor, turns out to have been a Soviet source, perhaps an agent of influence, perhaps a spy. (It’s hard to know exactly.) Ronald Reagan turned against Stalinists when he saw how they tried to control the unions in Hollywood. Henry Wallace was almost elected Democrat candidate for President over Truman. Al Gore Sr. was a close friend, ally and financial beneficiary of Armand Hammer, the millionaire KGB paymaster in the United States, who boasted of owning his personal US Senator from Tennessee.
(Al Gore Jr., the leading American agitator for Global Warming, was therefore raised to become a member of the American ruling class, and president some day. Which is why the Florida recount came as such a shock to poor Al; it wasn’t supposed to be that way. He was fated to rule America. He’s still shell-shocked. The Nobel Peace Prize, the OscarTM, even worldwide acclaim as the Goracle of Global Warming will never be good enough.)
And then the Soviet Union, through Castro’s Cuba, almost managed to provoke Marxist rebellions throughout Latin America, with the enthusiastic help of our Democrats — leaving a legacy of anti-American hatred that still pervades the chattering classes South of the Border. Those were all different aggressive salients of European Imperialism.
Americans are prone to ask “why do they hate us?” A good answer is that we’re the leading pop culture of the world — which is why teens all over the world imitate American rock music, wear torn jeans, and cuss in English. Europe is elite-driven, and elites despise ordinary people; it’s their main source of self-esteem. So today they say they hate us because of Global Warming, but for many years they hated us for the West’s failure to help the Soviets and Chinese become high-polluting industrial giants. It used to be not enough pollution; today it’s too much.    
The underlying psychological drive hasn’t changed.  Imperialism has always been primarily driven not by greed but by a lust for glory: The self-glorification of elites with fragile egos. When you do the math, some scholars aver, the British Empire under Queen Victoria cost more pounds than it earned for Britain, but that wasn’t the point. The Empire demonstrated the superiority of the British ruling class. Today, substitute the “BBC Class” for “British upper class,” and you’ve got the same thing.
The BBC Class considers itself internationalist, socialist, and Green (and not just with envy). The Greens are of course Reds with camouflage paint. After the USSR fell of its own internal contradictions around 1989, the Left needed a new shtick. They could not admit that free markets and democracies worked better than their engrained ideology. So they found a different set of reasons to do the same thing. The old way was European imperialism à la Karl Marx. The new way was European Imperialism à la Al Gore.
The big problem with the Global Warming riff is that China and India will never accept it, and they are quickly outpacing the West in carbon dioxide emissions. China was tyrannized in the most horrific way by European Socialism, first as the “Chinese melon” carved up by the European powers, and then under Mao Zedong, killing tens of millions of  his people. India never had a Communist revolution (though it was tried), but instead adopted Jawaharlal Nehru’s British Public School Socialism, which Nehru had learned in London. It ruined the Indian economy for decades.
Having been burned badly by Europe’s ideological imperialism in recent history, will India and China swallow the new version, a.k.a. Global Warming? And sacrifice their own growing prosperity to avoid a disaster that never will be? When even Europe itself is just pretending to be lowering CO2 emissions?
India and China would be utter fools if they fell for Europrop again. How many decades of ruin do you need, before you begin to suspect the snake oil salesman?
So watch for Al Gore to run out of steam in a couple of years. Soon the Greens will be looking for another false alarm to scare the chickens with. What will it be? Asteroids crunching the earth? Aliens from outer space? That old stand-by, the international Jewish conspiracy? Regardless, you know who will be wearing the White Hats and the Black Hats. Because the story always stays the same. Only the details are changed.
James Lewis is a frequent contributor to American Thinker, and blogs at www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com

AP Reports Romney Family’s Polygamy, But Not Obama’s

AP Reports Romney Family’s Polygamy, But Not

Obama’s

From a deeply concerned Associated Press:

Romney Family Tree Has Polygamy Branch

 

By JENNIFER DOBNER and GLEN JOHNSON

February 24, 2007

While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.

Romney’s great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt’s brother and fellow apostle, OrsonPratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney’s father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued “The Manifesto” banning polygamy…

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was “a very important part of Miles Park Romney’s family.”

Hardy added: “Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life.”

Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney’s father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney’s stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines…

Funny how the media hasn’t mentioned Barack Obama’s father’s polygamist ways. That is, apart from this from the UK tabloid, the Daily Mail:

A drunk and a bigot – what the US Presidental hopeful HASN’T said about his father…

27.01.07

.… At 18, he married a girl called Kezia. But Obama Sr was more interested in politics and economics than his family and his political leanings had been brought to the notice of leaders of the Kenyan Independence movement…

At the age of 23 he headed for university in Hawaii, leaving behind the pregnant Kezia and their baby son.

Relatives say he was already a slick womaniser and, once in Honolulu, he promptly persuaded a fellow student called Ann – a naive 18-year-old white girl – to marry him. Barack Jr was born in August, 1961.

Two years later, Obama Sr was on the move again. He was accepted at Harvard, and left his little boy and wife behind when he moved to the exclusive east coast university…

Mr Obama Jr claims that racism on both sides of the family destroyed the marriage between his mother and father.

In his book, he says that Ann’s mother, who went by the nickname Tut, did not want a black son-in-law, and Obama Sr’s father ‘didn’t want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman’.

In fact Ann divorced her husband after she discovered his bigamous double life

Obama Sr was forced to return to Kenya, where he fathered two more children by Kezia. He was eventually hired as a top civil servant in the fledgling government of Jomo Kenyatta – and married yet again.

Now prosperous with a flashy car and good salary, his third wife was an American-born teacher called Ruth, whom he had met at Harvard while still legally married to both Kezia and Ann, and who followed him to Africa…

And this is Obama’s father, not his great-great grandfather. Who knows what Obama’s Muslim ancestors were up to in Africa a hundred years ago?

But speaking of fathers, how is it none of this was ever mentioned when Mitt’s father George ran for the presidency in 1968?

Was it because he was adamantly against the Vietnam War, and therefore a far preferable choice to Richard Nixon — at least in the eyes of our watchdog media?

And how often was Mo Udall’s Mormonism mentioned when he ran for president? Didn’t his great-great grandparents practice polygamy?

Or for that matter, who has ever brought Harry “Pinky” Reid’s Mormon ancient ancestors during his campaigns?

Funny how even this article had to drag in yet another Mormon Republican, Orin Hatch, rather than mention Mr. Reid — the most powerful elected Democrat in the land.

Muhammad’s Profession: Booty Ahoy!

Muhammad’s Profession: Booty Ahoy!

What exactly was the profession of Mohammed, the founder of Islam? Did he work at Wal-Mart? Did he flip burgers at McDonald’s? Did he at least work for a Jew jeweler, making ornaments for the beautiful women of Medina?
The correct answer is, ‘None of the above’. Sure enough, there was no Wal-Mart or McDonald’s 1400 years ago. Even if there was one, he would not have worked as a blue-collar laborer because he was involved in a lucrative business that did not require any investment. Although, in his childhood, Mohammed briefly worked as a shepherd and made a few business trips on behalf of his ‘soon to be wife’ Khadija, he spent the rest of his life looting, kidnapping and slave-trading when he ran out of Khadija’s wealth.

It is an Islamic fact that Mohammed’s early delusion of preaching peaceful Islam did not work very well; in fact, it was as bad as one of the flop movies of Hollywood. Like a spoiled brat, he lived on his wife’s money, and, with a handful of followers, roamed around the city of Mecca – aimlessly. When he moved to Medina, he became a professional mobster.

However, contemporary Islamic scholars, the gadflies who relentlessly promote peaceful Islam, do not admit that Mohammed’s sole intention was robbing; rather, they find Mohammed’s action as a means to promote Islam. They try to believe (and attempt to make others believe) that it was necessary for Mohammed to fight with disbelievers, precisely those unclean polytheists in order to establish Islam, and often as self-defense. Was the fight aimed to abolish polytheism and establish Islam, or did the raids committed by Mohammed have one simple purpose – robbing? Let’s read one of the Ahadith to find the truth.

“Aisha said (this is the version of narrator Yahya): A man from the polytheists accompanied the Prophet (may peace be upon him) to fight with him. He said (Go back. Both the narrators (Musaddad and Yahya) then agreed. (The Prophet said): We do not want any help from a polytheist.” (2276, Sunan Abu Dawud)

Strange! Do you see the problem? Mohammed supposedly fought with polytheists, yet one of those polytheists wanted to accompany the prophet. Though Mohammed refused to take the guy with him, why should a polytheist dare to ask? Obviously, Mohammed’s adventures had nothing to do with preaching Islam or subduing polytheists, but making money from the raid. That’s why the polytheist wanted to join Mohammed and make some easy money.

Most Muslims claim and believe a myth – ‘Mohammed only fought defensive wars; he never harmed anyone unless he was attacked.’ Surprisingly, the Ahadith, Quran and Sirat Rasul Allah repeatedly prove otherwise. Here are a few examples from Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasullah, out of many incidents.

“THE RAID ON WADDAN WHICH WAS HIS FIRST RAID: ….until he reached Waddan, which is the raid of al-Abwa…” (p 281).

“THE RAID ON BUWAT: …Then the apostle went raiding in the month of Rabiul-Awwal making for Quraish…” (285).

“THE RAID ON SAFAWAN, WHICH IS THE FIRST RAID OF BADR: The apostle stayed only a few nights, less than ten, in Medina when he came back from raiding Al-‘Ushayra….(286)

“THE RAID ON B.SULAYMAN IN AL-KUDR: The apostle stayed only seven nights in Medina before he himself made a raid against B.Sulayman…” (360).

“THE RAID OF DHU AMARR: When the apostle returned from the raid of al-Sawiq he stayed in Medina for the rest of Dhu’l-Hijja, or nearly all of it. The he raided Najd…..” (362).

See how busy Mohammed’s schedule was? He had to work hard, much harder than any top rated CEO of a big corporation. He really did not have any choice; after all, he had to support a dozen wives, an unknown number of slaves and numerous jobless bohemians – his followers that is. Unlike the legendary Robin Hood or Zorro, Mohammed did not go out and fight with the rich people; rather, his companions did most of the ugly work. However, Mohammed had a responsibility to make sure that looted wealth was equally distributed. He merely charged one-fifth of the looted goods, known as Khumas, for his service, which of course was a sizable amount for his living.

Obviously, handy-dandy Allah was very helpful in legalizing the robbing business. Mohammed, in fact, made his Allah involved in it, and had him declare…

“And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger…” (Q 8:41).

“That which Allah giveth as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and His messenger…” (Q 59:7).

Is it not amazing how Allah asked for his share of booty? How the heck a god, supposedly an all merciful god, would do with the booty is the question. It’s not only the Quran, but several Ahadith also confirm how Mohammed took it upon himself to distribute the looted wealth.

“Abd Allah b. Amr said: When the Apostle of Allahs (May peace be upon him) gained a booty he ordered Billal to make a public announcement. He made a public announcement, and when the people brought their booty, he would take a fifth and divide it…..”(2706, Sunan Abu Dawud).

If you have seen, for instance, one of those action Hollywood movies, which also happen in real life, you may have noticed how the criminals fight with each other after robbing a bank. Often, the robbery is successful, but each of the criminals tries to gulp the whole treasure, depriving others and, in most cases, they kill each other in a tense moment. Mohammed indeed had a tough job of controlling those robbers and maintaining the discipline. He did not hesitate to implement tough punishment for those who stole from the booty. Here’s another Ahadith from Suan Abu Dawood:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-‘As: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), AbuBakr and Umar burned the belongings of anyone who had been dishonest about booty and beat him.

Ah booty! What a sweet word for Mohammed!

The word ‘booty’ refers to spoils of war; in other words, it is the treasure that was received after a raid or so-called expedition. The treasure often included money, jewelry, swords, and camels, and even women and children could be sold as slaves. Seemingly, according to Mohammed, consuming booty was a special privilege that was never permitted to any other prophet. At a later time, Khalifah Umar, as recorded in Bukhari, testified this fact proudly and did not see any problem in such heinous acts.

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Though all five claims deserve a careful examination and they speak volumes of an insane person, considering our main focus on booty, I will resist the temptation. Let’s discuss claim number three that proclaims a special privilege for Mohammed. Apparently, by saying ‘anyone else’ he meant other prophets who came before Mohammed. Despite having a low rate of success, prophecy always had been a lucrative business. There is no record of how many people failed in this ‘no money down’ business and left quietly. However, our prophet of Islam took the challenge personally when most of the people of the then Arabia refused him. Other successful prophets did not go for looting because they were either supported by their followers or considered looting as an immoral act. Mohammed not only glorified robbing, he also fused robbing into Islam in such a manner that it became a holy act.

One thing is for sure–Mohammed took care of his mercenaries very well. One of his members married a woman to whom he promised two hundred dirhams as dowry. When he asked Mohammed to help him out, Mohammed declined this request because he did not have that much money either. After a few days, Mohammed was informed that a tribe named Qays b Rifa was planning to attack him with a huge army, which Ibn Ishaq mentioned in Sirat Rasul Allah as ‘numerous’. Mohammed sent two other Muslims along with this guy to take care of the problem. Ibn Ishaq reports,

“I hid at one end and ordered my companions to hide at the other end….There we were waiting to take the enemy by surprise…and when he came in range I shot him in the heart with an arrow…I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting ‘Allah Akber’ and my two companions did likewise…they all fled….We drove off a large number of camels and sheep and brought them to the apostle and I took Rifaa’s head to the apostle, who gave me thirteen of the camels to help me with the woman’s dowry, and I consummated my marriage.”

First, one needs to understand the divine grace of the shouting ‘Allah Akber’ while holding a slit head in his hand. Secondly, how a mere three people could defeat an army of numerous soldiers is a miracle. Obviously, there was no huge army but a small tribe who was lurking around the desert. Mohammed did not mind sending three people to rob this poor tribe and help his companion to fulfill his desire of marriage.

In many countries, a person is honored for an honorable deed with a certain title such as Lord, Baron, Knight, Samurai, etc. In Islam, Ghazi is one of those titles that make a Muslim proud. Unsurprisingly, the term Ghazi came from another word Ghazwa, which means a raid (the politically correct phrase is holy battle) under the leadership of Mohammed. Those who died in the process of looting were called Shahid (Martyr) and those who survived were honored as Ghazi.

So, in Islam, stealing is a grave offense, subject to cutting of hands, but robbing is a holy mission. When a Muslim returns with looted wealth, he is honored as a Ghazi. On the other hand, if he dies, he becomes a martyr and takes an easy route to heaven, which is full of virgin belly dancers.

In the age of up periscope – down periscope and sonar technology, sailors of a ship know their exact position and how far the land is. However, long ago, when sailors had to spend months on the ocean, they hunkered on the deck to see the land. Usually, each ship had an Eagle’s nest, built on top of a mast, where an observer would sit and watch the ocean or look for possible land. If a strip of land was seen on the horizon, the sailor would scream, “Land Ahoy!”. It was the sweetest scream that all sailors wanted to hear. The land had many meanings for a sailor. It meant a possible seaport, barrels of wine in a salon and plenty of cheap hookers.

Did Mohammed scream, with glittering eyes, “Booty Ahoy!” before he went on a raid?

The following Ahadith from Sunan Abu Dawood proves the case:

Narrated Sahl ibn al-Hanzaliyyah: “….. A horseman came and said: Apostle of Allah, I went before you and climbed a certain mountain where I saw Hawazin all together with their women, cattle, and sheep, having gathered at Hunayn…The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) smiled and said: That will be the booty of the Muslims tomorrow if Allah wills. He then asked: Who will be on guard tonight…?”

Mohammed loved to have Fai. I see that some readers are wondering how Mohammed could have loved a Chinese food. Not really! Fai is not a Chinese food. It is the easiest money that came without fighting. One Ahadith narrates:

“Marwan bin Al-Hakim and Miswar bin Makhrama: ……and we will compensate him from the very first Fai’ (i.e., war booty received without fight which Allah will give us…….”

Consider what it would be like to walk through a dark alley on a quiet night. You are looking back every few minutes, hoping no one is following you. You are close to the next illuminated street, but, almost magically, two tall musclemen block your way and ask for your wallet. You hand them your wallet and give up your wrist watch and the expensive jacket that you bought recently. Yes, you just made your contribution to Fai.

Mohammed, as Muslims argue, fought defensive wars, meaning he only combated to save his precious life. Yet he earned booty without a fight. Apparently, enemies of Mohammed attacked him maliciously, but brought their wealth with them, and delivered it to Mohammed upon defeat. They even rewarded Mohammed with their own wives and children to become slaves, while Mohammed was busy saving his life. Such belief, though, seem absurd to any sane person. Muslims and the non-Muslims who are itching to sacrifice themselves as dhimnies desperately cling to this kind of fallacy. It’s true that some tribes had their families with them at the time of the conflict, but no civilized person would think of making children and women slaves.

Anyway, let’s continue with Mohammed’s business deals. At the end of Mohammed’s life, he invaded Khyber where the Jewish tribe B. al-Nadr lived, and Kinana b. al-Rabi was the custodian of all the treasures that the tribe had. When inquired by the prophet of Islam, being a responsible person, he refused to disclose the whereabouts of the treasure. Ibn Ishaq reports in Sirat Rasul Allah,

“When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead…” (515) . Tabari, another famous historian, describes the same event with more details:

“…the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out what he has.’ Al-Zubayr kept twirling his fire stick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired…” (123).

Oddly, the prophet of Islam knew when the world would fall apart, and he had the ability to split the moon, yet he did not know where the treasure was hidden. Besides his inability, he did not hesitate to order torturing an innocent person. So much for defensive war!

Think of a real life drama: a kidnapper has just kidnapped your loved ones, perhaps your daughter or your wife, and is asking for ransom. How would you feel? How would you judge the characteristics of the kidnapper? The very first thing you would think of the kidnapper is that he does not possess any humanistic quality. Well, you will be glad to hear that Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, proudly lacked such quality.

In Mohammed’s age, the relatives of captured people had a heart, a much better one than the prophet. Those who could afford to pay the ransom paid the amount and brought back their loved ones. Mohammed even set an amount for the ransom.

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) fixed the ransom of the people of pre-Islamic Arabia at four hundred dirhams per head on the day of the battle of Badr” (Bukhari, Kitab al-Jihad).

The Quran, Mohammed’s best selling book, clearly encourages the acceptance of ransom. Read the following verse.

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Q 47:04).

Of course, so-called Islamic scholars, living under infidel rule, will disagree, and might break their necks from shaking them. They will deliberately argue that this verse talked about a war situation; hence, it is not kidnapping. However, Mohammed’s alleged wars were nothing but raids for financial gain. If he was sincere about spreading a peaceful religion, he should not have to fight with anyone. Even if he had to fight for self-defense, why have ransom? Though Mr. Allah gave a choice of showing generosity or accepting ransom, a peaceful god of a peaceful religion should have forbidden taking ransom, and strictly ordered to free the captives.

Allah, a haughty imaginary puppet played by the puppet master Mohammed, said exactly what Mohammed said. Mohammed needed money to survive and keep his gang members happy. So, accepting ransom from the relatives of captives, captured in a war or from a sudden raid, became a benchmark of Islam. When the pious Muslims of Iraq and Afghanistan kidnap Americans, they are merely following the ideal of their prophet.

Slavery is an integral part of Islam because Mohammed himself practiced such deeds. Those who are familiar with Quranic liturgy may know the meaning of ‘Right hand possess’, which refers to slave women. The famous verse that allows a Muslim man to marry up to four wives also gives a blanket permission to enjoy his slave women, and, ironically, it prevents the Muslim from doing injustice. At least, the Quran deliberately claims this to be true.

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Q 4:03).

For a few skeptics, the verse may be questionable because some Muslims, without knowing other verses, bicker about this verse, and may claim that it asks Muslims to marry one of those slave girls. Don’t be disheartened! There are more verses to confirm the risqué business of Mohammed, which explicitly allowed him, and subsequently his followers, to enjoy the slave girls.

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee;…” (Q 33:50).

Please note the use of an important conjunction “and”, which I highlighted in red. It is mind boggling how a god could allow a man to have sex with a helpless woman who has been snatched from her loved ones–her husband, her parents and children. Yet Muslims blatantly believe Allah is merciful. Many Muslims ague Mohammed had a master plan of freeing slaves gradually because he encouraged his followers to free their slaves. The notion is partially true. According to the Quran:

“Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed…” (Q 4:92).

Note the highlighted words “believing slave”, which explicitly denote Muslim slaves. In other words, those slaves who decide to sing the magic spell and embrace Islam should be freed. It surely does not mention non-believing slaves. It was, indeed, a nice strategy. A freed Muslim slave will go nowhere but join Mohammed’s army and participate in robbing.

Mohammed’s command varied from time to time and situation to situation. Though there are several Ahadith that encourage freeing slaves, Mohammed himself did just the opposite. The following two ahadith from Shahi Bukhari prove that he did not miss an opportunity to make a few extra bucks or help a relative with a (slave) gift.

“Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: A man amongst us declared that his slave would be freed after his death. The Prophet called for that slave and sold him. The slave died the same year.”

“Narrated Kuraib: the freed slave of Ibn ‘Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, ‘Do you know, O Allah’s Apostle, that I have manumitted my slave-girl?’ He said, ‘Have you really?’ She replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e., the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles.’”

Apparently, slaves were treated as commodities, and there was no harm in giving a slave to a relative as a gift. Mohammed, in fact, prescribed heavenly reward for such action instead of freeing the slave.

However, we must give credit where it is due. Mohammed established a good ethic of slave trading. In the modern world, ‘No return policy’ is not a very good way to do business, and most of the stores allow consumers to return or exchange within a certain period of time. The Human Rights Association may not like it and any human with an iota of humanity will oppose, but Mohammed had a very good policy of slave trading. Read the hadith from Sunan Abu Dawood:

“The contractual obligation of a slave is three days. If he finds defect in the slave within three days, he may return it without any evidence; if he finds a defect after three days, he will be required to produce evidence that the slave had the defect when he brought it.”

After massacring the Jewish tribe of B. Qurayza, Mohammed divided their property, wives, and children among the Muslims. Ibn Isaq reports in Sirat Rasul Allah,

“Then the apostle sent Sad b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b Abdul-Ashhal with some of the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.”

On one occasion, Mohammed exchanged seven slaves for a beautiful slave girl. His reason for such generosity remains questionable, and only a director of a porno movie will be able to explain vividly.

Over the centuries, Muslims have attributed many altruistic virtues to Mohammed’s character, much of which were either invented or twisted from Islamic scriptures. Some of the commands made by Mohammed were specifically constructed for Muslims, yet moderate Muslims and Muslim scholars who have vested interest in the Kafir world, misconstrued the verdicts, and declared that they are for all humans. Nevertheless, there are abundant records of barbarity caused by Mohammed that ought to be taken under consideration. Any sane human would reject such perilous characteristics of Mohammed, but preconditioned minds of Muslims refuse to face the reality and remain clueless of real Islam.

Granted, there are many educated Muslims, but it is a shame that instead of engaging in a dialectical discussion, they conveniently ignore the dark side of Mohammed and often defend such inhuman behavior. They are educated, but they have not educated their thinking. Often, traditional education does not open a person’s mind unless he educates his thinking.

The Blood Libel Returns

The Blood Libel Returns

By Rachel Neuwirth

With the revival of anti-Semitism as a global phenomenon, everything old is new again. A new Holocaust is threatened in Iran, a former top military leader and presidential candidate speaks in code of the dark power of New York money circles, and now, shockingly, the ancient blood libel against the Jews is revived in seemingly respectable quarters.  After all the terrible things that have been done because of this lie, who could be so reckless as to give it new life?

Two Jewish professors, one an Israeli of Italian origin who teaches at a prestigious religious Jewish university in Israel, Bar-Illan, and is the son of a former chief rabbi of Rome, the other an Italian Jewish historian, have just revived the notorious “blood libel” that has caused the cruel murder of thousands of their co-religionists since medieval times. Professor Ariel Toaff has just this past week published a book in Italy called Pasque di Sangue, or “Bloody Passovers,” reasserting that the long-discredited medieval Christian legend that Jews ritually murder Christian children, drain their bodies of blood, mingle the blood in their matzah during the Passover festival and ritually consume it, has some truth in it.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Toaff asserted,

“My research has shown that in the Middle Ages, a group of fundamentalist Jews did not respect the biblical prohibition [against the consumption of blood]. . . It is just one group of Jews, who belonged to the communities that suffered the severest persecutions during the crusades. From this trauma came a passion for revenge that in some cases led to responses, among them ritual murder of Christian children.” 

According to Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, Toaff’s book alleges,

“… some blood libels – accusations that Jews killed Christians in ritual murders to add their blood to matzah and wine on Passover – may be based on real ceremonies in which the blood of Christians was actually used.”

Italy’s most influential newspaper, left-leanig Corriere della Serra, has published extracts from Toaff’s book, together with an article praising it by Italian Jewish historian Sergio Luzzato. Luzzato describes Toaff’s book as a

“magnificent work of history. . .Toaff holds that from 1100 to about 1500. . .several crucifixions of Christian children really happened, bringing about retaliations against entire Jewish communities-punitive massacres of Jewish men, women and children. Neither in Trent in 1475 nor in other areas of Europe in the late Middle Ages were the Jews always innocent. A minority of fundamentalist Ashkenazis . . .carried out human sacrifices.”

According to Luzzato’s summary of Toaff’s purported research, the fifteenth-century accusation made against the Jews of the Italian city of Trent, where 16 Jews were tortured and hanged on charges of murdering a two-year-old Christian boy and using his blood to make matzot, “might have been true.” According to Luzzato, Toaff also alleges,

“a black market flourished on both sides of the Alps, with Jewish merchants selling human blood, complete with rabbinic certification of the product–kosher blood.” 

To substantiate the charges of ritual murder against the Jews, Toaff relies not on any new evidence, but on the original confessions extracted through torture from the accused Jews in Trent and elsewhere.
How has Toaff’s employer, the religious Jewish Bar-Illan University in Tel-Aviv, responded to this outrage by one of its professors? By closing ranks behind him.
According to Haaretz, Toaff actually offered to resign in response to the controversy stirred by his book, but Bar-Illan’s president, Moshe Kaveh, refused to accept it. A spokesman for Bar-Illan, Yerah Tal, says,

“people who are not academics as well as lecturers at other universities, came to us and demanded that we fire Prof. Toaff, but we are not considering such a step. There are some who want to sacrifice him to Molech,[a pagan god of human sacrifices mentioned in the Bible] but the man hasn’t committed any crime.” 

The response of Bar-Illan University has been little short of despicable. Another Bar-Illan spokesman, Shmulik Algrabli, said,

“Professor Toaff is one of the greatest scholars in his field, and we have confidence in his scientific method.”

Another press release from “Bar-Illan’s management” on behalf of President Kaveh said,

“we should refrain from relying on baseless reports that have been denied by Prof. Toaff himself and which, apparently, lack any connection to the research itself”

“Academic freedom must not be restricted under any circumstances,” averred Prof. Rimon Kasher, a colleague of Toaff’s at Bar-Illan.”The job of the researcher is to ask questions and expose what he finds.”

What? “Scientific method” in a blood libel? “Research” that spreads such libels? Is the reiteration of an ancient malicious fantasy, solely on the basis of alleged confessions extracted by torture, really “research” or a “finding?” Can an interview with Toaff published in La Stampa, a leading Italian Journal, and extracts from his work, together with Prof. Luzzato’s comments on it, published in Corriere della Serra, both leading Italian newspapers, be dismissed as “baseless” sources for Toaff’s views? Should blood libels be protected by “academic freedom?” Would firing Toaff really be like “sacrificing” him to a pagan god? This language that resembles the blood accusation itself-as does Toaff’s own melodramatic claim that his critics are trying to “crucify” him.  It sounds like Bar-Illan is in deep denial and has fallen in with Toaff’s way of thinking, with all of its anti-Semitic implications.
What has been the response of the Jewish world to Toaff and Luzzato’s outrage? So far, extremely muted. Twelve senior rabbis representing Italy’s Jewish community, including Toaff’s father, Elio Toaff, who once welcome Pope John Paul II to the chief synagogue in Rome, did issue a strong denial of Toaff’s allegations. But world Jewish organizations, including those in the United States and Israel, have been almost completely silent.
It has been left mainly to Catholic priests and scholars to show a touch of sanity and decency in response to this revival of anti-Jewish medieval superstition by Jewish “scholars.”  Monsignor Iginio Rogger, a church historian who in the 1960s led a new investigation into the fifteenth-century Trent case that now forms the centerpiece of Toaff’s book, said many scholars have concurred that the confessions of the accused Jews of Trent, on which both the medieval court and now Toaff have relied exclusively for “evidence,” were completely unreliable.

“I wouldn’t want to be in [Toaff’s] shoes, answering for this to historians who have seriously documented this case,” he said. “The judges used horrible tortures, to the point where the accused pleaded: ‘Tell us what you want us to say.’ “

And Allessandro Martinelli, the Catholic Church’s Delegate for Interreligious Dialogue in the Diocese of Trent, referred reporters to a “well-documented DVD and historical monograph by historian Diego Quaglioni disproving Jewish responsibility for [the deceased child] Simonino’s death” (from a summary of Father Matinelli’s remarks  in the Jerusalem Post, Feb. 11, 2007).
Some historical background is needed to understand just how injurious and incendiary Professors Toaff and Luzzato’s words truly are. The “blood libel,” as it has come to be called, first appeared in the 12th century of the Common Era. In a series of spectacular trials between roughly 1200 and 1500 throughout Europe, hundreds of Jews were tortured into confessing to this charge and then hanged or burned alive by Christian courts. Whenever a Christian child, usually a male child, was found dead under unknown or mysterious circumstances, Jews were arrested and charged with having ritually murdered the boy. No evidence was ever produced to support these charges except confessions extorted under torture. Nonetheless the allegation thrived among medieval Christians, at around the same time that women of both faiths and all conditions of life were regularly accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Both accusations clearly originated from the same medieval mentality, when people were haunted by the supernatural. But whatever its psychological roots, the blood libel forced thousands of Jews to live in terror for centuries. In addition to those put to death by “judicial” process in formal trials, thousands of Jews were massacred in pogroms in which the blood libel was used to incite Christian mobs into a frenzy of hatred.
Criminal trials based on the blood accusation more or less died out in Western Europe as the Middle Ages drew to a close around 1500.  But it continued to flourish as a part of popular anti-Semitic literature and folklore, and was given some limited sanction and encouragement by the Catholic Church, which declared some of the children who had supposedly been murdered by Jews “blessed,” and allowed them to be venerated by the faithful. In Eastern Europe, however, the allegation underwent a big revival in the eighteenth century, when numerous trials of Jews on ritual murder charges took place in Poland. Such trials continued to occur sporadically throughout Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century, and there was also one in Damascus, Syria, in 1840, in which over twenty local Jews were tortured and put to death in response to blood accusations from a Catholic priest.
Finally, there was at least one more blood libel trial in the twentieth century. In 1911 a young and respected Jewish businessman, Mendel Beilis, was charged with ritual murder in Kiev by the  Russian Tsar’s Ministry of “Justice.” After two years in prison, Beilis was finally acquitted in a widely publicized trial that helped to discredit the Tsarist regime in Russia in the eyes of all enlightened, educated Russian opinion. Surely now the ancient lie had been put to rest!
Yet the poison resurfaced once more with deadly results in the Polish town of Kielce in July 1946, after the Holocaust had supposedly ended. A mob that included Polish policemen and soldiers, incited by false rumors of Jewish ritual murders of Polish children, massacred over forty of the pathetic remnant of 200 Kielce Jews who had somehow survived the German extermination campaign. This was the last time, as far as I have been able to learn, that the blood libel led to Jewish deaths in Europe. But a documentary film about the Kielce massacre made in the 1990’s by American researchers contains interviews with several contemporary Poles, including a priest, who admitted that they still believed in the ritual murder myth.
The publication by the Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church of a policy statement called Notre Aetate in 1965, which repudiated many of the anti-Jewish attitudes that had flourished in the church for centuries, has gone a long way towards putting the blood libel to rest in the Western world. And Catholic scholars have followed up this new policy of reconciliation with Jews by reexamining some of the medieval blood libel trials and concluding that the charges had been false.
As we have already noted, these reexaminations by Catholic scholars have included the same Trent blood libel case that Toaff has now made the centerpiece of his attempt to once again blacken the names of Jews martyred more than five hundred years ago. Following the publication of these scholarly vindications of Trent’s medieval Jewish community, the Bishop of Trent signed a decree “proclaiming that the blood libel against the city’s Jews was unfounded.” (The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 11, 2007). And the city of Trent erected a memorial plaque commemorating the Jewish victims, expressing remorse for the terrible injustice that was done to them and hopes for Christian-Jewish reconciliation in the future.
While the blood accusation has lost legitimacy in the Christian West-at least it had, before Toaff and Luzzato have now given it new life-in the Arab and Muslim worlds  it has been revived as a part of the massive propaganda war against Israel by the government of Syria and the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezb’allah, In the 1970s the Syrian Minister of Defense, Mustapha Tlas, published a book called The Matzah of Zion, which has since gone through numerous editions and is peddled by the Syrian authorities at international book fairs.  Tlas’s screed reasserts the claim that Jews had committed ritual murder and cannibalism of Arab children in Damascus in the 1840s.  Within the past few years, both the Syrian national television and the Hezb’allah television station, Al-Ansar, have broadcast a purportedly fact-based serial drama showing actors dressed as Orthodox Jews murdering and ritually drinking the blood of Gentile children, in addition to other disgusting crimes. In this manner the war against Israel has been given this old lie of Christian origin a new life and potency among the world’s billion-plus Muslims.
Toaff and Luzzato’s revival of this medieval lie could not have come at a worse time for besieged Jewry, in the present environment of revived anti-Semitism throughout the Islamic world and in Europe itself. It may undo decades of painful progress in discrediting the libel in Europe and in improving Catholic attitudes toward Jews.It will give it even more impetus to anti-Semitic hate propaganda in the Middle East.  Now every anti-Semitic website, newspaper and book published anywhere in the world will legitimate the ancient blood libel by citing the authority of two learned scholars, both Jewish, and one a professor at one of the world’s leading Jewish universities, and the son of a distinguished rabbi to boot. What more “proof” could the anti-Semites and Israel-haters require to substantiate their vicious lies? The damage to Jewish security and acceptance, and the threat to Jewish lives, is incalculable.
What could possibly have prompted such learned and prestigious Jews to such cruel, reckless and irresponsible behavior towards their own people? Was it the strong likelihood that Toaff’s book will become a best seller in Italy, where anti-Semitism is undergoing a revival, and conspiracy theories are perennially popular? In fact, the first edition of the libelous book has already sold out. Has its author done so as well? Or was Toaff’s motive connected somehow with his reputed “leftist” views (mentioned by Ha’aretz). After all, leftist Israel-bashers, including the Israel-based ones, now seem prepared to say anything that inflicts damage on “Zionism.”
Whatever their motives, may eternal and unending shame fall on the heads of Ariel Toaff and Sergio Luzatto.  The heart weeps.
John Landu contributed to this article
Historical background can be found in the books Christian anti-Semitism: A History of Hate, by William Nicholls (Published by Jason Aronson, 1993), and The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-three Centuries of Anti-Semitism, by Father Edward Flannery, Revised and Updated. Published by the Paulist Press, 1985. See also http://www.answers.com/topic/christianity-and-antisemitism

The Trouble With Oscar

The Trouble With Oscar
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 2/23/2007 12:08:20 AM

The Jean Hersholt Award.

If you’re an Oscar watcher, already buying the popcorn for the February 25th ceremonies, you know what this is. In the words of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Hersholt Award “is given to an individual in the motion picture industry whose humanitarian efforts have brought credit to the industry.” In other words, this is one of the few awards given out by the Academy that does not honor the recipient for his or her artistic achievements. It chooses among the Hollywood elite who have used their success in motion pictures for various humanitarian causes.

The award includes among its honorees Elizabeth Taylor (her work on AIDS), the late Audrey Hepburn (the United Nations), Gregory Peck (a variety of charities and causes) and even Charlton Heston in his pre-conservative incarnation as spokesman for the National Rifle Association (for support for Civil Rights, among other things.)

But there’s a name missing from this list, and the fact that it is missing highlights the reason so many conservatives dismiss not only the Oscar but a number of other prominent awards. The missing name, of course, is Ronald Reagan.

Over the course of a forty-year career in almost sixty films, Reagan served not only as president of the Screen Actors Guild but as a master of ceremonies of the Oscars themselves. Yet the only actor to serve as president of the United States, the man historians now credit with winning the Cold War and freeing millions from bondage, the man who just the other day was rated as second only to Abraham Lincoln in terms of presidential greatness — for this actor there was not a snow ball’s chance in hell of being honored by his peers.

Clearly, the reason had to be Reagan’s conservatism. Does anyone seriously think that a former President Robert Redford or former President George Clooney would be unrecognized by the Motion Picture Academy? Of course not. This very year no less than Al Gore — Al Gore!- is up for a golden statue for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

The real inconvenient truth about a number of these high profile awards is that if you are a political conservative you can simply forget about applying. The amusing part of all this is that the same-old-same-old results of ignoring conservatives or blatantly choosing winners based on their liberalism winds up demeaning the award itself, degrading its value to the point that fewer and fewer people even pretend to care.

Who today has the same kind of respect for the Oscars, the Grammys, or even the Nobel Peace Prize, all of which once seemed to have a dazzling glow? Let’s be real. The reason Reagan was ignored by the Oscars is the same reason the Dixie Chicks won a Grammy and Jimmy Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter — and both Bill and Hillary Clinton — even got a Grammy for reading an audio version of a book!

It has nothing to do with the stated purpose of the awards in question. The question of who wins these things is settled ahead of time by the recipient’s politics. Does anyone really believe that if an ex-Vice President Dick Cheney made a film about the inconvenient untruths of global warming doctrine he’d ever see the inside of the Kodak Theater as an Oscar nominee?

It’s too bad. Millions of Americans love movies and music. Why, I know for a fact there are conservatives out there who even cherish peace! Really! They simply disagree on how to achieve it.

Surprisingly, there is one of the younger “awards” that has actually stepped up to the plate on this issue. No less than the John F. Kennedy Library’s “Profile in Courage Award” took a step back from the brink of liberal predictability by giving the late President Gerald Ford its award for his courage in pardoning JFK’s old debating partner Richard Nixon. The move was particularly stunning when one considered the vocal opposition to the pardon from Senator Ted Kennedy. The choice of Ford did the obvious — it gave the Profiles in Courage Award an increase in credibility with observers who had come to believe that it was nothing more than more of the liberal same.

But the Kennedy award is the exception in the awards business, not the rule. The fact of life in the awards business is that conservatives should not bother to apply. Which is why the latest choice to receive this or that award will be greeted by many conservatives with a yawn. What could be more boring then liberals applauding liberals?

So go ahead and tune in to the Oscars on Sunday night. Pop the corn, settle in and pick a liberal to win. You’ll be right. And to say the least, one more liberal getting the Jean Hersholt Award will hardly bring “credit to the industry” beyond notice that diversity is not a Hollywood thing.

Pay no attention to the men and women running the Academy Awards behind their gilded curtains. Al Gore may be able to beat Ronald Reagan at the Oscars, but I have no doubt Reagan would have preferred winning the Cold War over winning an Oscar any day of the week.

He was, after all, a humanitarian.

Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former Reagan White House political director, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.

A Danish party demands censorship for Quran

A Danish party demands censorship for Quran

The Copenhagen Qur’an Petition. One would hope, probably against hope, that this proposal would lead to a fruitful public discussion of the passages of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists use today to justify Islamic supremacism, and an honest initiative by Muslims in Denmark to teach their people never to understand such passages literally. But instead, there will be the predictable cries of “racism.”

From Sabah, with thanks to Ummah News Links:

A political party named SIAD (Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark-Stop Islamisation of Denmark) has demanded a censorship for parts of Quran, stating that that certain parts ‘encourage violence.’After caricature crisis and the attack no Muslim graves, Denmark has hit the headlines for the third time again with its anti-Islamist movements. A political party called Stop Islamisation of Denmark has claimed that 67th and 69th verses of Quran are violating the Danish constitution and the mosques across the country should be closed according to the 78th article of the Danish constitution. SABAH Newspaper has talked with the leader Anders Graves of SIAD; a party that has about 400 members. Graves said: “Denmark is our country. Some verses of the Quran are filing me with worries about the lives of my children and grand children.” Stating that they have no intention or expectation on banning the Islam religion across the country Gravers said people living in Denmark should obey the constitution of the country no matter what they believe in.

67th and 69th verses? I don’t know what they’re referring to there.

We must fight Islam all the way

We must fight Islam all the way

By Ted Belman

Islam is a religion of war. It requires all Muslims to conquer the world for Allah. The Koran is a blueprint for how to do this. Any and all means are permissible. It is also a blueprint for keeping your gains.

Thus the forces of Islam were empowered to come roaring out of the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century and to conquer much of the known world. Thereafter it put its indelible mark on the subjugated people which mark remains today. Islam means submission.

Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), notes,

    Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct. [..]Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam. These are the Tears of Jihad which are not taught in any school.

He strongly advises that we must know Political Islam in order to survive. We have to know that they are out to get us before we can muster the strength and conviction needed to survive.

I believe that we should condemn the religion as strongly as we can without fear of alienating any moderates or being politically incorrect. In fact to do so would be politically correct. Only in this way will we get to know political Islam as he puts it. This would also strengthen the forces of reform.

Ami Isseroff, considers such views, bigotry. He makes the point in Bigot Awareness.

He is a known Zionist on the left, who is in favour of negotiating along the lines of the Saudi Plan or the Geneva Accords, He identifies some moderate Muslims and argues for reliance on them.

    These moderate voices are the best hope for reform and progress in the Muslim world, and they are probably Israel’s only hope for long term survival.

It is easy to understand why he is so ready to capitulate. As we say in Yiddish, “Es vet du gornisht helfen” (It won’t help you at all.)

Quite the contrary. If Israel’s survival depends on these moderates, Israel is doomed. These people have no power and no following. All surveys done of late indicate that Muslims are becoming more religious in practice and more Islamist. Few dare stand in their way.

To my mind, there is only one hope for reform and that is the woman’s movement.

Prof. Martin Sherman of Jerusalem Summit, recently addressed the House of Lords on the contents of his paper Diplomatic Strategy for The Defence of Judeo-Christian Civilizational Values and JPOST covered the story under the title Women’s rights key to fighting Islamic extremism. and so it is.

The paper stresses the obvious,

    …half of the human race – regardless of religious affiliation – has a vested and vital interest in arresting the onset of Islamic radicalism, in containing its influence and in extricating itself from the threat of its oppressive grasp. This imperiled segment of humanity comprises – all the woman of the world.

Then quotes from Prof. Phyllis Chesler

    If we do not oppose and defeat Islamic Gender Apartheid, democracy and freedom cannot flourish in the Arab and Islamic world… If we do not join forces with Muslim dissident and feminist groups; and, above all, if we do not have one universal standard of human rights for all – then we will fail our own Judeo-Christian … ideals.

It makes sense to mobilize the women, both Muslim and otherwise, to rise up and to fight for equality for Muslim women. The biggest problem is that the woman’s movement has not yet risen to the challenge.

In a FrontPageMag interview, Chesler complains

    In the beginning, feminists were not anti-activist isolationists. We saw the plight of women world-wide as a common plight. As feminists became more colonized by left and postcolonial ways of thinking, they revised their original vision of universal rights for all to a culturally relativist and mea culpa way of thinking. Who are we to judge others, there is CIA blood on our hands, we, who believe in the rights of victims everywhere must therefore support the victims rising everywhere.

The Guardian and also interviewed her and lead with Feminism has failed Muslim women by colluding in their oppression.

So it appears that the Woman’s Movement is conflicted. Nevertheless I believe it is our best hope for change. It will start with a movement within the movement and grow from there.

Meanwhile we must stop giving Political Islam a pass or referring to it as a “religion of peace”. We must denigrate it every chance we get. We must show our utter disdain for it. In this way many Muslims will get to view Islam differently and perhaps call for change or disown it. There is no other way.

And we must wage war relentlessly as they do. We will not win this war on the cheap. It is they who must desist and submit not us. If they leave us in peace and stop trying to dominate us we will do likewise. This is a war of self-defense, not of aggression.

We must protect the home front. This includes restricting Muslim influence, immigration and accommodation. Only if the Muslims share our vision and our values are they entitled to share our rights.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 8:43 am |

The enemy has a vote

The enemy has a vote

Gerd Schroeder
This past week some Democrats have been taking about dictating the conduct of the war in Iraq to the President. The bill would, in essence, add a engagement criteria to the Rules of Engagement for fighting in Iraq. In short the bill would restrict the military to fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and training Iraqi Security Forces.
I’m not sure of the sway that Democrats have with our enemies, but I don’t think the enemy is going to go along with this. Will Iranian-backed Shia Militias and Saddamist Insurgents stop attacking the US Military because Congress will not allow our Soldiers and Marines to fight back? Does AQI, or any other belligerent group in Iraq wear uniforms so that the military can distinguish whom they are allowed to fight, or defend themselves against?
Besides the fact that the US Congress, under the Constitution has no authority to dictate any tactics to the Commander in Chief on how to conduct a war, the Congress certainly can’t tell the enemy whom they are allowed to fight.
This latest attempt by the Democrats clearly illustrates that they have no concept of how to conduct national security.

Major Gerd Schroeder, US Army