UN Definition of Genocide

UN Definition of Genocide

UN Definition of Genocide:

The United Nations defines genocide as “any… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…” 

Both the Koranic policy of Jihad and Dhimmitude are both directly genocidal, by this definition:   

First, the Koran describing Jihad:  

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. – 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. – Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. – Sura 2:161

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:
Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers….

Muhammad is Allah’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. – 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. – 66:9

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. – 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. – 41:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. – 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme – 8:39

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. – 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. – 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. – 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. – 9:28

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. – 98:51

Fight them so that Allah may punish them at your hands, and put them to shame. (verse cited in Newsweek 2/11/02)

Second, Dhimmitude, a policy of deliberate Cultural obliteration

For those not killed by the invading Muslims, they might be allowed to live as Dhimmis; their lives are spared if they surrender to a set of humiliating and oppressive laws and regulations that demand subservience and guarantee the eventual extinction of their culture.

The Pact of Umar is a fundamental document in prescribing the condition of tolerated “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) living within Muslim-controlled states.

Dhimmi are granted the right to practice their own religious rites in privacy. The protection of their persons and property was also part of the pact but the punishment for infringement was less severe than for a Muslim. During aberrant fundamentalist movements, these rights varied or did not apply.

To secure their rights, dhimmi would pledge loyalty to their Muslim rulers, pay a special poll-tax (the jizya) for adult males, and in general show deference and humility to Muslims in social interactions.

While the conditions of the Pact were authoritative, the level of enforcement varied, as shown by the existence of churches constructed long after the Muslim conquests.


We Christians:

1 – We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries,

2 – churches,

3 – convents,

4 – or monks’ cells,

5 – nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins

6 – or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. . . .

7- We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy,

8 – nor hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Quran to our children.

9 – We shall not manifest our religion publicly

10 – nor convert anyone to it.

11 – We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

12 – We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and

13 – we shall rise from our seats if they wish to sit.

14 – We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the headgear, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair.

15 – We shall not speak as they do,

16 – nor shall we adopt their honorific names.

17 – We shall not mount on saddles,

18- nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

19 – We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

20 – We shall not sell fermented drinks. (i.e. Alcohol)

21 – We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims.

22 – We shall only use clappers in our churches very softly.

23 – We shall not raise our voices in our church services or in the presence of Muslims,

24 – nor shall we raise our voices when following our dead.

25 – We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets.

26 – We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

27 – We shall not take slave who have been allotted to the Muslims.

28 – We shall not build houses over-topping the houses of the Muslims.

Once again, the UN Definition of Genocide:

The United Nations defines genocide as “any… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…” 


Everyday, American Congress for Truth (ACT) is a 501c3 non profit organization on the front lines fighting for you in meeting with politicians, decision makers, speaking on college campuses and planning events to educate and inform the public about the threat of radical Muslim fundamentalists to world peace. We are committed to combating the global upsurge of hate and intolerance.
To continue and bolster our efforts, we need your continued solidarity, activism and financial support. We are only as strong as our supporters. We thank you for helping us carry on this important work.

American Congress for Truth (ACT) , P.O.Box 6884, Virginia Beach, VA 23456
Email: member@americancongressfortruth.com

Towards a Totalitarian Europe

Towards a Totalitarian Europe

Created 2007-04-30 10:12

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. When people who have worked on higher levels in the EU system note similarities as well, it is time people start taking this idea seriously.

In 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe. The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, between 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU’s official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.

From 2007, MEDA will be replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU’s powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project, all according to documents available on the Internet.

Bat Ye’or, author of the book Eurabia, has warned against the post-Western culture of Palestinianism that has been promoted through these networks for decades: “Through a coordinated campaign monitored by the networks of the European Union bodies, a system linking politics to markets, culture, universities, media and opinion makers, has spread its totalitarian grip over the member-states in order to impose a despicable culture of lies and denial that support Europe’s pro-Palestinian foreign policy.”

The EU Commission and senior officials, frequently diffused through innocent sounding and semi-official organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them later as federal EU policy. This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with very little control. Europeans are thus financing their continent’s merger with, in reality colonization by, the Muslim world without their knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history where an entire continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet it is largely ignored by Western media.

Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warned that Europe risks becoming a “playground” for upcoming superpowers in the 21st century. He wanted more EU cooperation to remedy this. But we already are a playground for foreign powers, for Muslim nations in particular, who can dump their unsustainable population growth in our countries and harass the native population with near-impunity, and this is actively caused by the EU. It is going to be interesting for future historians to unveil how many senior EU leaders or bureaucrats have been bought and paid by Saudi Arabian oil money.

The idea that the EU is going to become a superpower is laughable. Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent, weak and pathetic continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends. Outsiders don’t expect Europe to generate anything new, quite a few will be surprised if it even survives. This image will not be improved by leaders who have not only abandoned, but are attacking their own people, selling out their historical legacy to their worst enemies, and muzzling those who object to this.

You cannot artificially create a dynamic power through bureaucratic decisions, you do it through the rule of law – laws passed with the consent of the people, with their best interest in mind and therefore respected by them – respect for private property rights and by getting the state out of the way as much as possible. There are no short-cuts. It is ridiculous to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive.

I am not against cooperation between European countries in whatever form, but definitely in the shape of a pan-European dictatorship with massive amounts of bureaucracy. I understand the argument that individual nation states, save perhaps Germany, are too small to compete with China and the likes. Perhaps. But we need to get our priorities straight: Survival comes first; creating a dynamic economy comes second. The simple truth is that the EU constitutes a mortal threat to the former, and does absolutely nothing to advance the latter.

Paul Belien, the editor of the Brussels Journal, has argued in his book A Throne in Brussels that Belgium is used as a blueprint for the wider European Union. In 2000, Belgian authorities passed a so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act. In 1960, 7.3% of the population in the city of Brussels was foreign. Today the figure has risen to 56.5%. According to Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.”

Yes, it is probably unprecedented in human history that a country has handed over its main city to others without firing a single shot, although this feat is now being repeated in many other European cities. Is there no opposition to this in Belgium? Yes there is, but they get silenced or even banned. The Flemish nationalist Vlaams Blok was outlawed for “racism,” and changed its name. The racism consisted of citing government statistics on overrepresentation in crime by immigrants. The judge concluded that “truth is no defense.”

Père Samuel, a Turkish-born Catholic priest and one of the few speaking the language of Jesus, Aramaic, has been prosecuted for “incitement to racist hatred” by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), because of a remark he made in 2002 when he said: “Every thoroughly islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority.” He claims Muslims are invading Europe and warns for an impending civil war.

Belgium is an artificial state dominated by a French-speaking bureaucratic elite, and could be viewed as a laboratory for what the EUrabians want to do to the rest of the continent, such as population replacement, largely by Muslims, and silencing opposition to this by legal harassment and through various mechanisms de facto disenfranchise the native population.

Article ten in the European Convention on Human Rights supposedly ensures freedom of speech, yet spends more text on defining what is not included within the limits of free speech than on what is. Criminalizing ideas is dangerous. As John Stuart Mill explained in his book On Liberty, freedom of speech is the foundation of true liberty. Swedish writer John Järvenpää argues that one of the virtues of free speech is that politically incorrect viewpoints force others to rationally argue against them.

In 2007, the EU agreed to make incitement to racism and xenophobia a crime across the 27-nation bloc. Under the new law, offenders will face up to three years in jail for “public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.” The term “inciting hatred” against “religion” will no doubt be used by Muslims to silence critics of Islam, especially since the Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism.

The EU’s classified handbook, also released in 2007, bars governments from speaking of “jihad” or linking Islam and terrorism. But since we now have pan-European anti-racism laws and pan-European guidelines banning mentioning any connection between Islam and violence, does that mean that it will be impossible to talk about the Jihad Europeans are subject to? The purpose of this legislation can be none other than to muzzle critics of mass immigration.

As Robert Spencer commented, “Soon Eurabia will resemble the old Soviet Union, in which dissidents furtively distributed samizdat literature and faced stiff penalties if the authorities discovered what they were doing. Europeans who care about what is happening to them will have to travel West, buy books that tell the truth about Islamic jihad, and distribute them at home away from the watchful eye of EU bureaucrats.”

The European Union is basically an attempt – a rather successful one so far – by the elites in European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and eventually abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d’état. It works because the national parliaments are still there, and most people don’t see how much has changed. Seeing is believing. If a small group of people decided to openly sideline the democratic process and start imposing laws which the public didn’t approve, there would be a rebellion. But this is what the EU has done. They have just been smart enough to hide this fact under multiple layers of impenetrable bureaucratic Newspeak, to make sure average citizens don’t fully appreciate the magnitude of what’s going on. Ideas such as “promoting peace” are used as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab.

The EU can bribe the national elites by appealing to their vanity and sense of importance, elevate them from a national level to an “international level,” give them nice cars, fancy sounding jobs with power unrestrained by silly prosaic things such as the will of the people.

Through promoting Multiculturalism and mass immigration, the EUrocrats hope to create a new, larger political entity by smashing the older nation states. And besides, it’s easier to control people who have no distinct cultural or national identity. These self-serving elites are betraying the trust of the people they are supposed to serve, using them as guinea pigs in a disastrous social experiment by dismantling their culture and importing Muslims who attack them. They probably despise their own people, who meekly accept this and believe their ridiculous excuses.

Native Europeans, who are no longer safe in their own cities, have been robbed of their history and have accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than probably any other people in human history, yet are met with intimidation and repression if they refuse to accept more. This constitutes evil, there is no other way to put it.

According to journalist John O’Sullivan, “Some defenders of the EU claim that this admittedly undemocratic provision is offset by the increased powers of the European parliament. But this greatly exaggerates the representative nature of the Euro-parliament. Though formally democratic by virtue of being elected, it has no continent-wide European public opinion to which it might be accountable.” He adds that “It was local nationalisms in Britain and occupied Europe that provided most of the morale to resist fascist ideologies.”

This last point, that Nazi Germany was defeated by proud nations states such as the United States and Britain (a long time ago), is totally lost on the EU elites. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom argued that those who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow Commissioners issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution.

The Constitution will move even more power into the hands of the already powerful and unaccountable elites. The EUrocrats are basically saying that since somebody may conceivably threaten our democratic system at some point in the future, we might as well dismantle it now, in an orderly fashion. Moreover, whereas constitutions have traditionally outlined the basic workings of the state, the proposed European Constitution, running into hundreds of pages, betrays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of life. It is an instrument of control, a blueprint for an authoritarian state.

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, but such societies can also be transnational, as was the Soviet Union, which the EU resembles more than just superficially: An artificial superstate run by an authoritarian bureaucracy that overrides the will of the people and imposes its ideology on the populace. Are we back in the E.U.S.S.R?

Although the EU, due to its transnational nature, most closely resembles the Soviet Union, there are also similarities with Nazi Germany. The EU was created by perfecting the Big Lie technique that was championed by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: Serve people massive lies, so big that they cannot believe that anybody would lie about it, and they will believe them, at least for a while.

It should also be mentioned that Adolf Hitler stated his admiration for the warlike nature of Islam. The admiration was mutual. Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was an Arab nationalist and passionate anti-Semite who cooperated closely with Nazi Germany during World War II. Later, leadership of Palestinian Arabs was transferred to Husayni’s nephew Yasser Arafat, a very dear friend of the EU, who in 2002 gave an interview in which he referred to “our hero al-Husayni.”

If the EU is supposed to protect us from the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is remarkable how many of its traits it is copying, such as flirting with Arab strongmen and admiration for Islam. The Muslim immigration the EU is promoting to Europe has triggered the largest wave of anti-Semitism since the rise of, well, Nazi Germany, and may yet force the remaining Jews to leave. That Europeans should support this organization to prevent a new totalitarian regime is a sick joke. The EU is a lot closer to totalitarian states than the supposedly evil nation states it is going to replace.

Since there is no European demos, no pre-political loyalty or shared public community, and since legislate power has been transferred to the unelected EU Commission, there is no way the EU can function as a democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. The EU can only become one giant Yugoslavia, either ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy in the fashion of Tito, or fall apart into civil wars.

The slow, but steady stifling of free speech through legislation and Muslim Jihad violence indicates an ominous trend: Europe is moving in a totalitarian direction. This cannot be stopped or reversed before we stop Muslim immigration, which again cannot happen unless we dismantle the European Union. Getting rid of the EU is the key to Europe’s survival, which is now very much in question.

Source URL:

A cry for help from Iran

Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak

Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak
We must win American hearts and minds.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
Not long ago I talked to a right-wing hardnosed fellow in a conservative central

California town about the need to stay and finish the task of stabilizing the democracy in Iraq and

rectifying the disastrous aftermath of 1991. He wasn’t buying. Instead he kept ranting about the war in the ‘more rubble, less trouble’ vein. And his anger wasn’t only over our costs in lives and treasure. So I finally asked him exactly why the venom over Iraq. He shouted, “I don’t like them sons of bitches over there — any of ’em.” His was a sort of echo of Bismarck’s oft-quoted “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” There are dozens of tragic ironies in Iraq. The fostering of democracy by a Republican president only alienated his dour realist base. Yet his idealism did not even win as recompense faint sympathy from supposedly Wilsonian Democratic opponents. Indeed, they now sound like Bob Taft isolationists. The fiercest critics of the brave struggling Iraqi elected government remain liberal Senate Democrats, not Republicans.

The Iraqi oil fields were liberated from Russian, French, and Baathist extortion. Then subsequent sky-rocketing oil prices further enriched the Middle East — only to earn the slur “No Blood for Oil.”

Liberation of the downtrodden Shiite from a largely oppressive Sunni minority only won the U.S. disdain from Shiite Iran and assorted Shiites from Lebanon to the Gulf — and resentment from nearby Sunni monarchies.

President Bush stayed on after victory to offer consensual government, unlike his father in 1991. As a reward, he won criticism from the critics of Bush I for now attempting what they once so loudly advocated.

Perhaps strangest of all is the tragicomic spectacle of Middle East “reformers” and democracy advocates. They vehemently criticized American efforts in Iraq from their autocratic masters’ state-run censored megaphones in Cairo, Riyadh, and Amman.

All that and the dreary narrative from the battlefield help to explain plummeting public support for the war at a time when empathy for brave Iraqis is critical to the continuance of the effort. But there is another, more worrisome dynamic at work here. I would call it the “them sons of bitches” sentiment that is usually better left unspoken.

By any honest assessment, the great majority of Iraqis are brave citizens who voted en masse for change, at great risk to their safety. Kurdistan is a stunning success. It belies stereotypes that Muslims can’t govern themselves peacefully, practice consensual government, or create vibrant economies. Tribal sheiks and clerics in Iraq hate al Qaeda as much as we do. They suffer far more losses in trying to rid their country of such killers. American soldiers testify to the friendliness and support of the Iraqi people.

But that American alliance with freedom-loving Arabs is not what is reported. Instead the public hears and sees two quite different things. The two are antithetical to each other.

First, we are now well accustomed to the administration talking of “freedom” and “democracy,” and of providing an “opportunity” for the Arab world “to embrace” liberty. Indeed, the 3,000 plus Americans killed in action in Iraq and the hundreds of billions spent so far are often explained as being for the sake of offering a chance for something better than the non-choice between a Saddam or an Assad and the theocratic alternative of the Taliban or the Iranian ayatollahs.

But such a legitimate and necessary rationale depends also upon general empathy for the Middle East. We are embarking on this new course in the hopes that the American lives sacrificed and our treasure spent are for a friendly people that appreciates our efforts. I think they do, and that the record of brave Iraqi reformers is worth the effort — both for the sake of our future security and so as to adopt a new moral posture that respects Arab self-determination.

But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate:  a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion:  we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery. Fostering democracy in Iraq is called imperialism. But then so is the opposite of backing a strongman in Pakistan or Egypt. Billions sent to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine goes unmentioned or is considered too paltry. Millions of Muslims saved in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Indonesia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia means nothing. One Koran wrongly said to be flushed is everything.

A sense of imbalance is everywhere. Imams call Jews “pigs and apes.” The Pope is threatened for his dry recitation of history. Cartoonists, novelists, filmmakers, and opera producers are all promised death or beheading, while the worst sort of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred is broadcast and published in state-run Arab media.

Worse follows. Just when one surmises from all this that the Arab Muslim world despises the United States, the American public is exasperated that, in fact, it really doesn’t — at least, in the sense that Muslims from the Middle East clamor to enter the United States. Everything Western, from iPods to the Internet to cellphones, spreads like wildfire in the Arab world. Family members of those in the Assad government, in the Shiite militias in Lebanon, in the Pakistani dictatorship, and in the Iranian theocracy live in safety and security in the land of the Great Satan, from Washington to Michigan.

Yet the Muslim community in the Untied States, at least if defined by its self-appointed collective leadership, is mostly heard and seen decrying “Islamophobia” inside America, suing on allegations of discrimination, and damning the effort in Iraq. Rarely are voiced furor and anger at the illiberal regimes that drove Arabs out. Even rarer is expressed some sort of gratitude for the liberal regime that welcomed them in. Or, at least, that is the impression imparted to Americans by their media that provides them with sounds bites and live video streams in lieu of travel to and study of the Middle East.

The net result is the American voter is tired and saturated with negative imagery. Public opinion polls are notoriously fickle. But most show a sharp increase in negative views of Muslims in general.  A 2006 Washington Post poll suggested that nearly half of all Americans had a negative view of Muslims — far higher even than was even found shortly after September 11. The Council on American-Islamic Relations claims that one American in four surveyed said Islam was a religion of hatred and violence and held extreme anti-Muslim views. Yet other less partisan surveys agree that one in three Americans believe that Islam encourages violence. And various other polls reveal that only about 20% of Americans are in sympathy with the Palestinians. Egypt alone of the major Arab countries rates a favorable impression; most others — Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia — evoke high levels of American negativity.

This popular sentiment, to the extent it is ever voiced openly, is, of course, attributed to “intolerance” and “prejudice.”  But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

To counteract this, we need more clarity both here and abroad. First, the administration must articulate how our idealism is stark realism as well. Americans daily have to be reminded that consensual government in Iraq — not just plebiscites — is in our long-term strategic interest. Second, we should hear far more of Iraqi cooperation and joint operations, both military and civilian, that in fact do characterize this war and reveal an Arab desire to be free of the past. And third, far more long-suffering members of the Iraqi government need to express some appreciation for the American sacrifice — and express such gratitude to the American people directly.

We worry rightly about anti-Americanism and winning over the people of Iraq. But the greater problem, at least as we now witness it in the Senate and House, is winning back those here at home.

Seeing more of the purple finger, and less of the shaking fist, is the key to regaining the hearts and minds of Americans — who in the end alone can win or lose this war.

©2007 Victor Davis Hanson

The Self Absorbed Imperialists of Islam

 The Self Absorbed Imperialists of Islam
Glen Reinsford
Author: Glen Reinsford
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: April 30, 2007


The ruthless self-obsession and stunning narcissism that is so prevalent today in the Muslim world exists in CAIR as well, Islam’s surrogate and resident chief whiner right here in America.  FSM Contributing Editor, Glen Reinsford, explains. 


The Self Absorbed Imperialists of Islam



By Glen Reinsford


“God forbid, there’s some other act of terrorism in the
United States.
  I hate to think what might happen.”

Although most Americans dread thinking about another terror attack on U.S. soil because thoughts of death, suffering and missing family members are far from pleasant, the person who spoke those words had an entirely different concern in mind.

Ibrahim Hooper is the spokesperson for the notorious CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations).  His supposed anxiety (as expressed in an interview for a recently-aired PBS program, “The Muslim Americans”) is not over the dead and dismembered victims of Islamic violence, but rather for the Muslims in America that he imagines will be harmed in a wave of reprisals the next time the radicals of Islam strike ordinary citizens on U.S. soil.

It is hardly surprising that Hooper’s sympathies should be largely confined to his own religion.  In fact, it is perfectly in keeping with his organization’s self-serving policy of complaining incessantly of minor inconveniences “endured” by Muslims in the
U.S. and elsewhere, while ignoring the far more serious violence that is occurring explicitly in the name of Allah.

Since 9/11, CAIR has not even bothered to acknowledge – much less condemn – over 99% of the bloody acts of deadly terror that are meted out on the world in the cause of Islam.  Not including the 200,000 Darfurians lost to the Janjaweed Jihad, the Religion of Peace has stabbed, blasted, hacked, stoned or shot to death close to 200 innocent people in 30 attacks, on average, each week since September 11th, yet CAIR has declined specifically to denounce all but a tiny handful.

It’s not that the organization doesn’t have the ability to do this.  In fact, CAIR sweats the details quite a bit when it comes to any misstep or slight that can possibly be perceived as an insult or inconvenience to Muslims. 

Examples of such “pressing” matters include a British woman being asked to lower her veil by an airline stewardess, dead fish found in the parking lot of a mosque in Houston, and a charred copy of the Qur’an appearing on the doorstep of a
Virginia mosque (which was later determined to have been placed there by a Muslim).
  While Jihadis rack up piles of dead bodies each day under the banner of Islam, only the relatively trivial issues that affect the sensibilities of petulant Muslims make CAIR’s list of concerns.

Clearly, the organization has its priorities.

In an interview conducted less than three and a half years after 9/11, CAIR’s Ahmed Bedier was asked if he knew of any instances where Americans had been attacked in their own country by Muslims.  Incredibly, his first response was, “Uh… not that I remember.” 

Once he was able to recall the greatest hate crime in American history, however, Bedier wasted no sympathy on the 3,000 victims of Islamic aggression, as he immediately shifted the focus of conversation to the alleged “backlash” against Muslim-Americans (which included such “horrors” as spray-painted graffiti on the side of a mosque).

Yes, in spite of the admirable level of restraint and wisdom shown by nearly every American in the wake of this massacre, CAIR selfishly insists that Muslims are the true victims of 9/11, due to so-called “Islamophobia” (a trendy term used to describe the declining respect for Islam that often results on the part of its victims). 

Americans get no credit for routinely exhibiting the sort of moderation and tolerance that is completely unheard of in the Muslim world.  Instead, CAIR dedicates itself to propagating whatever petty complaint it can find, in complete disregard for the anti-American passions aroused among those already convinced that there is a war on Islam. 

Bashing, rather than defending,
America has the effect of encouraging Islamic terror, of course.
  Yet, as Hooper’s statement implies, CAIR is already staking a claim to the future victimization of Muslims in the wake of attacks that have yet to occur.

Both Hooper and the history of his organization reflect the breathtaking egoism of Islam. 

On the day that his comments were aired, there was news of a horrific murder in
Turkey, in which three Christian men were tied up, brutally tortured for hours, and then slashed to death by Islamic radicals merely because they had left Islam and were distributing Bibles in a “Muslim land.”
  CAIR shamefully declined to condemn the murder on their website – the very website on which it actively distributes Qur’ans in the

This was not an oversight.  Last year, CAIR promoted a fatwa written by purported moderates Jamal Badawi and Shaikh Muhammad Nur Abdullah that forbids a Muslim from changing his faith – calling it “the worst form of sin” and hedging on the question of whether or not apostates should be assassinated for following their conscience.  The fatwa also bluntly declares that non-Muslims in Muslim countries do not have the same religious freedom as Muslims. 

The double-standards are by design, you see.  And, since CAIR is working to turn the
United States into a Muslim country, Americans would do well to consider the consequences of its success.

Turkey, for example, was once a Christian land before it was invaded and conquered by the “Religion of Peace.”  Now (as underscored by the string of recent murders) Christians there do not even have the right to share their faith in their own nation.  CAIR’s true vision for
America is surely reflected in its remarkable apathy for the plight of non-Muslims such as these, living under Islamic rule.

Although there are many decent people in the United States who happen to be Muslim, the ruthless self-obsession and stunning narcissism that CAIR embodies is simply too prevalent in the Muslim world for anyone to pretend that it is unrelated to the religion itself.  The history of Islam, in fact, is an unrelenting drive for political and cultural dominance by means of deception and aggression, with little regard for those outside the faith.

The truth is that Islam is not like other religions.  Neither does it afford full humanity to non-believers as other religions do. 

The executive leadership of CAIR, for example, is composed predominately of first-generation Muslim immigrants to America who hypocritically believe that Americans have no place in Muslim lands, even to the extent that they refuse to denounce the murder of America’s sons and daughters in uniform by the Mujahideen overseas.

America is a tolerant country, and should remain so.  But absolute tolerance is ultimately suicidal, particularly with a religion that rarely reciprocates and has never been known to give back what it takes without bloodshed and heartache.  If Americans expect to leave the freedom and values they enjoy to future generations, then they must cease making concessions to the imperialists of Islam, who have nothing more than their own interest at heart.

FamilySecurityMatters.org  Contributing Editor Glen Reinsford is Editor of www.thereligionofpeace.com.




by Bob Parks

When some of hear the words of our “leadership”, many of us are outraged. Many of us wonder how those we elect can be so callous and insensitive. Many of us wonder if those that were elected really know how their words affect people.

I’m beginning to understand.

This is a sensitive topic in my home and I can only imagine our situation multiplied by the hundreds of mothers who are going through what one is going through here.

A son who volunteered to join the United States Armed Forces is shipping out this week for training before going to The Show. A mother is facing a reality while insensitive politicians are telling her that he’s going there for a lost cause.

I keep my finger on the remote control when newscasts turn to “The War” in an effort to shield her from news that will, over the coming months, become very up close and personal. All that, while United States Senators and Congressmen privately gloat that “bad news” will be good for them politically next November.

What will these leaders say tomorrow to comfort the hundreds of mothers nationwide who break down, sobbing uncontrollably, whose minds are constantly throwing around the worst of possibilities. Instead of leading by example and being respectful of their fellow citizens and the unease that’s mounting, elected idiots are predicting electoral advantage with every star that goes from blue to gold.

The sobbing part is not a slam, but an acknowledgement of the heart these women show for their children. Big difference from those we see in videos of women in the Middle East proudly sending their children to blow themselves up along with innocent civilians. Our mothers are watching their sons and daughters go face an enemy that would blow their children up here if given the chance.

It’s not just the mothers whose lives are upside down. Whole families whose sons and daughters are in theater now are anguishing every time the news comes into their homes, just to have some reckless Washington elites act on one hand like they care about those families, and on the other hand tell the world they are a bunch of losers from the general down to the private.

Taking this one day at a time is the only solution these mothers have. Kind of like Chinese water torture. Living with someone who is directly affected brings the reality of this conflict home. While Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid salivate with the prospects of this war giving them a larger Democrat majority, those who are reeking havoc in the Middle East salivate knowing that there are Americans actively participating in the breaking of our will as a people to the benefit of terrorists worldwide.

Breaking the will of the enemy is the means to victory in modern warfare.

“They are looking at all this, they read newspapers, they see it on television and they say, ‘The American domestic resolve is weakening, therefore we should maintain our resolve. If there is a perception of an America defeat in Iraq, that will leave the whole of the Middle East in great turmoil and will be an enormous victory for terrorism.”
– Australian Prime Minister John Howard

Pelosi, Reid, and the American left have insulted the Iraqi government officials who are marked for summary execution by the terrorists. Some government officials have indeed been assassinated going to work. Our politicians’ only worry is traffic. For our elected officials to denigrate the risks the Iraqi government endures daily is another example of the heartless incompetence that is the anti-war movement. But such ignorance of what is going on there is yet another example of why their statements are irresponsible to the point of treasonous.

I wonder how President Truman would deal with a fellow Democrat that declared we were losing during the battles that comprised World War II? Although I wasn’t around then, I believe there would be a sense of compassion for the parents, especially the mothers of the sons that were living in the constant worry that only a mother can have for a child.

I wish to share this letter, in case you haven’t seen it, sent to Senator Reid and share it with all the mothers you know who have children going or already in Iraq….

When you say we’ve lost in Iraq, I don’t think you understand the effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they don’t understand it. They don’t know about the political game, they don’t know about a Presidential veto, and they don’t know about party politics.

But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists. They decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood. Men, who look the same to us, but are obvious to them as a foreign suicide cell.

To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we’ll leave them unprotected in the future. They then don’t report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in convoy. They don’t report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect.

Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are winning. I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties if you help us. Will you?”

LT Jason Nichols, USN”

When listening to the words of politicians, I fear those words are being heard. Those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have lots worse to deal with, and claims that the war is “lost” are just pissing them off. During military training, in all phases, we do not teach how to lose.

The problem is, aside from support groups which are quite valuable and noble, no one has taught the mothers how to lose. As we’re not the ignoramii the left considers us, we all know what ultimate defeat would mean, there and later here.

The Democrat leadership obviously appreciates the fact the war is confined and won’t impinge on their opulence. The war is already here and the mothers of those serving are in a world Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t think of imposing on themselves.

They may not hear the private sobs of fear and anguish from the mothers of our soldiers, but a lot of us do, and it’s never a good idea to make someone’s mother cry.





Discuss This Article


The last time I saw Paris

Ethel C. Fenig
Afraid to say anything negative about anyone or anything, even if it’s the truth, because you just don’t feel like giving that undynamic duo of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton another reason for publicity?  Well here’s a group you can dislike with impunity because, not only do they dislike themselves, they don’t even care if anyone else likes them or not.

I am speaking about the French.  Of course.  Mais oui. 

The survey of six nations, carried out for the International Herald Tribune daily and France 24 TV station, said 44 percent of French people thought badly of themselves against 38 percent of U.S. respondents who had a negative view of the French. 
Thursday’s poll said 74 percent of Americans said whoever wins the second round of France’s presidential election on May 6 should try to improve relations with the United States.
Some 41 percent of French agreed, but 20 percent believed Paris should be even more distant with Washington.

Oh well, we’ll always have London.  Or Montreal.  Or Tel Aviv. New York maybe.  Even south Florida.   Because many of the French, especially the young, especially the Jews, are fleeing  the country, settling in these locations among others and doing well.

The simple fact is that, in the past few years, young people have been leaving France in unprecedented numbers. More worrying still is that although depopulation was a worry in the French countryside in the Sixties, it now has become a specifically urban phenomenon. Nor is it confined to Paris: Lyon, Lille, Bordeaux and Marseille can all report an exodus of young people towards les pays Anglo-Saxons (the United States and the UK). This fact was acknowledged by politician Nicolas Sarkozy when he made his flying visit to London last month to visit the French community there – at 400,000 people this is (as the newspaper Le Parisien helpfully pointed out) equivalent to one of the largest French cities.

France’s rigid economy, the burdensome employment laws, the acknowledged racism, the paternalism, the lack of opportunity, combined with the natural restlessness of youth, have all converged in a seemingly mass exodus of its citizens. 

Interestingly, ‘la fuite des jeunes’ (‘the flight of young people’) has also become a burning issue in the French press, including Le Monde and, most notably, the daily Le Parisien, which for months has regaled its readers with the tales of young Parisians finding the good life at the other end of the Eurostar. Indeed, the real issue in this election – at least for young voters – is not la securite (crime and delinquency), but unemployment.
The politicians who are arguing that they will clean up the streets are still fighting the last election; meanwhile, young people in France look at the latest statistics – one in eight unemployed in some parts of Paris – and begin to despair of ever making a living in France.

So eat those freedom fries, enjoy Les Mis.  And maybe say hello to your new French neighbor as you all enjoy the benefits of a free economy with the opportunities it provides as you perfect your Francophobia. Vive le Etats Unis!

Obama throwing his spiritual mentor overboard?

Obama throwing his spiritual mentor overboard?

Ed Lasky
The New York Times reports on its front page today about Obama’s strained relationship with his pastor, also known as his “spiritual mentor.” The Times does tend to downplay some of the harsher statements that Pastor Wright has made about Israel, Wright’s support for Louis Farrakhan; trips to Libya and more. A I wrote over a month ago:

Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel’s and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.
Wright has also been a severe critic of Israel. In his own words

The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.

The Divestment issue will hit the floor during this month’s General Synod. Divesting dollars from businesses and banks that do business with Israel is the new strategy being proposed to wake the world up concerning the racism of Zionism. That Divestment issue won’t make the press either, however.
Once this history came to light, Obama started publicly distancing himself from his spiritual mentor, disinviting Wright from various Obama campaign events. Wright rationalized his current persona non grata status by stating that otherwise

“a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell”

Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception

Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception

By Ed Lasky

It is well-known that George Soros, the hedge-fund manager, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. But relatively few people realize that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros his family members to be particularly generous in support of Obama’s Senatorial campaign.

Because Obama was running against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires), Obama could, and did, receive especially large donations from individuals, to so-called “millionaires exception.” Normally individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but when candidates are running against millionaires, these limits are lifted and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not include money that Soros was able to funnel to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros was able to raise from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.
After taking advantage of the special freedom to raise large amounts of money from influential individuals, and as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, news was leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had personal scandals associated with them. The release of this news devastated both of their campaigns, leading to an easy run to victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election. The New York Times Magazine revealed earlier in the year that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.
Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role – that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned. “An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you,” he told me.
In mid-March George Soros wrote his latest broadside against the “Israel Lobby”-calling for the Democratic Party to “liberate” itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and stating that America should be dealing with Hamas, the terror group that is now the governing authority of the Palestinians. This was published in the influential New York Review of Books. So inflammatory were Soros’s comments that a few leading Democrats issued rebuttals. While some Congressmen did so personally (Robert Wexler, Eliot Engel), a spokeswoman did so for Barack Obama. Jen Psaki, of the Obama campaign, said,

“Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinion. But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree.
“The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas – a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction – meets very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view.”

Obama received some praise for separating himself from George Soros on March 21st, even if he chose to do so through a spokeswoman. The New York Sun ran an article with the headline, “Obama rebuffs Soros” on March 21st . Hope springs eternal, but in this case, not so much.
New York magazine revealed in an article regarding Barack Obama’s fundraising prowess that a mere two weeks later, after this so-called rebuttal of Soros (on April 9th), Barack Obama attended a fundraiser at the New York residence of Steven and Judy Gluckstern. There was a photo at the beginning of the article of Obama speaking from a stairwell to the small group assembled to give him money for his campaign? None other than…George Soros was in the audience.
It seems that Obama’s “criticism” (or rather the perfunctory criticism offered by a spokeswoman) of Soros for his anti-Israel diatribe (which was also a veiled insult to  American supporters of Israel) has not prevented Barack Obama from socializing with, and receiving money and support from, George Soros.
Since Barack Obama has proudly proclaimed his purity regarding fundraising ethics, one might ask him two questions about his campaigns against Blair Hull and Jack Ryan. When the scandals surfaced that led to these millionaire opponents withdrawing from the races, did Obama then refuse to accept donations that exceeded normal campaign limits because he was no longer running against millionaires? 
And since he was no longer running against multi-millionaire candidates that could fund their own expensive campaigns, did he see fit to return any of the excess amounts he collected under the millionaire’s exception?
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker

Fitzgerald: The School of Qom and the School of Najaf

April 30, 2007

Fitzgerald: The School of Qom and the School of Najaf

A little background on the claque that has, for roughly the past three years, found Sistani to be the Man of the Hour in Iraq.

At My Weekly Standard the claque consists of Reuel Gerecht and the carriers of Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome. Fouad Ajami, whose usefulness is limited given his tiptoeing around the subject of Islam, was enchanted with his own reception by Sistani. In his book “The Foreigner’s Gift” — so tellingly mistitled (it ought to have been “The Infidel’s Gift,” but that would raise too many problems for Fouad Ajami) — he describes, I am told, this meeting. But he does not explain what it was that prevented Sistani from meeting with any other American save for Zalmay Khalilzad. What could it be? And why shouldn’t people have explained to them what it is that prevents this Holy Man of the Hour from meeting, say, with Bremer, or Rice, or any number of other Infidels?

In Washington, there are those who like to construct out of world politics something akin to soap operas, with the villains and the heroes. Everything is reduced to the “good guys” (i.e., the “moderate” Muslims in this case) and the “bad guys” (the “immoderate” Muslims). And a little shadow-play is put on, Chinese shadows, ombres chinoises. The Good Muslim needs to be supported to the hilt, because only he can stand up to the Bad Muslim.

In the case of Sistani, the Shadow-Play relies on the banal observation that the main Shi’a clerics in Iraq do not wish to support the idea, which Khomeini introduced as part of his new and improved Islamic Republic of Iran, of direct rule by clerics. In Khomeini’s case, he thought that the best thing would be direct rule by the Most Enlightened and Deeply Learned Cleric. Apparently he had someone special in mind. And when that impressive Internal Candidate showed up — he, Ayatollah Khomeini himself — there was no need for any nationwide search, or even a resume, much less that grueling day of interviews. No, Sistani does not want to rule directly. It’s too messy. Besides, why should he and the rest of the marjiyah have to bother their decorously turbaned heads with garbage collection in Baghdad, or the municipal water system in Basra? They prefer to be eminences grises, behind the scenes, or in some cases burattinai, marionette-masters, tugging at strings as the occasion demands.

Yet, among those who should know better, this appears to be an important concession on Sistani’s part — because they do not have any knowledge of Islam, and they are afraid or unwilling to do what is necessary to acquire that knowledge. They have gotten in the habit, over many decades, of not having to engage, even if only for a few months, in the kind of study that perhaps they once were capable of, but are not any longer.

So they posit a “Qom School” (bad) of Shi’a Islam, and a “Najaf School” (good) of Shi’a Islam. The Iranians are the Qommers, with Khomeini and then Khameini as representative figures, and the Najafians, with Al-Sistani at their helm, are the embodiment of wonderful Shi’a Islam.

Shi’a Islam is not wonderful. And if Chalabi, Allawi, Rend al-Rahim and Kanan Makiya are acceptable figures, are people one feels one can talk to, it is not because they are Shi’a Muslims. Rather, it is because having lived in the West for many decades, they have become, at least in part, westernized and secularized. They are rational people, even if their aims must be different from ours. But they do not, and dare not, make any connection between the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of the Islamic world, and the tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics of Islam.

That is something no true believing Muslim will do, whether he remains one out of filial piety (that pious and kindly grandmother), or embarrassment (and a desire therefore not to abandon, but to protect, Islam), or out of dislike of the West and a proud refusal to take lessons from that decadent West (how dare Westerners, with their own sicknesses, get on their high horse and preach to us) will do — unless he is either a Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim, such as Bassam Tibi or Magdi Allam, or has jettisoned Islam altogether, as have Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja, and a cast of tens of thousands.

But it is the latter who could have told us all along how empty this Shadow-Play with Sistani really was.