Reagan’s men are backing – an actor

Reagan’s men are backing – an actor ^ | 4/29/07 | Tim Shipman

Posted on 04/28/2007 4:34:10 PM PDT by Politicalmom

Ronald Reagan’s closest allies are throwing their weight behind the White House bid by the late president’s fellow actor, Fred Thompson.

The film star and former Republican senator from Tennessee will this week use a speech in the heart of Reagan country, in southern California, to woo party bigwigs in what insiders say is the next step in his coming out as a candidate.

Fred Thompson, Reagan’s men are backing – an actor Fred Thompson’s character in Law and Order is ‘the president all Americans want’

A key figure in the Reagan inner circle has now given his seal of approval to Mr Thompson, best known as a star of the television crime drama Law and Order.

As deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver was a key member of the “troika” of aides who kept the Reagan White House on track. With the chief of staff James Baker and special assistant Ed Meese, he was the master of image and presentation.

Mr Deaver sees the same raw material in Mr Thompson as was perceived in Ronald Reagan, describing him as someone “that could really make a difference”. He added: “He is very popular in his party. He could change this whole thing and turn this primary system upside down.

“As Ronald Reagan used to say, after he stole a line from Al Jolson, ‘Stay tuned, you ain’t seen nothing yet’.”

Mr Thompson’s political and acting careers have been closely interwoven for more than 20 years. He originally worked as a lawyer and -Republican campaign -manager, and was a key legal counsel in the Watergate scandal in the Seventies

He was then asked to play himself in a 1985 film about a real-life judicial corruption scandal in Tennessee, supposedly because the producers could not find a professional actor who could portray him plausibly. That launched his acting career, which he has maintained alongside stints as a senator and continued Republican campaigning. advertisement

He has been a popular choice for on-screen authority figures, playing variously a White House chief of staff, a CIA boss, a highly placed FBI agent, and a senator. As one New York Times critic noted: “When Hollywood directors need someone who can personify governmental power, they often turn to him.”

Mr Deaver voiced the view of many Republicans that the current crop of declared candidates is unsatisfactory. Of the front runner, the former New York mayor Rudi Giuliani, he said: “His popularity may be a mile wide and an inch deep. I’m sure that lead will shrink.”

Mr Deaver’s intervention is significant. He is very close to Mr Reagan’s widow, Nancy, and is seen as the keeper of the Reagan flame.

Clark Judge, a White House speechwriter for Mr Reagan, said: “Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, is a man of tremendous substance. There is a sense in the party that none of the candidates is quite ‘it’.”

Mr Reagan, he said, had “embodied the mission of the party – entrepreneurial growth, limited government and a strong national defence. Whoever can bring that mission into this age will be the nominee. And it may be Fred Thompson.” Roger Stone, who was a Reagan campaign strategist, said: “The president Americans want is, in fact, the guy they see on Law and Order: wise, thoughtful, deliberative, confident without the cockiness of George W Bush, urbane yet country. Fred Thompson communicates all those virtues.”

In 1965, when Mr Reagan, then the host of the television show Death Valley Days, was considering whether to enter politics, members of the Lincoln Club in Orange County persuaded him to run for governor of California.

On Friday Mr Thompson will address the 45th annual dinner of the Lincoln Club, which is billed as the “largest and most active political club in the United States.” The invitation was one that other Republican candidates had tried to secure.

The club includes some of California’s richest businessmen – a necessity if you need to raise $20 million quickly in order to compete with Mr Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The club found $100,000 for the 2003 campaign to oust California’s Democrat governor, Gray Davis, which helped Arnold Schwarzenegger into the post.

Mr Thompson has shown that he recognises the importance of assuming the Reagan mantle. He is on record as saying: “Ronald Reagan believed in something. How much we need that today. He showed what can be done if you have the will to push for tough choices, and the ability to ask the people to accept them.”

Mr Reagan himself, asked whether his training as an actor had prepared him for the presidency, once replied: “I don’t see how any fellow that wasn’t an actor could do this job.”

Americans need not wait for Mr Thompson to win next year’s election to see him in the Oval Office. He plays President Ulysses S Grant in the film, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which opens next month.

The White Feather postcard campaign — Get involved

The Threat of Islamist Terrorism to Germany

The Threat of Islamist Terrorism to Germany
Jamestown Foundation/Anouar Boukhars
The recent al-Qaeda threat to Germany over its forces in Afghanistan coupled with the arrest of four Arab men accused of supporting al-Tawhid—a terrorist organization believed to have links to al-Qaeda—have convinced German authorities of the rising jihadi threat to Germany. “It is decidedly false to believe that Germany need not fear terrorist attacks because it is not involved with the Iraq war…Germany is the leading nation in the fight against the Taliban, with which al-Qaeda is tightly allied…We are part of the hated West,” Bavarian Interior Minister Beckstein declared. Yet, while Germany is by no means immune to home-grown terrorism, it is still a fact that the ideologies that spawn terrorism or radicalism elsewhere in Europe have not found fertile ground in the country’s Turkish immigrants who make up three quarters of the Muslim population.

Thus far, the Turkish community has appeared largely immune from pietistic movements like Salafism, or Tabligh, or even from political Islam or Salafi-Jihadism. With the exclusion of the Islamische Gemeinschaft Milli Görüş (Islamic Community of the National Vision, IGMG), Islamic activism appeals far less to the Turkish Muslim element than it does to the rest of the Muslim minority. The few jihadi suspects apprehended so far are of Arab origin or were German converts. Despite the scare of Islamist ideologues exporting their creed to a marginalized Muslim minority, the federal Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution), the equivalent of Britain’s MI5 and the U.S. FBI, puts the number of Islamists at about one percent (32,100) of the Muslim population—27,250 of Turkish origin (26,500 of which belong to IGMG), 3,350 of Arab origin, 150 of Iranian origin and 1,350 of other nationalities. The Muslim Brotherhood is believed to claim 1,300 members while Jama’at Tabligh has about 500 members, Hamas 300 members and Hezbollah 900.

A Hamas spokesman in an interview granted to an Iranian TV channel: Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and Hamas will oppose any agreement reached in such negotiations

A Hamas spokesman in an interview granted to an Iranian TV channel: Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and Hamas will oppose any agreement reached in such negotiations


1. Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha , a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip, noted in an interview granted to an Iranian TV station that Abu Mazen does not have full authority to engage in negotiations with Israel and that Hamas rejects any agreement reached in such negotiations.

Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha
(Al-Alam TV, April 11, 2007 )

2. On April 17, Al-Alam, an Iranian TV channel in Arabic, broadcasted a talk show called Al-Mihwar (“the axis”). The show featured an interview with Ayman Muhammad Saleh Taha, a former Hamas operative who was held prisoner in Israel and is now one of the Hamas spokesmen and a member of the inter-organizational committee for preventing conflicts between Hamas and Fatah. In the interview, Ayman Taha was asked about Hamas’s position on the contacts held by Abu Mazen with Israel . The highlights of his reply follow:

a. The stance of the Hamas movement has not changed and will not change regarding the “Zionist entity” and the meetings held by Abu Mazen with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert: “The movement is being very clear when it says that these meetings are pointless and do nothing to further the Palestinian cause.”

b. “The government platform is not the platform of Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. The fundamental principles of the unity government are the lowest common denominator agreed upon by the Palestinian factions. We are saying loud and clear that the Hamas movement still considers itself the spearhead in the conflict with the oppressive enemy [ Israel ]. It will not relinquish its platform of resistance [i.e., violence and terrorism]…”

c. “In the strongest of terms, we oppose such negotiations and everything that will come out of it. We, the Hamas movement, will not agree to it, and I think these are clear, explicit statements already made by Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar and by the head of the Hamas faction in the [Legislative] Council, Dr. Khalil al-Hayya. While they expressed their confidence in the government, they stressed that they had reservations about giving the president full authority in the negotiations…”

d. When asked what Hamas would do when Abu Mazen would reach an agreement with Israel and whether the Hamas movement would oppose the government that it heads, Taha replied: “Definitely. That is, we are saying that we will not accept any negotiations with the occupier on the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and their legitimate rights. We will not bargain about those rights and will refuse to do so, whether in the government or in the Legislative Council…”

Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

By Adrian Morgan

Family Security

 The past week has seen three incidents demonstrating Islamists’ total hatred for Christianity and the values of the West. On Wednesday, April 18 in Malatya, central Turkey, three Christians were tied up, tortured for up to three hours, and then had their throats slit. Two of the victims, Ugur Yuksel amd Necati Aydin, were Turkish, and the other was a German national, Tilmann Geske. Their crime was to be Christians, working for Zirve, a publishing house which prints Bibles.

 Four people were arrested at the scene. The suspected leader of the killers, 19-year old Emre Gunaydin, had thrown himself from a window to escape arrest, sustaining head injuries in the fall. On Saturday, Gunaydin’s girlfriend was also arrested. Malatya is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who tried to murder Pope John Paul II in 1981. Even though both Turks who died on Wednesday had abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity, Ugur Yuksel was buried as a Muslim.

 Thousands of miles away on Jolo island in the southern Philippines, seven Christians were taken hostage by Muslim terrorists last Monday. Their kidnappers belonged to the group Abu Sayyaf, which has links with Al Qaeda and also the pan-Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah which has enacted numerous atrocities, including the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002, in which 202 people died, and of October 1, 2005, in which 20 people died.

 The Abu Sayyaf group has a reputation for hostage-taking. It also has a reputation for decapitating hostages. The leader of Abu Sayyaf on the island of Jolo is Radullan Sahiron, a one-armed man who rides a horse. This individual would be easy to identify, but because he beheads local people whom he considers to be “spies”, no one informs on him, and he has so far escaped arrest. He has a 5 million-peso bounty on his head, worth $89,000 US.

 On Thursday, April 19, the severed heads of five of the Christian victims were left at one army camp, and the heads of the other two were left at another military camp later on the same day. Their bodies were found in a village on Friday.

 Last Tuesday, in Peshawar, main city of Pakistan’s troubled North-West Frontier Province, a disturbing video was recovered by Associated Press. A bearded man, identified as Ghulam Nabi, is shown in a car, claiming his innocence. A ligature is tied around his neck. Nabi is then shown on his knees on the ground, his hands tied behind his back. A man pulls at his beard to expose his throat. He is then decapitated.

 What makes this video more disturbing is that the killer is a fresh-faced boy, barely 12 years of age. The video (censored at the moment the knife touches Nabi’s throat) can be found here. The boy hacks at the victim’s neck, and when he finally severs the head, it is raised aloft, while the words “Allahu Ackbar” (“Allah is great”) are chanted by onlookers. The soundtrack of the video has songs praising Mullah Omar (leader of the Afghan Taliban) and Osama bin Laden.

 Ghulam Nabi was a Pakistani Taliban member from Baluchistan, southwestern Pakistan, who was accused of being a “spy” for the US. Nabi was blamed for the death of Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, an ex-governor of Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. Osmani, a senior leader in the Afghan Taliban, had been killed by a US airstrike on December 19 last year.

 Slitting throats and beheading people are not the actions of honorable men, especially as in Turkey and the Philippines the victims were guilty only of belonging to another faith. Apologists for Islam will claim that such actions are not typical of Islam, yet these people are either deliberately lying or they are totally ignorant of Islam’s history.

 In Turkey, the killings of the three Christians have been condemned by the most senior Muslim in the nation, Ali Bardakoglu, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate.  On September 14, 2006, Bardakoglu had demanded that Pope Benedict XVI retract comments which had been made in a speech at the University at Regensburg. Bardakoglu called the pontiff’s words “extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate” and questioned if they reflected the “spite, hatred and enmity” of others in the Christian world.

 In his Regensberg Address on September 12, Benedict had quoted a Byzantine emperor, Manuel Paleologos, who around the year 1391 had said “show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Though the Pope did not condone this statement, Muslims around the world did what Muslims seem to do best – they whined about their victimhood and threatened violence.

 In Pakistan, the US-designated terror organization Jamaat ud-Dawa (not outlawed by Pakistan) issued a fatwa, urging the Muslim community to kill the Pope. In Britain, Anjem Choudary, a former leader of Al-Muhajiroun claimed outside the Catholic Westminster Cathedral that the Pope should be executed. Choudary was not charged for this.

 Killings of Christians ensued. In Iraq, an Assyrian priest, Father Paulos Iskander, was beheaded, and a 14-year old Christian boy was crucified in Albasra. A group calling itself “Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi” threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the pontiff did not apologize to Mohammed, the founder of Islam.

 In Israel, churches were attacked. In Somalia on September 17 an Italian nun, Sister Leonella, was shot three times in the back while she worked in the SOS Hospital in the Huriwa district of Mogadishu. Three other nuns were subsequently evacuated for their safety. A Somali imam, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, urged Muslims to “punish” the Pope. He said: “Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.”

 When Salman Rushdie received a fatwa against his life on February 14, 1989 for “insulting” Islam, Muslims across Britain, India and Pakistan called for his death. In July 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, Rushdie’s Japanese translator, was stabbed to death. In the same month Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator of the Satanic Verses, was seriously injured in a stabbing attack.

 On November 2 2004, baby-faced Muslim killer Mohammed Bouyeri stabbed, shot and tried to behead film-maker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street. Van Gogh had made a film about the appalling treatment of women in Islam. This film, called Submission, (Islam means just that) had been scripted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali apostate from Islam. With a knife, Bouyeri had pinned a “hit list” to van Gogh’s chest. This list named people who had insulted Islam, including Hirsi Ali and Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

 In February last year, Danish cartoons of the so-called prophet Mohammed led to violent riots from Indonesia to Gaza to Pakistan, Nigeria and India. At least thirty people died. The illustrators had to go into hiding. A Taliban commander in Pakistan claimed that assassins were traveling to Denmark to kill the artists. In Trabzon in Turkey on February 5, 2006, Catholic priest Father Andrea Santoro was shot in the back by a 16-year old youth who shouted “Allahu Ackbar”. The youth was later sentenced to 18 years’ jail.

 In India, a Muslim state minister in Uttar Pradesh offered $10 million to anyone who beheaded any of the Danish cartoonists. In Peshawar in Pakistan Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, imam of the Mohabat Khan mosque, offered1.5 million rupees ($17,000) and a car to anyone who killed one of the artists. Neither of these individuals was charged with incitement.

 When Banglaldeshi author Taslima Nasreen wrote of the poor treatment of Hindus in her native country and criticized Islam’s treatment of women, an imam issued a fatwa against her, offering a bounty of $5,000 upon her head. In 1994 after mass protests against her, Taslima had to leave Bangladesh. She later went to Calcutta in India to care for her dying mother. In March 2004, the head of the Muslim Raza Academy threatened to burn her if she ever set foot in Mumbai (Bombay).

 In January 2004, Syed Noor-ur-Rehman Barkati, main imam of Tippu Sultan Mosque in Kolkata said to a congregation of 10,000 that he would offer 20,000 rupees ($436) to anyone who would blacken Taslima’s face “with ink, paint or tar. Or she can be garlanded with shoes.” In June 2006 the same imam offered on local TV the sum of 50,000 rupees ($1,175) to anyone who blackened her face and drove her out of Calcutta. Last month Taqi Raza Khan, president of the All India Ibtehad Council, issued a 500,000 rupee ($11,760) reward for anyone who would decapitate (sar qalam karna) or drive Taslima Nasreen from India.

 In Pakistan, a malicious rumor that a Koran has been “desecrated” is enough to cause anti-Christian riots. On November 12, 2005, such a rumor led to a community at Sangla Hill in Punjab province being attacked by Muslim fanatics who were urged on by imams at mosques. Four churches were attacked, along with two priests’ houses, a kindergarten school, a nunnery and a medical center.

 On February 19, 2006 Muslims incensed by the Danish cartoons rampaged against Christian targets in Sukkur, Sindh province in south Pakistan. The St Saviour’s Church and St Xavier’s Church, as well as St Mary’s school which had been built in 1889, were set alight.

 On September 19 last year, French philosophy lecturer Robert Redeker wrote an incisive piece on Islam for the newspaper Le Figaro. This included a statement that the Koran was “a book of unparalleled violence”. As a result, he found himself and his family on the receiving end of death threats. Photographs of Redker’s family and maps of his home were circulated on the internet. He and his family moved location several times, and he lost his job.

 Is there a pattern in the above incidents? Since the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, Muslims around the world have learned to exploit the politics of fear. Muslims have threatened, and continue to threaten, death against anyone who “insults” Islam or its founder. And what is the end result? People in the West buy into this thuggish barbarism. The ideological foundations of the West were built upon the finest principles distilled from ancient Greek, Christian and Jewish heritage. Yet now, those who represent us in the media and politics are intimidated into silence. Like cowards with no principles, we offer up our bellies to the beast of Islam.

 Last week the biggest news in Lewiston, Maine, concerned a terrible “hate-crime”, where a college student put a bag of pork onto a table where Muslim Somali students were eating. The incident was not something to praise, but compared to Islam’s intimidation of the entire Western world, it amounts to less than a hill of beans.

 In Europe, the ideologues of the European Union have created a lexicon of words that politicians must never use – such as “fundamentalism”, “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism”, even though Islam was built upon terrorism and war. One EU commissioner, Franco Frattini, has even stated publicly that there is “no such thing” as Islamic terrorism.

 Out of fear, people cave in before they are even threatened. In September 2005 the Tate Gallery in Pimlico, London, removed an artwork by conceptual artist John Latham, because it contained a copy of the Koran. In November 2005, a production of the play Tamburlaine the Great was deliberately censored at the Barbican in London. The producer, David Farr, omitted a scene where Tamburlaine burns the Koran, admitting he had done so for fear of offending Muslims.

 When a 1740 play by Voltaire, entitled Fanatacisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete (Fanatacism, or Mohammed the Prophet) was due to be read out in Geneva in 1994, the authorities banned the performance. When the play was performed in the southern French town of Saint-Genis-Pouilly in December 2005, Muslims caused a small riot.

 In Germany in September 2006, Deutsche Oper Berlin cancelled a production of Mozart’s opera Idomeneo. The revised production included severed heads of religious leaders, including Mohammed. This was thought by Kirsten Harms, the theater’s Director, to be too risky. She cited “questions of sensitivity, also questions of political diplomacy” for her actions. The opera was later staged with little fuss.

Dante Aligheiri (1265 – 1321) wrote the visionary book the Divine Comedy (Divina Commedia) in three parts. The Inferno features (in Canto 28) a description of Mohammed in Hell: “Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind. Between his legs were hanging down his entrails; his heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.” In the 15th century, artist Giovanni da Modena painted a fresco of Hell, including Mohammed as one its denizens, in the Basilica of St Petronio in Bologna, Italy (pictured). In 2002 a Muslim plot to destroy the fresco was foiled.

 In Britain, appeasement of Muslims proliferates. Churches hold interfaith services, with Muslims leading prayers. So far, no mosque has reciprocated by holding interfaith services with Christians leading prayer. Judeo-Christian morality guided the West and helped it to grow, yet now Christians are weak in defense of their faith. Councils such as Lambeth in south London have purged all mention of Christmas in their Christmas illuminations.

 Jews are regularly insulted and attacked by Muslims. I saw this at first hand when I lived in Stamford Hill, an Orthodox Jewish area of north London. Jews had lived there for a century but in the 1990s, Muslims from outside the neighborhood began to buy up properties in the area to create Islamic seminaries. In Casenove Road, N16, a Muslim boys’ school was set up less than 15 yards from an Orthodox school, and fighting regularly occurred, instigated mostly by Muslim pupils. The media and the police ignore their plight, preferring to magnify the slights against Islam, which rarely involve violence. Jewish people are FOUR TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of faith-based attacks than Muslims.

 Rabbi Alex Chapper, from Ilford in Essex, was walking home from synagogue with three friends, when they were attacked by a group of seven Muslim teenagers, who had called them “Yehudi”. One shouted: “We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you,” before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face. One Jewish man was hit over the head with a bottle, but police did nothing. Rabbi Chapper said: “We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down.”

 English language Islamic websites continue to produce anti-Semitic filth like the following from a Saudi site: “The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith.”

 Abdulrahman al-Sudais (also spelled Sudeis or Sudayyis) is imam at the Grand Mosque at Mecca. He has called Jews “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

 This anti-Semitism was initiated by Mohammed himself, who according to Sahih Muslim said: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him…” Sura 5:60 of the Koran describes certain Jews transformed into apes and pigs, and in Sura 5:82 it is written: “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters.”

 Two high street banks in Britain, the Natwest and Halifax, ordered that no pigs should be depicted in their branches or advertising, lest they offend Muslims. Jews have been a vital presence in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, and though Jews do not eat pork, no bank had paused to consider if images of piggy banks might offend Jews. Dudley Council tried to ban all images of pigs in 2005, lest these “cause offense” to Muslims.

 Schools also try to censor mentions of pigs, for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. In Batley, Yorkshire, a principal banned all telling of stories involving pigs to young children. Barbara Harris explained: “Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”

 This March, a children’s concert was altered by politically correct teachers, who objected to mention of the Three Little Pigs. These became the “Three Little Puppies”, before public outcry reversed the decision. A spokeswoman for Kirklees Primary Music Festival said: “We feared that some Muslim children wouldn’t sing along to the words about pigs. We didn’t want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offense then we will do so.”

 A recent report from Britain’s Historical Association claims that in some UK schools, teachers have stopped teaching about the Holocaust or the Crusades. This is because the educators were unwilling to confront “anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils.”

 We in the West (and particularly in Britain) have become deracinated, afraid to talk of our culture with any pride. “Heritage” in Britain merely celebrates a few old buildings, but not the thoughts, deeds, traditions, inventiveness, aspirations and inspirations of our forebears.

 In the United States, Muslims have openly campaigned to demand that public buildings have no representations of Mohammed displayed. According to Bukhari, “whoever makes a picture, will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be ordered to put a soul in that picture, which he will not be able to do.” In the 1950s, when the Muslim presence in America was minimal, a sculpture of Mohammed was removed from the steps of the Manhattan Appellant Courthouse in New York after lobbying by Muslim nations.

  In 1935, when the current Supreme Court building was opened, it contained a frieze of historical law-givers, carved by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. This included an image of Mohammed (pictured). In 1997, CAIR petitioned Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, demanding that the statue be sandblasted or removed. CAIR, then only three years in existence, objected to the sword in Mohammed’s hand as it was viewed as “reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors.”

 The stereotype is not incorrect. According to the Koran, Mohammed himself was a warmonger. One entire Sura of the Koran, (Sura 8, Al-Anfal or “The Spoils of War”) describes the caravan raiding committed by the “prophet” outside Mecca. The earliest biographer of Mohammed was Ibn Isshaq (d. 768). His work survives in redactions by Ibn Hisham (died 828). In one of the many battles waged by Mohammed, that of Udud (625 AD), the prophet offered a sword to the bravest fighter, saying of this weapon: “It is to strike the enemy’s faces with it until it is bent.”

 If Mohammed were alive today, he would almost certainly be in jail, guilty of war crimes. Suspecting a plot against himself, he ordered that the entire male population of a Jewish tribe in Medina, the Banu Qurayzah, should be decapitated, according to Isshaq’s testimony. Seven hundred males were beheaded in one afternoon while Mohammed watched. The wives and children of the tribe were distributed as slaves and “booty” to his followers.

 Mohammed today would also be subject to the terms of Megan’s Law. When he was in his sixth decade of life, Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha. She was a child aged nine. Bukhari (810 to 870 AD) wrote (Vol VII, Book 62, Number 64): “Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ’Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).”

 Tabari (d. 923) wrote (IX:131): (Aisha narrated) “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

 Personally, I can only describe such an individual as a monster, despite claims by Somali cleric Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi that Mohammed was “the most honorable person who ever lived in the world.”

 Via the internet, I have twice been subjected to Muslim threats to have my head sliced off, because I was not “respectful” of Islam. While extremists terrorize people with their threats, so-called “moderate” political Muslims simultaneously work with their leftist allies to erode the social fabric of Western societies. I have been vilified by members of Britain’s left as a “frothing right-wing Islamophobe”, even though I abhor any poor treatment of individual Muslims. Such is the price, it seems, of free speech in today’s world.

 I am a citizen of a free country that is rapidly losing its sense of what freedom represents. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, are fundamentals in a healthy democracy. Appeasement to an uncompromising 7th century ideology, especially when such appeasement is motivated more by fear than by genuine respect, is the fast route to totalitarianism or subjugation.

 America is not nearly as far down the road to perdition as Europe and Britain. Unless people are allowed to speak freely, critically and openly about any dead religious figure, even if that speech causes offense to some, the very mainstays of our Western values will disappear. I would rather live free and forthright, even with death threats from barbarians, than be cowed into silence under PC servitude. Remember what your Constitution was built upon, and stand up for what it contains. I fear that Britain is already dying. Please do not allow this to happen to your great nation.


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

The England that we cherished has disappeared


Monday April 23,2007

Leo McKinstry

ST GEORGE’S Day should be an occasion for patriotic celebration.

But for those of us who love this land, today has the tone of a funeral wake.

The England that we cherished has disappeared. We can only raise our glasses to the memory of a once great country whose spirit has been broken by her own rulers, its fabric torn apart by social revolution.

The words of that stirring wartime song There’ll Always Be An England have acquired a tragic poignancy. For there is no longer a real England – not the England that was once renowned for its gentleness and humour, its decency and sense of history, its rich language and inspiring landscape.

The relics of our past are still around us – such as the mon­archy or the village green –‑but they have been robbed of all meaning and vitality, becoming little more than heritage landmarks in a place without a soul.   
The country of Shakespeare echoes to the babble of a thousand foreign tongues. The land of Elgar is held hostage by the thud of the rapper’s boom-box. The stiff upper lip has been replaced by the wail of victimhood. A land that used to be known for its lack of crime is now scourged by gang violence, shootings and stabbings.
“We are becoming a mass of conflicting minorities”


The English traits of modesty and moderation have been lost to a tidal wave of extremism, terrorism, obscenity and cruelty. Our political system, once the least corrupt in the world, is riddled with ballot-box fraud. A national sense of belonging has given way to mutual distrust. 

As an outsider but a passionate Anglophile I have been disturbed by these changes to England’s character. I was born and brought up in Northern Ireland but to me England seemed like the promised land – a feeling that was reinforced by family holidays across the water.

SEARCH Daily Express NEWS

As a wide-eyed youth I loved everything about England – from the metallic hiss of a London Underground train to the tender ringing of the bells in a Dorset abbey. It seemed a world so different from the bigotry, insecurity and ethnic strife of my native Belfast.

In my mid-20s I fulfilled my dream of starting a new life in England and settling here only strengthened my devotion to my adopted country.

For my love of England was inspired not just by those icons of English life such as warm beer and cricket but also by other images which resonated for me: a Suffolk wood on a October afternoon, the ravens croaking in the leafless trees; a Jack Russell terrier bounding through the daffodils in an Essex park; the sun catching the dramatic skyline of London on a summer’s morning.

But in recent years my attachment to England has faded. My sense of connection, so powerful 20 years ago, has become frayed. I increasingly feel as if I am living in a foreign land, having nothing in common with large numbers of my fellow citizens – not even a language or a shared set of values.

When I go to parts of London, Manchester or Birm­ing­ham I am struck by a sense of being in the Third World, with all its attendant chaos and tension. This is not the England that I once loved.

Yet I am told by Govern­ment and civic institutions that I am not allowed to harbour such dangerous sentiments. Instead, I should be overjoyed at the changing face of our country. In the twisted logic of the modern British state, my devotion to England – the reason I settled here – is a cause for suspicion. I should be embracing cultural diversity, not clinging to an England that is being systematically demolished.

To me this is a morally reprehensible argument. If you genuinely love something then it is grotesque to be asked to celebrate its demise. Furthermore, the demand for change only ever works one way. The indigenous population is constantly urged to adapt to the ways of migrants, who seem allowed to import their lifestyles, customs and languages wholesale into Britain without any official challenge or disapproval. 

Thanks to the twin malign forces of mass immigration and multi-culturalism, the scale of England’s transformation is alarming. Though the collapse of our borders has made records unreliable, it is probable that more than 700,000 immigrants are arriving here every year.
Before the end of this decade the majority of London’s residents will be from non-white ethnic groups. Other cities will soon follow. On even a conservative estimate, the indigenous population of England will be in a minority before the end of this century. And the pace of change is being accelerated by the ruthlessly enforced official ideology of cultural diversity, which holds that any manifestation of traditional patriotism is akin to racism.

It is often said that Labour’s policy on immigration has been a failure. But for the ruling metropolitan elite it has been a huge success. The promotion of influxes of Third World and East­ern European migrants has been the central part of a deliberate strategy to change England for ever.

Full of loathing for their own country, Left-wingers recognised that they could not bring about their revolution by economic means after the downfall of communism. So instead they have cynically used mass immigration as a battering ram against old England – turning this once proud nation into ­little more than a landmass full of conflicting minorities.

Rupert Brooke wrote in his 1914 poem The Soldier of “some corner of a foreign field, that is forever England”. Almost a century later the foreign fields are now filling up almost every corner of England itself.

Eurabian Union Condemns Turkish Military

Eurabian Union Condemns Turkish Military

The European (soon to be renamed Eurabian?) Union is doing its level best to sabotage secular Turkey’s struggle against rising Islamism by pressuring the Turkish government to curb the influence of its military as part of its EU membership bid.

The Quislings and Chamberlains running the EU are calling the election of the country’s new president a “test case” for the Turkish military’s respect for democracy.

In reality, the election is a test of totalitarian Islam’s ability to hijack a parliamentary process for purposes of taking power–and ending democracy.

The president can veto legislation in Turkey; therefore, the prospect of installing a leading member of the Islamic-oriented government in the position is causing great concern among members of Turkey’s establishment, including the nation’s most powerful political faction–the men in uniform–who (thankfully) regard themselves as the guardians of the secular system.

The military said late on Friday that it was monitoring the elections with concern, and indicated it was willing to become more openly involved in the process.

In a statement posted on its website, the military said: “This is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and the democratic arrangement of civil-military relations.

“It should not be forgotten that the Turkish armed forces is one of the sides in this debate and the absolute defender of secularism.

“When necessary, they will display their attitudes and actions very clearly. No one should doubt that.”

Encouraged by the EU (and perhaps also by idiots in America’s appeasement-oriented State Department), the Turkish government responded defantly, declaring that the statement was not acceptable in a democracy. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the nation would oppose actions that would hurt political stability.

Speaking to the Turkish Red Crescent in Ankara on Saturday, he said: “This nation has paid a heavy, painful price when the base of stability and confidence has been lost. But it no longer allows, nor will it allow, opportunists who are waiting and paving the way for a disaster.”

Erdogan then convened a meeting with Abdullah Gul, the pro-Islamist foreign minister and the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) presidential hopeful, and some cabinet ministers.

On Friday, Gul failed to win enough votes in a controversial first round of voting in parliament. He secured 357 votes–just 10 short of the 367, or two thirds of all deputies–needed to win.

An insufficient number of legislators were present for a quorum, prompting an appeal by opposition membersin the constitutional court. They have called for early elections as the only way out of the impasse.

If the constitutional court rules in favour of the ruling party, Gul is likely to win in the third round when only a simple majority is required.

Though he has promised to uphold Turkey’s secular traditions, Gul is an Islamist in secular garb. At best, his victory (God forbid) would strengthen the role of Islam in politics; at worst, he would pave the way for an Islamist takeover.

His party has supported pro-Islamist religious schools and tried to lift the ban on Muslim headscarves in public offices. A ban on the backward, ugly headscarf is a sacred symbol of Turkish secularism; and Gul’s wife, Hayrunisa, has made a point of wearing it to show her Islamist leanings.

Hundreds of thousands of people recently demonstrated for secular ideals in the capital, Ankara, and another large rally was planned in Istanbul on Sunday.

If push comes to shove, secularists will support a military coup. The army is arguably the country’s most trusted institution; it has staged several coups in past decades, and in 1997 led a campaign that pressured an Islamic party–to which of which Erdogan and Gul both belonged–out of government.

At the time, the military issued warnings to the government to curb religious initiatives, while secularists took to the streets in protest against the government’s policies.

Arab School In New York To Teach “Multiple Perspectives” About America, Islam, Terrorism

Arab School In New York To Teach “Multiple Perspectives” About America, Islam, Terrorism

by Omri Ceren

No way this can go poorly:

The new school has yet to enroll a single student. But its very existence is at the heart of a controversy in New York. The Khalil Gibran International Academy was set up to teach students about Arab language and culture. The school is only expected to open in September, but has already been called ‘jihadi’ and ’segregationist’… Mr. Daniel Pipes, a conservative commentator, wrote on his blog: ‘In principle it is a great idea – the United States needs more Arabic-speakers. In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands.’

Not necessarily, Ms Almontaser said. ‘Being that we are a public school, we certainly are not going to be teaching religion,’ she said. Ms Almontaser said the school won’t shy away from sensitive topics such as colonialism and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. ‘Teachers are going to be expected to provide students with multiple perspectives on whatever the issue is. Students will, through the critical-thinking skills that they will develop, make informed decisions on the perspective that they want to believe.’

Yeah, it’s not necessary for Arabic instruction to be heavy with Islamist and Arabist shading. But in practice it always seems to turn out that way. Strange, that. Here’s the problem with “multiple perspectives”: sometimes, some people’s perspectives simply aren’t true. We know it’s kind of banal to point out, but it seems to get lost in odes to critical thinking skills.

There were multiple competing stories about the role of Jews in 1920s Germany, but only the Jewish story unlocked what was actually going on. In the Israeli-Arab conflict both sides sometimes exaggerate or obfuscate, but there is still a wild difference between Israelis underestimating the number of Palestinians at a checkpoint and the Palestinians making up tales of Israeli atrocities out of whole cloth. Just because those made up atrocities are parroted by weasel reporters using weasel phrases like “…but Palestinian sources insisted” – well, that doesn’t make those tales any more true.

That’s before we even get to which “multiple perspectives” will be represented in the textbooks being used in Arabic language classes. How many textbooks published in Arabic do you think fairly represent the Israeli side – big market for that, you think? When arguments are premised on lies, there can be no room for discussion. Pretending that the propaganda being fed to kids is actually grist for the critical thinking mill makes things worse, not better.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

This Summer’s War With Syria – Iranian Coordination Edition

This Summer’s War With Syria – Iranian Coordination Edition

by Omri Ceren

DEBKA is reporting that Syrian generals are visiting Tehran, coordinating and planning in preparation for a major was with Israel. Whether or not Syria is really gearing up for war (it’s a DEBKA so it might not be true except for the fact that it’s obviously true) – at the very least, it looks like the Iran-Syria alliance isn’t going anywhere:

[Syrian Ambassador to the US] Imad Moustapha, April 23, 2007: “Q. Some people hope engagement would be a way of wooing Syria away from its relationship with Iran? What are the chances?

A. It’s bemusing to hear this…. While we are the best possible friends with Iran, we don’t have the same policies as Iran. Iran has a well-publicized policy against Israel, but President Assad, at least once a month, has publicly invited the Israelis to peace talks in the last four years…. Iran is a friend to Syria. It is an ally on many issues. But we disagree with Iran on other issues.”

Maybe Assad could be convinced by another Pelosi visit. Last time she only wooed him by wearing a hijab. Maybe if she donned a full burka she could abase herself sufficiently to persuade him to stop supporting the current epicenter for global terrorism. Obviously, “best possible friends” leaves a lot of room for compromise, right? Here’s some more from this week on this summer’s impending war: Ha’aretz, Smooth Stone, and Meryl.

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]

Posted by Omri Ceren @ 12:59 pm |

Mainstream Caliphate Confessions

Mainstream Caliphate Confessions

coment by Jerry Gordon

My buddy Andy Bostom author of ‘The Legacy of Islam’ and a forthcoming companion volume, ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism’ has an interested ‘nugget’ of analysis he’s come up with from a survey of the Muslim world by a credible group and significant represenative sample. To wit:

‘Polling data just released (April 24, 2007) in a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/ interview survey of 4384 Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006 and February 15, 2007—1000 Moroccans, 1000 Egyptians, 1243 Pakistanis, and 1141 Indonesians—reveal that 65.2% of those interviewed—almost 2/3, hardly a “fringe minority”—desired this outcome (i.e., “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”), including 49% of “moderate” Indonesian Muslims. The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate is strongly suggested by a concordant result: 65.5% of this Muslim sample approved the proposition “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country.”

What these survey data results that Bostom has analyzed tell us is that a clear majority of the Muslim ummah favor a caliphate and strict application of sharia law.

Tells me that ‘assumptions’ about moderate Muslims being in the majority of the ummah is a veritable misnomer. But then Muslim advocacy groups have bought into the Religion of Peace ‘branding’ to dissaude us with their soothing taqiyyah. They have even duped politicians at the highest levels in our government and a fair number of media pundits who believe that extremists are a ‘thin’ minority.

by Andrew Bostom,, April 27, 2007

Writing in 1916, C. Snouck Hurgronje, the great Dutch Orientalist, underscored how the jihad doctrine of world conquest, and the re-creation of a supranational Islamic Caliphate remained a potent force among the Muslim masses:

…it would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated…the canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam—the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission.

Hurgronje further noted that although the Muslim rank and file might acknowledge the improbability of that goal “at present” (circa 1916), they were,

…comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms…

Thus even at the nadir of Islam’s political power, during the World War I era final disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, Hurgronje observed how

…the common people are willingly taught by the canonists and feed their hope of better days upon the innumerable legends of the olden time and the equally innumerable apocalyptic prophecies about the future. The political blows that fall upon Islam make less impression…than the senseless stories about the power of the Sultan of Stambul [Istanbul], that would instantly be revealed if he were not surrounded by treacherous servants, and the fantastic tidings of the miracles that Allah works in the Holy Cities of Arabia which are inaccessible to the unfaithful. The conception of the Khalifate [Caliphate] still exercises a fascinating influence, regarded in the light of a central point of union against the unfaithful (i.e., non-Muslims). [emphasis added] CONTINUE

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 5:17 pm |


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers