E-Verify Efforts In States Are Even More Critical As Pew Study Reveals 8 Million Illegal Aliens Still Hold U.S. Jobs

E-Verify Efforts In States Are Even More Critical As Pew
Study Reveals 8 Million Illegal Aliens Still Hold U.S. Jobs
Chris ChmielenskiAll federal and state enforcement efforts against illegal
immigration the last year failed to reduce the number of illegal aliens holding
U.S. jobs and keeping unemployed Americans from having them, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released this week.
In the few states that have seriously implemented their own mandatory E-Verify laws, the number of illegal aliens has
declined. But the annual count of illegal aliens by Pew indicated that the
illegal foreign workers are mainly moving to lax-enforcement states and taking
jobs there. Thus, the number of jobs held nationally by illegal aliens remained
steady at 8 million.
The answer, of course, is to make E-Verify mandatory nationally (through
Congress) or greatly increase the number of states doing so. But time is running
out in several states as their short legislature session head to a close for the
Yesterday, a Kentucky House committee approved a mandatory E-Verify bill,
but there’s still a lot of work to be done in the Bluegrass State and many other states across the country.
Continue to check your Action Board for new and updated state level faxes and phone
notes and make sure you’ve faxed your Three Members of Congress, urging them to
pass a mandatory E-Verify bill this year.
Roy’s newest blog highlights his Politico op-ed that ran on
Thursday, which demonstrates how mandatory E-Verify for all employers would fit
in perfectly with the Obama Administration’s current “soft-enforcement” approach
and free up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans.
GUMBALLS APPROACHES 1 MILLION: In less than 4 months, Roy’s
updated Immigration Gumballs video is just 30,000 views short of reaching the 1
Million views benchmark on YouTube.
This important video tests the humanitarian reasons for current U.S.
immigration policy, and should be viewed by all Americans, especially those
concerned with helping the world’s impoverished nations.
Please help us reach this important milestone by sharing the video with your
friends and family and also clicking the “thumbs-up” button on YouTube to
promote the video.
Chris Chmielenski
Website Content

We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

We Are Witnessing the Collapse of the Middle East

By James


If Egypt should fall, it will mark the beginning of the
end for what little remaining stability there is in the Middle East.  Jordan is
facing similar
, as are Algeria
and Yemen.
Lebanon and Tunisia fell in January.  It is highly unlikely that these events
are unrelated.  A combination of leftist and Islamist forces provoked the
protests, and we are likely looking at a ring of radical Islamic states rising
up to surround Israel.  Once their power is solidified, perhaps in a year or
two, they will combine forces to attack Israel.  If Israel falls, the United
States will stand alone in a sea of virulent enemies and impotent

So whom does Obama support, Mubarak or his enemies?
Obama wasted no time in telling us.  He supports Mubarak’s opponents, and
he probably has been all along.  The Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that
the Obama administration favors
a role
for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new Egyptian government.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest extremist Muslim organization, is behind
practically every Muslim terrorist organization ever formed.  And while they may
have publicly renounced violence as the LA Times article claims, internal
tell a completely different story.
And if that weren’t bad enough, Obama’s latest
to Egypt’s leader is that “an orderly transition … must begin
Must begin.  Now.
Simply stunning.
Juxtapose Obama’s statements toward our allies with his reaction to the
genuine uprising that occurred last year in Iran.  Tunisia:
“Reform or be overthrown.”  Egypt:
“an orderly transition … must begin now.”  Iran:
“It is not productive … to be seen as meddling.”  Meanwhile, candidate Obama
claimed that the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah have “legitimate claims,”
and we all remember his mindless counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, reaching
to “moderate” Hezb’allah members last spring.  Hezb’allah
The seeming inconsistency is astonishing.  Unfortunately, there is a
consistency.  Obama uniformly sides with our enemies but rarely, if ever, with
our friends and allies.  His administration is packed with far-left radicals and
.  And therein lies the rub, because what we are witnessing in
reality is this president’s un-American, anti-American, treasonous ideology in
full play.
Perhaps this is the real reason for Bill Ayers’s, Bernardine Dohrn’s, Code
Pink’s Medea Benjamin’s and Jody Evans’s trips
in 2009.  Following those trips, these same people made multiple
to the White House.
Obama’s breathlessly arrogant answer?  Not the same Ayers, Dohrn, Benjamin,
and Evans.  Sure.
A few years back, I
a quote by Lynn
, the National Lawyers
attorney jailed for helping blind sheikh Omar Adel Raman foment terror
from his New York jail cell.  One might think that atheistic radical leftists
would be foursquare against a political movement that tramples women’s rights,
murders homosexuals, and enforces strict theocratic mandates.  No such luck,
Stewart said:
They [radical Islamic movements] are basically forces of national
liberation. And I think that we, as persons who are committed to the liberation
of oppressed people, should fasten on the need for self-determination. … My
own sense is that, were the Islamists to be empowered, there would be movements
within their own countries … to liberate.
” … movements within their own countries … to liberate.”  Given recent
developments, Stewart’s statement was prescient.  But I think it had a special
meaning.  Because when movement leftists like Stewart talk about “liberation,”
they are really talking about communism.
It has been my longstanding assertion that Muslim terrorism is simply a
false flag operation, managed in the background by our main enemies, Russia and
Red China.  Almost since the beginning, Muslim terrorist organizations have been
supported and nurtured by the Soviet Union or its Middle Eastern surrogates.
Yasser Arafat’s PLO is a prime example.  Created by the KGB, the PLO was
always about providing a Soviet counterweight to Israel in the Middle East.
They were uninterested in the Palestinian cause, and they
said so
!  Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB defector poisoned by Polonium
210 in what was assumed to be a KGB hit, claimed in his book, Allegations,
that al-Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was a Soviet agent.  And
while today Hezb’allah is the de facto ruler of Lebanon, the real power is
Ba’athist Syria.
David Horowitz wrote of the alliance between leftists and Muslim terrorists
in his seminal book: Unholy
: Radical Islam and the American Left
.  He describes in detail
how the left and Muslim radicals work together to achieve their mutual ends: the
destruction of America.
It is incomprehensible that President Obama does not recognize the
strategic significance of what is happening, and if he does, then his support of
Egypt’s sham “democracy movement” is a naked betrayal of our Middle Eastern
allies and, by extension, our own country.
Unfortunately, his view is shared by some Republicans who are so in love
with the idea of “democracy” that it doesn’t matter to them that the “democrats”
in this case include fanatic mass murderers.  At best, it can be seen only as
incredibly myopic and ignorant to support Mubarak’s enemies.  People make the
same mistake Carter did with Iran and Nicaragua: they commit the logical error
of assuming that just because a country’s current leadership is flawed and
“undemocratic,” that automatically means that someone else would do better.
Newsflash: they can do worse, and almost without exception, they do, because
people who take power by street riot have no interest in “democracy.”
If their street revolutions are successful, these Middle Eastern countries
will rapidly degenerate into radical Muslim thugocracies allied with our
communist enemies.  Israel will be the first target, and with Obama’s radically
anti-Israel orientation, the Israelis will stand alone.  We will be next.  One
wonders if Obama will then stand to defend the country he swore to, or if he
will be out in the streets with his fellow radical leftists burning American

Page Printed from:

at February 04, 2011 – 02:29:23 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Morning Bell: The Reagan Recovery vs The Obama Recovery

Morning Bell: The Reagan Recovery vs The Obama Recovery

Posted By Conn Carroll On February 4, 2011 @ 9:25 am In Ongoing Priorities | 15 Comments

This Sunday is President Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday. It’s hard to comprehend the debt of gratitude our nation owes the 40th President of these United States. As Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought Lee Edwards details, Reagan embodied many of the classical virtues [1] that the best political leaders possess: courage, prudence, justice, and wisdom. And he used each of these virtues to create an environment where the U.S. economy could strongly recover from our last great recession. The current occupant of the White House ought to take some better notes.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research [2], our most recent recession began in December 2007, lasted 18 months, and ended in June 2009. The last recession that lasted this long began in July 1981, lasted 16 months, and ended in November 1982. In his 1983 State of the Union Address [3], President Reagan described an economic situation that mirrored our own today: “The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high.” But where President Obama responded to an economic recession with a bigger than $2 trillion expansion of government (more than $1 trillion on health care and almost $1 trillion in economic stimulus), President Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which cut marginal income tax rates across the board permanently. And the differences don’t end there. Read the rest of this entry »

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the Obama Administration

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Penetration of the Obama Administration
Posted By Jamie Glazov On February 3, 2011 @ 1:00 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage | 37 Comments
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com.  She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned  figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan  Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories —  notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. Her op-eds have been published in The Washington Times, The American Thinker, Israel National News, Frontpage Magazine, World Net Daily, and New Media Journal, among other publications. She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.
FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Well, perhaps for those who are familiar with your work and with your book, it is not a big surprise for them that Obama has endorsed a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in a new, post-Mubarak government for Egypt.
I would like to narrow in with you today about the Muslim Brotherhood’s penetration of the Obama administration. What can you tell us about this Islamist penetration of the White House?
Geller: Thanks Jamie.
The first thing we need to realize is that the Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States under a variety of names and organizational umbrellas. Technically, there is no “Muslim Brotherhood” in the United States. But the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others are – according to a document captured in a raid and released by law enforcement in 2007 during the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial) – Brotherhood-linked organizations.
FP: Right, and crystallize for us why we need to be concerned about Brotherhood-linked organizations in the U.S.
Geller: Because, Jamie, that same captured document explains that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission in the U.S. is “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
FP: And people with ties to these organizations are involved with the Obama Administration, right?
Geller: Yes they are, Jamie, in various ways. On the first day of his presidency, the President showed an eagerness to be friendly toward the Brotherhood: he chose Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA to offer a prayer at the National Cathedral during inaugural festivities on January 20, 2009.
Superficially, Obama’s choice was understandable: Ingrid Mattson was a Canadian convert to Islam who carefully cultivated the image of a moderate spokesperson. But ISNA has even admitted ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which calls itself “one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.”
Mattson has also tried to set Jews and Christians against one another. Speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government in March 2007, Mattson said: “Right-wing Christians are very risky allies for American Jews, because they [the Christians] are really anti-Semitic. They do not like Jews.”
But Obama didn’t seem to care about any of that. And so she prayed for Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009. And it gets worse: after that, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Senior Advisor for Public Engagement and International Affairs and a longtime, close Obama aide, asked Mattson to join the White House Council on Women and Girls, which is dedicated to “advancing women’s leadership in all communities and sectors – up to the U.S. presidency – by filling the leadership pipeline with a richly diverse, critical mass of women.”
A hijab-wearing leader of a group with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorists and Islamic supremacists – that’s diverse, all right!
FP: Yes diverse all right. I wonder why we haven’t heard Mattson coming to the defense of victims of honor killings and denouncing the Islamic theological teachings that serve as a buffer for those killings. It would be interesting to know what she would have to say about your article, Honor Killing: Islam’s Gruesome Gallery, where you humanize this tragedy by showing us the faces of dead victims and surviving victims of Islamic misogynist violence.
But I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for Mattson to comment. I encourage all of our readers to look at that Gallery to not only get an idea of the viciousness of Islamic gender apartheid, but also of what kind of people Obama is has around him — since they are the ones who are complicit in and sanction this violence.
Ok, let us move on. Tell us more about the Muslim Brotherhood presence in the Obama Administration.
Geller: In June 2009, Obama appointed a Muslim, Kareem Shora, to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Shora had been executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, a group that had generally opposed anti-terror efforts since 9/11 – as have all the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the U.S. But more worrisome was Obama’s appointment of another Muslim, Arif Alikhan, to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan is affiliated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which is another highly deceptive Brotherhood-linked group.
FP: Why did the President make these appointments?
Geller: These appointments were obvious attempts to show the Muslims of the United States and the world that anti-terror efforts were not anti-Islam or anti-Muslim. Shora and Alikhan would stand as moderate Muslims within the DHS, living illustrations of the iron dogma that all Muslims aside from a tiny minority were loyal Americans who abhorred Osama bin Laden and everything he stood for. But when he made the appointment, Obama didn’t notice, or didn’t care, that as deputy mayor of Los Angeles, Alikhan (who has referred to the jihad terrorist group Hizballah as a “liberation movement”) had blocked an effort by the Los Angeles Police Department to gather information about the ethnic makeup of area mosques.


FP: You mean to conduct surveillance in Los Angeles-area mosques?
Geller: No, Jamie. This was not an effort to close down Los Angeles mosques, or to conduct surveillance of them. There was no wiretapping or interrogation involved. No one would be jailed or even inconvenienced. Los Angeles Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing explained in 2007: “We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities.” But even outreach was too much for the hypersensitive Muslim leaders of Los Angeles: they cried racism, discrimination, and “Islamophobia” until the LAPD dropped the plan. And Arif Alikhan spearheaded their drive against this initiative.
Did Obama want him to bring to the Department of Homeland Security a similar sensitivity to the quickly wounded feelings of Muslims? I expect so.
FP: Talk a bit about that.
Geller: We are all well aware of Obama’s oft-stated commitment to defending and spreading the ideology of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Remember: in Cairo on June 4, 2009, Obama boasted that “the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it….I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.” Five days later, as if to show that Obama was serious about what he said in Cairo, his post-American Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Essex County, New Jersey, charging that the county had discriminated against a Muslim woman, Yvette Beshier.
Beshier was a corrections officer, and had been forbidden to wear her khimar, or headscarf, while working. When she refused to comply, the Essex County Department of Corrections (DOC) first suspended and then fired her – the khimar was not part of the uniform, and corrections officers were expected to conform to uniform policy. But such policies, of course, were drawn up before the days of politically correct multiculturalism. Instead of simply expecting employees to conform to company rules, now the company had to adapt to the religious particularities of its Muslim employees: Barack Obama’s Justice Department sued on Beshier’s behalf.
When Obama in Cairo boasted about fighting for hijab-wearing women in the United States, he promised to “punish” infidels for not submitting to the dictates and whims of Islam. The lawsuit that followed less than a week later showed that he was in earnest.
It was almost certainly the first time that the United States Justice Department had filed a lawsuit in order to enforce an element of Sharia, Islamic law.
On duty, Yvette Beshier, like all her fellow corrections officers, should have worn religiously neutral garb. Off duty, she could have dressed any way she wanted. But ultimately the Justice Department’s suit wasn’t really about the dress code at the Essex County Department of Corrections at all. It was about asserting Islamic practices in the U.S., and establishing and reinforcing the precedent that when Islamic law and American law and custom conflicted, it was American law that had to give way.
And that’s just how the Muslim Brotherhood would want it.
FP: Interesting. I wonder when Obama will make an announcement that will defend Muslim women’s right not to veil and not to fear physical violence or acid attacks on their faces when making that decision? Aqsa Parvez was killed by her father, in part, for not veiling. I wonder why Obama didn’t come to Aqsa’s defense? Thank you, Pamela, by the way, for coming to Aqsa’s defense.
So let’s talk about the upheaval in Egypt. What do you think of how Obama is handling the situation?
Geller: Obama approved of a role in the next Egyptian government for the Muslim Brotherhood just as a Brotherhood leader was calling for war several days ago with the tiny Jewish state. It was telling. What better way to unify the ummah than with tried-and-true, religiously mandated Islamic anti-semitism? For all of those quisling clowns desperately trying to scrub the Muslim Brotherhood, this declaration of war was a good hard slap in the face.
Further, it’s interesting how the Muslim Brotherhood is blaming Israel for Mubarak’s regime. They’re not blaming the $300 billion the US has pumped into Egypt. The Camp David Peace Accord (no matter how cold a peace it established) was a good thing. Now we hear that Obama’s would-be peace partners, the Muslim Brotherhood group Hamas, are going to destroy the accord. But they want peace with the Jews; get it? Me neither.
Obama has been secretly supporting this revolution for three years. Why? He ignored the people of Iran marching against the annihilationist mullahcracy of Iran. He gave his tacit support to mass slaughter where millions took to the streets.
Anyone who, like Obama, sees a Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt as a good thing secretly dreams of the annihilation of Israel. Big media is not giving you the story. Instead they have the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. group on, CAIR, calling in from Egypt (and mis-identifying Ahmed Rehab of CAIR as a “democracy activist”). And that was FOX. It’s that bad.
I don’t believe Obama “lost Egypt”; I believe he kicked it to the curb.
FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
And we encourage all of our readers to get their hands on Ms. Geller’s book, co-written with Robert Spencer, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

Muslim Brotherhood to Israeli TV: referendum to decide peace treaty

Muslim Brotherhood to Israeli TV: referendum to decide peace treaty

Feb 3, 2011, 19:30 GM


Tel Aviv – If the ‘revolution’ to oust Egyptian President  Hosny Mubarak succeeds, Egypt will hold a referendum to decide the  fate of its 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Israel’s Channel 10  television quoted a Muslim Brotherhood official as warning Thursday.

‘Israel has nothing to fear but its own crimes,’ Muslim  Brotherhood spokesman Assam el-Erian told the channel.

But he also gave reassurances that the Brotherhood was a ‘non-  violent’ and not an extremist organization.

Israel is following the unrest in Egypt closely and with concern,  fearing it could jeopardize its 31-year-old peace with the regional  super power to its southern border.

Israeli officials have warned of a scenario in which Muslim  extremists who might decide to discontinue the peace with Israel  could assume power in Egypt.

In Search of the Moderate Muslim World

In Search of the Moderate Muslim World
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On February 4, 2011 @ 12:10 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage |
As the crisis in Egypt continues, Western nations are faced with a conundrum of their own making:  how does one simultaneously demand that Arabic nations abandon their “7th century” mentality, best represented by oppressive, often totalitarian regimes, even as one knows the current uprisings against such regimes will likely produce results utterly antithetical to Western interests?  At this juncture, perhaps the best the West can hope for is clarity.
For the last ten years, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have worked mightily to convince the American public that the “overwhelming majority” of Muslims are “on our side” with regards to the global war against terror.  Yet if that were truly the case, then why has it been necessary to prop up autocratic regimes throughout the region for decades? With respect to Egyptians, a June 2010 Pew opinion survey reveals a decidedly different set of sensibilities: 59% of Egyptians back Islamists while only 27%  back modernizers; there is 50% support for Hamas, 30% for Hezbollah and 20% for al Qaeda. 95% of Egyptians would welcome Islamic influence in their political arena.
If Hosni Mubarak’s removal hands Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most virulent Islamic terrorist organizations in the world, the Obama administration will be roundly criticized for sitting back and “allowing it to happen.”  Already columnists in Israel are characterizing the administration’s wait-and-see policy as a “knife to the back.” Perhaps it is.  But in one respect, such a policy is hard to distinguish from that of a Bush administration which sat back and allowed Hamas to gain control of the West Bank via a democratic election.  Thus, while one can criticize the current administration for a certain level of naivete regarding reality, the idea that an American administration embraces democracy per se, irrespective of the outcome, is hardly new.
Where both administrations have faltered has to do with the idea of believing that democracy and freedom are interchangeable terms, and that the definition of freedom is a commonly understood concept which cuts across cultural boundaries.  If the result of the Egyptian democracy movement results in Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of the government–with acquiescence of the Egyptian people–freedom in the Western sense will be nowhere to be found.  If the people willingly trade a secular dictatorship for a religious one, it will be a terrible development for the West in every respect but one:
We will be forced to admit that substantial numbers of Muslims, perhaps even a majority, do not embrace Western values.

Such clarity may be the only bright light in an otherwise darkened sky.  If the uprisings occurring in the Middle East result in democratically elected religious tyrannies which openly express their hatred of the United States and their desire to destroy Israel, perhaps those long-deluded into believing ideas such as terrorism is a “law-enforcement problem,” or that massive Muslim emigration into Western countries is little cause for concern, or that Western accommodation to Muslim sensibilities must proceed without hesitation, will be snapped out of their delusion.  Perhaps phrases like “man-caused disaster” and “overseas contingency operation” will be tossed on the ash heap of history where they belong.  Perhaps an Israel completely surrounded by enemies will awaken Jewish liberals in both countries to the utter bankruptcy of their multicultural and morally relative fantasies.



Perhaps those who have long tut-tutted the idea that we may be in the midst of a civilizational struggle will have the blinders removed from their eyes.
No one in their right mind yearns for a clash of civilizations.  But for far too long, Western nations have largely dismissed the idea as neo-con warmongering, or the “politics of fear.” Those who have sounded the warnings are “Islamophobic.” Many Westerners simply cannot convince themselves that so-called radical Islam and moderate Islam may be one and the same thing, and that Muslims who are genuinely pro-Western are not only not the majority, but not even a substantial minority of the world’s 1.8 billion followers of Islam.
Despite such a possibility, many in Europe and America are thrilled with the prospect that a West which traded stability for democracy, even when such a tradeoff was the only practical reality, will reap a whirlwind of its own making.  Comments at many websites reveal the fantasies of anti-Semites convinced that the march of Arab democracy spells doom for Israel. Again, while such thinking is contemptible, it too reveals clarity: substantial numbers of Europeans and Americans view their own culture with contempt.  It is a contempt premised on the idea that a lack of perfection is tantamount to utter corruption, and that if everything isn’t worth saving, then nothing is.
Such talk is cheap and one need only remember the gut reaction of the overwhelming majority of Americans and Europeans immediately following 9/11 to know it.  That was the day when the theory of Western comeuppance gave way to the reality of it.  The West could be forgiven for not recognizing the enormity of Islamic discontent then.  We have no such excuses now, especially if the Middle East continues on its present trajectory, one day at a time, while the whole world watches.
We can hope for the best possible outcome, but we must prepare for the worst, even if that means preparing for a worldwide war.  We must begin recognizing we’ve spent the last ten years hoping that what we’d like to believe about the majority of Muslims is likely nothing more than wishful thinking.  No one truly knows what the majority of Muslims think.  Maybe not even Muslims themselves.  It is by their deeds that we shall know them.  In that sense, who finally gains control in Egypt, if democratically elected, will speak volumes.
Clarity may not be much.  But it’s far better than self-inflicted, politically correct delusion.


is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have
His references to past history are accurate and clear.  It is not long,
but easy to understand, and well worth the read…


author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and
well-respected psychiatrist.



German’s View on Islam”


man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number
of large industries and estates.  When asked how many German people were true
Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward


few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German
pride, and many more were too busy to care.  I was one of those who just thought
the Nazis were a bunch of fools.  So, the majority just sat back and let it all
happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the
end of the world had come.  My family lost everything. I ended up in a
concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my


are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the
religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in
peace.  Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely
irrelevant.  It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to
somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging
across the globe in the
name of Islam.


fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.  It is the
fanatics who march.  It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars
worldwide.  It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal
groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire
in an Islamic wave.  It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or
honor-kill.  It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.  It is the
fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and
homosexuals.  It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become
suicide bombers.


hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is
cowed and extraneous.


Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the
Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 40 million people.
The peaceful majority were irrelevant.  China’s huge population was peaceful as
well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million


average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering
sadist.  Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an
orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese
civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and


who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery.  Could it not be said that
the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?


lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason,
we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of


Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like
my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own
them, and the end of their world will have begun.
* Peace-loving Germans,
Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians,
Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful
majority did not speak up until it was too late.


for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that
counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of


anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without
sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to
expand.  So, extend yourself a bit and send this on!


Obama Gives Green Light to the Muslim Brotherhood

Obama Gives Green Light to the Muslim

February 3rd, 2011

Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post

As it braces for the likelihood of a new ruler in Egypt, the U.S. government
is rapidly reassessing its tenuous relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, an
opposition movement whose fundamentalist ideology has long been a source of
distrust in Washington.
Although the group has played a secondary role in the swelling protests that
are threatening to topple President Hosni Mubarak, U.S. officials have
acknowledged the political reality that the Muslim Brotherhood is poised to
assume at least a share of power should Egypt hold free and fair elections in
the coming months.
On Monday, in what analysts said was a clear reference to the Brotherhood,
the White House said a new government in Egypt should “include a whole host of
important non-secular actors.”
The move drew the skepticism of some U.S. officials who have argued that the
White House should embrace opposition groups that are more likely to support a
democratic government in Egypt, rather than one dedicated to the establishment
of religious law…
Members of the movement are often vague about their political goals. In an
interview this week with the BBC, Kamal el-Helbawy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader
in exile in Britain, said the group wants “freedom, consultation, equality,
freedom of everything.”
He ducked questions, however, about whether an Egyptian government led by the
Brotherhood would guarantee equal rights for other religious groups – such as
Egypt’s Coptic Christians – and women. When asked whether all women would be
required to wear veils, he said, “not necessarily.”
…Analysts said the movement strives in public to play down concerns about its
agenda, partly for self-preservation. By presenting itself as a moderate group
that would embrace a multi-party democracy, it seeks to preempt worries about
its goals, said Emad Shahin, an Egyptian American scholar at the University of
Notre Dame.
“They don’t want to be seen as taking part in an uprising or upheaval that
seeks to establish an Iranian-type government,” he said. “They need to shield
themselves behind a broader opposition front.”

Egypt, ‘Hurriyya’ Vs. Freedom, and ‘Muslim Moderates’

Egypt, ‘Hurriyya’ Vs. Freedom, and ‘Muslim Moderates’

Andrew G. Bostom


Ominous polling
from the contemporary Egyptian population reflect their deep,
longstanding favorable inclination toward the Sharia, in all its
totalitarian, brutally anti-freedom “glory.” The electorally successful Algerian
Sharia supremacists of two decades ago came up with an apt expression of where
such sentiments lead, given a one man, one vote (and likely, one time)
opportunity: Islamic
State by the Will of the People!
Despite ebullient
appraisals of events in Egypt — which optimistic observers insist epitomize
American hopes and values at their quintessential best — there is a profound,
deeply troubling flaw in such hagiographic analyses which simply ignore the vast
gulf between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom itself. The current
polling data indicating that three-fourths of the Egyptian population are still
enamored of the totalitarian Sharia confirms that this yawning gap still exists
strikingly so
— in our era.
Hurriyya (Arabic  for “freedom”) and the uniquely Western concept of
freedom are completely at odds. Hurriyya ‘freedom’ is  —  as Ibn Arabi (d.
1240) the  lionized “Greatest Sufi Master”, expressed it  —  “being perfect
slavery.” And this conception is not merely confined to the Sufis’ perhaps
metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the “master” and
his human “slaves.”
The late American scholar of Islam, Franz Rosenthal (d. 2003) analyzed the
larger context of hurriyya in Muslim society. He notes the historical absence of
hurriyya as  “…a fundamental political concept that could have served as a
rallying cry for great causes.”
An individual Muslim, “…was expected to consider subordination of his own
freedom to the beliefs, morality and customs of the group as the only proper
course of behavior…”.
Thus politically, Rosenthal concludes,
…the individual was not expected to exercise any free choice as to how he
wished to be governed…In general, …governmental authority admitted of no
participation of the individual as such, who therefore did not possess any real
freedom vis-a-vis it.
Bernard Lewis, in his analysis of hurriyya for the venerable
Encyclopedia of Islam, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the
Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. After highlighting a few
“cautious” or “conservative” (Lewis’ characterization) reformers and their
writings, Lewis maintains,
…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the
formation or conduct of government — to political freedom, or citizenship, in
the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West.
While conservative reformers talked of freedom under law, and some Muslim rulers
even experimented with councils and assemblies government was in fact becoming
more and not less arbitrary….
Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism
ameliorated this chronic situation:
During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was
never much of an issue. Though often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on
the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or
after.’ [emphasis added]
And Lewis concludes with a stunning observation, when viewed in light
of the present travails in Egypt and throughout the Muslim world, optimistic
assessments notwithstanding:
In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected
as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.
I would like to add these three germane observations. Two are from
scholars quite sympathetic to Islamic culture whose opinions are based upon very
different scholarly backgrounds — S.D. Goitein (d. 1985), a specialist in
classical Islam, and Muslim-Jewish relations in particular; and P.J. Vatikiotis
(d. 1997), a political scientist who focused on the modern era in the Middle
East, especially Egypt. Both men also lived for extended periods in the region.
The third is from a lecture Bat Ye’or — who lived her youth in Egypt — gave in
1998, with Elliot
All three observations serve (or should serve) to remind us of the profound
limitations of relying upon what Ibn
has aptly termed “protecting Islam from Enlightenment
values,” while supporting “dishonest tinkering” with Islamic doctrine (not to
mention complete denial of the historical consequences of such doctrine), in
lieu of the honest, mea culpa-based, wrenching reforms that are necessary to
transform Islamic societies.
Goitein, circa 1964, from p. 185 (Review: [untitled] Author(s): S. D.
Goitein Reviewed work(s): Modern Islam: The Search for Cultural Identity
by G. E. von Grunebaum Source: Journal of the American Oriental
, Vol. 84, No. 2, (Apr. – Jun., 1964), pp. 185- 186.)
The military or police dictatorships controlling today almost all Islamic
countries now appear not merely as successors or revivals of medieval despotism.
They are (credited with) fulfilling a function similar to that of the belief in
the God of Islam in the past-namely that of relieving man from the
responsibility for his own destiny.”
Vatikiotis circa 1981 (from Le Debat, [Paris], no. 14,
July-August, 1981), wrote:
What is significant is that after a tolerably less autocratic/authoritarian
political experience during their apprenticeship for independent statehood under
foreign power tutelage, during the inter-war period, most of these states once
completely free or independent of foreign control, very quickly moved towards
highly autocratic-authoritarian patterns of rule…One could suggest a hiatus of
roughly three years between the departure or removal of European influence and
power and overthrow of the rickety plural political systems they left behind in
Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and the Sudan by military coups d’etat.
Authoritarianism and autocracy in the Middle East may be unstable in the
sense that autocracies follow one another in frequent succession. Yet the ethos
of authoritarianism may be lasting, even permanent…One could venture into a
more ambitious philosophical etiology by pointing out the absence of a concept
of ‘natural law’ or ‘law of reason’ in the intellectual-cultural heritage of
Middle Eastern societies. After all, everything before Islam, before God
revealed his message to Muhammad, constitutes jahiliyya, or the dark age of
ignorance. Similarly, anything that deviates from the eternal truth or verities
of Islamic teaching is equally degenerative, and therefore unacceptable. That is
why, by definition, any Islamic movement which seeks to make Islam the basic
principle of the polity does not aim at innovation but at the restoration of the
ideal that has been abandoned or lost. The missing of an experience similar, or
parallel, to the Renaissance, freeing the Muslim individual from external
constraints of, say, religious authority in order to engage in a creative course
measured and judged by rational and existential human standards, may also be a
relevant consideration. The individual in the Middle East has yet to attain his
independence from the wider collectivity, or to accept the proposition that he
can create a political order.
Finally, I urge the reader to consider very carefully Bat Ye’or’s
analysis of “Muslim moderates” and their terrible failings — completely
squandered opportunities during the end of the colonial era (as noted above from
a different perspective by Vatikiotis) — from the perspective of a great
scholar who grew up among them, as a non-Muslim, indeed a Jew. Written 10 years
ago, the attitude she describes of complete denial by
Muslims, even “progressives,” and “moderates,” still applies with the rarest of
isolated exceptions. And the consequences of this ongoing denial are equally
It is this lack of testimony that has brought back the evils and the
prejudices of the past — the jihad mentality, and the laws of dhimmitude that
were only abolished by the colonial European powers. And now, more and more,
because of this lack of testimony, we see moderate Muslims themselves being
persecuted. Because they were indifferent to the humiliation of Jews and
Christians, because they remained silent and aloof, they now find themselves –
in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere – suffering from cruel injustices and
barbarism. Testifying together, giving testimony against dhimmitude, would have
allowed Muslim intellectuals to rethink their whole relationship with the People
of the Bible – and with all non-Muslims, and this without renouncing their
faith. Such an attitude would have brought all of us together in the fight
against tyrannical oppression, against the process of dehumanization. This is
what could have been done and what was not