Britain: English a Minority Language in Some London Schools
August 13, 2009 |
Pupils unskilled in English are becoming increasingly prevalent in British schools. This is a growing problem for more than just the education system.

Pupils who speak English as a first language are in the minority in 13 out of London’s 33 boroughs, according to official figures released Tuesday. Fifty-six percent of children in elementary schools in inner London do not speak English as their first language.

Throughout the country, English is not the mother tongue to one in seven elementary-school-aged children.

Such high numbers of inexperienced, and in many cases, incapable, English speakers is putting a heavy burden on Britain’s education system. Far more disturbing than this, though, is that it shows how much immigration is changing Britain.

The data, from the Department for Children, Schools and Families, shows that around one in five children are from ethnic minorities, up from roughly one in ten in 1997.

“These figures confirm the huge impact immigration is having on our society,” said Sir Andrew Green, from the Migrationwatch think tank. “When government funds are as tight as they are, this is bound to have a negative impact as children with English as an additional language will need extra tuition.”

The situation has gotten so bad that Green warned, “In inner London it’s hard to know who immigrant children are supposed to integrate with since they heavily outnumber local children.”

As noted in our article “The Trouble With Immigration: Cultural Impact,” language is a key component of culture. Therefore, the language spoken by immigrants is a key factor in their being assimilated into a nation’s culture. The article stated, regarding the immigration problem in America:

One of Abraham Lincoln’s most famous statements—actually quoting Jesus Christ—was that a house, or nation, divided against itself cannot stand. The division America faced in Lincoln’s day involved the lamentable mistreatment of the “strangers” within its gates—something God’s Word expressly forbids. But a century later, the cause for division had become the crusade to preserve immigrants’ cultural uniqueness by not assimilating. And this more recent problem has come to not only threaten American identity—but even to threaten internal peace and stability.

America is becoming increasingly divided due to massive immigration. Britain is suffering from the same problem. Watch for racial tensions to increase in both these countries. A divided Britain is a weak Britain. It is a Britain beset by internal strife. It is a Britain that, as Christ said, cannot stand.

For more information on the immigration problem and how, ultimately, it will be solved, read “The Trouble With Immigration.” •

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6418.4903.0.0

The Trouble With Immigration
From the December 2005
Foreigners can bring more than just their luggage.

Over 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants settle on American soil each year. Since 1990, the number of aliens living in the United States has mushroomed 43 percent; the Latino population alone doubled between 1980 and 2000, constituting 40 percent of all U.S. growth. Today, 1 in 10 people in America is a foreigner.

The immigration explosion is not exclusive to the U.S. Fully 40 percent of today’s Canadians were either born abroad or are the children of Canadians born elsewhere. By 2011, immigrants are projected to account for all net population growth in Canada.

Over the next 25 years, 84 percent of the United Kingdom’s population growth is expected to come from immigration.

As for illegal immigration, national borders are more porous than ever. In Canada, “gaps in Canada’s border security are so severe that an airport accepts international passengers without on-site immigration checks, a marine border unit has no boat, a computer glitch systematically hides information about terrorists, and officers at 62 border crossings are unable to link to a computer to screen incoming travelers” (National Post, April 11).

In the crowded UK, where the population is roughly 60 million, an estimated 500,000 workers are thought to be illegal. If spouses, dependents and those not working are added, the “illegal” population is close to 1 million and climbing.

Governments are polarized over the issue. In America, some yearn to liberalize immigration laws. Others assert that uncontrolled immigration has burgeoned into a huge disaster that is rapidly getting worse.

The debate in England over immigration and multiculturalism has taken on extra meaning since London’s terrorist bombings in July. In a few states in the U.S., illegal immigration has become so prevalent and its negative effects so dire that the state government has declared certain counties to be in a “state of emergency”—a protocol generally used in the wake of hurricanes, floods, mass riots or other catastrophes.

In this globalized world, immigration has become a global quandary.

This issue is a two-edged sword. What was once seen as a blessing to many nations has become a terrible curse with seemingly unsolvable repercussions. Too few understand the crux of this complex problem.

Two areas affected by immigration cause particular concern: the economy and crime.

Economic Impact

The hard work and perseverance of America’s early immigrants did much to help the U.S. become the richest and most powerful nation in the world. By 1869, in no small part thanks to the industrious nature of its immigrant population, America had attained the highest per-capita income in the world. That phenomenal wealth, together with a burgeoning population, created the world’s first consumer-driven economy.

But economic tragedy struck. The stock market crash of 1929 gutted the American economy and thrust the nation into unprecedented hardship. It was in the midst of this economic depression that American politicians laid the foundation for a welfare state. From this time forward, the American government became the crutch on which needy citizens could lean.

Concurrent with the rising popularity of the federal welfare programs was the burgeoning of immigration. Immigrants began streaming into America, where many of the poorest and least educated were no longer required to subscribe to the traditional American work ethic and instead could rely on the federal government to take care of them. Similar problems occurred in Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

This trend continues today, and the economic impact of immigrants on the federal government is phenomenal. Immigration analyst Norman Matloff stated, “The reason for this increased reliance on welfare is that for many immigrant groups, welfare in recent years has lost its stigma and has instead become a magnet, drawing them to the United States. As one Chinese senior in Oakland puts it, a common point of view is mh hou sit dai, Cantonese for ‘Don’t miss this great opportunity’” (Sacramento Bee, Dec. 14, 1994). Matloff cited census data showing that, for example, 55 percent of the Chinese seniors who immigrated to California from 1980 to 1987 were on welfare by 1990.

In the era of Big Government, burdening the middle class and the rich with heavy taxes and giving handouts to an increasing number of poor dependents is heightening the ethnic strife and racial stereotypes. In this respect, even legal immigrants are placing an increasing burden on the U.S. economy. When we factor in the economic cost of illegal immigrants, the picture grows increasingly dire. Illegal and legal immigration is costing America billions.

The Center for Immigration Studies (cis) estimated the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget: “[W]hen all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion” (“The High Cost of Cheap Labor,” August 2004).

No state has been more impacted financially by both illegal and legal immigration than California. “Analysis of the latest census data indicates that California’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident” (Federation for American Immigration Reform, “The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians,” November 2004).

The economic costs associated with immigration are hitting the UK as well. The influx of immigrants has profoundly cost the government. The budget of the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office in the fiscal year of 1998-1999 was 300 million pounds; by 2003-2004 that amount had risen to 1.9 billion pounds—a jaw-dropping increase of 633 percent.

Many of these immigrants are asylum seekers. More people apply for asylum in Britain than in any other EU country. Why? Because it’s easier to enter, remain and claim asylum status there compared to other EU countries like Germany or France. Anyone can claim asylum upon arriving in the UK and cannot be expelled until his claim is rejected and he has exhausted any right of appeal. “Meanwhile, the claimant is entitled to free accommodation, emergency health care, children’s education, a cash allowance and free legal aid” (www.migrationwatch.org, February 2005).

Families that are denied asylum “continue to receive benefits worth an average of 15,000 pounds a year tax-free” (ibid., January 2004). Britain’s shadow immigration minister admitted to the presence of over 250,000 failed asylum seekers in the UK (Express, May 18).

An added economic consequence of immigration is the bleeding of cash from host countries. Upon locating work in their host nation, many immigrants (legal or illegal) send a portion of their paychecks back home to their families. In the U.S., for example, Mexicans will send home $20 billion this year alone, according to projections by Mexico’s Central Bank. This flood of cash will probably be the largest source of foreign exchange in Mexico. The cash from Mexicans working in the U.S. is a driving force behind Mexico’s economy: It amounts to the equivalent of 2 percent of its gross domestic product. No wonder the Mexican government has done little to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and, in many documented cases, has actually condoned their illegal entry.

In 2004, India received $17.5 billion in the same manner. China, Pakistan and the Philippines also receive substantial wads in remittance. For these nations, illegal immigration is paying off quite nicely.

Crime

Heather Mac Donald, in an article titled “The Illegal Alien Crime Wave,” wrote, “Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime committed by aliens is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status” (City Journal, Winter 2004; emphasis ours throughout). Mac Donald highlighted Los Angeles as an example: The city is home to numerous gangs, many of which are comprised of illegal immigrants from around the world—particularly Asia, Latin America and South America. Alone and often without money or a place to live, illegal immigrants in big cities are prone to joining gangs in order to acquire food and shelter. Feeling secure among people of his own race or status (illegal), the new immigrant oftentimes embraces the gang as a surrogate family, and crime becomes his new occupation.

Mac Donald highlighted the following examples:

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
A California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in Southern California was illegal; police officers said the proportion was actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborated with the Mexican Mafia—the dominant force in California prisons—on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion and drive-by assassinations, and committed an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang had grown dramatically over the previous two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. A Mexican Mafia member and an illegal alien controlled the gang from prison while serving time for felonious reentry following deportation.
Referring to another L.A. gang, Mac Donald stated, “[D]ozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have [sneaked] back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal for violating the lapd’s [Los Angeles Police Department’s] rule against enforcing immigration law.

“The lapd’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin and Houston. These ‘sanctuary policies’ generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.”

Making matters worse than the fact that illegal immigration contributes to high crime rates in many of America’s larger cities is the reality that many of the illegal immigrants committing the crimes are protected by misguided policies set up by city and state governments.

“[Sanctuary] laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal alien crime wave. ‘We can’t even talk about it,’ says a frustrated lapd captain. ‘People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.’ Another lapd commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: ‘I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].’ Neither captain would speak for attribution” (ibid.).

James R. Edwards, an author who specializes in immigration, stated, “The impact [of illegal immigration] is seen particularly in crime: Record-high auto thefts in Arizona, drug trafficking in Salt Lake City, human smuggling rings in Los Angeles, D.C. sniper Lee Malvo, money laundering, prostitution, gang murders, and even slavery” (The Claremont Institute, Nov. 22, 2004). The evidence proves that illegal immigrants are a driving force behind high crime rates in many American cities, particularly those close to the southern border.

Reflecting the impact illegal immigrants are having on America’s crime statistics is the impact they are having on the U.S. prison system. America’s prisons are chock-full of illegal immigrants. The facts and figures are stunning.

“In 2002, nearly 29 percent, or 39,000 inmates, in the federal prison system were non-citizens. Based on prior research, we estimated that 59 percent of this total are illegal aliens. This translates into 17 percent of the federal prison population, and thus 17 percent of the $4.1 billion prison budget can be attributed to illegal alien households” (cis, op. cit.). The fact that 17 percent of America’s prisoners are illegal immigrants demonstrates the vast extent of their involvement in crime and criminal activities.

In Britain, illegal immigrants similarly contribute to crime. The large numbers of illegal immigrants seeking to work in the UK give rise to organized criminals who recruit and supply cheap labor for agricultural, catering, construction, food processing and manufacturing job markets. The majority of illegal immigrants entering the UK would not be able to do so without forged or stolen travel documents, transportation access, fraudulent sponsorship and other benefits provided by these crooks.

“Serious and organized criminals involved in both smuggling and trafficking make extensive use of bribery and corruption to support their activities. They exploit border guards, police and customs officers, and a range of political and official contacts in order to operate unhindered. They also collude with professionals who can assist them, including those in the legal profession” (National Criminal Intelligence Service report, 2003). Some illegal immigrants work for months or years to pay off the fee that these criminals charge.

Evidence also shows that illegal immigrants are used by organized criminals in drug trafficking, vehicle theft and even aggressive begging and pick-pocketing (especially in bigger cities like London) in order to obtain credit cards that can be used for further criminal activity.

Some believe immigration restrictions would not help solve crime problems and that the focus rather needs to be on dealing with the crime itself. They argue that crime is an inherent part of any society. While this argument has some validity because it recognizes that crime will exist as long as human nature remains unchanged, it is flawed.

Consider the gang situation in California. If every illegal immigrant was deported out of California and if illegals were prevented from coming in and joining gangs, would gang-related criminal activity stop? No. But would it drop? Yes—and probably quite dramatically.

While prevention of illegal immigration wouldn’t cure our crime problems, it would definitely reduce the number of crimes occurring in many of our larger cities, particularly those closer to our borders.

Because our enforcement agencies are handcuffed by lack of resources, as well as bureaucracy and political correctness, criminal activity conducted by illegal immigrants will only grow worse. Our cities will increasingly be robbed of peace and safety.

Terrorists in Our Midst

The economic and criminal impact of poorly managed immigration is hijacking the economies and largely peaceful societies of the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada. Uncontrolled immigration, however, presents an even more sobering threat.

“After decades of attempting to dam the flow of Mexican immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, federal agents say a new crisis is emerging along the southern border, and they are helpless to stop it. Non-Mexicans are spilling over the border in record numbers—some from countries with terrorist ties—and most are set free soon after being captured” (Christian Science Monitor, July 26). America’s porous borders have become an attractive option for terrorists seeking entry into the nation.

“Already this year the number of non-Mexican apprehensions has far outpaced last year’s total in just eight months” (ibid.). Illegal immigrants from nations other than Mexico are flooding into America at an unprecedented rate.

“Other than Mexicans” (otms) must be returned to their country of origin. Officials cannot just send them back across the southern border, as they do most Mexicans. U.S. law dictates that they be detained in the U.S. pending a deportation hearing. “The problem is, immigration detention centers are packed, so most otms are given a court summons and told to return in three months. A full 85 percent don’t” (ibid.).

According to the U.S. Border Patrol, 465,000 otms have exploited this “catch and release” program and settled illegally in the United States. The Christian Science Monitor quoted T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council: “It’s an insane policy which encourages otms to come into the country illegally, and we shouldn’t be shocked that they are coming in record numbers.” While most otms come from Central and South America, more than 600 of them entered the U.S. in 2004 from “countries of concern”—countries that support terrorists.

There is no mistaking the fact that weak immigration policies and practices are contributing to the economic and societal destruction of America, Britain and Canada. Combine these facts with the probability that terrorists are penetrating our porous borders and setting up camp, and we should easily recognize the severity of the immigration issue. This is a serious problem. National security is on the line.

The solution lies beyond politics. The curses immigration has thrust upon the Western world were prophesied in the Bible. The reasons behind the failure of our immigration practices are spiritual.

In our book The United States and Britain in Prophecy (free to Trumpet readers upon request), we explain that the nations of America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK comprise the peoples of biblical Israel. This is important to understand, because the Bible has specific prophecies concerning these nations. One of those prophecies discusses the problem that these nations would have with immigration.

God gave a dire warning to the Israelite peoples concerning immigrants from other cultures (the Bible uses the word strangers). He said that if the children of Israel were to rebel against His laws—to turn away from His commandments and embrace the practices of the heathen—they would suffer terribly (Deuteronomy 28:15-19). The curses included this prophecy: “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee: And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever” (verses 43-46).

The imminent fulfillment of the stranger rising up in great numbers and overwhelming the Israelitish people is a sign of God’s curses being poured out on these nations. Lax immigration policies and weak borders are playing an instrumental role in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. God is cursing the nations of biblical Israel for their failure to hold fast to His laws. God is humbling us—imploring us to turn to Him.

Unless the people of Israel repent, “strangers” will continue to pour through their ports of entry and get above them until they lose the inheritance afforded them by Almighty God. It is prophetic fulfillment. It is happening even as you read this magazine. •

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=1930.825.78.0

NOT MUCH DIFFERENT TO WHAT ENOCH POWELL WARNED OF….

May 27, 2005

“Murio la Verdad”
Infiltrating Bilderberg 2005
By DANIEL ESTULIN

The annual secret meeting of the Bilderberg group determines many of the headlines and news developments you will read about in the coming months. But the Establishment media completely black it out. With the exception of half-a-dozen high ranking members of the press who are sworn to secrecy, few have ever heard of the exclusive and secretive group called The Bilderbergers.

Mainstream news organizations boastful about their no-holds barred investigative exploits, have been strangely reluctant to lift the blackout curtain hiding a major event: the Bilderberg group’s secret annual meeting for the world’s most powerful financiers, industrialists, and political figures.

2005 was a bad year for Bilderberg and its future looks gloomy. Herculean efforts to keep their meetings secret in Rottach-Egern failed miserably. Bilderberg’s grief is free world´s glory-and hope for further restraining the power grabbers in the dawn of a new millennium.

One certainty is that although Bilderberg Group has lost some of its past luster, it is meeting under its usual secrecy that makes freemasonry look like a playgroup. Staff at the hotel are photographed and put through special clearance. From porters to senior managers, the employees are warned (under the threat of never working in the country again) about the consequences of revealing any details of the guests to the press.

International and national media are said to be welcome only when an oath of silence has been taken, news editors are held responsible if any of their journalists ‘inadvertently’ report on what takes place.

While Bush, Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi and Company attended the G8 summits of the world’s foremost democratically elected leaders, they were accompanied by the massed ranks of the world media. In stark contrast, the comings and goings at Bilderberg take place under cover of a virtual publicity black-out.

The discussions they will engage in this year from deciding how the world should deal with European-American relations, the Middle East powder keg, the Iraq war, the global economy and how to stave off war in Iran, and the consensus they reach, will influence the course of Western civilization and the future of the entire planet. This meeting takes place behind closed doors in total secrecy, protected by a phalanx of armed guards.

What was on Bilderberg´s 2005 agenda?

After three straight years of open hostilities and tension amongst the European, British and American Bilderbergers caused by the war in Iraq, the aura of complete congeniality amongst them has returned. Bilderbergers have reaffirmed and remain united in their long-term goal to strengthen the role the UN plays in regulating global conflicts and relations.

However, it is important to understand that Americans are no more the “Hawks” than the European Bilderbergers the “Doves”. Europeans joined in supporting the 1991 invasion of Iraq by President Bush father, celebrating, in the words of one notable Bilderberg hunter the end of “America’s Vietnam syndrome.” Europeans also supported former President Bill Clinton’s invasion of Yugoslavia, bringing NATO into the operation.

A much-discussed subject in 2005 at Rottach-Egern was the concept of imposing a direct UN tax on people worldwide through a direct tax on oil at the wellhead. This, in fact, sets a precedent. If enacted, it will be the first time, when a non-governmental agency, read the United Nations, directly benefits from a tax on citizens of free and enslaved nations.

Bilderberger proposal calls for a tiny UN levy at the outset which the consumer would hardly notice. Jim Tucker of the court-killed Spotlight magazine years ago wrote “establishing the principle that the UN can directly tax citizens of the world is important to Bilderberg. It is another giant step toward world government. Bilderbergers know that publicly promoting a UN tax on all people on Earth would meet with outrage. But they are patient; it first proposed a direct world tax years ago and celebrates the fact that it is now in the public dialogue with little public attention or concern.”

Bilderberg wants “tax harmonization” so high-tax countries could compete with more tax-friendly nations-including the United States-for foreign investment. They would “harmonize” taxes by forcing the rate in the United States and other countries to rise so that socialist Sweden’s 58-percent level would be “competitive.”

NGOs

The rise of the NGOs, a development former President Clinton suddenly [one day after it was discussed at Rottach-Egern] calls one of “the most remarkable things that have happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” Ironically, Clinton´s statement was picked up by The Wall Street Journal, a paper always represented at the Bilderberg meetings by Robert L. Bartley, its Vice President and Paul Gigot, editorial page editor.

The Bilderbergers have been vigorously debating to have, for the first time, unelected, self-appointed, environmental activists be given a position of governmental authority on the governing board of the agency which controls the use of atmosphere, outer space, the oceans, and, for all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for “civil society” to participate in global governance is described as expanding democracy.

According to sources within Bilderberg, the status of NGOs would be elevated even further in the future. The NGO activity would include agitation at the local level, lobbying at the national level, producing studies to justify global taxation through UN organizations such as Global Plan, one of Bilderberg´s pet projects for over a decade. The strategy to advance the global governance agenda specifically includes programs to discredit individuals and organizations that generate “internal political pressure” or “populist action” that fails to support the new global ethic. The ultimate objective, according to the source, being to suppress democracy.

The United Nations Environment Programme, along with all the environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are themselves appointed by the President of the United States, who is controlled by the Rockefeller-CFR-Bilderberg interlocking leadership

This new mechanism would provide a direct route from the local, “on-the-ground” NGO affiliates of national and international NGOs to the highest levels of global governance. For example: The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of affiliated NGOs, recently petitioned the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO asking for intervention in the plans of a private company to mine gold on private land near Yellowstone Park. The UNESCO Committee did intervene, and immediately listed Yellowstone as a “World Heritage Site in Danger.” Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, the United States is required to protect the park, even beyond the borders of the park, and onto private lands if necessary.

The ideas being discussed, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a global neighbourhood managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals, and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, certified to support a belief system, which to many people – is unbelievable and unacceptable.

Elections in Britain

Bilderbergers are celebrating the result it wanted. The return of a much humbled Tony Blair to 10 Downing Street with a much reduced parliamentary majority. European Bilderbergers are still angry at him for supporting America´s war in Iraq. While teaching Blair a useful lesson in international politics, Bilderbergers feel he is a far safer candidate to continue on the path of European integration than his conservative rival Michael Howard.
Neo-conservative agenda

In full force was that faction known as the so-called “neo-conservatives”–those who have determined that Israel’s security should come at the expense of the safety to the United States and be central to all U.S. foreign policy decisions.

Most notable among this group is the Israeli spy Richard Perle, who was investigated by the FBI for espionage on behalf of Israel. Perle played the critical role in pushing the United States into the war against Iraq. He was forced to resign from the Pentagon´s Defense Policy Board, on March 27, 2003 after it was learned that he had been advising Goldman Sachs International, a habitual Bilderberg attendee, on how it might profit from the war in Iraq.

Another neo-conservative figure on hand was Michael A. Ledeen, an “intellectual´s intellectual.” Ledeen serves for the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank founded in 1943, with which Richard Perle has long been associated. AEI and the Brookings Institution operate a Joint Center for Regulatory Studies (JCRS) with the purpose of holding lawmakers and regulators “accountable for their decisions by providing thoughtful, objective analyses of existing regulatory programs and new regulatory proposals.” The JCRS pushes for cost-benefit analysis of regulations, which fits with AEI’s (and Bilderberger) ultimate goal of deregulation.

These neo-conservatives were also joined this year at Bilderberg by a handful of other top former Washington policy makers and publicists known for their sympathies for Israel, including former State Department official Richard N. Haas, president of the CFR, former Assistant Secretary of State and “father” of the Dayton accord, Richard Holbrooke, and Dennis Ross of the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, effectively an offshoot of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and JINSA as well as the newly elected World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz.

Dennis Ross, Richard N. Perle, and company are itching to “transfer”­ translation: to ethnically cleanse ­ as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible. “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories,” former Prime Minister Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University in 1989. The residents of the European Community may be clueless about the intentions of Zionists toward the Palestinians, but in Israel, to my astonishment, ethnic cleansing is a popular subject of discussion. Fifty percent or more of Israelis think ethnic cleansing is a good idea. This from a nation that supposedly remembers the Holocaust. Fiction, is indeed stranger than the truth.

Energy

An American Bilderberger expressed concern over the sky-rocketing price of oil. One oil industry insider at the meeting remarked that growth is not possible without energy and that according to all indicators, world’s energy supply is coming to an end much faster than the world leaders have anticipated. According to sources, Bilderbergers estimate the extractable world’s oil supply to be at a maximum of 35 years under current economic development and population. However, one of the representatives of an oil cartel remarked that we must factor into the equation, both the population explosion and economic growth and demand for oil in China and India. Under the revised conditions, there is apparently only enough oil to last for 20 years. No oil spells the end of the world’s financial system. So much has already been acknowledged by The Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times, two periodicals who are regularly present at the annual Bilderberg conference.

Conclusion: Expect a severe downturn in the world’s economy over the next two years as Bilderbergers try to safeguard the remaining oil supply by taking money out of people’s hands. In a recession or, at worst, a depression, the population will be forced to dramatically cut down their spending habits, thus ensuring a longer supply of oil to the world’s rich as they try to figure out what to do.

During the afternoon cocktail, European Bilderberger noted that there is no plausible alternative to hydrocarbon energy. One American insider stated that currently the world uses between four and six barrels of oil for every new barrel it finds and that the prospects for a short term break through are slim, at best.

Someone asked for an estimate to the world´s accessible conventional oil supply. The amount was quoted at approximately one trillion barrels. As a side note of interest, the planet consumes a billion barrels of oil every 11.5 days.

Another Bilderberger asked about hydrogen alternative to the oil supply. The US government official agreed gloomily that hydrogen salvation to the world´s eminent energy crisis is a fantasy.

This confirms public statement made in 2003 by HIS, the world´s most respected consulting firm cataloguing oil reserved and discoveries that for the first time since the 1920s there was not a single discovery of an oil field in excess of 500 million barrels.

The oil industry at the 2005 Bilderberg conference was represented by John Browne, BP´s Chief Executive Officer, John Kerr, Director Royal Dutch Shell, Peter D. Sutherland, BP Chairman and Jeroen van der Veer, Chairman Committee of Managing Directors Royal Dutch Shell.

It should be remembered that in late 2003, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, announced that it had overstated its reserved by as much as 20 percent. Queen Beatrix of Holland, Royal Dutch Shell´s principal shareholder is a full fledged member of the Bilderbergers. Her father, prince Bernhard was one of the founders of the group back in 1954. The Los Angeles Times reported that “For petroleum firms, reserves amount to nothing less that ´the value of the company´. In fact, Shell cut its reserve estimates not once, but three times, prompting the resignation of its co-chairman. At Rottach-Egern, in May 2005, industry’s top executives tried to figure out how to keep the truth about diminishing oil reserves from reaching the public. Public knowledge of the diminishing reserved directly translates into lower share prices, which could destroy financial markets, leading to a collapse of the world economy.
EU referendum in France

The first day of secret meetings at Bilderberg 2005 was dominated by talk of EU referendum in France and whether Chirac can persuade France to vote Yes on May 29. A Yes vote, according to sources within Bilderberg would put a lot of pressure on Tony Blair to finally deliver Britain into the waiting arms of the New World Order through their own referendum on the treaty scheduled for 2006. Matthias Nass wondered out load that a No vote in France could undoubtedly cause political turmoil in Europe and overshadow Britain’s six-month EU presidency starting on July 1. Bilderbergers, hope that Blair and Chirac, whose at times open animosity has spilled into a public arena on more than one occasion, can work together for mutual benefit and political survival. Another European Bilderberger added that both leaders must put behind them as quickly as possible all past disputes on such topics as Iraq, the liberalization of Europe´s economy and the future of budget rebate Britain receives from the EU and work towards complete European integration, which could desintigrate if France´s often “hard-headed and obstinate people”, in the words of a British Bilderberger, do not do the right thing, meaning give up voluntarily their independence for the “greater good” of a Federal European super state!

A German Bilderberger insider said that France´s Yes vote is in trouble because of the “outsourcing of jobs. Jobs in Germany and France are going to Asia and Ukraine,” [to take advantage of cheap labour.] Ukraine is one of the former Soviet republics that have been admitted to the European Union bringing the total membership to 25 nations. A German politician wondered out loud how Tony Blair shall go about convincing Britons to embrace the European Constitution when due to the outsourcing of jobs, both Germany and France are suffering a 10% unemployment while Britain is doing well economically.

USA criminals

A USA law called Logan Act, states explicitly that it is against the law for federal officials to attend secret meetings with private citizens to develop public policies. Although Bilderberg 2005 was missing one of its luminaries, US State Department official John Bolton who was testifying before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the American government was well represented in Rottach-Egern by Alan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy and director of the National Economic Council; William Luti, deputy under secretary of defence; James Wolfensohn, outgoing president of the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of state, an ideologue of the Iraq war and incoming president of the World Bank. By attending Bilderberg 2005 meeting, these people are breaking Federal laws of the United States.

Auna Telecomunicaciones

At a Saturday night cocktail [May 7] at the luxurious Dorint Sofitel Seehotel Überfahrt in Rottach-Egern, Bavaria, Munich, several Bilderbergers sharing the standing bar with Queen Beatrix of Holland and Donald Graham, Washington Post´s CEO were discussing the up-coming sale of Spanish telecommunications and cable giant Auna. Auna operates fixed line telephone services, a mobile-phone network, cable television system and is also an Internet provider. One of the Bilderbergers familiar with the matter [believed to be Henry Kravis, based on the physical description of the source at the meeting] stated that Auna´s mobile operations could bring in some 10 billion euros including debt, while another Bilderberger, a tall man with a receding hairline added that its fixed-line assets could fetch some 2.6 billion euros. Sources close to the Bilderbergers have stated off-the-record that Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, a private-equity firm is interested in buying all of Auna. An abundance of cheap credit and low interest rates have made Auna an appetising target for private-equity buyers.

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co is represented at Bilderberg meetings by its luminary billionaire Henry Kravis and his small town Quebec-born wife Marie Joseé Kravis, a Senior Fellow at the neoconservative organization Hudson Institute.

Conclusions: Expect favourable coverage and support for Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co from Grupo Prisa whose Consejero Delegado Juan Luis Cebrian always attends super secret Bilderberg meetings. In case Kravis fails to put together a competitive bid, then expect the same favourable coverage for Goldman Sachs Group, whose Martin Taylor is Bilderbergers Honorary Secretary General and whose other Bilderberger, Peter Sutherland is Goldman Sachs´ Chairman as well as Trilateral Commission´s European Chairman. In the past, exposing Bilderberg meetings has provided advance warning-months ahead of the mainstream media-of U.S. Iraqi invasion, tax increases, and the downfall of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister of Britain.

Indonesia-Malaysia stand-off

A political and military confrontation between these two nations in the petroleum-rich Sulawesi Sea [both claim the oil-rich area of Ambalat as their territorial rights] was the topic of a much animated discussion amongst several American and European Bilderbergers during an afternoon cocktail. An American Bilderberger waving his cigar suggested using the UN to “further a peace policy in the region”. In fact, Bilderbergers at the lounge table all agreed that such a conflict might well give them an excuse to garrison the disputed area with UN “Peacekeepers” and thus ensure their ultimate control over the exploitation of this treasure, meaning untapped oil reserves.

China

European and American Bilderbergers realising the most urgent of needs to expand into developing markets in order to help sustain the illusion of endless growth have agreed to name Pascal Lamy, a French Socialist and a fanatical supporter of a European super state as the next WTO President. It will be remembered that Washington gave a conditional support to Lamy´s nomination in exchange to European support of Paul Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank. According to insider sources within the Bilderberger group, Lamy was chosen to help steer the global trading system through a time of rising protectionist sentiment in rich countries such as France and Germany, both reeling from high unemployment and reticent to increasingly muscular demands for market assess from emerging economies. Third World states, for example, are insisting on cuts to EU and US farm subsidies. The WTO liberalization drive collapsed in acrimony in Seattle in 1999 and again in Cancun in 2003. The Bilderbergers have secretly agreed on the need to force the poor countries into a globalized market for cheap goods while simultaneously forcing the poor into becoming customers. The current rift with China is a good example, as the Chinese have flooded the Western countries with cheap goods, amongst them textiles, driving down prices. As a trade off, the Bilderbergers have entered into an emerging market ripe and vulnerable to superior western know-how. Similar develop-ing countries are slowly acquiring more purchasing power and the industrialized world is gaining a foothold in their domestic economies by targeting them for cheap exports.

* * *

One can’t help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Queen Beatrix and the rest have completed their project of enclosing all global goods and services into their own hands. What then?
Francisco Goya´s Plate 79 of Disasters shows the fair maid of Liberty flat on her back, bosom exposed. Ghostly figures play about the corpse while monks dig her grave. Truth has died. Murió la verdad. How is that for an alternative? Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we can’t ask the proper questions.

Daniel Estulin is a political commentator living in Madrid, author of four books on communication skills. He can be reached at: d.estulin@ctconsultoria.com

http://www.counterpunch.org/estulin05272005.html

UN´s Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Communist World Government without Steaks and Global Unity Religion without God

Print Post
Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

Summary: The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on 7th-13th December is only a make-believe climate matter, although the EU is considering the introduction of CO2 taxes in addition to the farce of the CO2 emission trading at the London Climate Exchange (ECX). It is about agreeing a framework for a world government, as the UN Secretary General clearly says. To this end the Dalai Lama’s disciple in the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality, Al Gore, is unfolding training programs for the gullible leaders of major religions. First they will quarrel externally on redistributing wealth of more than 100 billion. euros. Prior secret meetings are taking place between ministers at regular intervals (just as the Danish Parliament did when debating the Lisbon Treaty in order to cheat us of a referendum). The mendacious political – not scientific – NGO, the IPCC, is to outline the CO2 policy. Especially Africans, who have very small CO2 emissions, must have the reallocated money for allegedly becoming “climate refugees”. Westerners have to become vegetarians, says Lord Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and a Fabian socialist. For after Copenhagen, meat wil become so expensive that it can not be bought. Reason: Animals emit too much methane! And that´s the new gospel from Al Gore, who states that CO2 is inly responsibele for 40% of global warming – much to the annoyance of tax-hungry globalists

The New World Order program for the 21st century is called the “Agenda 21″. It is described as the most radical transformation the world has seen. It is sustainable (Communist), inclusive, consensus-based (anti-democratic), will redistribute wealth globally (CO2 taxes, since it connects environment and economy), partnership, banishes large areas from human activity, lumps us together in small areas along motorways and railways in skyscrapers in order to monitor people, kidnaps a generation of children to indoctrinate them into the sustainability religion (environmental Communism). Every country is to be disarmed and there will be a standing UN army to crush rebellions, a global central bank and a one world currency. Democracy and freedom already belong to the past. The illuminist, CFR member George Soros, now demands UN world government afte Communist Chinese model.

The UN Copenhagen Climate Change conference has above all a political aim: world government. The Wall Street Journal 28 Oct. 2009: The developed countries will send a flow of money to the LDCs via the UN – a 2 % tax being levied on financial transactions… This (climate) treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And …there are plenty of draft clauses described as “alternatives” and “options” that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.
Lord Christopher Monckton only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site with a document that was labelled a “Note by the Secretariat.” The illuminist, CFR member George Soros, now demands UN world government afte Communist Chinese model.

But in order to achieve this goal, an appeal to the religions of the world is held necessary by the Luciferian climate religion pope, Al Gore, to become the world´s first CO2–billionaire through his own CO2–policies.
The Guardian 2 Nov. 2009: Al Gore: “I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. And then he keeps silent about him being Dalai Lama´s disciple in the
THE WORLD COMMISSION ON GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS & SPIRITUALITY/ Global Council on Spiritual Politics & Global Citizenship , where he is in the company of one of the authors of his bible, the , Earth Charter, viz. Mikhael Gorbachev. However, the CO2-faith is now scuppered by – Al Gore, who states that CO2 is only responsible for 40% of global warming. So what is the rationale of CO2-taxation? Nevertheless, A British judge has just made CO2–faith comparable with religion!

Behind the world communist idea of redistribution through climate tax stands Rockefellers Club of Rome. Edmund de Rothschild (from 28:40 min.) in 1987 enriched the plan through the CO2–scam. “It is about money,” as he says on this video. In the UK average housholds will be loaded with 541 pounds a year due to EU´s CO2–tax – and this is just the beginning!! That is the real agenda. The climate change is the biggest lie and scientific scandal and here in history. UN´s secretary general confirms the plan with unusual clarity.
But the real aim of the climate scam is to create the framework of world govenment through the UN, without which – so they try to scare us – the end of the world in global warming is certain within the near future!

New World Order Climate policy is just – conspiracy and lie. Here is how it is knitted together
COP15 UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen 7-18 Dec. 2009: “Ministers from more than 20 countries gathered in the summer of 2005 in Greenland in order to see with their own eyes some of the consequences of climate change.” Comment: This political tourism goes to the Jakobshavn glacier melting because of a change of direction of the Irminger Stream – a branch of the Gulf Stream. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the non-existing global warming.
“At the same time the meeting was supposed to provide a haven for the politicians to talk to one another without restrictions. Accordingly a code of conduct was put forward: there were to be no consultation documents, no press, only one official per minister, no conclusions were to be made on anything, and subsequently nothing of what the participants had said was to be reported.
This haven for dialogue was a success, and therefore it has been followed by similar dialogue meetings in South Africa in 2006, in Sweden in 2007 and in Argentina in 2008.

Star Tribune. com. 16. Oct. 2009 On Friday, the National Weather Service confirmed that there has never been a colder first two weeks of the month of October. It breaks the old mark of 52 degrees set back in 1875.

The road to Copenhagen as seen from Colorado in early Oct. 2009.

Excerpts from The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft
37. National inventories shall be:
(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

Page 122, item 17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

The Times 27 Oct. 2009 People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change,
according to a leading authority on global warming. In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases.”

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases. He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. Lord Stern is a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics (i.e. fabian-socialist). UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions.

See this eyeopening video with Lord Christopher Monckton, who has mathematically clear proved the global warming swindle in a speech to the House of Lords. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon agrees: The New York Times 25 Oct, 2009: A deal must include an equitable global governance structure.

No World System 20 Oct. 2009: Lord Christopher Monckton, the man who warned many this week of the treaty, appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program, he makes it clear that the treaty will create a World Government Dictatorship that will have complete authority over all nations by intervening in the economies and environment of any individual country in the world without consent. The treaty will also allow the distribution of wealth from developed countries like the U.S. to Third World Countries like Africa. America is already under the thumb of World Government in more ways than one. To understand what is about to take place in America we have to understand what Agenda 21 is, it’s the blueprint for the New World Order agenda for the 21st century.

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment take place.

You can read the entire UN document here.

Excerpt: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced, a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into

individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Agenda 21: “The Land of the Free”: Red zones are not for ordinary human activity. Yellow zones for highly regulated use.

Here is a further excerpt: In this UN Environment programme is stated: 2.1. In order to meet the challenges of environment and development, States decided to establish a new global partnership.This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy, keeping in view the increasing interdependence of the community of nations, and that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community. It is recognized that, for the success of this new partnership, it is important to overcome confrontation and to foster a climate of genuine cooperation and solidarity. It is equally important to strengthen national and international policies and multinational cooperation to adapt to the new realities.

2.4. Governments recognize that there is a new global effort to relate the elements of the international economic system and mankind’s need for a safe and stable natural environment. in consensus.
Comment: No discussion! Robotlike discipline! The bold words give the programme of this communist New World Order agenda: Mandatory redistribution of wealth in forced concensus in the name of environmental necessity.

Here is a terrible video on the UN´s agenda 21, which has previously been decribed on this blog. It is the Brave New World Oder, to abolish private property, family, national borders and souvereigntyas well as to introduce restrictions on mobility. You are guilty until proven otherwise. People will be concentrated on small spots along railway tracks and highways in skyscrapers. Children are educated by the state to the sustainability religion (Earth Charter as the “10 Commandments of our time”– Gorbachev). A generation are stolen to be indoctrinated. What is right is decided by consensus – not by mathematics.

Left: The agenda 21 has occupied the island where I live

Here is another video on the one world government. Its no longer a conspiracy theory – but practice being established. In “Our Global Neighbourhood” it becomes reality: A Global standing army under the UN secr. gen, economic security council with WTO and IMF, a world wide currency. Agenda 21 has been signed by more than 100 heads of state. Global Biodiversity Assessment: Protected areas: 382 wilderness areas aruund the world are the core wilderness areas. 50% of Americans are to be given over to off-limit wildland – connected by wildland corridors and surrounded by buffer zones with limited human activity. Humans are to be resettled in “sustainable” communities. Governmental ecosystem is to be enforced.

Government propaganda methods
The Daily Mail 21 Oct. 2009: The Advertising Standards Authority is to probe a controversial Government climate change TV advert which featured a drowning puppy and rabbits dying of thirst.The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched the commercial as part of its Act on CO2 campaign.
The campaign, in the form of a bedtime story, begins with a father reading to his daughter but turns into a terrifying account of the impact of climate change. The father is seen explaining that scientists say the strange weather ‘was being caused by too much CO2, which went up into the sky when grown-ups used energy’. He is heard adding that ’some places could even disappear under the sea’ adding that ‘children would have to live with the horrible consequences’.

EurActiv 18 Sept, 2009: “All countries, except the least developed, should contribute,” the statement said, “with finance allocated according to need so that developing countries receive more than they are contributing”. The European Commission estimates that total funding to help developing nations “could amount to about EUR 100 billion annually by 2020″ (EurActiv 11/09/09). However developing countries feel upwind and demand 700bn dollars! France and Germany will tax goods from countries who do not join the the Copenhagen Conference goals.

Comment
…concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” This is the recipe of total control of the individual in the name of the climate religion – but really by the illuminist bankers and their corporations. This is total loss of freedom. They try to make us believe that we owe the LDCs an insignificant CO2–debt, as we were previously told we owed them for the colonial days (without the LDCs would still have been at the stone age stage).
Angela Merkel seems be the one to scupper the Copenhagen New World Order hoax – something which really worries the bilderberg globalist José Barroso, as he said before his masters, the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Copenhagen Conference is not about saving the planet from climate disaster. It is about the Idea, which Karl Marx according to Friedrich Engels had from the French Revolution illuminist, Babeuf, who had his sick revolutionary ideas from Adam Weishaupt´s 6 point programme.

The agenda 21 is clearly aiming at enslaving mankind, concentrating them on small areas and and taking away the reward of the diligent and wise to give it to the bankers – and a little bit to the unwise and lazy. They will rule by “consensus” and disarm all coutries and leave it to a world army to rule the world along communist principles and here

The redistribution of wealth is to take place through the CO2–tolls, traded at London´s ECX Climate Exchange – Rockefeller, Rothschild and Al Gore being the kingpins hoping to soon be able to enrich themselves even more at the Chicago Climate Exchange. Furthermore through planned CO2–taxes and here, and here – as Daniel Estulin learned at the Bilderberg-meeting in 2005.

link also in comment section easier access to links provided by Anders.

http://euro-med.dk/?p=11495

Senior chaplain in Helmand province: ‘We kill to defeat evil’
The senior padre of Task Force Helmand, 11 Light Brigade, has said British soldiers in Afghanistan should be prepared to die in a ‘fight against the evil of fundamentalism’.

Padre Mark Christian said killing ‘to defeat evil’ was ‘morally permissible’. He leads today’s Remembrance Sunday service in Lashkar Gah, where hundreds of soldiers will gather to remember not only the fallen of past wars, but also their own friends, colleagues and brothers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

We only see their faces for a few seconds on the news, but they are quickly forgotten amidst the glitz of X-Factor. Parliament hears their names routinely read out each week by the Prime Minister, and their heroism is quickly subsumed to party political point-scoring. But those who live in the warzone face the reality of death every day.

The Padre said: “In a perfect world, the world that God intended for us, we would all live at peace with each other.

“But we don’t live in that world, we live in a fallen world where evil exists and it is the obligation of all good people to confront evil and to defeat it where they can.

“Unfortunately that necessitates us in doing things like killing, which in the abstract is wrong.

“But when you are doing that to defeat a greater evil I think it is morally permissible but it requires our soldiers to have a very, very high degree of understanding of morality.”

Politicians have largely ceased seeing things in terms of good and evil: everything is relative. Cranmer wonders if, just occasionally, our solidiers ask themselves if that which they are fighting to defend is worth dying for. Why die to bring liberty and democracy to Afghanistan, when liberty and democracy are in peril in the United Kingdom?

By confronting the evil abroad, we take our eyes off the evil at home.

Or we simply cease to call it evil, and so it ceases to be.
posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 7:55 AM Permalink 3 comments

Saturday, November 07, 2009
European Court bans classroom crucifixes
Cranmer has received quite a few emails asking why he has not commented upon this story. The short answer is that His Grace is not a news service: he comments upon whatever he wants to whenever he wishes.

And there really is not much to add to this, this or this.

God forbid that schoolchildren might ever again have such an oppressive and disturbing art project as this imposed upon them.

Essentially, it is a further clash to establish one’s ranking in the emerging EU hierarchy of rights; a further battle in the interminable internecine war in the quest for supremacy. So far throughout the EU, ‘Muslim rights’ and ‘Gay rights’ are pretty much neck and neck, and this latest spat is just the Atheists putting down a marker for their own rights. Since each group has mutually-exclusive objectives, the only way to keep them from mutually-assured destruction is to unite them against a common enemy – the Christians. And so, in its infinite enlightened wisdom, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that crucifixes should not be displayed in state schools.

Of course, this will affect some EU countries more than others, and the wise and learned judges of Strasbourg have chosen Roman Catholic Italy to commence their secularisation programme. Henceforth, it is decreed that crucifixes violate the rights of parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs: the crucifix is ‘disturbing’ for children who are inter alia Atheist, Muslim, or Gay.

And Cranmer has purposely capitalised the terms, for they have attained a status superior to the Christians, for whom, incidentally, the crucifix is also ‘disturbing’: it is supposed to be. Perhaps the ECHR might permit a classroom picture of an androgynous Jesus-looking man lying upon a wooden bed covered in a snug duvet – no nails. History and culture are of little consequence against the quest to eradicate all offence and diminish that which may ‘disturb’.

It becomes even more alarming when one considers that the Atheist complainant in this case was a woman by the name of Soile Lautsi, a native of Finland who subsequently acquired Italian citizenship. And she has enriched herself and her Atheist children to the tune of 5000 euros for ‘moral damages’, to be paid by the Italian government for subjecting them to a school which had ‘disturbing’ crucifixes in every classroom.

The consequences of the ruling are far-reaching. For surely, if the crucifix is offensive, so is the cross. And if the cross, why not every picture of Jesus or representation of God? And if those, why not every Christmas tree, nativity play or Easter egg? Not only will the ruling potentially force an entire continent to reconsider the use of religious symbols in the public realm, it appears that any ‘foreigner’ may now enter a country as a guest, choose to dwell there as a naturalised alien, and then directly challenge the country’s cultural unity and moral values by forcing change to suit their own beliefs and social mores.

And the supreme arbiter in all cases will be the European Court of Human Rights, which has set its face against Christian history, Christian culture, Christian tradition, Christian belief and Christian expression. As far as the Court is concerned, Europe moved from the language, culture, government and religion of the Graeco-Roman world directly to that of the Enlightenment. A millennium-or-so of Christianity in between may not be mentioned.

The children might find it ‘disturbing’.

Equality under the law is abrogated by shari’a councils
From ‘Very Worried of Richmond Hill:

Islamic shari’a councils are now recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. So far, at least five councils have been recognised as tribunals and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

The tribunals cover all disputes that come under civil law or family law but exclude criminal matters.

In the case of a civil dispute, the decision of the tribunal is recognised by the UK courts and, if it is a family matter, will be accepted as the basis of a UK court decision and in both cases, if necessary, enforced under UK law.

In the one case, the court is upholding the judgement of the shari’a tribunal; in the other, it is using it as the basis of its own decision and which it is very likely to accept as courts are generally reluctant to overturn a tribunal judgement.

The Arbitration Act simply requires that both parties make a prior agreement to submit their dispute to the tribunal and that the outcome does not break any UK law.

It would do an aggrieved party no good to appeal to a UK court that the shari’a ruling to which he or she had submitted was wrong or that he or she would have been treated differently in a UK court not acting on shari’a principles: unless it could be shown to be unreasonable and outrageously unfair it would be enforced. Thus, Islamic shari’a is propagated by UK law.

We have cause to be worried.

(1) Has anything changed?

Apologists for shari’a claim nothing has changed. A shari’a tribunal decision cannot be enforced if it breaks UK law. This view is out of touch with how things really work and what is going on today.

We have, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s revelation in a BBC interview that the adoption of Islamic shari’a law in the UK is ‘unavoidable’. This gives a disturbing insight into the minds of some of our leaders.

Twisting the law to meet cultural requirements is not unknown. Lord Pearson asked this question in the House of Lords in June: “…. will Her Majesty’s Government take steps to ensure that resident Muslim men will no longer be allowed to commit bigamy by bringing in their second, third and fourth wives and all their children to enjoy the benefits of our welfare state?”

He was not given an answer.

And, most importantly, judges judge: they assess witnesses, weigh up the worth of arguments, and apply social criteria, interpretations and precedents as they believe they fit the facts of a case. There is plenty of scope for keeping to the letter of the law.

Recognition of shari’a tribunals introduces a new breed of judges with a mindset alien to this country and which provides ample evidence of its hostility both to western Christian and Enlightenment secular values.

(2) Unequal treatment of men and women

Under shari’a, men and women are not treated equally. In matters of inheritance, property division, divorce and the custody of children, shari’a law disadvantages women and they are considered inferior as witnesses: a man may easily divorce his wife whereas a woman must argue her case and undergo a lengthy legal process.

A Muslim woman seeking a divorce is subjected to an interview process aimed at keeping her married and she risks financial ruin by the obligation to return her dower.

Shari’a rules on child custody can be rigid and were described by judges in the House of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’. In general, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age (seven for boys) no matter the circumstances or the behaviour of the father, and if a woman remarries she loses custody of her children.

If a wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.

A Family Court judge may find himself presented with an ‘agreement’ produced at a shari’a tribunal that gives custody of the children to the father which in normal circumstances the court would register and enforce. But how is he to tell if this is a truly mediated agreement or simply the woman’s resigned acquiescence in shari’a law which does not explicitly consider the interests of children?

Women inherit half what a man inherits. And, of course, a Muslim man can have up to four wives.

Under shari’a, a Muslim woman will get a decision from a tribunal far less favourable than she would get from a British court under the Crown.

Shari’a councils are entirely male: there are no female shari’a judges. Nearly a quarter of judges in UK courts are female and in magistrate courts it is half. The Islamic Shari’a Council is listed as a charity and people who seek a divorce pay a fee. For a man, it is £100; for women, it is £250 because (they say) it is more work to process a woman’s application as her word has to be corroborated.

(3) Community pressures and exploitation of ignorance

Muslim women will be under enormous pressure to use shari’a tribunals rather than civil courts. If they don’t use a shari’a tribunal, they run the risk of being ostracised by their family and their community as bad Muslims or even as apostates.

This pressure already exists but giving any shari’a council recognition as a tribunal under the Arbitration Act massively increases it.

Many women may simply be ignorant of their rights, due to language or cultural barriers. Many of those dealt with by shari’a councils are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under English law.

This will be true of male and female workers, especially the poorly-educated and low-paid, who find themselves unfairly treated by a Muslim business owner, or of tenants in disagreement with a Muslim landlord.

The appearance of ‘officialness’ will give the uneducated and the vulnerable the impression that there is a parallel Muslim system of law in England which is the one that Muslims should use.

This is already being exploited. The home page of the website of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) goes out of its way to look official. It has a photograph of Lord Phillips when he was Lord Chief Justice in his wig and finery. A bold heading declares: ‘Lord Chief Justice endorses ADR (alternative dispute resolution) under Shariah Law’.

Underneath it has a picture of Lord Hunt, a government minister. The website emphasises that MAT rulings are binding under English law.

(4) The importance of civil and family law – what binds people together

Proponents of shari’a tribunals make the point that they are involved only in civil and family matters and are not involved in criminal cases, as if this somehow lessens the impact on society.

Family, marriage, children, inheritance, relations with neighbours, doing business, are the most important matters for most people. Very few of us are touched by the criminal courts, but civil and family matters touch us all.

By recognising shari’a councils as tribunals, the UK authorities are saying it is fine for some British citizens not to exercise certain rights, even if English law and tradition grants them those rights, and to accept deals that are worse than what they would get from other British courts with regular judges.

Rights are established for the good of society as a whole, and they are often achieved only after a long and hard struggle, so why should a particular group of people be allowed to ditch any of those rights against the wider interest of society?

Why should my next-door neighbour live by a different idea of what is ‘fair’ – for example, what is seen as fair in a default position on inheritance or the relative difficulties between men and women in the procuring of a divorce? Surely ‘what is considered fair’ is a universal that binds people together and gives them a sense of identity.

(5) Quick and cheap justice

A vital foundation for any society is a legal system that provides justice quickly at a reasonable cost. The breakdown of the legal system in parts of Pakistan is the underlying cause of the anarchy and strife that prevails there. In the UK, we do not have massive corruption but we seem to be well on the road to a system that is too expensive and takes too long.

It is claimed that an advantage of shari’a tribunals, and a good reason for having them, is that they take on some of the burden of solving disputes and relieve an overburdened courts system (this was the justification given in Canada for a similar proposal to recognise shari’a tribunals in family matters, but it was eventually rejected largely due to the protests of Muslim Canadian women). This theme crops up all the time. Shari’a tribunals are a way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way without clogging up the higher courts: it is cheaper and quicker. Apparently, shari’a tribunal judges are not paid a fee.

It seems unlikely that the availability of an alternative justice system for Muslims would ease the burden to the degree that cost and efficiency issues are solved for everyone else who only has the regular court system to turn to.

If this is good solution, you might ask why we do not also have a parallel tribunal system for civil and family matters for Christians? Why not tribunal systems for Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and even one for atheists?

But the question we should really ask is why do we not have a system for all citizens that delivers timely justice at an acceptable price?

(6) Criminal matters

Notwithstanding the numerous statements that shari’a tribunals do not cover criminal matters, under the heading ‘Types of Cases that we deal with’, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal website lists:

Forced Marriages, Domestic Violence, Family Disputes, Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, Commercial and Debt Disputes, Inheritance Disputes, Mosque Disputes

In relation to domestic violence, it says:

“MAT is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK.

“However where there are criminal charges such as assault within the context of domestic violence, the parties will be able ask MAT to assist in reaching reconciliation which is observed and approved by MAT as an independent organisation.

“The terms of such a reconciliation can then be passed by MAT on to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) though (sic) the local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officers with a view to reconsidering the criminal charges. Note that the final decision to prosecute always remains with the CPS” (emphases added).

So, Muslim domestic violence cases are treated differently from those in the rest of the population!

Just imagine – the vicar can get involved: he can formally tell the police that the suspect is a regular church-goer, he attends every Sunday, and he really regrets what he has done. He has agreed to go on an anger management course and the vicar thinks he deserves a second chance. The policeman, who is also a Christian because it is a Christian area, agrees.

This is precisely what is going on in some Muslim areas. In incidents severe enough to be referred to the police, the Muslim men involved have been directed to take anger management courses, and the women to withdraw their complaints. This has caused considerable disquiet suggesting that the police are turning a blind eye to domestic violence in the name of community cohesion or cultural sensitivity.

(7) Support for barbaric laws and practices

Shari’a is a system of laws and a mindset which approves, inter alia:

(i) Death for apostasy
(ii) Amputation of limbs as punishment
(iii) Stoning to death for adultery
(iv) Belief that a woman’s evidence is worth less than a man’s
(v) Blood money
(vi) Polygamy

Recognition of shari’a in the UK – even of just those sections which do not conflict with UK law – bestows status and respectability to a system which produces these barbaric practices. They are not some distant echo of the past but a fact in many parts of the world today.

Faisal Siddiqi, a Pakistani-born barrister and the founder and chairman of MAT’s governing council, criticised the British media for its obsession with beheadings and other extreme punishments. He said: “They constitute only 10% of shari’a.”

What a relief.

For an insight into current thinking by some Muslims on the matter of death for apostasy, one might consider: Muslim chaplain at Harvard to be toying with idea of executing apostates? And Supreme Court dismisses plea against death sentence for blasphemy.

For current views on stoning for adultery, consider: Indonesia’s Aceh to stone adulterers under Islamic law.

Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, says that stoning to death for adultery is acceptable in a country that chooses to have that as the law.

And for an explanation of why the evidence of a woman is worth less than that of a man (you may laugh or cry), see the Islamic Sharia Council.

Conclusion

The Government has allowed and is encouraging the establishment of a parallel legal system for Muslims on matters that affect all of us. It is wrong for the country and wrong for Muslims.

The official recognition of shari’a councils as arbitration tribunals is simply another mechanism by which Muslims are being segregated from the rest of the population: it is a further barrier to integration and reinforces the fragmentation of society. The UK authorities are undermining both the Christian font of jurisprudence and the Enlightenment values by which this has been developed. The British concept of justice has been forged over centuries, sometimes at great cost. It would be ironic if it were to return to primitive expressions of inequity and unfairness.

Please note: Cranmer will not be tolerant of any unjustified or unjustifiable expressions of intolerance towards any group of people. He would like to remind his readers and communicants that there are very many British Muslims indeed who abhor the notion of shari’a in the UK, and who seek to challenge the intolerance of the ascendant and increasingly-pervasive Wahhabi orthodoxy.
posted by Archbishop Cranmer

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

RIP…SOLDIER BLOWN UP IN THE UNICOL OIL WAR- NINE DAYS EIGHT SOLDIERS’ SACRIFICED FOR A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT HERE- FOR A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT THERE!!

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION- THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SAY- BRING THE TROOPS HOME- THE AUTHORITARIAN COMMUNIST BRITISH GOVERNMENT- ARE NOT LISTENING!!

COMRADE BROWNSKI- WHO ARE YOU SERVING?

Afghanistan: Time to leave

Patrick Cockburn, our award-winning reporter who has covered the region for more than 30 years, explains why it is best for the world, and Afghanistan, if our troops are brought home

THE INDEPENDENT- SHOWING THAT IT IS!!

Britain should start withdrawing, not reinforcing, its troops in Afghanistan. Sending extra troops is unnecessary and will prove counter-effective. The additional number of British troops is small, but the US is poised to send tens of thousands more soldiers to the country. The nature of the conflict is changing. What should be a war in which the Afghan government fights the Taliban has become one which is being fought primarily by the American and British armies. To more and more Afghans, this looks like imperial occupation.

With regard to disputes in Washington and London about sending more troops, it is seldom mentioned that Afghans are against the deployment. Contrary to Western plans, just 18 per cent of Afghans want more US and Nato/Isaf forces in Afghanistan, according to an opinion poll carried out earlier this year by the BBC, ABC News and ARD of Germany. A much greater number of Afghans – 44 per cent – want a decrease in foreign forces.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Taliban have been able to win some support. The cruelty of their rule before 2001 is becoming a distant memory and they are successfully portraying themselves as the defender of the country against foreign occupation. Matthew P Hoh, the senior American civilian representative in Zabul Province east of Kandahar, resigned last week convinced that the US military should not be in Afghanistan. As a former US marine officer who served in Iraq, he says in his resignation letter that the US has joined in on one side in a 35-year-old civil war between the traditional Pashtun community and its enemies. “The US military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency,” he says. “Our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people.”

Related articles
McChrystal seeks to keep UK troops ‘out of harm’s way’
The dark savagery of the Taliban years returns
Liam Fox: Why the Conservatives say we must stay on in Afghanistan
Leading article: Why we must leave Afghanistan
Time to leave Afghanistan: The options & arguments

What is true for the Americans in Zabul is true for the British in Helmand. It may seem to military commanders on the ground that, with more troops, they could hold more ground and send out more patrols. Throughout history, generals have believed they are a few thousand troops short of victory. But Afghans, who have long experience of war, think more foreign troops means greater violence, more dead and wounded Afghans. Support for the Taliban is highest in those areas where there have been US or Nato shelling or air strikes inflicting civilian casualties. In other words, the Taliban’s best recruiting sergeants are the American and British armies.

The future good of Afghanistan is not the first reason why Britain has an army of 9,000 troops there, according to Gordon Brown. He said on Friday that they are there to protect people walking the streets of Britain: “Our children will learn of the heroism of today’s men and women fighting in Afghanistan protecting our nation and the world from the threat of global terrorism.” We are fighting there, he adds, so we are safe in our homes and guarded against the atrocities carried out by al-Qa’ida not only in London, but across the world.

The problem with this argument is that al-Qa’ida is based in Pakistan not Afghanistan. There is no particular reason why its leaders should return to Afghanistan since they have a measure of support in the Pakistani intelligence services and among fundamentalist jihadi organisations. If Britain has sent 9,000 troops abroad to fight al-Qa’ida, then they are in the wrong country. Mr Brown slyly tries to evade this point by claiming that “three-quarters of terrorists’ plots originate in the Pakistan-Afghan border regions”. His sudden geographic imprecision avoids having to admit that they originate in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The US military says there only 100 al-Qa’ida militants in the whole of Afghanistan.

In reality, the presence of a large British military force in Afghanistan is making Britain a more dangerous not safer place to live in. Interrogation of would-be suicide bombers captured before they could blow themselves up reveals that their prime motive since 9/11 has been opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In portraying Britain as being at war with al-Qa’ida, Mr Brown, like President Bush and Tony Blair, has walked into the trap laid by al-Qa’ida at the time of 9/11. Its aim was not only to show the US was vulnerable to armed attack, but to provoke retaliation against Muslim countries. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa’ida’s chief strategist, stated soon after 9/11 that the purpose of the provocation was to tempt the US into reprisals and open the way for “clear-cut jihad against the infidels”.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and Britain have faced similar dilemmas. These wars were started by President Bush, with Tony Blair trotting along behind, in the expectation that they would be short and cheap. The initial military assaults were wholly successful, but the American and British armies were then caught up in prolonged, bruising, guerrilla wars. By then, too much prestige was at stake and too much blood had been spilt for a withdrawal. The puniness of the armed insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, in each case probably a few tens of thousands of fighters, makes the humiliation of retreat all the greater.

The main reason for Britain’s military commitment in Afghanistan was to maintain its position as America’s principal ally in the world. As recently as 2006, this seemed a sensible strategy, but any engagement in Afghanistan, as a brief look at any history of the region will show, is always going to be dangerous. The Taliban had not really been defeated on the battlefield in 2001: its militants had gone back to their villages or taken refuge over the border in Pakistan. It took time for the Pakistan government, on which they were highly reliant, to decide that it was safe to unleash them once more because the US was too bogged down in Iraq to do much about it.

By this time also, the government of President Hamid Karzai, below left, had gone far to discredit itself. It is less of an administration than a racket. Its officials probably make more money out of opium and heroin than the Taliban. Some 12 million Afghans, 42 per cent of the population, live below the poverty line, trying to survive on 45 cents (just over 25p) a day. They are malnourished or starving, and feel little loyalty to a government in which ministers live in their “poppy palaces”, built with the profits of the drugs trade, and foreign aid consultants earn $250,000 a year.

“Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption,” said Mr Brown. “And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption.” Taken at face value, this means Britain will withdraw its troops since it is a certainty in Afghanistan that a government so viscerally crooked is not going to reform. “Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan,” continued the Prime Minister, but Mr Karzai’s election victory was attained by allying himself with the most blood-stained warlords in the country. Presumably, Mr Brown’s pledge is no more than rhetoric.

The US and Britain have tumbled into a second war in Afghanistan that they weren’t expecting. Justifying their own misjudgements, American and British leaders claim that Afghanistan is a war that has to be fought because it is the epicentre of the war against international terrorism. These threats are all grossly exaggerated. The Afghan Taliban comes from the Pashtun community, which is 42 per cent of the population. The majority of Afghans will always oppose them. Of course, present Afghan or Pakistani leaders have every interest in painting themselves to their foreign backers as the one alternative to the Taliban.

“The Pashtun insurgency,” says Mr Hoh, “is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal an external enemies.” Britain should not be part of that assault that will not succeed in crushing a regional Pashtun rebellion on behalf a non-Pashtun state. Once this is accepted, then the need for a large combat force in southern Afghanistan disappears. What ultimately happens in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghans.

Developments yesterday

* Nato airstrike kills seven Afghan soldiers and police.

* Two-thirds of Britons polled say Afghanistan is a “lost cause”.

* UK troops should be prepared to die in “fight against fundamentalism”, says army chaplain.

* Obama’s national security adviser: “We will not solve the problem with troops alone”.

* UK army commander says troops fighting and dying for stability in “hotbed of terror”. Cause is “worth the sacrifice”.

THE ARMY CHAPLAIN- GIVE HIM A GUN- LET HIS HEAD BECOME A TARGET!!
WE HAVE FUNDAMENTALISTS HERE AT HOME- SO WHY AFGHANISTAN ARSEHOLE!
WORTH THE SACRIFICE- ASK THEIR KIDS-MUMS-DADS-BROTHERS AND SISTERS- THEN THE BRITISH PEOPLES- MILITARY BOSSES LIKE TURKEYS’ AIN’T GONNA VOTE FOR CHRISTMAS!!

TRUSTING THE MARXIST BROWNSKI- WILL BE THE DEATH OF MORE AND MORE BRITISH TROOPS!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistan-time-to-leave-1817004.html

GOD-BLESS ALL OUR ARMED FORCES!!!

Muslims of a Feather, Jihad Together: Major Muslim Fort Hood Terrorist Linked to 911 Terrorists
Surprised? The only dhimmis who will express SHOCK! will be the media and the authorities. Oh, that’s right, they won’t mention it.

What is it going to take?

Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists

Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a “spiritual adviser” to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas Photo: GETTY

The radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, accused of supporting attacks on British troops
Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

As investigators look at Hasan’s motives and mindset, his attendance at the mosque could be an important piece of the jigsaw. Al-Awlaki moved to Dar al-Hijrah as imam in January, 2001, from the west coast, and three months later the September 11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour began attending his services. A third hijacker attended his services in California.

Hasan was praying at Dar al-Hijrah at about the same time, and the FBI will now want to investigate whether he met the two terrorists.

Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, has described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an “al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen”.

Last night Hasan remained in a coma under guard at a military hospital in San Antonio, Texas, and was said to be in a “stable” condition. Born in America to a Palestinian family, Hasan, 39, was an army psychiatrist who had chosen to sign up for the US military against his parents’ wishes.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/muslims-of-a-feather-jihad-together-major-muslim-fort-hood-terrorist-linked-to-911-terrorists.html

AN EXHAUSTED NATION CRIES FOR HELP

AN EXHAUSTED NATION CRIES FOR HELP
by John Galt

As the empty homes and farms become a blur throughout my drive across the middle of Florida I notice the little things that tell me that our society, our people, our nation is tired, beaten and worn down after a decade of incompetence, conspiracy, criminal activity and an almost surreal level of wealth extraction and destruction. From every other cyclical down turn our nation had a moral compass that allowed us to rebuild, restore and renew our system yet this time it feels as if the unique character that allows the decadal restoration to occur is being obstructed by a new, unique power structure determined to divert our society down a failed path of socialist utopia, leaving the average citizen enslaved to the nation state.

As I passed through the small village of Wahneta, Florida I noticed a twenty something year old unshaven and worn man sitting on the back of his old SUV holding a hastily made cardboard sign that simply said “I need work” yet the traffic kept flowing as nobody could help. You see similar scenes throughout the Southeastern states in the small and large towns, where the grocery stores are often backed up with lines of women holding their crying children attempting to pay for their groceries with the government food stamps or sitting in the parking lot asking for handouts. It begs a question to the ivory tower economists and their ilk; is this the ‘recovery’ you claim is under way or is it just because you were able to scalp another 15% by manipulating retiree stock accounts for one more churn and putting more citizens out into the streets?

Meanwhile the government of some of the people designed now to profit a few of the people is attempting to assault the remaining freedoms under our Constitution and diminish the ability of the masses to remove the corrupt souls from their positions of power. The opposition is embattled and assaulted verbally and via various goon squads be they private community organizers, trade unions or the ultimate power, the IRS and their gun carrying Gestapo like police force. Thus speaking out or defending your freedoms now is no longer a no-risk proposition, you have to accept that just by reading or speaking out is no longer a luxury it is a danger which will only become more perilous as the grip on a new supreme power center tightens. The period of heightened danger has arrived, but will those in control listen to what the masses say and others warn?

A Large Dangerous Giant Slumbers but for How Long?

As the statists continue to poke and prod at the giant, they fail to realize who and what this giant consists of. The mainstream media would have you believe it to be a vast right wing conspiracy. The left wing would have you believe it is nothing but a bunch of kooks. The Republican Party would have you believe it is nothing but a group of disgruntled anti-government types who must be minimalized to insure the status quo remains. Yet this game all parties play ignores the fact that tens of millions of Americans are begging, pleading, beseeching these fools to not awaken this giant from its slumber, to allow it to sleep and satisfy its need for freedom, prosperity and peaceful existence.

They have not and will not listen though.

This giant holds true to the original intent of our nation, our traditions, our freedoms and the ideals of its founders. Parts of this giant stand on the wall, protecting these elites from enemies both foreign and domestic. Other members of this giant just work, pay their taxes and create or expand our society via economic expansion though these members are tiring from the acceleration of the assault on their freedoms. To attempt to destroy the heritage and history this giant believes in will awaken this giant and yet the statists persist in tormenting the beast.

I warn you now:

Do not wake up this beast.

Allow it to slumber. Allow it to live under the beliefs, freedoms and original intent of our founding fathers. Allow America to stay a free, Constitutional God fearing nation.

If you do not abide by these wishes, I warn you based on the history of our country and the resolve of the citizens when their ire crosses the border of resolution via traditional manners.

The giant is vengeful.

The giant is merciless.

The giant is righteous yet wicked in its methods.

The consequences of forcing our nation to change against its will is not a swing in the pendulum of history; it is the destruction of the pendulum and rebirth of a new nation.

The giant will end all discussions, all contemplations, all neutrality and settle all matters and any scores without logic or reason if need be.

I beg you elites to quit prodding, poking, attacking and taunting the giant before it is too late.

Actions and Words Have Consequences

If the elites fail to heed these warnings, which they usually do throughout history, the giant will finish its work and resume the task of living and working. It will no longer be a socialist or corporatist utopia. It will no longer be a union as we recognize it today, but a new confederation of nations, each with differing beliefs, governance and economies. The words and actions of those in the positions of the elite are playing the people as suckers yet the fail to realize that if the choice is between enslavement and the deconstruction of the Republic, many will choose the latter while many others will have other options imposed upon them.

As the new creation emerges as a confederation of states and nations, some might elect to unite with other nations almost as colonial subjects, be it a “world” entity like the United Nations or Commonwealth style subjects to continue the Marxist fantasy of world Socialist domination and unification. The union will be irrevocably shattered as many nations and powers will elect to profit and benefit from the dissolution of our country. Alliances will be created out of thin air as mercantilists and geopolitical strategists understand how the new nations will function, much like the destruction of the U.S.S.R. or Yugoslavia.

Many individual Americans will probably reap huge profits from such a historic event by trading freedoms for peace and alliances for funding and power. Think not of this period as just an economic event because it shall be one that shapes two generations of our neighbors and friends, and survivors in democratic countries throughout the world. The arrogant claim of “it can’t happen hear” shall be silenced like the voices of the suffering Jews during the Nazi engineered holocaust of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Yet so few understand that this will cross many borders and eradicate many myths of superiority and invincibility propagated by decades of peace, slothfulness and ignorance of world affairs.

1861 or 1991?

This begs the question that we must all pray someone is paying attention to; will we dissolve as our ancestors did in 1861 or as modern day Yugoslavia in 1991? I fear that we will first test the waters of economic and political incompetence much like Argentina did then proceed to the dreaded outcome as our people suffer greater and greater inequities and the freedoms are destroyed state by state, soul by soul. I thus propose that in our current time line it is 1860 and the mixing cup is being filled. It will be shaken, stirred and poured out on top as a noxious cocktail of gasoline and kerosene on top of a raging fire, which explodes in the face of the elitist cooks.

Remember that throughout history great empires and nations were rarely conquered, most imploded from within. The self-immolation usually consisted of slaughter and pillage that most civilized souls rarely imagined with the elites escaping through the back door like Roman rulers fleeing the barbarians before they arrived at the gates, leaving the nation open for the worst of consequences.

Only God and the victors know what the new evolutionary outcome will be and what it will mean for all individuals who survive. The is no honor in a victory when one surrenders their freedoms to achieve it and that is what makes most Americans unique to the era we are entering. Thus you have to decide whether or not to engage and work with those that only believe in the Founders vision and use God’s guidance in your decisions to come. Compromise in times like these is nothing more than politically correct phrase for appeasement; never trade your values to these vultures, ever.

I remind you that capitulation to tyrrany will result in a modern American holocaust far worse than anything experienced in human history. Thus this is my one and only bugler’s call to action. Prepare as if there is no tomorrow because now, there is not. Remember how tired you are now and the cries for help you hear about you? America is crying for help, exhausted, unable to lift her arms to the heavens with the torch of freedom. You will have plenty of time to sleep though when you are dead. Rest not for we are at the crossroads of history where corruption is the rule of the day, unseen since the times of Lincoln, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR. Thus you must move beyond “hope” as that is nothing more than a request of others to prepare for you; evil is in full mobilization now and the powers of purity and good are so, so sadly far behind.

1 Comment
Filed under Economy, Obama Marxist Tyranny
Tags: 1861, Argentina, collapse, Depression, genocide, Holocaust, Poverty, Tyranny

http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/an-exhausted-nation-cries-for-help/

THIS WILL BE YOUR TOMORROW- MAKE NO MISTAKE- FABIANS HAVE TAKEN CONTROL – CONTROL TO WRECK THE WESTERN WORLD!!

APPLIES EQUALLY TO BRITAIN….

The War America Refuses to Acknowledge

Jihadist Islam strikes again – and the sycophantic media and the liberal hand-wringers are desperately busy trying to convince as many Americans as possible that the slaughter that occurred yesterday at Fort Hood Texas was ANYTHING but a Jihad terror zealot fulfilling his obligation to Islam.

We’ll hear about how this “alleged gunman” was picked on for his Islamic faith; how he was so distraught over our unjust war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Watch the media make this guy the poster child of what’s wrong with America instead of reporting what this Jihadist actually believed and was planning.

Few in America have any clue of the kind of enemy that has repeatedly waged war on us.

A war that the liberal/appeasement Marxists have convinced America it should refuse to acknowledge.

So America is again in shock over the mass murder of Americans by an Islamic zealot waging his Jihad, because our allegiance to political correctness has blinded us to common sense.

If we acknowledged that radical Islam is at war with us – we would suddenly be obligated to do something about it – like dump the stupid political correctness and be ALERT for all the suspicious red flags that Islamic zealots leave around them that our PC culture has forced us to ignore so we don’t appear to be racists. Nah – that would require us to regain a semblance of common sense that the Left does not want us to use.

A SELF-INFLICTED GUNSHOT WOUND
by John Galt

November 6, 2009

Malik….meaning “Master” or “King”‘

Nadal….rough translation to “Noble” from “Nadil”

Hasan….meaning “good” or “handsome”

Major Malik Nadal Hasan is a martyr.

A man and a name which will now live in infamy in the history of the United States, our beloved military and now a hero of the Islamofacist movement. While the American people will be spoon fed excuses about the mental condition of the killer, how this was not terrorism, and of course how the religion of peace had nothing to do with this, the reality that should slap anyone with two ounces of common sense should begin to understand that America has been at war for almost two decades now. Yet so few, except for the families of the dead, wounded or those engaged in the battle, wish to acknowledge this fact.

America’s war was not one that we sought out for profit, for glory, or for spoils. The war was brought to our shores not because of geopolitical conflict, nor an enemy wishing to conquer our nation’s vast resources. This war was started, engaged in, and amplified on September 11, 2001 because we are the infidels, the evil children of Satan that prevent the world from falling under the veil of a religion based on a child molester’s drunken visions. Sadly, as long as our fellow citizens are pacified by ignorance or bribed with baubles, the citizenry will never understand the enemy that kills our friends, neighbors, and protectors, nor will they act to acknowledge that this war even exists.

We make excuses for our enemies and excuses for ourselves as they kill, without mercy, without apology and without regard. And this time, as it was in 2003, the new politically correct military suffers another self-inflicted wound. You see, the killing is not without a historical basis, nor is the idiocy of a politicized military new. It has happened before. Within our military. And with dire results.

On March 23, 2003 (ET) Sergeant Asan Akbar rolled two fragmentation grenades and two incendiary grenades into three tents where officers were sleeping at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. Not long after this attack, Sadam’s Iraqi military launched a Scud missile at our troops in Kuwait which was destroyed by a Patriot missile. As the bloodied troops stumbled out of their tents, Akbar opened fire with a M4 shooting two of the soldiers. Captain Christopher Scot Seifert, age 27, died from his wounds and fifteen other soldiers were wounded also before he was subdued.

Quoting the article from the London Times on March 25, 2003:

As Akbar was being led away after the incident, fellow soldiers heard him shout: “You guys are coming into our countries and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children.”

Fast forward six years to tonight, and numerous incidents around the world and inside the U.S., within the military and in civilian society. The United States military was the target of a planned attack by some Islamic illegal aliens who walked across the Mexican-American border and planned to evolve from their day jobs as pizza delivery men into terrorists to attack our soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ. More rings of suspected terrorists arrested from Colorado, New York, etc.

Yet our politically correct Obama administration, just as Bush acted, continue to assure the public that this is not a war with Islam but against the problem children of the “Religion of Peace” and the advocates of violence against all civilized society. Sadly, our political leadership and their cohorts within the mainstream media and educational elitists continue to deny the words of our enemies and dismiss their actions as irrelevant to the world stage. Within this deliberate act of ignorance and malfeasance, the assumption that “all Muslims” who serve within our military are always loyal to the nation first, their religion and its adherents second. Even though this may be true in some cases, the words of the Quran and the leaders within their sect demand the loyalty of the followers to the word of their prophet first, and nations or political leaders secondarily.

The long bloody river of denial continues to flow through our society as the bodies of our soldiers are returned from Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations embroiled in the war against Islam and its radical adherents. But the denial has created a situation within our military that I find disgusting and untenable; we challenge the Muslims in the services not as to their loyalty to our nation but accept without question their commitments. The failure to understand the over twelve hundred years a of systemic murderous activity in the name of Allah is our Achilles Heel and the enemies of freedom know this. Thus begging the question as to why any member of the Islamic faith is allowed to serve on bases where or near units to be deployed are located, much less within our services as a whole. Why we would deploy “Muslim” Americans to theaters of war where they might be asked to kill one of the zealots defending their same faith, a violation of the word of Allah when done so at the behest of the “infidels” and its leaders?

The answers are simple, sad and tragically for the victims of politics, not war, a statement to the decline and fall of an empire.

America must allow the “diversity” of its forces to insure that it is reflective of society as a whole. That is the twisted Hegelian logic of Marx and Sociologists in the pacified world of academia and influencing the civilian bureaucrats within the Pentagon. The advisers who proclaim this nonsense never will serve within the military and view our soldiers with disdain and demand this policy as a necessity to prevent a racist elite service from evolving. When you take the perverted views of our elitists into account as part of this policy then one must review the economic and geopolitical concerns which influence our weak-kneed cowardly politically correct rulers, then you begin to understand why our military is ordered to adhere to policies inherently dangerous to the survival of our troops within and out of the conflict zones. America’s unwillingness to confront and deny the wishes of our Saudi masters by protecting our troops and securing all avenues of attack invites disasters such as what happened at Fort Hood today. The refusal to engage the Wahhabi sect and other various terrorist organizations funded by the same families that demand American loyalty and protection for their regime illustrates the fallacy of our proverbial “War on Terror” which will never end during my life time or yours.

By that same token, God forbid an American citizen elect to support a third party, vote for a pro-gun law or candidate, or speak freely about the Founding Fathers though, as that is a terrorist act in the eyes of the current regime in Washington and the prior administration. Thus why we shall continue to suffer attacks such as those on November 5, 2009 and March 23, 2003; infiltration is easy when Sociologists and cowards set policy and attempt to force the greatest military in history to act as a social experiment instead of just letting them do their job as Constitutionally mandated.

America has suffered another self-inflicted gunshot wound thanks to political correctness and submission to internationalism.

Must we bleed to death before we stop reloading the weapon of our own destruction?

——————————————————————————–

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Weak is Strong, Strong is Weak
Don’t Believe the Enemy’s Propaganda
The Enemy We Know
Pentagon Might Soon Give Troops the Okay to Tweet

http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/the-war-america-refuses-to-acknowledge/

November 2, 2009…
We’re At War Folks, let’s start acting like it.

By INVAR

11-2-09

I’ve given a lot of thought to where we have arrived, and the cognitive dissonance that exists among Americans that refuse to allow themselves to accept a serious reality; that we are at war.

We are at war for our very survival as a culture. A war that will determine if we live as destitute and dependent slaves of a Marxist oligarchy, or fight to retain what is left of our liberties for a little season longer.

It’s not a shooting war – yet. But the machinations set into motion most assuredly guarantee misery and death at the hands of the state and by the consequences of what the state is doing.

What I find disconcerting is the refusal of Americans to accept this reality. We constantly hear by those who think themselves leaders about the need to ‘compromise’; the need to be ‘civil’; the need to be ‘Christian’; the need to be moderate’. What that says to me is that the leaders of the nation are telling us to bend over, take it and enjoy it – because that is what ‘civil’ people do. That is what ‘Christians’ should do.

Of course if you don’t submit to such admonitions, you are called a hypocrite, and extremist and so forth – applying Rule No. 4 under Tactics of Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals: 4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”. Of course that is done so that they can destroy you and your opposition to what they plan to do to you. It’s called using your own morality against you. They make you fight according to the rules they say you should adhere to – while they move outside those rules to wage the war while forbiding you to defend yourself by misapplication of your rules.

What they essentially want is for us to be carpets and allow tyranny to walk all over you – because as some would say: that is what Jesus would do.

Well that’s nonsense. Biblically speaking all one has to do is read the bible’s accounts of what happens when Jesus returns in Zechariah 14 and in Revelation to understand he’s not coming back as a lamb – but as a warrior seated on a white horse with a sword – to wage war on those who come against Him at His coming. Once again illustrating the true adage that peace comes through the other side of war.

But still we’re told by among our own numbers that we need to stop being confrontational, to be generous to our enemies while they prepare to rape us.

Meanwhile the Marxist juggernaut plows onward, ripping up our solid foundations and imposing with little to no opposition – tyranny of a sort never seen on these shores.

Americans are willfully oblivious to what is happening to them. They refuse to recognize the war that the Left have waged upon their liberties for decades.

It’s not too dissimilar from the indifference we and our leaders held towards radical Islam in the 80’s and 90’s, even though the leaders of Jihadist Islam declared war on America and the West in both word, thought and deed. We slept in the face of a clear and present danger – and ultimately thousands lost their lives by their hands and we awoke one bright September morning to horror that bewildered the majority of the nation that never saw it coming.

Likewise the Marxists in this nation have declared war on We The People, Our Constitution, our Rights and Liberty itself. They have done so in word, thought and deed, and we would understand what they are doing if only we paid attention to what they were actually doing via stealth and double-speak. They have achieved via deceit, the highest positions of power in the land, and thus having control of our education system, the media and government – have gone from subtle sabateurs – to in-your-face warfare.

They are bold in their declared war of “hope and Change” against the foundations of America. They have gone to war against God and Christian Principles and values in our society. They have lofted up government above God and made the people dependent upon them for their sustenance. They protect sin and abomination by law – and are about the task of criminalizing our faith and our very thoughts.

All under our very noses, while we watch them do it.

And yet we are told to be civil. To compromise. To engage in dialogue, so that we might somehow persuade those that support tyrants to our way of thinking.

Such is madness!

It’s a tool of the enemy to divide and conquer us from within. Men with no loyalty except to their power and ideology preying upon those who always want to see the better angels of mankind; who pervert the scriptures and preach to the biblically ignorant that Jesus was a Socialist – and to be a good Christian means we must adopt the Marxist plank – to eschew war but to wage it on those who refuse to convert to the new religion of ‘compassion’.

We have lost the language, and allow the enemy to define it for us – whereby we play by their ever-changing rules. Then we have those among us who tell us it’s all rotten and wrong unless we follow them and their “truths”. They assail those who stand up to tyranny because they do not follow specific ‘chosen’ leaders, so the opposition to a clear enemy becomes muddied and lost as we battle among ourselves and afford the Marxists the achievement of their goals without hardly any opposition.

Anarchy is being bred, along with the portents of a bloodbath that will make the French blush in astonishment.

One day, a majority are going to wake up to an absolute horror that their lives are in, and they will suddenly ask themselves “how could this happen?”. I fear by the time that happens, it will be too late to stop the things that will be visited upon us – things our minds cannot wrap themselves around.

For now a majority refuse to recognize reality, because they assume their lives will somehow return to what they were – as if that was the way the world resides normally. They have no clue that our very short 70 year stint of prosperity and world leader is an anomaly in world history. Those that are aware – are perhaps planning to go grey, sit on the fence and let the tyrants march on through so they can remain unnoticed and untouched – but eventually they too, will be left to beg for whatever bread crumbs they can obtain from the Oligarch’s table.

If we are to avoid that fate – we must be at war.

Before that war turns hot, or before we are being loaded into camps or prisons – the war has to be fought here and now on the battlefield of ideas and discourse. If we do not fight it now, then into bloodshed, camps and prisons we will go. That is the fate the Marxists have envisioned for those of us beholden to liberty, who openly defy them.

We cannot pussyfoot around with playing nice with Marxists and their supporters. We cannot pretend this is a civil society where we can all agree to disagree about the trunk of the tree. The trunk of the tree of liberty is what sustains and keeps us, and we cannot entertain those that say we need to cut it down and replant it – or waste time arguing with those who pretend to be of us – while preaching that the fruit you freely choose to eat from the tree is rotten and to eat the fruit of their tree instead.

They need to be opposed and fought. We need to reject the calls for compromise with those who work to undermine our liberties and refuse to engage fools in debate when their clear motive is to ridicule and sow discord among us. Ideas and agendas anathema to liberty need to be cut down, stomped on and rendered irrelevant.

We do not need to answer fools according to their folly, we simply need to kill their foolishness and not permit it to remain or give it any legitimacy. Marxist thoughts, ideas and plans need to be shown what they are and burned in a fury of outrage and contempt. No quarter must be given to the enemy and his ideas, for assuredly – they will give yours no quarter. They are actively engaged in demonizing you. They will demonize and criminalize you regardless of how reasonable you sound, no matter whether you remain silent or not. They wage war on us – whether we want it or not.

They want us to lie down and compromise and capitulate. They want us to surrender by sitting down and shutting up while they move to tighten the noose around your neck.

If you struggle and oppose these efforts – they may charge you with hate crimes, hating the poor, being racists and Nazis. The truth is they are projecting what they themselves are. So call them on it. They hate us anyway – so why pretend otherwise? They are at war with us – let’s start acting like it!

We can choose not to fight and be at war – but that makes little difference to the Marxists and the Politburo in power, because THEY are assuredly at war with you and liberty in this nation.

It’s time to fight this war.

Sharpen your swords and cut down the nonsense when you read it. Train your guns on the enemy’s ideology and show it no mercy.

God does not compromise with the Devil, and neither should we.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

——————————————————————————–
http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/were-at-war-folks-lets-start-acting-like-it/

http://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/the-godless-liberal-left-supports-a-theocracy-in-america-as-long-as-its-islamic/

The Godless Liberal Left Supports A Theocracy In America – As Long As It’s Islamic

While the Christian-hating Left steps up their demonization and attacks on Christians, they support an Islamic theocracy in America.

It’s insanity to anyone with a shred of wisdom left to his senses watching Christian-hating morons like Chris Matthews demonize the Christian Right as ‘the Taliban’ – right after taking up and apologizing for the Jihadists in Afghanistan on his little-watched propaganda show:

It’s not so much that this is surprising coming from a Godless Leftist who gets tingles and a hard on for Barrack Obama every time he speaks, but the amount of Christian-hating spew coming out of the State Run media and Obama stormtroopers across the media landscape is becoming truly alarming. We’ve seen this before in history, and those who remember history, knows where such demonization leads.

Of course anyone who knows their Bible should remember Jesus’ own Words that Christians would be hated and persecuted, even to death in this world. Something sadly many American Christians have overlooked in our peace and prosperity. This is noted especially in Matthew 24 and John 15 & 16 – when Jesus explained that at the End of the Age – Christians would be driven from their places of worship and killed while the killers would think they do God service by doing so (John 16:2).

That certainly describes Jihadist Islam and their Leftist/Marxist allies here in this country to me.

This hypocrisy by the Marxist/Anti-Christian Left in this nation is quite remarkable when you consider the organizations that rush to run roughshod over Christianity – but then remain silent or actively support Islamic Fundamentalism establishing a religious theocracy here in America.

Truly the imbeciles on the Left are clueless of this man-eating crocodile they have allied themselves with for their own power’s sake. Eventually this man-eater will turn on the very ones who are busy feeding it Christians and American liberty.

For now however, it’s the shared hatred of liberty as carried by Christians and Jews that allies Islamics and Leftists together as they work to enslave the nation to tyranny.

Eventually there will be a battle over whose tyranny is dominant – but for some of us who have been watching, Obama may encompass a new kind of tyranny; that of Islamic Marxism, a blend of liberal Islam with the religion of Marx to create a new type of Fascist politics. John Griffing has an excellent piece today in the American Thinker that discusses this very hypocrisy and danger:

Islamocracy
By John Griffing

The Left, champions of strict separation of church and state, have come out in support of an American theocracy. How can this be? Could this possibly be the same political machine that ritualistically goes from town to town scanning courthouses for explicit references to God, or even worse, the Ten Commandments? Or the establishment telling little Susie she cannot pray at school? Or the organization forbidding the reading of scripture, even on a purely non-sectarian, academic basis? Surely we can’t be talking about the same ideologues.

But there is no mistake. The Left supports theocracy, as long as it is Islamic. The evidence sits all around us: Public school officials train students to ward off fanciful Christian (never Islamic) hostage-takers, but rush to allow Muslim students 15 minutes of class time to pray to Allah.

President Obama publicly advocates the Islamic practice of covering women to alleviate lust, without so much as a whimper from those staunch defenders of women’s rights in the Democratically-controlled Congress.

Mosques are an increasingly common feature of the American landscape. These havens of peace, or should I say recruitment centers, have contributed to some pretty striking changes in American cities. Somehow, wherever large Muslim minorities reside, mosques obtain the right to play the extremely militant Call to Prayer over loudspeakers for all the non-Muslims to hear, usually five times a day. President Obama remembers the call to prayer fondly. And what is the call to prayer? The text reads:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet …

Ah, what memories. This militant prose is blasted in cities all over the United States, most notably in Dearborn, Mich. And yet church bells are outlawed in many cities, citing offensive noise and sound pollution.

Inexplicably, many on the Left don’t appreciate the irony of aiding the ascendance of a religion so at odds with many of the Left’s most cherished “rights.” The perceptive among them might have noticed, for instance, that Islamic law mandates the brutal slaughter of outed homosexuals, usually by way of stoning or, in rare cases, pushing a large brick wall onto the transgressor. Execution for homosexuality is the law of the land in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. If homosexuals decide to be “out-and-proud” in the suburbs of Europe, they’ll receive a swift beating from gangs of Moroccan “youths.” But in America, Christians are arrested for praying silently at a gay rally.

The Left rewards the perpetrators of honor killings, a Muslim sacrament that calls for the purification of fellow family members through murder, sometimes for evils like talking on cell phones or socializing with westerners. Such barbaric practice is no better illustrated than in the example of Heshu Yones, a native Londoner. Heshu fell in love with a Lebanese Christian boy and they planned to elope. When Heshu’s father caught wind of this, he stabbed her eleven times, and then slit her throat.[1]

In one recent case, leftist litigants nearly succeeded in sending poor Rifqa Bary back to her sanguine parents where she would surely have met her death.

The Left will fight for the Muslim right to slaughter relatives, but peaceful abortion protesters are jailed without even the slightest pretense to upholding the First Amendment.

The sheer brutality of Islamic law is evident to any with common sense. But even though it is inconsistent with American principles of individuality and freedom, many leftists in the U.S. publicly argue for the adoption of the Islamic law called Sharia. Amputation for theft certainly would certainly solve many problems in America’s crime-ridden streets. The Chief Justice of London’s Sharia Court agrees:

The Left’s dichotomy extends to public schools as well. The state-funded University of Michigan has begun constructing footbath stations for Muslims. Where Muslims are concerned, no one seems deterred by landmark Supreme Court cases like Everson v. Board of Education orEngel v. Vitale. The “high and impregnable” wall between church and state has just plunged foot deep into the water. But what would be the response if Christians built baptismals at UC Berkley?

The Bible is banned by Idaho for use in public school classrooms, but the same authority permits“a passionate defense of Islam by a Muslim faithful.”

And now with the latest call for a probe into the radical terror-funding Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Democrats again have a chance to show their patriotism by condemning Islamic supremacists. CAIR leaders have lobbied for a global caliphate and the complete overthrow of the American government. CAIR’s Chairman Omar M. Ahmad has evensaid, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran…should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” The appropriate response to such sentiments is simple: NO. Instead, Democrats have resorted to tiresome clichés about ethnic enmity and intolerance. When given the choice between America and an Islamic theocracy, Democrats appear to desire the latter.

The Left is not the decrier of theocracy and the champion of strict separation of church and state that it claims to be. Democrats seem perfectly willing to accede to an Islamic brand of theocracy if it strengthens the Left’s hold on America. Alarmingly, the Democrats also seem to think they can keep Islamic extremism under their control, using only so much of it as is necessary to further their own agenda. This naiveté portends disastrous consequences for freedom in America. We must act now before the religion that gave us the 9/11 hijackers makes the Whitehouse Muslim. Or has it already?