FLAGS OF ISLAM

THE MISNAMED WAR ON TERROR takes more casualties. The smiling day is overcast. The incessant caterwauling continues. Lest we forget who we are fighting in the name of freedom and liberty, regardless of the soil, the oil, the misery, the toil, let's turn an eye to the flags of our enemies, before the Marxist Left and the Unrepairable George Bush completely miss the point.

Note that the flag of Islam in the era of its warlord prophet was solid black. Someone over there in the Camp of Islam should notice that the would-be renewed caliphate has lost its path, forsaken the mores of Mohammed, and abandon the green flag with white crescent facing right with a five pointed star (shown above) to return to its all-black all the time flag. Makes sense, at least as far as following the often incomprehensible halal and haram strictures of the flag waving thuggery.

In fact, I have seen pictures of Middle Eastern Muslims toting the solid black flag. Those hardliners must be the Al-Qaeda reps in the crowd. Hey, there's a clue for the Crusaders. Grab it!

THE CONVERGENCE OF TOTALITARIANISMS

For those new to the righteous cause, or for you naysayers and misguided appeasers in our midst, here is an excruciatingly detailed essay Alexandre Del Valle, translated from the French by Erich von Abele.

SINCE THE INSTIGATION of the second Intifada al Aqsa, in September of 2000; since September 11, 2001, which marked the end of the inviolability of America's strategic sanctuary; and, above all, since the second Iraqi crisis, which has resulted in the dismantling of the regime of Saddam Hussein, one has been able to note throughout the West the emergence of a Red-Green-Brown Axis (the Red of the extreme left, the Brown of the extreme right, and the Green of Islamism). The different components of this Axis have for a common objective the struggle against the new faces of Evil: America, Israel, “Imperialism”, and even the West in its entirety.

The objective alliances among these three ideologies, we will see, did not begin just yesterday. But it is undeniable that the events since the beginning of the new millennium have contributed particularly to their collusion. In effect, the use of the term “crusade” by George W. Bush on the day after September 11 has been seen as a provocation, as much among the anti-clerical extreme left and extreme right as it has among the Islamic milieus—whence the evermore revealing convergence among, on the one hand, those nostalgic for the first two totalitarianisms (the Browns and the Reds) and, on the other hand, the protagonists of revolutionary Islamism.

These latter affect to defend the Arab masses who are “occupied” as much as the poor, the weak, and the “humiliated” of the Third World, the victims of the new Judeo-Christian “imperialist” Crusaders. The recent public standpoints expressed by the famous terrorist—Carlos the Jackal, among others, lead quite clearly in this direction.

It is evident that Islamism, the third totalitarianism after Nazism and Communism, echoes to a definite extent the aspirations of its two predecessors: seizing the struggle of civilizations and religions, then declaring war on the Judeo-Christian world in the name of the “dispossessed” of the rest of the planet, Islamism seduces as much those nostalgic for the pagan Third Reich, resolved to eradicate Judaism and Christianity, as it does those partisans of the hammer and sickle, determined to come to blows with the “bourgeois” and “capitalist” West.

The nerve center of this despised system: Manhattan, “the planetary district of mercenaries of the economic and financial war that America wreaks on the world”, according to the words of Carlos. It was no surprise, then, to see the Browns, the Reds and the Greens rejoice together at the tragedy of September 11, 2001, and to identify Osama bin Laden as a new David against an imperial “American-Zionist” Goliath. It was no surprise, either, to witness the enthusiasm of these three totalitarian movements converge around the “heroic” struggle conducted since March 2003 by the remnant Baathist rebels and Islamist Shiites of Iraq against the American occupation of Mesopotamia.

Evidently, this Red-Brown-Green Axis of “anti-hegemonic” and “anti-imperialistic” hatred was reinforced since the first years of the 1990s and the fall of the Soviet Union. This paradoxical and neo-totalitarian assemblage has seen its apogee on the day after September 11, and above all, during the winter and spring of 2003, with the benefit of the vast campaign of anti-Americanism conducted in the Western world by the opponents of the war against the regime of Saddam.

This junction of Red, Brown and Green totalitarianisms around the cause of Palestinian martyrs, Iraqis and Afghans, as much as the revolutionary figure of Osama bin Laden, confirms the leadership, henceforth uncontested, of revolutionary Islamism. From now on, this exerts a real fascination upon the other totalitarian options defeated by history (Nazism and Communism) and, consequently, condemned either to reconstitute themselves or to join the Islamist revolution in order to pursue their struggle against liberal democracies.


From September 11 to the second Gulf War

If one follows the Red thread from the opposition to “Yankee imperialism”, one sees that the anti-Zionist and anti-American milieus which had found extenuating circumstances in the commando of September 11 are those who try, today, to absolve Islamist terrorism—whether it pertains to the bin Ladenite movement across the globe or to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Mesmerized by the collapse of the Twin Towers—a terrible illustration of the power of radical Islamism—, the Third Worldist and anti-imperialist ideologues of the extreme left, along with other “counter-globalists”, had been the most vehement to castigate the American intervention in Afghanistan. These were the ones again who, one year later, organized the most virulent “pacifist” displays against the intervention in Iraq , displays equally conducted in the name of the “victims of Zionism”.

Thus Toni Negri, the ex-ideologue of the Red Brigades and leading figure of the No Global movement, declared, in September of 2001, that his compassion did not extent to anyone but to illegal immigrants who might have disappeared with the Twin Towers. The Trotskyite linguist Noam Chomsky, well known for his violently anti-Israeli positions, denounced, in the attack of September of 11, a “planetary imposture”, yet another fascisizing manifestation of “American imperialism”.

Worse: he imputed “the anger of the Islamists” to the “racist” drift of the Hebrew state. As far as the editor-in-chief of Le Monde Diplomatique , Alain Gresh, son of the celebrated pro-Soviet intellectual Henri Curiel goes, he justified, in his book written with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist option of Palestinians in the name of anti-Zionism and “anti-colonialism”.

Two recent, grave events merit particular attention: first of all, the exhortations of the new leaders of the Italian Red Brigades and of the famous “Red terrorist” Carlos to take up the fight of Hamas and al Qaeda; and then, the nearly unanimous appeal by Western neo-Nazi leaders to salute the “heroism” of Hezbollah and bin Laden in their struggle against the Jews and the Americans.

The logical consequence of these parallel fascinations and alliances: Carlos embraces a “revolutionary Islamism destined to sweep the world,” an Islamism that “realizes the dynamic synthesis of different currents (the anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist struggle) and draws for its models of action upon socialism, Marxism and nationalism”; and, at the same time, the charismatic leader of the English neo-Nazi movement, David Myatt, now become Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt, appeals to those nostalgic Axis members and to all enemies of the Zionists, to embrace with him the Jihad, the “true martial religion”, which will most effectively fight against the Jews and the Americans.

Another sign of this rapprochement: on April 3, 2003, the Salafist Londoner Omar Bakri Mohamed, leader of the movement al Mouhajiroun as well as being imam of the Finsbury Park mosque and a recruiter of a number of youths who went off to join al Qaeda, officially received Myatt and accorded him a “welcome into Islam”, specifying to journalists that the neo-Nazi past of this neophyte had “no special importance once their goals converged in common”…

Parallel to this, as the discourse of Marxist terrorists or of certain neo-Nazis becomes Islamified, so too the rhetoric of bin Laden, in particular, and of Islamists in general becomes “Marxized” and “Third Worldized” in its turn, and—uniquely, certainly, unto a tactical aim—borrows, more and more, from the anti-Semitic vulgate of the extreme right. Thus, in his declaration of February 11, 2003, not only did the head of al Qaeda seize on that bête noire of the extreme left which is “the American-Zionist imperialism in Palestine”, recalling the “martyrdom of Vietnam”, but he also for the first time authorized the faithful to ally themselves with an Arab regime that was “atheist” and nationalist:

“Although Saddam Hussein is an infidel, it becomes permissible to unite our forces with his in order to combat the American crusade against Islam and the Muslims.” Saddam himself, that atheist and old “pagan” admirer of Nebuchadnezzar had not ceased, since the first Gulf War, to Islamicize his discourse and his regime. The culminating point of this posture: his declaration of March 4, 2003, in which he called for a “holy war against the United States , the diabolic invaders”, and a Jihad which would oppose “the righteous against the liars, the virtuous against the vicious, the honest against the traitors, the warriors of Jihad against the mercenaries and aggressors.”


Islamism: the most effective of the “anti-imperialist” and revolutionary ideologies

From the outset, one asks oneself what could be able to unify movements as ideologically antagonistic as the Reds (atheists and materialists), the Greens (theocrats and Islamists), and the Browns (believers in the war of the races). To believe that such an alliance would be philosophically impossible and strategically improbable—and, therefore, from the get-go doomed to checkmate—would be to forget that Islamism is not only the third totalitarianism to come about, but is also equally, in a number of points, the inherited unifier of the two predecessors.

Insofar as Islamism is not only simply a religious “fundamentalism”, but also and above all a subversive revolutionary totalitarianism, an ideology of mass destruction comparable to Nazism, Maoism or Stalinism, this “Green fascism” prolongs the anterior totalitarianisms. What distinguishes the Green version essentially is that it brings to the historical totalitarian hatreds a theological justification and a divine benediction.

Whether it concerns the Lebanese Hezbollah, Palestinian Hamas, the al Qaeda combatants, or the Iraqi and Palestinian “resisters”, it must be recognized that in the marketplace of global revolution, the Islamists and the Arab-Muslim “mujahideen” in general are the most effective and ferocious adversaries of “Israeli-American imperialism”. They are the ones who are inflicting the most damage on the “colonialist” and “capitalist” powers—whom the Reds and the Browns detest above all.

Being the third moment of totalitarianism, an avenging Islamism leading the assault on the capitalist democracies and the “Judeo-Crusader forces” knows now such an ascension throughout all corners of the globe and, in particular, in Europe—an ascension facilitated by the planetary and unprecedented mediatisation which it has enjoyed since the shock of September 11—that it has been attracting, like a magnet, the attentions of those nostalgic for the communist and Nazi totalitarianisms.

Drawing at the same time from the vulgate of the extreme right and from an “Islamically correct” template that is pro-Arab and Third Worldist, this new revolutionary and planetary hatred henceforth seduces the latest anti-Jewish and anti-American militants of the extreme radical right.


From the crooked cross to the Crescent

The majority of the extreme right is clearly turned towards the Arab-Muslim world, conforming itself to the desire expressed by Hitler himself in his testament, in the name of the principle: “rather Islamic than Judeo-Mason”. It is therefore at the same time through fidelity to the Führer and by virtue of post-Cold War geopolitics, marked by the return of the civilizational paradigm, that the new extreme right, once viscerally pro-Western and anti-Communist, has tactically exchanged its Atlanticism for a “Third Worldism tinged with anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism”. This orientation gravitates naturally to the support of revolutionary Islamism.

It is undeniable that the discourse of Alain de Benoist—leader of the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Études sur la Civilisation Européenne (GRECE), one of the more influential think-tanks of the pro-Islamist European extreme right—recalls strangely the rhetoric of the Italian Red Brigades (who have moreover always maintained bridges with the Browns), underscoring an obsessive anti-Americanism that would not surprise the extreme left: “The military-industrial American complex, of which George W. Bush, that sociopath and notorious retard, is today the mouthpiece, has unilaterally mobilized against the nation and people of Iraq a war so dastardly and monstrous that nothing—save his will to dominate the world—justifies it.

Beginning this Tuesday, March 20, every act of reprisal in the world aimed against American interests as well as American military, political, diplomatic and administrative personnel, wherever it occurs, in whatever scope it represents, by whatever means and circumstances, is both legitimate and necessary.”

Speaking of strange politics, the denunciation of “imperialist” American wars against Iraq has become, since 1990, one of the leitmotifs of the anti-Zionist extreme right, in this position becoming linked with organizations of the extreme left. The Iraq of Saddam Hussein had, it is true, much about it to please the partisans of the three totalitarianisms: not only had this regime nearly realized a synthesis of the national-Bolshevik with the national-Socialist, but it found itself, moreover, at the point of war against the two demons fought in common by the Reds, the Browns and the Greens: Israel and the United States. The ideological pro-Iraqi line which almost all of the extreme right in Europe adopted has been shown by a series of demonstrations denouncing “American imperialism”, as well as by voyages of solidarity to Baghdad . The capture of the dictator profoundly deceived those who were opposed to the American intervention. His arrest, in effect, came [at the time] to contradict their thesis, repeated ad nauseam, of the “American quagmire” in Iraq .

For the extreme right, the Age of Gold of the Brown-Green Axis harks back to the Second World War which saw an alliance between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, then the establishment of pro-Nazi Arab and Balkan legions (Waffen SS composed of Croatian-Bosnian-Albanian Muslims along with Egyptian green-shirts, etc.). With reference to the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, the Grand Mufti, Al Hajj Al Husseini, was at the origin, in 1942, of the creation of the Arab League, destined to pursue, alongside the forces of the Axis, the war against the Jews installed in Palestine . It is moreover in reference to the Grand Mufti that the English neo-Nazi leader David Myatt explains his conversion to Islam and his rallying to the cause of al Qaeda, recalling how “60,000 Muslims responded to the appeal of the Grand Mufti to join forces alongside Hitler.”

Three great historical figures of the alliance between the Swastika and the Crescent continue, to this day, to saturate the minds of those nostalgic for the Axis: Leon Degrelle, the leader of Rexism—a collaborationist Belgian movement—and a great crafter of rapprochement between Palestinian organizations and the neo-Nazi milieus between the years of 1950 to 1980; the famous Swiss banker François Genoud, testamentary legatee of Hitler and Goebbels, who consecrated the bulk of his post-Nazi life to financing terrorist and nationalist Arab movements (Nasserism, the Palestinian FPLP and OLP, the Algerian FLN, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) in their capacity as enemies of the Jews; and, finally, one of the major artisans of the “Islamonazi synthesis,” Johann Von Leers, Goebbel's old right arm, responsible for anti-Semitic propaganda under the Third Reich.

Becoming Omar Amin after having been recruited in Egypt by Nasser, who nominated him responsible for anti-Jewish propaganda in Cairo, Von Leers converted to Islam after his contact with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. His example continues to inspire an Islamophile and pro-Arab current of the extreme right. It is in his memory that one of the actual ringleaders of the new pro-Islamist European right, the Italian Claudio Mutti, has chosen for his name of conversion to Islam that of Omar Amin. Today still, these three symbols of Islamo-Nazi flirtation are referenced by young neo-Nazi militants who look in the Brown-Green alliance toward the “sole chance of survival for an Aryan Europe” in the face of the danger represented by the “Western plutocracies” and by the “Judeo-Mason conspiracy”.

Read it all.

NEIL YOUNG LOSES HOPE

Canadian folk rock legend Neil Young said he has lost all hope that music can change the world, as he presented a documentary about his 2006 anti-war concert tour at the Berlin film festival on Friday.

"I know that the time when music could change the world is past. I really doubt that a single song can make a difference. It is a reality," Young told reporters, adding, "I don't think the tour had any impact on voters."

But the silver-haired frontman of the sixties supergroup Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young nonetheless dealt US President George W. Bush a stinging, back-handed insult and said his own "naive" urge to make people think remains intact.

Read it all.

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

Let me preface this by saying, I am speaking as a Jew and a bit of an amateur historian of sorts. One of the more interesting historical eras was the era of the Third Reich and how the great nations dealt with its rise.

We know, like much of Islam today, early into his reign Hitler was no match for England and France, much less the Soviet Union and America. Like Islam, Hitler needed time to acquire arms and to build his military machine. Then it was tanks, planes, rifles and other military equipment. Today it is weapons of mass destruction.

Hitler knew the powers in his day, particularly England and France, had weak, pusillanimous leaders like the Iranian president rightly pegs Mr. Bush. Don't fool yourself, Bush is a weak little man at the helm of a very powerful military, commercial and industial power. Only Bush is so compromised and so corrupted by his and his family's long standing relationship with the Saudi Royal Family jihadists, Bush is afraid to exercise American military power.

Like Hitler, Ahmadinejad is buying time and gaining legitimacy. With Hitler it was the 1936 Olympics in Germany and American hero, Charles Lindbergh's many visits. Ahmadinejad was just invited to a prestigious University.

Then there was the Munich appeasement, whereby England and France hoped to buy off the Furher by sacrificing tiny Czecholovakia to the Nazis. We know what that achieved, don't we Proud Infidel?

Well, Bush is doing much the same thing by sacrificing Israel to the jihadists. Some people believe Bush is a friend of Israel's. I believe he is an enemy of Israel's. To me as a Jew, Bush is a vicious enemy of the Jewish state. Now unlike Czech's Benes, Bush has his traitorous puppet prime minister in Jerusalem to do his bidding but don't think for a minute what Bush is doing is moral or right.

It is downright evil, contemptible and pusillanimous. Mark my word, should Bush and Rice be successful in Maryland [Mideast Talks] this November, it will only be a matter of time before there is a huge massacre in Israel by the Muslim jihadists. Bush will leave Israel defenseless strategically.

This is criminal I believe in the heavenly books (those up in heaven) Bush will go down in history as the criminal that betrayed Israel, our only ally in the Middle East.

—Monk

NOT A PUBLICITY STUNT

What did you expect? This is not the site for Bush apologetics or Liberal apologetics but for truth. The truth is Iraq has failed because nobody in the Bush camp of the Republican party wants to accept that Islam is the source of the problem in Iraq and not dictators. As William Eaton in 1799 wrote upon seeing Tunis and Islam stated...

"They are abject slaves to the despotism of their
government, and they are humiliated by tyranny,
the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of
priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the
frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten
above a thousand years, than of the living despot
whose frown would cost them their lives."

So what that Saddam is gone. The true dictator lives on. He preaches in every mosque and in every home in Islamic lands. His book the Quran and his system of Islamic government lives on.

—Great Comet of 1577

The attitude that "I know this one guy" or "I met a really reliable Iraqi officer in Mosul" or, well, fill in the blank. There is the Gunga-Din problem, the sentimentalism of those who focus on the one or two, or even a dozen, genuinely trustworthy and loyal Iraqis they met in person, and do not focus on the millions who don't quite fit the same bill.

It is Islam that mandates a state of permanent war—though not always open warfare when Muslmis are too weak or can obtain the same goals more effectively through other instruments—between Believers and Infidels. In such a war, as in all wars, one does not make policy based on the exceptions, rather than the rule. One did not soften the blows against Nazi Germany because there was the White Rose resistance of the Scholls, or because there was here and there an Oskar Schindler. One did not change policy toward the Soviet Union because within that Soviet Union there were such people as Andrey Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, because the Soviet state, the Red Army, the Communist Party, was the culprit that required modification.

US GOVERNMENT LOSING ITS MARBLES

Is this for real? As news breaks hat the Bush administration continues to sell America to our enemies, Hugh Fitzgerald, clarifies the issues at hand. Read his article, and shudder at the sheer audacity of our government to wink & nod every time the Saudis feign a cough:

The Bush Administration announces in the same breath that "over ten years" Israel will receive "$30 billion in weapons," and that Saudi Arabia will get "$20 billion" in weapons to stave off Iran (over what time period? 10 years, like the Israelis? Or more like a year or two?). And it announces also that, furthermore, a country that is in every way hostile to us, Egypt, will receive "$13 billion" in weapons as a gift.

What shall we say about this? Israel is not only a temporary ally but a permanent ally. It is a permanent part of the West and central to the West's history, at this point, and must be kept alive not only for our own moral sanity, but also because its disappearance, or reduction to dhimmitudinous despair and reliance on Arab Muslim willingness to allow it to survive would whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But this weapons transfer, billed as "$30 billion," in fact is misleading. Over ten years that amounts to $3 billion a year in weapons aid, which is only one-quarter over the amount now given, and gratefully received. (And need one point out how many advances, in aerospace technology, and in everything from unmanned aircraft to explosives-resistant vehicles that ought to have been, but were not bought, by the Pentagon for use in Iraq, are developed by the Israelis for their, and of course our, use?)

Saudi Arabia, per contra, is our enemy. A permanent enemy, because it is a country whose people are suffused with the most uncompromising, violent, and malevolent—for Infidels—version of Islam. For in Saudi Arabia they take their Islam very, very seriously. Saudi Arabia is not worried about an invasion by Iran. Such fears are phony. The whole hysteria, coordinated with Egypt and Jordan, about the "Shi'a crescent" is merely designed to get the Americans to focus only on Iran (and its current accomplice, Syria) and to ignore the much larger threat, outside the local business in Iraq, that Sunni Islam poses to Infidels. It is designed to get them to ignore also that above all other states, Saudi Arabia is the world's Muslims’ chief financier, paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da'wa, and the buying up of Western hirelings who in the capitals of the West—and certainly in Washington—work to do the Saudi bidding. They work to prevent intelligent understanding of the menace of Jihad and of Islam to our legal and political institutions and to our physical security.

It is absurd to think that the Saudis will master this equipment, but not absurd to think that such weaponry could fall into the hands of Arabs and other Muslims who can master some of it. In any case, the mere possession of such weapons would have to be taken into account by Israeli military planners, and will make their own task even more hellishly difficult, and they don't deserve to have that outcome. When the United States protested about a sale of aerospace technology, developed by the Israelis, to China, Israel, at great cost to its own fledgling aerospace dreams, promptly cancelled the sale -- thereby angering China and permanently damaging any hope of future sales to such a market. But Israel listened and heeded our desires. We, however, or at least this and other American administrations, have not ever heeded Israel's pleas on the same score.

And what is also bad is the signal to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be read the riot act. Saudi Arabia should be told it is not "our ally," and if it wishes to be defended, it will obviously have to rely, in the end, on us -- not on weapons that could fall into hands even more malevolent than the Al-Saud (just as the weapons we sold the Shah, that "pillar of stability" in the Persian Gulf, fell into the clutches of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Thus if these weapons are delivered, we would have to be ready to intervene in order to make sure those weapons were not seized, or transferred, to others. Saudi Arabia was a loyal supporter of the Taliban (and one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban government, besides Pakistan). Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop funding mosques and madrasas, stop funding the hate literature against Infidels that have been found in those mosques and those madrasas, stop funding those campaigns of Da'wa that target prisoners, that target all the psychically and economically marginal.

The Saudis do not now do, and never have done, the United States any favors. We buy their oil at the market price. They have fooled successive American policymakers, who wanted to be fooled. They were helped along in being fooled by so many who, directly or indirectly, at the time or soon after, have been paid off by the Saudis, the government, or its institutions, or rich individuals.

The way to "protect" the Al-Saud and the oilfields is quite different. It is to sell Saudi Arabia an insurance policy. We will guarantee the safety of the rulers and of the oil. It will cost: let's say $50-100 billion annually. Too much, you say? Well, since Saudi Arabia takes in about one billion dollars a day, and since the rich Saudis have invested a lot overseas, have perhaps a trillion or more socked away, they can certainly afford $50-$100 billion. Okay, how about a little souk-haggling, in that case? Let's give them a deal—$75 billion a year. How's that? As long as you agree with the concept, we can at a later date decide just how much we intend to recoup, for the Iraq calamity and squandering of $880 billion, from the fabulous rich Saudis.

And what about Egypt? Can it seriously be maintained that Egypt needs those weapons because the army of Shi'a Iran may march right across northern Iraq, and Jordan, and Israel, and march right into Egypt? Really? Or is it possible that Egypt needs those weapons because Iranian troops will be coming up from the Sudan? Or that somehow the Sunnis of Egypt, who are deeply distrustful and intensely dislike the Iranian Shi'a for being non-Arabs and for being Shi'a, would somehow be converted by Shi'a missionaries? And if that were the case, why would giving Egypt the most advanced weaponry help in stopping those missionary efforts?

Egypt has fought four major wars with Israel, and has been responsible for nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks in the period 1949-1956 on Israel. It has been, and remains, the most dangerous neighbor Israel has. Egypt does not go to war not because its people have reconciled themselves to Israel's existence—if anything, they have become since the Sinai handover even more virulent in their officially-sanctioned and officially-promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and "Jews." Yet the Administration thinks that giving weapons to Egypt, a country whose poor will not benefit one whit from the airplanes and missiles Egypt will receive, will somehow be accepted by the American people and by Congress, that we will all be unable to see right through this.

The lumped announcement of the one legitimate arms delivery planned—that to our ally and friend Israel—at the same time, in the same breath, with the announcement of the gift of advanced weaponry to Israel's constant threat Egypt, and the sale of advanced weaponry to the funder of the worldwide Jihad, Saudi Arabia, shows an Administration that is terminally exhausted. It cannot think straight about Islam. It cannot begin to start to think straight about the dangers it is creating for an ally, and for the larger Infidel world. It can't begin to get a grip and think in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and how to do whatever it takes to weaken the latter and strengthen the former.

Instead, it has swallowed the Sunni Arab line about the need for countering the Shi'a threat (as if there were not, for Infidels, a greater Sunni threat), which means the threat to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and to Bahrain, and among the Shi'a agitating in Lebanon, or those Shi'a minorities in Yemen and Kuwait. And of course they also mean the threat in Iraq, if the Shi'a are permitted to keep their new gains, and the Sunnis to be forced to accept the new order. That is why, just as the Shi'a exiles were the ones who helped inveigle the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, it is now the turn of the Sunnis, to inveigle us—against our own best interests—to stay.

The Administration keeps amazing us with its ignorance and inability to see the whole picture.

And in its list of recipients of the arms, the Bush Administration puts one in mind of the scene in a Woody Allen film, in which he is in at a kiosk in New York telling the newsdealer that "I'd like a copy of The Times Literary Supplement, and The New York Review Books, and The Hudson Review and also Partisan Review and, oh, could you just throw in a copy of Slut."

MEXICAN TRUCKS ON OUR HIGHWAYS

Does Mexico influence American Policy? The answer seems to be yes, but why?

As with the Dubai Ports debacle, President Bush is willing to risk our national security by giving unfettered access to America’s transportation infrastructure to foreign companies and their government sponsors. They are playing of game of Russian Roulette on America’s highways. Mexico refuses to meet their end of the bargain, yet President Bush rewards them with open access to American highways. It is the American public who will pay the consequences. We can not let these time-bomb trucks on our highways to threaten the lives of Americans and destroy our middle class.

Tell Washington today that we need to protect our sovereignty.

Despite the Bush administration's desire to open the border to Mexican trucks, its own Transportation Department's Inspector General Office reported last year that safety concerns have not been addressed and the border should stay closed.

Issues preventing implementation included the inability to reach an agreement with Mexico to permit on-site safety reviews by U.S. inspectors, the inability of the Mexican government to perform the new criminal history record checks for Mexican drivers who haul hazardous materials, the need to improve the system for monitoring Mexican driver records in the U.S. and the lack of operational weigh-in-motion scales at the 10 busiest crossings.

What is happening? Somebody or some force is rapidly taking over the world. Is this the way to do it?