THE ISLAMIC SLAVE TRADE, Part 5

THE LAST OF THE VIDEO series on the Islamic slave trade and the worldwide conspiracy to keep all its players unpublicized, past and present. In other news, in commentary of the recent Fort Hood massacre by an Islamic jihadist in an American uniform, Hesperando writes on this venerable Veterans's Day:

"People are afraid to speak up about Muslims who behave suspiciously."

The problem is not merely "CAIR and others". If it were only "CAIR and others" demonizing Islamorealist critics, we would not have this general antipathy throughout the West to condemn Islam and to condemn Muslims who follow Islam. Surely "CAIR and others" do not have that kind of reach and power. The source of this immediate fruit—this massive denial about Fort Hood—as well as the much more massive cornucopia of denial throughout the West about Islam in general, is not merely "CAIR and others."

it is much broader and much deeper than that. It is a sociological phenomenon reflecting a general predisposition among Westerners, not a phenomenon of individuals and small groups exerting strangely extraordinary influence over strangely passive Western subjects. The broader and deeper sociological phenomenon, the sea change of Western consciousness into PC dominance over the past 50-odd years, explains why "CAIR and others" enjoy the remarkable degree of traction they do.

Absent that broader and deeper sociological phenomenon, "CAIR and others" would be a marginal, and largely ridiculed if not also officially condemned and legally prosecuted rag-tag collection of eccentrics. As it is, unfortunately, their propaganda tactics resonate within a larger sociopolitical climate that is not of their own devising, but which they cleverly exploit.

Entire civilizations disappeared off the face of the earth under the charge of the Islamic jihad as these cultures tried to appease the invaders to no good end. It should sicken each and every one of us that certain people are hiding behind the corpses of these soldiers, shamelessly performing acts of self-immolation, self-denigration, and self-sacrifice at the altar of Allah all in an effort to avoid offending politically savvy Muslims. Sad and degenerate.

Muslims has always spread Islam through Jihad. They have been doing it for 1,400 years. Destroy the Camp of Islam despite the odds against us, despite our bankrupt nation. We must circle the wagons, hunker down, and free the suffering Muslims from their ideological nightmare. That is the task before us. Anything else is a wretched cowardice.

FIGHTING THE DUPLICITOUS ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA MACHINE

Dear Gabriel,

If you or I were a fly on the wall inside the national headquarters of CAIR today (Council on American-Islamic Relations), I have no doubt we would be witnessing a celebration.

Anyone who follows CAIR understands that the organization is intent on convincing Americans that Islam is a peaceful religion, that terrorists are just a few "extremists" who do not follow "true" Islam, and that Muslims in America are the constant victims of discrimination, hate, and a massive and organized campaign to falsely smear them.

Government statistics don't support the claim that Muslims are frequent, or even occasional, victims of discrimination or hate crimes. But CAIR understands full well that if Muslims can be successfully portrayed as victims, and critics of radical Islam successfully portrayed as "bigots" or "intolerant," efforts to stop the infiltration of cultural Jihad into America will be seriously undermined.

This is why CAIR has worked hard for years to lobby political officials, members of the media, and leaders in academia. CAIR is quick to attack any person or group or silence any effort that speaks out against radical Islam and the threat it poses to America. Just recently CAIR-San Diego tried to stop an ACT! for America chapter presentation at a San Diego library.

CAIR's confidential strategy memo of last year, which we obtained from an inside source, reveals CAIR understands very well how important it is to win the public relations battle.

And a recent Pew Research Center poll reveals that CAIR's strategy is beginning to bear fruit. For instance, the poll found that 58% of Americans now believe that Muslims are subject to "a lot of discrimination." The same poll found that 52% believe Hispanics are subject to a lot of discrimination, and 49% believe blacks are subject to a lot of discrimination.

In other words, more Americans believe Muslims are discriminated against than Hispanics or blacks. The public relations drumbeat to cast Muslims as victims appears to be working.

But what is most disturbing is that 45% of those polled do not believe Islam is any more likely to encourage violence among its believers than other religions. Consider that shocking finding for a moment. Since 1970, over 50,000 different acts of Islamic terrorism or violence have been documented across the globe. No other religious belief comes even remotely close. Yet 45% of Americans polled by Pew believe Islam is no more likely to encourage violence than Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. In other words, 45% of Americans now believe something that is demonstrably and provably incorrect.

How has this happened? Disinformation in our schools and universities and rampant political correctness in the media and government, fueled by the actions and activities of organizations like CAIR. Like I said, CAIR is rejoicing today. This is a good wake-up call for us. The good news is that 38% of those polled did believe Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, so a lot of Americans "get it."

But if the trends of the past four years revealed in this poll continue for the next few years, the time will come when a majority of Americans will believe the politically correct misinformation that is flooding our schools, colleges, news programs and films and television shows.

CAIR understands how important the public relations effort is to winning the hearts and minds of Americans. We do too.

This is why I'm writing you today, to unveil an ambitious and powerful public relations effort we are starting to put together for early next year.

Our plan is simple: Create a 30 minute ACT! for America infomercial and air it on cable TV stations nationwide. The infomercial will show viewers the truth about the multiple threats of radical Islam, from nuclear terrorism to cultural Jihad. We will tell them how they can get involved in ACT! for America, and how their voice and action will help us make a difference.

In the struggle against radical Islam, no other program like this has ever been launched on this large a scale. Our goal is to reach tens of millions of viewers, through the power of film, to fight back against the politically correct disinformation that is flooding our society.

Can you envision the power of this? We know that such infomercials work because numerous companies and other organizations continually spend the money to air them. If they didn't work, those organizations wouldn't spend the money to produce them and show them.

Now is the time for us to ACT. We can't allow CAIR and its many allies to ultimately win the public relations battle. So I'll get straight to the point. Over the next three months we are going to do everything we can to raise the money needed to finance the production and airing of a top quality 30 minute infomercial so we can reach the masses of America.

That effort begins today, and I need your help. If you will commit to a $20 per month contribution, I'll send you an autographed copy of my best-selling book They Must Be Stopped, AND a copy of our new 14 minute DVD, "Welcome to ACT! for America."

What's more, when the infomercial is completed I will mail you a DVD of it so you will be one of the first people in America to view it. The Patriot Partner program is the backbone of our ongoing efforts to launch new programs, such as the Stop Shariah Now project we just unveiled last week, and this new infomercial.

I know that economic times are tough for many Americans, and if we could afford to do so, we wouldn't ask you for your help right now.

But CAIR isn't stopping its efforts, efforts that are paying off. Organizations getting disinformation into our public schools and universities aren't stopping their efforts. The Saudis haven't stopped their efforts to fund radical Islamic material in mosques across the country. We MUST counter those efforts with action of our own. We cannot sit still and hope for the best.

If just 1,000 of our 62,000 members committed to $20 per month, that would add up to $240,000 in one year—enough money to buy a lot of air time on cable stations for our infomercial!

That's the power of "when everyone does a little, together we accomplish a lot." Now, if you're already a Patriot Partner, or you're simply not able to become a monthly contributing Patriot Partner at this time, but you still want to help, here are two things you can do. Depending on the amount of your contribution, I'll send you a gift, such as an autographed copy of my book AND the new ACT! for America DVD, as my way of saying thank you. And if you make a contribution of $100 or more, I'll also send you a DVD copy of the infomercial when it's completed.

However, I want to reiterate, the most important way you can help us is by becoming a Patriot Partner. My hope is that at least 1,000 of you choose to do so. That will really jump-start our efforts to fund this new infomercial. I'll be able to speak to current and potential donors who are able to make large contributions, and show them how our grassroots membership is responding to this call.

So please, ACT today. Please don't sit on the sidelines and hope someone else will respond. Click here to become a Patriot Partner.

If you already are one, or you aren't able to make a monthly commitment at this time, click here to make the most generous, one-time gift you can.

Or click here to print out a reply form to mail in with your check.

Today in Europe and England most people are too afraid or intimidated to speak the truth in public about the threat of radical Islam. Political correctness has won the public relations battle. That's one big reason why they're losing the larger struggle against radical Islam.

We can't let that happen here. We can't let CAIR and its allies win the hearts and minds of Americans with their politically correct disinformation.

Always devoted,

Brigitte Gabriel

Urgent pushback required? Yes. The best approach is to simply confront them with the facts, the facts, and nothing but the facts. AND KEEP HITTING THEM WITH THOSE FACTS! Resist petty sophistries. Learn your history. Start anywhere you have a particular interest. Islam is an historical movement. Western philosophers in the 20th Century announced the death of God and the end of history. Islam in the 21st century is not begging to differ. Instead, Islam demands we accept their call to us to become Muslims, or else! Learn the arguments, and stand strong with the facts.

Consider the Islam whitewash (with a little help from their Leftist Marxist friends) of the Crusades. It is clear that the Crusades were a defensive move called and endorsed by Pope Urban as a long-awaited response to Islam which had entered another of its conquering and proselytzing by the sword phases.

Strategic victories like the one at Manzikert were important to morale in cinching a rallying cry but above all the issue was the Muslim capture of Jerusalem, occupied since 638.

Modern politically correct histories will insist with spin that Jerusalem first fell to the Muslims without a fight but, in fact, the reason no major battle was waged for Jerusalem in 638 was that Byzantines had been defeated at Battle of Yarmuk in 636. Yet, Jerusalem had sustained a four-month siege before it finally surrendered.

Saladin's forces in 638 were engaged in occupation and converting the native peoples into refugees in their own country.

Saladin massacred the prisoners he captured after the Battle of Hattin, not all of whoem had killed Muslim civilians, so the idea that he was some saintly figure as characterized by Hollywood and Islamic apologists of late, is nonsense.

Denouncing the Crusades is a bit like beginning a history of the Second World War in 1944 and stating that D-day, the invasion of Normandy, was a wicked invasion, concocted by Britain, the USA and other allies, of France which was, of course, the natural home of the Germans.

You have to ignore centuries of Muslim aggression to reach this conclusion. And this is the sort of white-wash, nay, Orwellian rewrite that is going on in the world and America today. Each detail is a mere dot connected by the propaganda machine in creating that an image of Islam as a glorious and peaceful religion. Brigitte Gabriel knows first hand, a different picture. And she is not alone. Wake up America. Europe and other peoples in the Far East are in great danger of falling under the sword of Islam. Shall we stupidly and blindly follow them to our own bloody graves?

This week in Europe we find rare, groundbreaking, and very welcomed news of a wary leftist in government:

THE HAGUE—Leftwing Green (GroenLinks) leader Femke Halsema has, unusually for her, expressed criticism of Islam. This religion is "of course a problem," she said yesterday in an interview with free newspaper De Pers. Confronted with the statement by the newspaper that the 'progressive' GroenLinks does not campaign against orthodox Islam, Halsema reacted dismissively.

"We do (criticise it). I am one of the few that criticises Saudi Arabia, along with Geert Wilders, for the violation of women's rights. I will always campaign fiercely against any suspected introduction of the Sharia."

Invited to criticise Islam without making a parallel attack on Catholicism, Halsema did not shy away. "I notice it in my district: of course Islam is a problem. Anyway, specifically Islam in combination with illiteracy. It is having few of your own opinions about the good life."

"Being fearful of our society and thereby becoming very susceptible to what the Imam thinks, who is often very conservative. When I come to my children's school, it is sometimes difficult for me—I really come from the feminist movement—that I am then sitting between all kinds of veiled women. I will not attack their rights for this. But I cannot wait for the moment when they will freely throw off their headscarves. I would prefer to see every woman in the Netherlands scarf-less. And completely free. I do not believe that any God whatever imposes clothing demands. This has been done by the men who explain the faith."

FREE SPEECH IN DISTRESS

"The refusal of the Western elite class to protect their nations from jihadist infiltration is the biggest betrayal in history."

—Serge Trifkovic

Another ambitious article by the American Thinker:

ON JULY 19 , A CONFERENCE entitled "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam" took place as scheduled at the Hilton Hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. There, in the heartland of a post 9/11America, Hizb-ut Tahrir, an international organization outlawed as a terrorist group in several European and Middle East countries, sponsored sessions focusing on strategies to end free enterprise and replace it with Shari'ah law.

Hizb-ut Tahrir is no academic think-tank simply examining public issues. It is an international group reported to have over a million members, including cells in more than 40 countries. It supports the Taliban and Hamas, sanctions suicide bombing and has called for the killing of nonbelievers. It has spawned terrorists for Al Qaeda, Hamas and Jemaa Islamiya; subscribes to the mantra that "jihad has to continue till the Day of Judgment;" and endeavors to replace existing governments with a worldwide Khilafah (Caliphate) or Islamic government under Shari'ah law.

It is remarkable enough that a conference of this nature by a group that advocates the overthrow of the U.S. government actually took place in an American city. Perhaps even more disturbing is the growing number of cancellations of events and conferences that feature the opposite point of view with material and speakers that seek to educate the public about the threat of radical Islam. Increasingly, our country's prized right to freedom of speech seems to operate in only one direction, providing plenty of opportunities for our enemies to speak openly against us, yet, placing a gag over any discussion about the radical Islam threat.

Here are some disturbing recent examples.

New English Review Symposium

In December 2008, the New English Review, a non-profit organization dedicated to the defense of Western values, had scheduled and signed a contract to conduct a symposium, "Understanding the Jihad in Israel, Europe and America" at the Loew's Vanderbilt Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee. Three days before the symposium was to begin, the hotel manager cancelled the event citing concerns about "the safety, welfare and security of hotel guests and employees." Subsequent investigation disclosed that the manager summarily disagreed with the politics of the event and responded to pressure from prominent Muslims and Leftists in the community. A local paper went so far as to refer to the conference speakers as "agents of intolerance."

American Library Association Panel

Just this week, the American Library Association cancelled a panel, "Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping," at the behest of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR sympathizers who objected to the participation of Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.

Spencer has studied Islamic doctrine for close to 30 years and quotes directly from traditional Islamic sources in his efforts to shed light on the myriad facets of the global jihad. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the U.S. intelligence community and other government organizations. Spencer is the author of eight books on Islam and the jihad and has appeared on CNN, BBC, FoxNews, PBS, MSNBC and other networks.

CAIR, which presents itself as a benign civil rights organization for American Muslims, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the successful prosecution of Muslim charity founders who illegally funneled millions of dollars to the Palestinian militant group Hamas. CAIR officials are known to have terrorist ties and the organization has actively fought to repeal the Patriot Act, eliminate military tribunals and even defended convicted terrorists. The group is well known for its pursuit of individuals who expose its links to terrorist funding and support activities. In 1994, one of CAIR's co-founders, Nihad Awad, publicly asserted that he was a Hamas supporter.

In 1998, co-founder Omar Ahmad declared, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." He added, "The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

People's Truth Forum

In 2005, The Georgetown Marriott refused to host a symposium on counterterrorism sponsored by America's Truth Forum (ATF), formerly known as People's Truth Forum, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating Americans about national security threats. The ATF hosts a website featuring articles from mainstream media sources and had planned a series of panels featuring top experts in the field of counterterrorism. ATF's conference was rejected by the Georgetown Marriott Conference Center on the grounds that the organization was too controversial, the venue was inappropriate for the topic and heightened security would be necessary to protect hotel guests. The following statement was issued by Marriott's corporate office: "Due to the high density of Muslim students on campus, we're afraid of the potential for violent protests, injured employees and damage to the facility."

Shortly thereafter, CAIR hosted its 11th Annual Banquet at the Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia. Not only have several CAIR officials been convicted and deported by the United States for terrorist activity, but a 2005 invited speaker, Siraj Wahhaj, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993. Apparently, a group with established connections to terrorism is a non-controversial organization for the Marriott Corporation.

Conclusions

It is unconscionable in 2009 that an acceptable forum in America today is a conference entitled, "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam," with a goal of strategizing the demise of the bedrock of our democracy—the free enterprise system—and the replacement of our constitution with a theo-political-legal system that subjugates women, murders homosexuals, confers non-person status on non-Muslims, permits slavery and kills apostates. At the same time, attempts to discuss Islamic doctrine and educate the American public about this very threat are increasingly verboten. In many recent instances, accurate speech is being deemed inflammatory due to fear of retaliation by those who want to silence critics of Islam who engage in legitimate discussion of a serious threat to our nation.

How this threat plays out in everyday life can be illustrated by the city of Nashville, Tennessee, which provides an interesting example of the exercise of one-way free speech and the accompanying extreme accommodation of those with whom we disagree. Thanks to the largesse of the State department's Refugee Resettlement Program, which offers housing, jobs, welfare and an abundance of social services for program recipients, at least 50% of whom are Muslim, Nashville has over 20,000 Muslims from Iraq, Somalia and the Sudan. Six known mosques exist in Nashville, a doses a Muslim graveyard, a madrassa, a Muslim Boy Scout troop and chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Muslim Student Association and Muslim American Society. According to a local psychiatrist, the Nashville Muslim community has evidenced polygamy, child marriage, female genital mutilation and wife beating. Crimes such as drug-dealing, money-laundering, murder, rape and Medicare and grant fraud are occurring at alarming rates. Many of these behaviors are grounded in value systems that are contrary to our own, yet anyone pointing this out would be subject to accusations of "intolerance."

In this and other ways, attempts to curtail the speech and assembly of critics of Islam portends a grave threat to the First Amendment protections that are vital to preserving our cherished liberty and freedom and safeguarding us from totalitarianism and tyranny. If we are unable to speak freely and openly about the radical Islamic threat presently confronting our country while Islamists are given the freedom to gather and plot the overthrow of our system of government and spout hateful rhetoric and propaganda, an Islamic government under Shari'ah law will surely be our fate.

Read it all.

MISUNDERSTANDERS OF RELIGION

Here is an incomplete list of Muslims in the United States who have been arrested and/or convicted for either planning or acting out their "jihad" against unsuspecting, innocent men, women and children. Will the Muslim organizations in America ever stand up for once and address the facts, or will they continue trying to mask what's really going on within their own community by accusing Americans of practicing the biases and double standards that they themselves practice in accordance with their own beliefs?

Abdel Azim El Siddig: Financing Islamic terrorism (Missouri).

Abdelhaleem Ashqar: Criminal contempt and obstruction of justice for refusing to testify in 2003 before a grand jury investigating the Palestinian militant movement Hamas. Telephone records presented in the case records showed that Ashqar was in contact with Hamas leaders.

Abdul Hakim Murad: Conspiring and attempting to bomb 12 airliners.

Abdul Rauf Noormohamed: Providing false terrorism tips to federal agents.

Abdurahman Alamoudi: Financing Islamic terrorism.

Adam Gadahn, convert to Islam: Treason.

Adham Hassoun: Conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country.

Adnan el-Shukrijumah: Wanted in connection with possible threats against the United States.

Agron Abdullahu: Conspiring to provide weapons to illegal immigrants.

Ahmad Abdelmomen: Aggravated assault, for beating his younger sister, breaking her back, and leaving her wheelchair bound because he was upset about her relationship with a non-Muslim boy. Their parents did not immediately call for medical assistance, believing that the beating was justified. (Michigan)

Ahmad Saad Nasim: Filing a false 'anti-Muslim' hate crime (Arizona).

Ahmad Mustafa: Aiding Islamic terrorists (Missouri).

Ahmed Abdel Sattar: Assisting an Islamic militant imprisoned in the United States with communicating with his followers in Egypt (New York).

Ahmed Barodi: Smuggling bogus passports into Saudi Arabia for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

Ahmed Mohamed: Teaching and demonstrating the making and use of an expolsive and destructive device, illegal transporting of explosive materials. (South Carolina)

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: Terror-related charges, plotting to kill a U.S. President (Virginia).

Ahmed Ressam: Plotting to bomb the Los Angeles Airport on the eve of the new millennium.

Ali Abu Kamal: Shooting seven people on the Empire State Building's observation deck, killing one because he wanted to "punish America for supporting Israel."

Ali al-Timimi: Recruiting Islamic terrorists.

Ali bin Mussalim: Investing funds for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida.

Ali Mohamed Bagegni: Financing Islamic terrorism (Missouri).

Ali Warrayat: Aggravated assault and arson. Warrayat, a Muslim and former student at Arizona State, with a Qur'an and a Palestinian flag in his trunk, rammed his car through the doors of an Arizona Home Depot store, drove through the store to the section that stocks the flammable liquids, and sets it ablaze. Why? He was unhappy with his raise. Also noted in police statements was that Warrayat had referred to his religion on several occasions, and that a Qur'an was hanging from the rearview mirror inside his vehicle.

Amir Abdelgani: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy and attempted bombing.

Amjad Abunar: Arson, reporting a false 'anti-Muslim' hate crime (Texas).

Basel Saleh Salem Kassem: Charged with making a threat on a public conveyance, screaming that he had a bomb in his bag after getting into an argument with someone on an Amtrak train (Virginia).

Basman Elashi: Conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist (Texas).

Bayan Elashi: Conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist (Texas).

Christopher Paul, aka Abdul Malek, or Abdul Malik: Providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to provide support to terrorists, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction. (Ohio)

Clement Hampton-El: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy and attempted bombing (New York).

Dawud Salahuddin, convert to Islam: Murder of a critic of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, saying the killing was "an act of war and a religious duty." Fled to Iran after the murder he committed (Bethesda, Maryland).

Derrick Shareef, aka Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef: Attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion, attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against persons or property in the U.S.

Donald T. Surratt, convert to Islam: Conspiracy, terror support.

Dritan Duka: Conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel.

Ehsanul Islam

Sadequee: Conspiring to provide and providing material support to terrorists. (Georgia)

El-Sayyid Nosair: Seditious conspiracy, murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, attempted murder of a postal police officer, use of a firearm in the commission of a murder.

Eljvir Duka: Conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel.

Emadeddin Z.

Muntasser: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax violations, and making false statements by lying to the government to win tax-exempt status for Care International, an Islamic charity, and then using the nonprofit to distribute publications promoting jihad, and to support Muslim militants overseas. (Boston, Mass.)

Eman Zaeri: Threatening to blow up a local bus with a grenade in Las Vegas.

Fadil Abdelghani: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy, attempted bombing. (New York).

Fadl Mohammad Maatouk: Conspiring to provide support to a terrorist organization. (Florida)

Faisal Al-Salmi: Lying to the FBI when he denied knowing 9/11 hijacker, murderer Hani Hanjour, who flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon. (Faisal Al-Salmi and Hani Hanjour were registered at the same time to use a flight simulator at a Phoenix flight school.)

Fares Khallafalla: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy and attempted bombing. (New York).

Fawzi Assi: Attempting to provide support to a terrorist organization.

Faysal Galab: Contributing "funds, goods and services to and for the benefit of Osama bin Laden and al Qaida.

Ghassan Elashi: Conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist (Texas).

Gregory Vernon Patterson, convert to Islam: Plotting terrorist attacks against synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and military facilities in Los Angeles.

Hamid Hayat: Providing material support to terrorists, lying to the FBI.

Hammad Abdur-Raheem: Providing material support to a known terrorist organization.

Hammad Riaz Samana: Plotting terrorist attacks against synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and military facilities in Los Angeles.

Hasan Akbar: Murder of fellow U.S. soldiers.

Hassan Abujihaad, fka Paul R. Hall, former U.S. Sailor: Supporting terrorism with intent to kill U.S. citizens, transmitting classified information to unauthorized people.
Hazim Elashi: Conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. (Texas).

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet: With a .45 calibur firearm, went on a shooting spree at the Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines, killing two people, including a 20-year-old unarmed woman. He also wounded four others, shooting an unarmed 61-year-old woman, pistol whipping an unarmed man, and stabbing a security guard with a six inch long knife he was also carrying. Side note: The wife of the murderer blamed the United States and its "hate for Islam" for the attack, saying that her spouse was a "victim of injustice."

Ibrahim Abu Mezer: Plotting to bomb New York subways.

Ibrahim Ahmed, Nashville, TN cab driver: Assault and attempted homicide, when after an argument with two non-Muslim passengers over religion, he attempted to run them over as they walked away from the taxi. He succeeded in critically injuring one.

Ibraham Ahmed al-Hamdi: "Virginia Jihad Network", weapons and explosives violations, carrying a rocket-propelled grenade in furtherance of a conspiracy to undertake a military operation against India (Virginia).

Ibrahim A. Elgabrowny: Seditious conspiracy; assault of a Federal agent and city police detective. (New York).

Ihsan Elashyi: Illegal sales of computer equipment to known Islamic terror sponsoring states (Texas).

Imam Fawaz Damra: Obtaining U.S. citizenship by providing false information, concealing his ties to designated Islamic terror organizations (Ohio).
Imam Jamil Al-Amin: Murder, felony murder, aggravated assault on a police officer, obstructing a law enforcement officer, impersonating an officer, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Ismail Yassin Mohamed: While driving a stolen black Chevy Cavalier, he began intentionally ramming a blue and white taxi cab for several blocks until the cab crashed. The passenger inside the cab was critically injured. Mohamed then took off in the Cavalier and crashed it into a business. He then got out of the car and stole a school van. The driver of the van managed to get an 8-year-old boy out of the vehicle before Mohamed drove off with it. Mohamed crashed the van into another group of cars. Authorities said Mohamed was trying steal another car when witnesses pinned him down and waited for police. When asked why he did this, Mohamed replied..."Allah made me do it." Police ruled out road rage as a motive (Minneapolis).

Iyman Faris: Providing material support and resources to al Qaida (Virginia).

Jaber Elbaneh: Providing material support to a terrorist organization and conspiring to provide material support, specifically to al-Qaida.

John Muhammad, sniper: Murdering Americans.

John Walker Lindh, convert to Islam: Providing support to the Taliban.

Jose Padilla/aka Abdullah al-Muhajir: Terrorism conspiracy.

Kevin James, convert to Islam: Plotting terrorist attacks against synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and military facilities in Los Angeles.

Karim Moussaoui: Possession or receiving of a firearm by a person admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.

Kifah Jayoussi: Conspiring to provide material support and resources for terrorism and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure people or damage property in a foreign country.

Lafi Khalil: Plotting to bomb New York subways.

Levar Haney Washington, convert to Islam: Plotting terrorist attacks against synagogues, the Israeli Consulate and military facilities in Los Angeles.

Mahmoud Kourani: Supporting the Islamic terror organization, Hezbollah, through fund-raising.

Mahmud Faruq Brent: Conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

Mandhai Jokhan: Attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in Florida.

Masoud Ahmad Kahn: Conspiracy to levy war against the United States, providing support to the Taliban.

Mazhar Tabesh: Arson, reporting a false 'anti-Muslim' hate crime (Utah).

Michael Julius Ford, convert to Islam: Opened fire at a warehouse in Denver, Colorado, killing one and injuring four others because he was "teased for being a Muslim and couldn't take it anymore."

Mir Aimal Kasi: Murdering two CIA agents, and wounding three others with an assault rifle near CIA headquarters. (Virginia)

Mirza Akram: Arson, reporting a false 'anti-Muslim' hate crime (Washington state).

Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer: Conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel.

Mohamed Shorbagi: Pleaded guilty in federal court to providing material support to Hamas with donations through the Holy Land Foundation. (Georgia)

Mohammed Ali Alayed: After experiencing a religious awakening, he murdered his Jewish friend by slashing his throat.

Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad: Attempting to fund terrorist organizations (New York).

Mohammed Hammoud: Providing material support for Hezbollah (North Carolina).

Mohammed Khalil Ghali: Conspiracy to commit offenses against the U.S.

Mohammed Mohsen Yahya Zayed: Conspiring to provide material support to the al-Qaeda and Hamas terrorist groups.

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar: Nine counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to cause bodily injury after plowing a sport utility vehicle into a crowd of pedestrians, saying he wanted to "spread the will of Allah" (North Carolina).

Mohammed Saleh: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy and attempted bombing. (New York).

Mohammed Yousry: Providing material aid to terrorism and conspiring to deceive the government.

Mubarak Hamed: Financing Islamic terrorism (Missouri).

Muhamed Mubayyid: Making false statements to the FBI, conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax violations, and making false statements by lying to the government to win tax-exempt status for Care International, an Islamic charity, and then using the nonprofit to distribute publications promoting jihad, and to support Muslim militants overseas. (Boston, Mass.)

Muhammed Aatique: Commencing a military expedition against a friendly nation, and using and discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence.

Mukhtar al-Bakri: Providing material support to al Qaeda.

Nada Nadim Prouty: Naturalization fraud, conspiracy, unauthorized computer access at her FBI and CIA jobs.

Naji Antoine Abi Khalil: Attempting to provide material support and military equipment to Hezbollah.

Naveed Afzal Haq: Aggravated first-degree murder, five counts of first-degree attempted murder, first-degree kidnapping for holding a gun to the back of a 14-year-old girl to force his way into the building; one charge of first-degree burglary and malicious harassment, the felony charge for a hate crime. Haq, stating that he was a "Muslim American, angry at Israel," barged into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, shooting six unarmed women, killing one.

Naveed Khan: arson, and conspiracy to commit arson, reported as an 'anti-Muslim' hate crime.

Nemr Ali Rahal: Smuggling funds to the Islamic terrorist organization, Hezbollah.

Nuradin Abdi: Plotting to bomb an Ohio shopping mall (Columbus).

Omeed Aziz Popal: Murder and 18 counts of attempted murder after a hit and run spree in a sport utility vehicle through San Francisco and Fremont, CA, after which he identified himself to authorities as a "terrorist."

Rafiq Sabir: Conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida.

Ramzi Youssef: 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Randall "Ismail" Royer, "Virginia Jihad Network": Weapons and Islamic terror related charges.

Rashid Baz: One count of second-degree murder, 14 counts of attempted murder. (Brooklyn bridge shooting)

Robert Mustaq John: Convicted of sending a death threat by E-mail to Attorney and political blogger Debbie Schlussel, which consisted of pictures of American journalist Daniel Pearl with a gun being pointed at his head, and of Pearl in the middle of being beheaded. Also included in the subject line was the following: "JEWgirl, you might be next", and in red capital letters the words "KILL ALL KIKES." (New York)

Said Biyad: Assault, rape, four counts of murder. (Kentucky)

Sahim Alwan: Providing material support to al Qaida.

Saleh Nawash: Conspiracy, attempted aggravated arson, and attempted insurance fraud, made to look like an 'anti-Muslim' hate crime (Ohio).

Sami Al-Arian: Conspiring to provide services to a specially designated terrorist organization.

Samir Al-Monla: Conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax violations, and making false statements by lying to the government to win tax-exempt status for Care International, an Islamic charity, and then using the nonprofit to distribute publications promoting jihad, and to support Muslim militants overseas. (Boston, Mass.)

Seifullah Chapman: Conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Serdar Tatar: Conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel.

Seyed Mostafa Maghloubi: pleaded guilty last August to violating the US trade embargo against Iran. Maghloubi admitted attempting to purchase up to 100,000 Uzi submachine guns and night-vision goggles, which he wanted to export to Iran through Dubai. (California).

Shafal Mosed: Providing material support to al Qaida.

Shain Duka: Conspiring to kill uniformed military personnel.

Shahawar Matin Siraj: Conspiring to place explosives at a New York subway station.

Sheikh Omar-Abdel Rahman: Seditious conspiracy for plotting a "war of urban terrorism against the United States."

Soliman Biheiri: Illegally using a U.S. passport to enter the United States, concealing business ties with a leader of Hamas.

Syed Haris Ahmed: Conspiring to provide and providing material support to terrorists. (Georgia)

Tarig Elhassan: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy and attempted bombing. (New York).

Tarik ibn Osman Shah: Conspiring to provide material support to al-Qaida.

Victor Alvarez, convert to Islam: Seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy, attempted bombing and firearms charges. (New York).

Wali Khan: Conspiracy to bomb passenger planes.

Yahya Goba: Providing material support to al Qaida.

Yasein Taher: Supporting a terrorist organization.

Yaser Abdel Said: Critical of popular American lifestyles, and upset with the dating activities of his daughters, eighteen year old Amina, and seventeen year old Sarah, Dallas, Texas cab driver Yaser Abdel Said, to date stands accused of shooting both of his daughters, leaving them to die in the back of his taxi. At the time of this writing, Said is described as an armed and dangerous fugitive.

Yaser Bushnaq, a former president of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), CAIR's parent organization: Failing to disclose his affiliations with organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas when he applied to become a U.S. citizen in 2000.

Youseff Megahed: Illegal transporting of explosive materials. (South Carolina)

Zacarias Moussaoui: 9/11 plotter.

ACLU, UNMASKED ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

American Citizens gather to protest latest ACLU outrage

Several Islamic groups in Southern California sued the FBI on Tuesday to force the agency to release more documents about the alleged surveillance of individuals and local mosques following the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2006, 11 Muslim leaders and community groups sent the FBI a Freedom of Information Act request for documents about suspected surveillance of them and sued after the bureau released just four pages, one of them largely blank.

The ACLU, which filed the request and lawsuit, believes the FBI is withholding information. The civil rights group said in a statement that the FBI "squandered an opportunity" to build trust with the Muslim community by not releasing the information. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana and alleges that the FBI's document search was inadequate. The suit says there is concern that FBI investigations "threaten to erode the constitutionally protected freedom of religion that Muslim Americans enjoy."

Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, said that in the last five years the FBI had increasingly responded to FOIA requests by saying there were no records. "So, four pages is a gold mine," he said....

Last year, local Islamic leaders said they turned to the ACLU for help after the FBI provided little information in response to their concern about government monitoring. They said mosquegoers reported being questioned by the FBI about their religious practices and the sermons given during prayer services.

"We're baffled why this information is not being released. The onus is on them to show our community is not under surveillance," said Shakeel Syed, executive director of the Anaheim-based Islamic Shura Council of California. The council, identified in the suit as a federation of more than 60 mosques, and Syed are plaintiffs.

The four pages the FBI released pertain to Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California chapter of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and his group. Two pages recount a 2006 meeting between Ayloush and an FBI agent about improving relations between the FBI and Muslims. Another page had four lines about an offending e-mail the group had received.

"We hope that CAIR has not been under surveillance, because every thing it's engaged in fits within the 1st Amendment," Ayloush said. "We have views that aren't popular around certain circles of government, but they are legal."

Ayloush said he asked the FBI for information about himself because "I want to know why I get stopped at airports every time I return from an overseas trip." He said he hoped to learn that "I'm being stopped for a reason other than I'm Muslim." He and CAIR are also plaintiffs.

The ACLU is quite selective in its defense of the Bill of Rights. It takes a very expansive view of First Amendment freedoms, to the point that they become a suicide pact for the nation at large. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, well, here the ACLU takes an extremely narrow view of what rights this amendment guarantees to American citizens.

Ditto for rights Christians have in comparison to those Muslims are entitled to. Want to have public school third graders dress up as seventh-century Mohammedans and recreate the first years of expansionist Islam? Hey, that's just history. But should those same third graders dress up as first-century Christians traveling throughout the ancient Mediterranean world and avoiding Roman authorities, then we have a major violation of the separation of church and state.

The ACLU is an imposter, a monsterous hypocrite and should always be regarded as such. It is inimical to the survival of America as we know it and so it comes as no surprise that the ACLU is an ally of CAIR, whose ultimate purpose is to have Islam dominant in this nation, although it does defy fifty years of institutional logic.

CAIR TIED TO HAMAS IN FEDERAL COURT

DALLAS—Prosecutors have produced scores of documents, audio and videotapes, and intercepted phone calls in their attempt to prove that a Muslim charity based in a suburban Dallas office park was actually a fundraising arm of Middle Eastern terrorists.

Much of the evidence has surfaced before in books, newspaper articles and previous trials. But those who track terror-financing say the document haul from the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development has also produced new information. They say the documents shed light on a web of related organizations of militant Palestinian supporters in the United States, some of whom saw their goal as destroying Western civilization.

The 1991 bylaws of a group called the Palestine Committee say it was created to be the highest authority on "work for the Palestinian cause on the American front." The committee was led by Mousa Abu Marzook, later deported to Jordan and labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government. The committee oversaw a number of former and current Muslim organizations in the United States.

One was Holy Land, which was shut down in December 2001 and is accused of being a fundraising front for Hamas. Five of its former leaders are on trial in Dallas, charged with sending more than $12 million in illegal aid to Hamas.

Another was the Islamic Association for Palestine, which closed in 2004 after a federal judge found it and then-defunct Holy Land liable in the killing of an American teenager in Israel by Hamas gunmen.

And a third was the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, which has emerged as a leading advocacy group for American Muslims.

For the first time, evidence in the case put CAIR's founder, Nihad Awad, at a Philadelphia meeting of alleged Hamas supporters that was secretly watched and recorded by the FBI. The groups had overlapping rosters of leaders. Documents introduced by prosecutors in the Holy Land trial list several of the charity's leaders as officials in the Islamic Association for Palestine...

"It's clear these groups grew out of an effort to carry out a specific strategy in the United States," Farah said. "It's in their own words, it's a political infiltration that worked for 40 years."

Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denied that his group or its current or former leaders had any ties to Hamas. "That's one of those urban legends about CAIR," he said. "It's fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere."

Ahmed said the Philadelphia gathering attended by CAIR's founder "was an open meeting of Palestinian activists who came together to discuss the Olso peace accords and their struggle to gain a homeland."...
One of the documents is a memo about the goals for the U.S. organization of the U.S. faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members included some of the Holy Land leaders now on trial.

The memo's writer, Mohamed Akram, wrote that members of the Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."

FLYING IMAMS IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE

As a 6’3”, 250-pound weightlifter of Middle Eastern descent, who sometimes wears a full beard, seldom wears a (perfunctory) smile, and who’s last name is “Ibrahim”—a name that sometimes appears in rather “unflattering” headlines, such as the recent attacks in Glasgow—I don’t mind telling you that, well, sometimes I get askance looks of “concern” whenever I board airplanes. Do I take any special delight in that? Not really. Do I understand it? Totally.

Since 1984, 20 of the 27 airplane hijackings have been carried out by Arabs, Pakistanis, Turks, et. al.—all people of “Middle Eastern” appearance. Moreover, since 9/11, the lion’s share of dramatic and fatal terrorist attacks carried around the world—such as the Bali nightclub bombing, where 202 were killed, or the Madrid train bombings, where 191 killed, or the Chechen hostage crisis, where 344 civilians, including 186 children were killed, or the London train bombings, where 52 were killed, or the Sharm al-Sheikh bombings, where 64 were killed—have all been committed by Muslims. This is not to disparage but simply state a fact.

It is understandable, then, why I, a non-Muslim, whose last name is nonetheless Ibrahim, may be a source of special attention in an airport or airplane. Yet so long as I am not unduly harassed or slighted and am treated professionally—and, most importantly, since I have nothing to hide—I am always happy to comply. It simply makes sense. Even so, I don’t believe that I have ever been treated differently than the majority—no doubt because I don’t go out of my way to be conspicuous.

A practicing Muslim associate of mine—call him Ishmael&151;once told me that, while riding the train, he noticed a bearded man dressed in traditional Pakistani garb, swaying back and forth in his seat in recitation while holding a Koran. At the next stop, Ishmael exited the train and chose to wait for the next one, adding, “I pray and recite from the Koran, too, but since 9/11 I know better than to engage in easily misconstrued activities”—activities from a fellow Muslim which worried him enough to board another train.

It is in this backdrop that one should best appreciate the current debate about the “John Doe” provision and the infamous case of the “flying imams.” Unlike myself and Ishmael, these six imams, exploiting religious freedoms granted them that their own religion, Islam, does not grant others, and no doubt fully aware of the scene they’d inevitably cause, decided to fall prostrate in prayer in the middle of an airport, chanting “Allahu Akbar”—the usual last words of Islamist suicide bombers prior to detonation—and then when they boarded the plane, began talking loudly in Arabic, with only words like “Osama bin Laden” being intelligible to English ears.

Why is it that Ishmael and myself and countless other people of Middle East and/or Islamic backgrounds are cognizant enough to know that discreet behavior in airports and airplanes goes a long way in ensuring a hassle free flight, while these imams decided to take an “in-your-face” approach?

Ironically, airports provide non-denominational “meditation” rooms, but, as I’ve heard before, many “pious” Muslims—such as the “flying imams,” one can be assured—feel their prayers are sullied if recited next to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Hindus—that is, infidels. So they take to the middle of the terminal floors.

More ironic still, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is trying to make it so that any American who observes such “aberrant” behavior and decides to report it—you know, to avert another 9/11—can be sued. So now, supposedly Muslims who were raised in stoic environments—whether run by dictatorial, authoritarian, or theocratic governments—and who themselves support the draconian dictates of sharia law (stoning adulterers and murdering “apostates”); Muslims whose attire is markedly different from their Western hosts and who must therefore be used to constant stares—supposedly these same Muslims are now “hurt” and “traumatized” and need monetary compensation because some concerned citizens thought, due to their totally inappropriate behavior in an airport, that they may have had nefarious intentions and thus reported them to the authorities. This is CAIR’s approach at trying to foster better “American-Islamic relations”—its own namesake—threats, fear, and intimidation.

Of course and for the record, should the imams wish to avoid a similar incident next time they board a plane, behaving “normally” (yes, there is such a thing)—like everyone else, both Middle Eastern and non-Middle Eastern, Muslim and non-Muslim—is a sure bet that they most likely won’t be harassed.

Raymond Ibrahim is the editor of the Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.

EUROPE IN BITTER CONFLICT WITH ITSELF

A following piece, posted to Dhimmi Watch by a contributor named Wimbledon Womble, buttresses the sorry state of affairs Europe finds itself in the wake of two events. One concerns an anti-sharia rally set for September 11, being banned in Brussels by its Socialist mayor Freddy Thielemans. The other event talking place just a few miles away in the Netherlands offers another take on things as the Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders suggests that the Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers. WW's analysis:

Europeans walk a fine line between defense of free speech and curtailing of free speech. Unlike the US, you see books banned, speech banned, etc. in many European countries. It's usually hateful things, like Mein Kampf, but lately it's been used to ban other things like some of the late Oriana Fallaci's books that do not advocate genocide. I think maybe they should just not try to ban anything at all, even hateful things, as it is in the US. Although, even in the US, we know that flushing Korans down the toilet is a hate crime, while putting a crucifix in urine is art.

Certainly, though, the internal contradictions are reaching a boiling point. On a day when one Dutch politician calls for banning the Koran, something that would never stand a chance in hell of being banned, an anti-sharia rally is banned. If anti-sharia rallies can be banned, and if Mein Kampf is banned, then why not the Koran? It's pretty selective application of anti-hate speech/writing laws. Either ban everything that can reasonably be construed as hate-filled by a large group of people or don't try to ban anything, and let all ideas out, so that people can make up their mind.

But Europe is paternalistic and hypocritical and pro-Islam in many ways, which is the kind of thing CAIR is trying to bring to the US as step one in sharia-fication of America. Europe doesn't need CAIR, though, to bring this about. The Eurocrats themselves are doing the same job in Europe that CAIR does in the US.

CAIR BULLIES ARE THWARTED

Well, it looks like the tide is turning, and CAIR may be on the first wave back out to the sea from which it came. This is good news for America. This is good news for truly peaceful Muslims. This is good news for you, those enemies in waiting on the Left, who act as apologists for these interlopers, these invaders who are using our system to gain footing, only to have already voiced their agenda to replace the US Constitution with sharia law. How many times do they have to tell us these things. Yes, this is good news for you doubters and appeaser. You just don't know it yet.

Read it all. Check out the three links. Check out the parties in play. Do your homework people. Before it's too late.

PHILADELPHIA - The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum announces its support of Robert Spencer and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the latest victims of what appears to be a targeted intimidation and defamation campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designed to silence critics of its organization.

Spencer, a well-respected author and the director of Jihad Watch, spoke today for YAF on "The Truth about CAIR" on the campus of George Washington University. As a consequence of this invitation, YAF's president Ron Robinson received a threatening and possibly defamatory letter written by CAIR's acting attorney, Joseph E. Sandler, of the law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C.

Sandler's letter (available in pdf format here) accuses Mr. Spencer, without offering any factual support, of being a "well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims," with "a history of false and defamatory statements." Sandler goes on to "demand that YAF cancel the subject session or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated," and states an intention to pursue a "legal remedy" against YAF, should CAIR deem statements made by Spencer at the session "false and defamatory."

CAIR's letter appears to be aimed at maliciously harming Spencer's reputation, interfering in his lawful employment, and aimed to discourage both Spencer and YAF from exercising their fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. Furthermore, the letter wrongfully implies that YAF has an independent duty to censor Spencer, and that it may be subject to suit for allowing Spencer to speak on private property. It is our opinion that CAIR's pre-emptive accusations are without merit, without any legal basis, and that CAIR has yet to prove any of its statements as true.

Therefore, the Legal Project hereby gives CAIR and its attorneys notice that it, too, will pursue "every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false or defamatory statements that are made" or have been made by CAIR and its attorneys against Spencer. We advise CAIR's staff to govern themselves accordingly.

The Legal Project, established by the Middle East Forum in June 2007, is dedicated to safeguarding the democratic liberties afforded by the Constitution to U.S. citizens, namely the rights to free speech and free assembly. The Legal Project protects researchers and analysts working on the topics of terrorism, terrorist funding, Islam, and Islamism against those who seek to silence them through intimidation, defamation, and predatory lawsuits.

Immediate release. For more information: John Matthies, (215) 546-5406, ext. 16, or Matthies@MEForum.org

STOP MUSLIM IMMIGRATION NOW

Thanks to Glen Reinsford for the following:

Pardon the crude analogy, but what if someone handed you a revolver with one bullet and five empty chambers and asked you to put it to your temple and squeeze the trigger? Would you indulge them?

If you are a sane person, then you would naturally decline the offer, regardless of the number of empty chambers. Even a one in a hundred chance of doing harm is hardly a reason, in and of itself, for taking an unnecessary risk.

Consider the similarities to Muslim immigration:

1) In most cases, nothing bad will happen.
2) In some cases, it will.
3) The risk increases as the process continues.
4) There is an utter pointlessness to the whole affair.

First, let's concede that the majority of Muslim immigrants mean Americans no harm. They have their reasons for not wanting to live in Muslim countries and these aren't hard to guess. Of the fifty-three Islamic nations on the planet, there is hardly a single one that isn't characterized by some combination of debilitating corruption, economic blight, third-world standard of living, political repression, or an appalling human rights condition.

Unfortunately, however, more Muslims in America will inevitably result in a more Muslim America, which ultimately means having to deal with the problems that plague Muslim society. If there are tangible benefits that offset the added strain of trying to accommodate a religion that is very much at odds with Western liberal values (including freedom of conscience, social tolerance, democracy, and the equality of women), then they are not immediately apparent.

Even the Council on American-Islamic Relations, one of the most vocal advocates of unfettered Islamic immigration into America rarely bothers to try and make the case that non-Muslim citizens will benefit from an influx of those believing that Islam is meant to be the dominant political, religious and social system that Muhammad required it to be. Instead, CAIR merely implies that Muslims are entitled to America by virtue of the fact that the U.S. accepts other immigrants.

Beyond flirting with cultural catastrophe, there is also the loss of American lives resulting from the domestic terror attacks that will certainly escalate as the U.S. inexplicably imports a fifth column in a time of war.

A Pew Research poll released in May shows that one out of every four Muslims in America either supports al-Qaeda outright or is ambivalent about the terrorists that slaughtered 3,000 fellow citizens in the name of Allah just six short years ago. About the same percentage of younger Muslims also believe that suicide bombings can be justified in "defense of Islam."

Support for terrorism isn't just theoretical. The release of the study was sandwiched between news of a shooting rampage plot by Muslims against Fort Dix residents and a separate Fedayeen plot literally to blow up JFK airport in New York. It also follows the murder of five Americans at a Utah shopping mall by a Muslim teenager in February.

In each case, the terrorists are immigrants to America.

This is also true of Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who murdered two people waiting in line at an LAX airline counter in 2002, Mohammed Taheri-azar, who intentionally ran down nine students with an SUV in North Carolina in 2006, and OsamaAhmedIbrahim, a Muslim doctor in Chicago who allegedly allowed a Jewish patient to die under his care in 2003. NaveedHaq, who shot six women at a Seattle Jewish center last year, was the son of immigrants.

The Qur'an, Islam's holiest text, contains dozens of verses that directly encourage religious violence, and there are literally hundreds more that speak of Hell or hatred toward nonbelievers. Muslim apologists usually insist that the bloodiest directives are reserved for times of war (even if this stipulation is not always evident from the context of the passage).

Many Americans naively assume that they are safe from Islamic terror because they mean Muslims no harm. Indeed, the Pew Research study showed that the majority of American Muslims are "well-assimilated" and have a "positive view" of American society, something that simply would not be the case if there truly was a "war on Islam." Even CAIR (an organization that normally tries to convince the world of just how miserable life is for Muslims in the U.S.) hastily touted this part of the study, as it tried to assuage the concerns of Americans over the news that their Muslim neighbors may not be who they appear.

But whether or not there actually is a war on Islam matters far less than what Muslims choose to believe. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of Muslims overseas and an alarming number of Muslims in the U.S. are convinced that there is a war against their religion. In fact, high-profile organizations like CAIR and MPAC routinely feed this misconception with negative propaganda, while very few Muslim leaders are active in countering it.

Suddenly the issue of whether or not those Qur'anic mandates to "slay the infidels wherever ye find them" are limited to times of war becomes somewhat academic. A Muslim who actually believes the rhetoric of war (as most Muslims now do) has, at his fingertips, a manual of instruction telling him to strike off heads and fingertips in the cause of Allah. What sense does it make for the U.S. to draw its future citizens from a pool of potential terrorists?

As if this weren't bad enough, the Pew Research study also finds that the younger generation of Muslims is more accommodating of terrorism than their parents - a trend that is supported by surveys of Muslims elsewhere in the West, with alarming implications. While moderates are capable of breeding radicals, radicals rarely breed moderates. Islamic extremism will expand with each new generation, even if the overall number of Muslims stays the same.

Progressive radicalization is a persistent theme in Islam, not just in the West, but in other parts of the world as well, where fundamentalism usually has a way of winning out over pragmatism.

In Gaza, for example, Palestinians recently used their new-found "independence" to elect the bloody Islamist terror group, Hamas, to power, even though it meant an immediate and drastic reduction in foreign aid.

It is also highly unlikely that the Pakistan of today (where Islamists are forcing the implementation of Sharia and the persecution of surviving religious minorities) is what the father of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had in mind when he engineered an independent Muslim nation just 60 years ago. Jinnah was a secularist who believed in the separation of church and state.

Lebanon, a vibrant and predominantly Christian nation before 1975, is perhaps the most vivid example of Muslim immigration pushing a nation past the tipping point in the modern age. Native Lebanese expert, Brigitte Gabriel, traces the downfall of her country to the absorption of Palestinian refugees, which gave radical Islam the foothold that it needed to trigger the civil war.

The subsequent occupation by Syria forced out huge numbers of Christians and devastated the social fabric of what had been the Arab world's best example of economic success, civil liberty and tolerance. The free reign of Hezbollah and other radical groups has virtually ensured Muslim hegemony and Lebanon's grinding descent into the abyss of dysfunction that defines those nations under Islamic rule.

Every country that is Muslim today was once non-Muslim. Every culture that found itself under the heel of Islam died a pitiful death as the concentration of Muslims within the population gradually exceeded critical mass. This is because Islam is an end unto itself. Like a virus, once it is introduced, it uses the host's machinery to make copies and eventually strangle native religions into tiny, persecuted minorities.

In the past, Islam achieved its imperial goals by the sword. Today - notwithstanding the occasional terror attack - Jihad against the West is waged via the tactics of unilateral immigration and one-sided proselytizing.

This is not to say that all Muslims are a threat to America's future, of course. Indeed, there is a handful in the United States that does stand against extremism, trying their best to convince the rest of the Islamic world that America is not a legitimate target for terror. Unlike, say, the first-generation immigrants who mostly make up the executive leadership of the Hamas-linked CAIR, these Muslims aren't takers. They are makers—giving back to America, rather than existing merely to foment grievance and group identity for personal indulgence.

Presumably, there are potential Muslim immigrants who would also become patriotic and productive citizens. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing who they are or predicting who their children might become. Like putting a partially-loaded gun to one's head, there is absolutely no compelling reason to gamble with American life and civil liberty. What reward have Americans gained so far that can possibly offset the loss of those already killed by Muslims on American soil?

For potential immigrants who believe that Islam is the true religion, America's message should be one of challenge rather than appeasement. Over the course of fourteen centuries now, Islam has demonstrated a proven ability to take prosperous countries and turn them into disaster zones. Now it is time for Muslims to show that their "one, true religion" is capable of building societies in which Muslims themselves actually want to live rather than escape.

After all, what service to the Muslim world does the United States do by absorbing the most reform-minded individuals from where they are needed most?

It should go without saying that citizens of America who happen to be Muslim should not be viewed with suspicion or treated any differently than anyone else merely on the basis of their religion. But neither should Americans be afraid of confronting organizations like CAIR, which cynically exploit Western tolerance for the purpose of ultimately destroying that tolerance and advancing a theocratic system that is fundamentally opposed to the very principles that made America successful and attractive.

Again, the message should be clear: If you want to live in a Muslim country, then go live in one. On the other hand, if you don't want to live in a Muslim country, then stop trying to turn America into one.

The problems are not uniquely American, of course. But Americans are best positioned to avoid them if they can muster the courage. Others in the West are not as fortunate. Some have developed a pathetic resignation to their fate.

On a recent visit to the United States, Queen Elizabeth talked positively of the "challenges" posed by "diversity." This was a thinly-veiled reference to the consequences of British immigration policy over the last fifty years, which now include a disaffected Muslim underclass that is just beginning to flex its muscle. In the Queen's mind, it would appear that diversity is the tautological justification for very social "challenges" that diversity creates.

But "diversity" is merely a description, not a self-evident moral axiom that confers any sort of legitimacy in its own right. The same social engineers who champion the cause of diversity are often known to sing a different tune when it comes to poverty, the uneven distribution of wealth and the many other elements of economic diversity.

Challenge and risk often have their place at the personal level. There is usually nothing wrong with the challenge to exercise, eat right or become more productive, for example. Likewise, there are rewards in life, such as a lucrative career or meaningful friendships that are often accomplished only through taking a measure of personal risk.

The challenges posed by Muslim immigration are not personal, however, and neither do the esoteric rewards (whatever they may be) offset the all-too-tangible consequences for the broader society, particularly since it will affect those members who never wanted to incur these risks in the first place.

Muslim immigration adds nothing that is truly necessary to the lives of Americans, but its degenerative effects are already starting to threaten the American way of life through demoralization, litigation and the other subtle tactics of cultural Jihad.

In this sense, Americans are following in Europe's footsteps when they would do better to avoid the example being set. Although the Brits may brag about the problems that they have created for themselves, a more sensible France is quietly trying to pay some of its five million Muslims to leave the country. Other Western nations are also trying to accommodate the social strain that is rising from a petulant and increasingly unruly Islamic minority.

The Muslim world does not accept non-Muslim immigrants. In fact, it is becoming more homogenous as Islamic regimes drive out religious minorities or whittle them down through other means of attrition. Even Muslims who feel entitled to life in the West often decry the presence of foreigners in Muslim lands.

But if Muslim lands are for Muslims, then it is all the more reason for insisting that this is where they stay, particularly since the legacy of Islamic immigration into the West is becoming a series of unilateral concessions to appease Muslims that not only go unreciprocated, but are then the new foothold for even bolder demands.

Muslim immigration is a losing proposition for America. At best, it is an unnecessary risk that offers no comparable benefit. At worst, it is suicidal.

THE CONTINUING FOLLY OF MORAL EQUIVALENCY

Why is it that when the hatred and intolerance that are the very essence of Islamic theology are exposed and discussed, those who participate are labeled "haters"? This is an illogical method of reasoning, resting on the foundation that should everyone just ignore the hate that oozes from Muslims and Islam, that generalized goodwill will mitigate the Islamic intensity and make it disappear.

Do people actually reside in the West who believe that hate and evil can be eradicated with kindness and love? Other than in the words of Jesus Christ I have never heard such idealism ushered into a play for reality, but now the Far Left in the West, of course, quite sturdy in their opinions without need of any religion, now spoofs us, and taunts us into believing the unreliable. The real world is not and will never be the multicultural utopia of these social deconstructionists' dreams, and Muslims want no part of such a world. They want a monocultural world, an Islamic world, a hardcore totalitarian structure which they would impose on all of us tomorrow if only they had the corporeal power to do it. Even CAIR has acknowledged this dream.

Islam creates and sustains the most insidious, inexorable, intractable hatred imaginable, an evil that most people of the contemporary Western mindset cannot imagine, much less comprehend. To acknowledge this takes a certain amount of courage because it means that conflict and self-defense are inevitable. Self-preservation requires constant diligence and close scrutiny of Muslims, most of whom are our enemies. If self-preservation and self-defense are now considered immoral, yes, we're guilty, but then so are the Muslims who fight tooth, nail, and children with bombs to preserve and extend their own dark sensibilities.

In addition to the remarkable congruence between Islam and many of the more extreme kinds of 'cult' groupthink, between Islam and organized crime 'families' (e.g. the Chinese Triads, or the Mafia) there are many clear symptoms of deep-rooted sociopathy—Mohammed's own sociopathy, perhaps, apoptheosized by religious decree as the perfect man and the perfect model for man. And woman, well, that requires a whole other set of inhumane formulas, and Islam does not flinch from the task.

For the benefit of those who don't have time to trawl the archives, let's draw attention to M. Scott Peck's chilling book 'People of the Lie' (1988). He is talking about evil people generally, but much of his analysis is directly relevant to our present encounter with Islam, the jihadists and their spin-masters. It also accounts remarkably well for the documented characteristics of all Islamised societies and their relationships with their unfortunate non-Muslim minorities and non-Muslim neighbours.

Among other things Peck stresses the pathological narcissism of truly evil people—they persistently reject both self-knowledge and external criticism. He notes: "evil people, refusing to accept their own failures, actually desire to project their evil onto others".

Page 82: "A predominant characteristic of the behaviour of those I call evil is scapegoating. BECAUSE IN THEIR HEARTS THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ABOVE REPROACH, THEY MUST LASH OUT AT ANYONE WHO DOES REPROACH THEM. THEY SACRIFICE OTHERS TO PRESERVE THEIR SELF-IMAGE OF PERFECTION".

Reminded of anything, folks? Pope rage, cartoon rage, apostasy and other draconian blasphemy laws? Peck stresses that the truly evil personality also 'creates confusion' because it lies consistantly to itself and others—hence the title of his book, People of the Lie.

A key observation: "I have learned nothing in 20 years that would suggest that evil people can be rapidly influenced by any means other than raw power. They do not respond, at least in the short run, to either gentle kindness or any form of spiritual persuasion with which I am familiar."

The susceptibility of the average person to ideas of moral equivalence is truly a sign of intellectual decadence. The conditions under which one could truly say two antagonists are morally equivalent seem to me to be much more rare than the opposite conditions, under which one of the antagonists would have to be considered the morally superior.

Compare moral standing to the system of accounting and ask yourself how frequently it happens that two distinct businesses have the same exact debits and credits in their accounting statements? Pretty rarely. Well, that's how frequently true moral equivalence can be asserted between two antagonists.

The intellectual decadence consists of asserting that the "exception" (true moral equivalence) is the "rule".