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."

MITT AND BARCK'S ERROR IN JUDGMENT

BARACK OBAMA AND MITT ROMNEY SAID WHAT this week? What is wrong with these people? Let's go to the videotape in deferring to one man who knows his history—Israeli, American AND Islamic—the formidable Benjamin Netanyahu, the only Winston Churchill caliber statesman on the scene in the West today.

What we have here is not a failure to communicate, but a failure of nerve to defend what is the resilient nature and exercise of liberty sprung free from the constraints of a misnamed social construction called political correctness.

If only America had such a leader right now...

But as long as some of the more duplicitous "agents of change" around the horn are quoting Majid Khadouri's War and Peace in the Law of Islam to further their idea that Islam is just another religion, let's start small to see if those same Islamic apologists can twist and gnarl these excerpts into a generously perfumed bouquet with which to flummox the West:

"The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammad’s early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. [page 55]

"Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared “some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ.” Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic—in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities—must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community." [page 64]

Thanks to "gmccal" for these snippets. This book is an invaluable resource for those finally waking to the act that a seventh century ideology has no place in the 20th century without serious reforms. The book, according to my source, is organized as follows:

Book 1 Fundamental Concepts of Muslim Law
Chap 1. Theory of the State
a. Society and the State
b. The Juridical Basis of the State
c. A Divine Universal Nomocracy

Chap 2. Nature and Sources of Law
a. Customary Law and Islamic Law
b. Nature of Islamic Law
c. Sources of Law
d. Schools of Law
e. The Shia Doctrine

Chap 3. The Muslim Law of Nations

Book II The Law of War: The Jihad
Chap 4. Introduction

Chap 5. The Doctrine of Jihad
a. The Meaning of Jihad
b. Jihad as Bellum Justum
c. Jihad as Permanent War
d. The Shi'i and Khariji Doctrines of the Jihad
e. The Jihad and Secular War

Chap 6. Types of Jihad
a. The Jihad Against Polytheists
b. The Jihad Against Apostasy
c. The Jihad Against Baghi (an attempt at dissention)
d. The Jihad Against Deserters and Highway Robbers
e. The Jihad Against Scripturaries (Jews, Sabians and Christians)
f. The Ribat (Safeguarding the frontiers of dar al'Islam)

Chap 7. Military Methods
a. The Jihadists
b. Command of the Jihadists
c. Conduct of Fighting

Chap 8. The Initiation of War
a. The Call for Fighting
b. Necessity of "Invitation"
c. Negotiation

Chap 9. Land Warfare
a. Prohibited Acts
b. Treatment of Enemy Prisoners
c. Spies
d. Treatment of the Dead

Chap 10. Maritime Warfare
a. Islam and Sea Power
b. Muslim Law and the Sea
c. Rules and Practices of Naval Warfare
d. Naval Organization

Chap 11. Spoils of War
a. Meaning and Nature of the Spoils
b. Division of the Spoil
c. Immovable Property
d. Prisoners of War
e. Slaves

Chap 12.Termination of Fighting

Book III The Law of Peace
Chap 13. Introduction
Chap 14. Jurisdiction
a. Persons: Believers
b. Persons: Kafirs (Unbelievers) and Murtadds (Apostates)
c. The Head of State: The Imam
d. Muslim Territory: Dar al-Islam
e. Classification of Muslim Territory

Chap 15. Foreigners in Muslim Territory: Harbis and Musta'mins
a. Foreigners and Muslim Law
b. The Harbi (One who belings to dar al-harb)
c. The Aman (Pledge of Security)
d. The Muista'min;s Rights and Obligations
e. Termination of Aman
f. Importance of Aman

Chap 16. Muslims in Non-Muslim Territory
a. Non-Muslim Terriroty: Dar al Harb
b. Conduct of the Muslim in a Non-Muslim Territory Under Aman
c. Conduct of the Muslim in Non-Muslim Territory Without Aman
d. Muslim Prisoners

Chap 17. Status of Dhimmis
a. Islam and Non-Muslim Subjects
b. Meaning of Dhimmi
c. Dhimmi Compact with Muhammad
d. The Legislation of "Umar
e. Jizya and Kharaj
f. The Covenant of `Umar
g. Dhimmi Rights and Obligations
h. Conclusion

Chap 18. Treaties
a. Treaty Making Power
b. Legal Nature of Treaties
c. Prophet Muhammad's First Treaty
d. The Hudaybiya Treaty
e. Dhimmi Pacts as Constitutional Charters
f. Muslim Treaties Under Muhammad's Successors
g. General Characteristics of Treaties
h. Termination of Treaties

Chap 19. Commercial Relations
a. Islam and Commerce
b. Non-Muslim Trade with Dar al'Islam
c. Muslim Trade with Dar al'Harb
d. Significance of Foreign Trade

Chap 20. Arbitration
a. Arbitration Before Islam
b. Islam and Arbitration
c. Arbitration between Ali and Mu'awiya
d. Significance of Arbitration

Chap 21. Diplomacy
a. Muslim Conception of Diplomacy
b. Emissaries
c. Reception of Emissaries
d. Functions of Diplomatic Missions
e. Muslim Diplomacy and World Politics
f. Importance of Diplomacy

Chap 22. Neutrality
a. Islam and Neutrality
b. The Status of Ethiopia
c. Nubia
d. Cyprus

Chap 23. Epilogue
a. Changes in the Character of Dar al'Islam
b. Recognition of Christendom by Islam Under Ottoman Rule
c. Christendom's Attitude Toward the Ottoman Empire
d. The Ottoman Empire and the Modern Law of Nations
e. Integration of Islam into the Family of Nations
f. The Secularism of Law and State
g. Conclusion

Glossary of Terms
Bibliography (Supplies the original sources and the
fundamental "modern" studies that have a direct
bearing on the subject of war and peace in Islam)
Index

Over all, this 1955 publication, reprinted in June of 2007, will be an invaluable reference for contemporary analysts and researchers who dare to resist the disinformation and propaganda that is emanating from all ends of the globe about the historical, and now revived threat this pernicious Islamic ideology presents to civilization.

WATCHING THE RIVER FLOW

NOW THAT HISTORY IS MATCHING THE FUTURE pound for pound, perhaps we should consider a tale of two British voices. History speaks first. Controversial British politician Enoch Powell throws himself on the pyre of political correctness, and suffers the black and white result we now produce in color and in common all across the world with tragically discouraging results in far too many situations to continue to ignore.

Parrhesia is the moral concept of speaking truth to power, never an easy task in the past, hardly the present, nor God help us in the future to be certain. Powell's speech "Rivers of Blood" spoke to the power of his time and ours. The consequences of what happened to Powell and the civilization he sought to preserve are now upon our brow. We can continue to ignore the evidence that is before us, or miserably cling to a broken idea that was mismanaged with great care for several generations unto the present hour.

But let's start simple. Rabid, unchecked, inflexible multiculturalism is damning the world to a poverty of reason and a gross impersonal terror upon civilization.

As one commentator put it, "Multiculturalism is cancer, the school system has bred an entire generation of weak and sniveling cowards who are more concerned with being politically correct, bowing to the money of their new masters, than they are in comporting to a rational strategy in maintaining their own most basic interests."

It's no secret among those who can connect the damned dots without paying homage to that snarling beast of MSM that Great Britain is breaking down rapidly, right along the precise fault lines that Powell predicted, but the folks who have bought heavily into Beatle logic refuse to deal with what their stance has wrought. The left-wing of Britain, enforced with prejudice by the EU, has successfully destroyed the future of the UK, short of all out civil war, it seems. But that is what THEY THE MULTICULTURALIST ELITES had planned all along. The Marxist snarl is a smiling face supported by a toothless but pervasive police power and a lawmaker's holiday. British columnist Melanie Phillips writes:

This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for 'low-intensity warfare' comprising bombings, kidnappings, the taking of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, beheadings and other attacks that make normal life impossible.

So, al Qaeda, according to Phillips, plans to target countries with a substantial Muslim presence for low-intensity terrorist warfare along the lines of the Bombay attack that would make normal life in those countries impossible. Isn't that phrase, "substantial Muslim presence," uh, telling us something? Something connected with the non-discriminatory immigration policies that have brought into existence the substantial Muslim presence in Western countries?

Phillips writes that Britain is highly vulnerable to the threat of Bombay-type attacks, and she expresses great anxiety about it, but she ends the article without a single mention of a possible course of action. The thought evidently doesn't even cross her mind: "Shouldn't we at least stop further Muslim immigration into Britain? And those 2,000 known terrorists currently under surveillance by the police—shouldn't we just, uh, remove them from our neighborhoods, expel them or neutralize them by any means within the laws already on the books?"

Note: Britain is busily whitewashing their laws against treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors against the state, so as not to offend those who will soon rule over them.

While Phillips repeatedly insisted in her 2006 book—Londonistan— that Muslim immigration into Britain had been a "lethal" development, she has never proposed that Muslim immigration be reduced by so much as a single Muslim per year. If Melanie truly fears and loathes the lethal, her own submission to liberalism in power doesn't convince her that she should call for anything to stop this lethal policy.

Such is the mindset of the modest American liberal and moderate appeasers, also. Better to drown oneself in yesterday's details than imagine the impact of tomorrow's invoices. The drama is excruciatingly loud and proud but is also effectively muffled by the beautiful sway of political incorrectness. Incorrect because it reeks of wrongness and moral insanity not for the idea itself, but for the brutality of its consequences. Incorrect because I refuse to call this upside down political phenomenon politically correct. I slip occasionally, but I am earnestly resisting this disturbing groupthink.

Here's the second part of the Rivers of Blood video series, and a classic Bob Dylan track to help those, whose fertile minds haven't glazed over in self-righteousness yet, to ease the existential angst served up when having to rethink yesterday's task again today without much thought of what tomorrow's task may require.

THE BASEBALL CAP JEWS

The following article was written by Ari Abramowitz & Jeremy Gimpel and originally published by Arutz Shiva, Israel National News.

Question: There is a growing initiative in the US for Christians students to advocate for Israel on campus. Why does it seem like the Jewish students are not advocating themselves? —Anonymous

If you see a group of dignified suit-clad men walking down the streets of Paris wearing awkwardly positioned Yankees caps, it is a safe bet that they are Orthodox Jews. The universal warning meted out to Jews in France is not to display any outward signs of Judaism for fear of vicious and unprovoked attacks, which have been commonplace in many places throughout Europe. Logic would dictate that the comfort level of wearing a kippah, or yarmulke (skullcap), is an accurate yardstick for anti-Semitic sentiment, and orders to refrain from publicly expressing one's Judaism is cause to be concerned about the future of Jews in that country. By that standard of measurement, it is time for American Jews to be concerned; if not yet in the entire country, then, for now at least, on college campuses.

Universities throughout America are the fastest growing hotbeds of anti-Semitism in the country. While the traditional outright Jew-hatred is out of style and politically incorrect, the new mask with which this old hatred has disguised itself is hatred of the Jewish state, which is no less vitriolic and venomous. These haters are zealous, energized, and equipped with sound-bites full of hypocritical indictments, perverse distortions and twisted lies. Many religious Jews on campuses throughout America are throwing up their hands and putting on their baseball caps as well. "They are just not up for the fight," one student explained. Considering that the students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, the hate spewing forth from the lunchrooms to the classrooms of US universities may very well be the harbinger of a bleak future for American Jewry.

Our rabbis explain that we should not view the difficulties and challenges in our lives as punishments, but rather as a perfectly tailored education, explaining "a person is measured in the manner that he measures others. Samson pursued the desire of his eyes and therefore lost his eyes at the hands of the Philistines; Absalom was haughty about his hair and was therefore hung by his hair...." (Tractate Sotah 8b) King Solomon explains in Proverbs that "a fool doesn't desire understanding." It is therefore incumbent upon us to search for this elusive understanding and to discern how this fermenting plague of hatred we face in American academia is for our growth and benefit.

The fact that liberal academics are at the forefront of these attacks should raise some eyebrows. Universities, colleges and establishments of higher education should theoretically be bastions of free thought and exchange of ideas; yet, it is from these very institutions that the loudest boycotts and most hateful sentiments emanate. Liberalism supposedly stands for individual rights and equality of opportunity; yet, these progressive "liberals" vilify Israel, one of the most liberal democracies in the world, in favor of governments that not only prohibit women from voting, but routinely condone honor killings and legalize the violent abuse of those unfortunate ladies who lose track of time and burn supper. Freedom of anything is unheard of in these countries, and many of these liberals would be killed the minute they stepped foot in the countries for which they march.

Adding insult to injury, American Jewry has historically been overwhelmingly liberal, and many of the honest would even confess theologically liberal, as their liberalism often replaces their Judaism as the religion of choice. As we have so often seen throughout history, it is with the very idols that we have created that G-d disciplines us, revealing their inherent emptiness and futility, as well as what He desires of us.

What is most telling, however, is the strategy of the assault. The main attack is not about roadblocks or separation barriers, but about Israel's very right to exist. The beauty of the attack on the fundamental legitimacy of the Jewish state is that we are being forced to articulate a defense. The majority of advocacy training that the relatively few students with the will to fight receive exclusively defends Israel's establishment with secular political explanations involving various United Nations resolutions and international treaties. Nearly 60 years down the road, however, these defenses not only don't assuage the attacks, but they don't even satisfy the Jewish students themselves. Crediting Harry Truman and the United Nations with the rebirth of the Jewish State after two thousand years of exile elicits lukewarm interest in these Jewish students, which is dwarfed by the vicious fervor of their adversaries, causing them to sit this fight out, taking the kippah off and putting the patriotic school cap on.

Students are starting to realize that, while these secular defenses are valid, they are nonetheless incomplete. Unfortunately, no one is coming to their aid and giving them the education and understanding for which they so clearly thirst. If Jewish students don't understand that Israel is their historical homeland, their Biblical birthright, and an integral part of their Jewish identity, then the battle is lost. If Jewish students don't understand that their right to the Land of Israel is based on the Torah, then we are destined for defeat. The preeminent Biblical commentator, Rashi, explains that the Torah begins with the creation of the world in order to establish G-d's ownership and His right to bestow the Land of Israel to the Jewish people according to His will. If the students don't know whether they believe this themselves, then it is time to investigate the existence of G-d and the veracity of the claim that the Torah is Divine. It is these questions that we are supposed to be asking, and we should be unrelenting in our pursuit of their truthful answers.

The Jewish people are charged with the task of being a "light unto the nations." This does not merely mean we should invent vaccines and technology, but that we should provide morality, truth and an awareness of G-d to the world. The prophet Havakuk declares that "the Earth will be filled with the knowledge of HaShem's glory, as the waters cover the seabed." (2:14) With perfect Divine justice, the void that we have left by not fulfilling our role as teachers of truth to the world has been filled by professors shamelessly teaching lies.

Only when we pursue our right to Israel to its logical conclusion can we possibly understand why G-d has used this mechanism to discipline us.

There is no reason to allow these "liberal" haters to dictate the language and terms of the debate – we must penetrate to the very root of the matter and teach them why Israel is truly ours. Only then can we proudly defend our homeland and fulfill our mission as the Jewish People. Only then will the baseball hats come off.

BOTH SIDES NOW

Just to be clear about this. I tend to rant against the leftists because I know more of them in my personal orbit, but the righties own a good bit of blame here, too, in turning a blind eye to the Boys of Sharia Law. We live in a capitalist world, and money doesn't just talk, it screams in bold bloody italics, and we need to be diligently concerned about the problem this presents us in the muddy middle because the multinational corporate elite is fixated on Arab and Islamic money and uninterrupted markets.

That's why the elite embraces the oily lies of Muslims on the move, both in Europe and in North America.

George Dubya got his start in business thanks to help from the bin Laden family. And I read some source recently claiming that the distinguished law firm of Baker Botts works just three clients—Exxon Mobil, the Bush Family and the Saudis (whom they also serve as a lobbyist in DC), but their official boilerplate is more telling as follows:

"Baker Botts is a global firm with approximately 700 lawyers serving clients of all sizes in a wide variety of industries all over the world. A global energy and technology firm with world-class lawyers, we have reach that extends beyond U.S. borders and have delivered outstanding legal service since 1840. Baker Botts is a recognized national leader in complex litigation, white collar criminal defense and appellate advocacy. From negotiating complex transcontinental pipeline projects throughout the world to navigating rapidly changing technology and business environments, Baker Botts' collaborative teams consistently provide excellent client service."

Yep. Oil slicks and politicians are selling us out. Read this important commentary on the swindle.

No ideological blinders here my heroes—the problem lurks from both the Left and the Right. It's time to start driving those nails into the coffin of political correctness and business as usual in winning this war forward without one arm tied behind our backs as both parties and their respective natural allies would have it.

In other news, Ted Halstead and Michael Lind's book—The Radical Center— arrived today. So I'm off to the reading chair...

FJORDMAN: The Eurabia Code, Part 3

In March 2006, the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which "condemned the offence" caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well "as the violence which their publication provoked." These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to "ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism."

During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a "cultural deficit." Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as "a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity." He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he "still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean." Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that "freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that "religious symbols can be protected." He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Following their discussion, Solana "expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt", and vowed "to reach out… to make sure that people's hearts and minds are not hurt again."

Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that "the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence." The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But it is the sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

The promotion of an official, "EU federal ideology" advocating Multiculturalism;

The denunciation as "xenophobes" of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and

Calling those who would limit Third World immigration "racists."

A report from the EU's racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and "Islamophobia." One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. "Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," an EU official said.

Early in 2006, the EU's human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles's criticized a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject in elementary schools in Denmark. Gil-Robles said doing so went against European values. "Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions," he said. The "three monotheistic religions" means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.
2. Teach all the major world religions.
3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination. Notice also that they didn't ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty. "The death penalty is not compatible with European values," a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticizing EU has already defined for you what constitutes "European values." Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase "European values" cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

In May 2006, a big conference was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

European officials responded publicly with "regret" to Israel's ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel's decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference—entitled "Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures"—an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was "primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis]."

Writer Bruce Bawer thinks that many Europeans recognize that "multiculturalism" is leading their societies to disaster. But they've heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

"There's a widespread resignation to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don't take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it's largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they've been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy."

According to Bat Ye'or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being "just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany," a ridiculous but effective statement.

Bat Ye'or agrees with Bawer's analysis "concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of 'teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded "independent" organizations like SOS Racism' to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonize with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism."

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye'or, this has led to the development of a type of "resistance press" as if Europe were under the "occupation" of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part in achieving this.

Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of "more international control with" (read: censorship of) the Internet.

According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, "The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them."

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC's compulsory TV licence. "The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech—publicising views they don't necessarily agree with." He has blasted the BBC for their "bias and propaganda," especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage: "Take, for example, the BBC's coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an "icon" and a "hero," but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as "polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man." This despite the fact that under Yassin's guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds."

Polish writer Nina Witoszek, now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

"Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or - God forbid—anti-Islamic? Am I "progressive" enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as "dialogue," "pluralism," "reconciliation" and "equality." Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians—and even more wise foreigners—who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage."

She quotes follow writer from Poland Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

One essay by Milosz is titled "Ketman." "Ketman" or "kitman" is an Islamic term brought to Milosz's attention by Arthur Gobineau's book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

According to Milosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined.

It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism. It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the ever-present threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians—actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders—and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one "Evil Empire" to another? Are they—and we—back in the EUSSR?

Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: "Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission."

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

"The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening."

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe's future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe's political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism ("flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing") to encourage "emotional identification with European institutions." And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash's answer: "To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism." Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage "the formation of an Arab Union." He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining "Europe in 2025 at its possible best," he pictures it as a "partnership" with Arab countries and Russia that would extend "from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok."

The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union's 50th "birthday," the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to "highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens." Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of "Stalinist times" when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen "ambassadors," dubbed the "Faces of Europe," who are supposed to "tell their story" throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

Commissioner Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war in France created by Muslim immigrants: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years' War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, "No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht Treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage."

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d'Estaing supposedly stated: "Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that."

This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 "was a mistake which will have to be corrected" and insisted that "In the end, the text will be adopted."

Giscard has also said that "it was a mistake to use the referendum process" because "it is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a "Constitution" that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain's justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar "you don't need to read the European constitution to know that it is good."

Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that "We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes."

Journalist Nidra Poller, however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: "The Euro-Mediterranean 'Dialogue' is a masterpiece of abject surrender." The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: "When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of 'Dialogue,' what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word 'Constitution'?"

ATTITUDE ADJUSTING

There are those who think the tide has turned on the question of militant Islam, moderate Muslims, and the algebra of just getting along. Some believe as a result of Jack Straw's recent admission of concern over Muslim women's use of veils to cover their faces in British society and PM Tony Blair's call for full discussion on the Muslim conflict with modernity has signalled a sea change in mood for free speech traditions long stymied by the political correctness crowd.

Calling out for more common sense, these free speech advocates suggest that the rules of the game seem to have changed, that the genie is out of the box, so to speak, and isn't going back. They believe that the growing popularity of these views has been picked up by politicians at each end of the spectrum. Much of this is pure political vote grabbing, they admit, but quickly add that they are damn glad the politicians are using this particular issue to highlight voter unrest.

The right-wing BNP is not exactly a favorite among these new defenders of free speech, but they are comforted by the new strategies surfacing in regard to what is a very obvious problem: militant Muslims in their midst.

One observer of the Muslim controversy has stated, "The evidence that there is something wrong with Islam itself is just about overwhelming. Only a few pieces of critical information are needed to cinch it in the minds of millions."

Says another online pundit, "I think this observation is grievously mistaken."

1) More information, more data, more facts, will not be effective against the PC template by which millions in the West surgically detach Islam itself from the problems caused by Islam.

2) Sufficient information is already out there.

3) Millions of people whose minds are formed by the PC template already know sufficient information about Islam, but their minds filter that information.

4) It is not the knowledge of information alone that forms a person's opinion: it is the interpretative filter by which that information is fit into various cognitive and analytical slots in that person's mind.

5) Unless we decontruct the interpretative filter of the PC template, no amount of information, no mountains of data about the perniciousness of Islam, will be sufficient to change most minds affected by PC.

Summarizing the polarity of opinions is easy. It goes like this: the world community as a whole is being hurt by Muslims who are trying to make us all into dhimmis, and by the PC liberals, who have a very warped view about tolerance. I agree with this summary.