In a recent speech entitled "The Gathering Storm Of The 21st Century" Senator Rick Santorum fired off a powerful broadside against Islamofacism and it's allies on the radical left. Among the better salient points of his speech were the following.

"I am here again today talking about this issue because Islamic Fascism continues to rear its ugly head. And because it is being joined by others, becoming a hydra. The war is at our doorsteps, and it is fueled, figuratively and literally, by Islamic Fascism, nurtured and bred in Iran...Our growing challenge, however, is that Iran is not alone in its rhetoric, intent or capacity to threaten the security of the U.S. It is important for Americans to know that the threat is more complex, and has grown more complex. The enemy that has to be named is greater than Islamic Fascism...If we really understood the threat at hand, we would not be fighting with one hand tied behind our backs...Are we willing to see the storm gathering around us and act before it is too late? Was 9-11 not enough? Have our memories faded? Or will it take something even more devastating? When Winston Churchill wrote his great history of the Second World War, he began the first volume - 'The Gathering Storm' - with a short description: 'How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm.' We were part of that moment of folly, and we paid a terrible price for it on the battlefields of that war. We are running the same risk today, and we are again acting carelessly, unwisely and we are permitting the wicked to grow stronger and stronger...Many Americans are sleepwalking, just as they did before the world wars of the last century...It's time to wake up...I think people are indeed concerned, and they are right to be concerned. About our enemies...You are sleepwalking into a nightmare. It's time to wake up."

All of this is quite well said. And most of us on the frontlines of the anti-Islamofascist movement would agree heartily. Had he stopped there, all would have been well. However, Mr. Santorum goes further and in so doing reveals just how terribly wrong headed his policy actually is.

"Just as we have seen our neighbors' economies grow as well as our own - we need to work diligently to forge free trade agreements with other countries, as we have seen impressive results with free trade agreements in Israel, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Singapore, Chile, Australia, Bahrain, and Morocco. Our current partnerships with these countries account for more than $900 billion in two-way trade, which is about 36 percent of total U.S. trade with the world. U.S. exports with FTA partner countries are growing twice as fast as U.S. exports to countries that do not have agreements with the U.S."

Does Mr. Santorum truly not see the inherent contradiction here? The entire "free trade" agenda is all part and parcel of the damnable open borders movement which is hell bent on destroying US sovereignty and merging our nation into a borderless global conglomerate. As Lou Dobbs has so rightly warned us : "The Bush administration's open-borders policy and it's decision to ignore the enforcement of this country's immigration laws is part of a broader agenda. President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States."

The agreement Dobbs was talking about was crafted over a year earlier. On March 23, 2005, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox met with President Bush in Waco, Texas, to discuss plans for integrating Canada, the United States, and Mexico. During that meeting, the three heads of state argued that the three nations are "mutually dependent and complementary" and need to work together more closely on a range of issues. "In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," the three leaders said in a joint statement.

This standard diplomatic language was a prelude to a radical proposal calling for the merger of the three nations in several important ways. Under a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the nations will no longer have separate borders, but will "implement common border-security." The three nations will no longer respond on the national level to emergencies but will have a "common approach to emergency response." And, in a move that has tremendous implications for the growing immigration crisis, the three leaders agreed that the United States' north and south borders would be eliminated. Under the SPP plan, the three nations will "implement a border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders."

This plan is nothing short of revolutionary. As Dobbs put it on his CNN program, it is "an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value." Though the plan sounds like a new innovation, it is not new. It is the next step in a progression of steps that, in a manner very similar to the process used in Europe to supplant individual nations with the European Union, will ultimately lead to the formation of a new government for the United States, the North American Union. If not stopped, the plan for a North American Union will supplant the former independent states of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. And this is not conjecture. The North American Union is official U.S. policy.

And perhaps worst of all, neo-cons like Santorum are blithely promoting the party line walking in lockstep with the globalist vision. One has to wonder what has happened to conservatism. Once the party of limited goverment and national sovereignty, the Republicrats of today sound more and more like socialistas by another name. Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and his fellow travelers in the neo-con movement would have you believe, the real answer to the crucial issues faced by Western civilization does not lie in turning our world into a political and cultural melting pot. On the contrary. The answer lies in strengthening our sovereignty. In closing our borders. In becoming internally self-sufficient. In rebuilding an economy which has literally been gutted by the free trade movement. In short, in circling the wagons and weathering the storm together. Does Mr. Santorum really and truly believe that the people of Mexico and it's leadership have our best interests at heart? What a joke. If he believes that, then his naivete is shocking at best and disturbing at worst and makes me question his fitness for leadership. If he doesn't truly believe it, then one has to wonder what his true agenda is.

Furthermore, I must beg to differ with the glowing picture of prosperous "two-way trade" which Mr. Santorum presents. The reality is somewhat grimmer. Our trade deficit now stands at about $4 trillion in external debt. We have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day to support it. The dollar has plummeted. And as we go deeper in debt, we continue to lose jobs and diminish our manufacturing base. Many people want to talk about our dependency on foreign oil, and it's a legitimate and real concern. But so is our dependency on the rest of the world for our clothing, our food, our computers, our consumer electronics. The list goes on and on. Our dependency isn't just on foreign oil; we can't even clothe ourselves. Free-trade economists will tell you we're a technology economy, but we don't even produce the technological components that are the foundation of a technology economy. Still others will say we're a service based economy. But the service industry is outsourcing at an alarming rate. The bottom line? Outsourcing is GREAT...if you sitting on the board of directors or holding huge shares. But if you're in the workforce? It's the "giant sucking sound" of your job going down the toilet.

I am truly grateful that Mr. Santorum has awakened from his slumber with regard to Islamofacism and is now sounding the alarm and trying to wake others. Now if we can just awaken the Western world to the deadly danger of globalism and break the vise grip which this ideology has on our political system then we can start to lay a foundation for a stronger, freer, peaceful and more prosperous future. - Martel


Pope Makes Turkish Mosque Visit

Pope Benedict XVI has visited one of Turkey's most famous mosques in what is being seen as an attempt to mend relations with the Muslim community. During his tour of the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, the pontiff paused in silent prayer alongside senior Muslim clerics.

It marks only the second papal visit in history to a Muslim place of worship.

Earlier, the Pope visited the nearby Hagia Sophia Museum - a site heavy with Christian and Muslim symbolism - drawing around 150 protesters. The Pope spent half an hour in Hagia Sophia, a domed complex that was once a Christian centre before becoming a mosque and eventually, a museum.

The protest outside was linked to an Islamist-nationalist party, which said the pontiff's tour was an affront to the secularism enshrined in Turkey's constitution, as well as an attempt to stake a Catholic claim to the site. The demonstrators warned that any hint of a prayer there would be deeply offensive, but the Pope refrained from any religious gesture, such as praying or crossing himself.

The tour of the Blue Mosque - across the square from Hagia Sophia - was a last-minute addition to the schedule. Having removed his shoes, the Pope paused for a full two minutes, eyes closed in prayer, standing side-by-side with the Mufti of Istanbul and the Imam of the Blue Mosque.

Pope Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, is the only other pontiff to have visited a mosque, during a trip to Damascus in 2001. The visit by Pope Benedict was seen as an attempt to repair the damage his comments on Islam in September caused across the Muslim world.

Speaking to an academic audience in Germany, the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who characterised Islam as a violent religion. While the Pope insisted the remarks did not reflect his personal views, the speech was widely reported and caused anger across the Islamic world.

Since arriving in Turkey on Tuesday, he has offered wide-ranging messages of reconciliation to Muslims, including appeals for support for Turkey's bid to join the EU - which would make it the first member with a majority Muslim population.

Story from BBC NEWS.

[Sigh. And I had such high hopes for this guy. He got off to such a great start. Oh well. Meet the new Pope...same as the old Pope. It would seem that the apostles of appeasement have already cast their spell over our man in The Vatican. As the de facto spokesperson for millions of Catholics, not to mention the man seen by many worldwide as the public voice of Christendom, no one is in a better position to speak out against the evils of Islamofacism. But instead, he betrays the legacy of the Christian faith and the entire Western world. And what a bitter betrayal it is. No one knows better just how many Christians have been slaughtered by the gentle prophet's religion of peace than the Pope. And that just IN OUR LIFETIME! From the Ivory Coast to the Sudan, from Indonesia to Pakistan, from Lebanon to Eritrea. The death toll is staggering. And yet Benedict plays politics and makes nice with the ancient enemies of Christianity...and indeed of all Westerners everywhere regardless of their religious creed. Does he truly think that radical Islam is remotely interested in peacemaking? The silent witness of 1500 years of blood soaked history is a stark and undeniable testimony to the contrary. When will the West awake from her dreamy slumber? The jihadists are only interested in "peace" when they are in the minority and can use it to their political advantage. But let them gain the cultural high hand, and the true face of their ideology is revealed. Sadly, at a time when the world is in dire need of senior statesmen with lion-like boldness, our leaders have all alike turned into pussyfooting wimps. Where are the thundering orators, the fearless voices of defiance, the Elijahs who dare to spit in the bloody and murderous eye of the false prophets? Where is Churchill when we need him? - Martel]


Banning Women from Mecca: Saudi Arabia Ponders More Misogyny

As if Saudi Arabia weren't already misogynistic enough in its laws, culture, and religion, some officials are actually considering banning women from being allowed to say any of the five daily prayers (required by Islam) in the immediate vicinity of the Kaaba in Mecca. Some even claim that this policy has already been instituted on an unofficial basis. I wish I could say any of this were surprising.

Women in Saudi Arabia are naturally upset about this. They don't see this as an isolated, if annoying, move; instead they fear that this is a step in the direction of limiting women’s roles in Saudi society even further than it already is. When religious conservatives are faced with modernization and outside influences, retreating even further inward and becoming even more reactionary is a common response. Is that what's going on here?

The chief of the King Fahd Institute for Hajj Research, which came up with the plan, told The Associated Press Thursday that the new restrictions are already in place. There have been word-of-mouth reports of women being asked to pray at new locations away from the white-marbled area surrounding the Kaaba in recent weeks.

But Sheik Youssef Khzeim, deputy chief of the Presidency of the Two Holy Mosques Affairs, a Saudi government organization in charge of implementing the proposal, denied the reports, saying the old arrangements that allow women to pray in the Kaaba’s vicinity are still in effect. He said if any woman were asked to move to the back “it’s only to maintain order.”

Mecca is Islam’s holiest city and the Kaaba is Islam’s holiest shrine. All Muslims are expected to make a pilgrimage to the Kaaba at least once in their lives and most make the effort, despite the costs.

Non-Muslims are already forbidden from entering Mecca because it is believed that they would undermine the city’s religious purity. If women are banned from praying around the Kaaba, it would probably be based upon similar arguments: women are so impure that their very presence would be harmful to the Kaaba and/or to the religious purity of Muslim men in the vicinity. It’s thus not surprising why this would be so upsetting to women — it’s not so much like being sent to the back of the bus as being kicked off the bus lest they contaminate the rest of the riders.

Fortunately, women aren’t the only ones who are upset with this — some Muslim men reject it as well. “The prophet, who is the first leader of Muslims, didn’t do it,” said Mohsen al-Awajy, an Islamist lawyer and cleric. “Those who are proposing the change after him have to come up with legal justification for it.”

Al-Awajy urged the Saudi government to put an end to “such a rigid and austere mind-set that could become the core of a violent trend in the future.”

The Grand Mosque, where the Kaaba is located, is one of the few places where Muslim men and women can pray and worship publicly together.

[The ways of Islam are hard. The ways of dhimmitude are even harder. If this is how their own women are treated, just imagine what they'd do to the i-can-do-anything-better-than-you femdoms of the West. Better yet, don't imagine. Just keep sleeping while they overrun Western culture. Then see for yourself...up close and personal. - Martel]


Chavez Vows To Beat "The Devil"

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez on Sunday promised hundreds of thousands of supporters he would win a resounding victory in his December 3 reelection bid he describes as a challenge to Washington.

The former soldier and self-styled revolutionary is favored in the polls to beat rival Manuel Rosales after building a solid political base through a social development campaign financed by oil revenues.

Chavez supporters flooded Caracas thoroughfares waving flags and banners, congregating in different parts of the downtown a day after Rosales sympathizers held a similar march to close his campaign in the capital city.

"We are confronting the devil, and we will hit a home run off the devil next Sunday," said Chavez, who ruffled feathers in October by calling President Bush the devil in remarks at the United Nations. "On December 3 we're going to defeat the most powerful empire on earth by knockout," Chavez said.

Donning red like most of his supporters, Chavez delivered a two-hour speech marked by his signature combination of fiery leftist rhetoric and crowd antics typical of pop music concerts. He spent nearly ten minutes trying to see which of four groups of demonstrators could cheer louder -- then told them all to be quiet. "Whoever talks first will turn into a donkey," he thundered, only to break into his unmistakable giggle.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured South America recently, trying to garner support against Chavez’ growing influence. But Washington's concern has been too little too late. Chavez is strengthening his ties to Cuba and, bankrolled by massive oil profits, he has a plan to create a new block of Leftist-run, anti-American states across Central and South America. He sits atop one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Venezuela owns CITGO. And as America's fourth largest oil supplier, he believes he has the U.S. by the throat. And he just might.

Internally, Chavez has already rewritten the constitution, stacked the courts and begun throwing political opponents into jail. And some say he is now looking beyond Venezuela's borders. With billions of dollars in oil profits, Chavez is buying advanced Russian fighter planes and helicopters, dramatically increasing the size of his armed forces.

Chavez calls this revolution "Bolivarian," named after the South American liberator, Simon Bolivar. But for his opponents, this revolution has been anything but liberating. Maria-Corina Machado, opposition leader and mother of three, faces prison time for simply taking grant money from the National Endowment for Democracy, a program of the United States Congress. "This is a country where anyone who dares to think and speak differently from the government,” said Machado, “is seen as an enemy."

Machado's group Sumate used the money to educate citizens in democracy. But the Chavez government accused Machado of plotting with the U.S. to overthrow it. Machado commented, "I have three kids and I tell my kids that their mom could go to jail because of conspiracy, treason to my country, rebellion. These are the kinds of charges put against us."

Opposition figure Enrique Capriles has already spent four months in jail. He was only released because the street protests over his jail sentence had become an embarrassment to the government.

And at the TV channel Globovision, TV talk show host Leopoldo Castillo has had to learn to keep his acid tongue in check. There is a new censorship law against insulting President Chavez. Castillo remarked, "David Letterman, every day, in tonight's show, he makes fun of President Bush. Nothing happens. Here, with a new law, if you make fun of the president, of the senior officer of the Supreme Court, of any minister, you can go to jail.”

But if you travel to the barrios of Caracas, you hear a different story. Because here you get the feeling that Chavez is the revenge of the poor on a society that before never seemed to care about them. Many living in grinding poverty believe Venezuela's brand of corrupt capitalism is the reason they are poor. Chavez means hope. Here, he is no dictator. The Chavista, or followers of Chavez, say they hope Chavez rules forever. Last year, Chavez spent four billion dollars in oil profits on social programs, like a sewing co-op, which also includes political indoctrination every morning. State money also funds neighborhood food programs. Young Chavistas "belong to the revolution." And if this is starting to sound to you like Cuba, that's just what a lot of Venezuelans have been thinking, too.

Adolfo Taylhardat should know. He used to be Venezuela's ambassador to Cuba. "I'm very much familiar with the internal situation in Cuba. And what I see is that Chavez slowly has been introducing all the elements of the Cuban regime, Cuban system into Venezuela. He wants to make Venezuela be as similar to Cuba as possible. And he wants to present Venezuela as a victim of U.S. imperialism."

In this typical diatribe, Chavez compared capitalism to Count Dracula, Frankenstein, Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler, but then added that Capitalists are much worse than those monsters. Not a single poor person we talked to, no matter how much love they expressed for Chavez, said they wanted Venezuela to turn into Cuba. But that is clearly the direction the country is headed. Chavez has kicked out American military advisors and brought in Cuban officers. We interviewed a former Venezuelan Army officer, now seeking political asylum in the United States.

Speaking by phone from the Krome Detention Center in Miami, Lieutenant Jose Colina told us, "I was present in meetings in which members of the Cuban government were trying to change the ideology and indoctrinate officials of the Venezuelan Armed Forces, especially those of the National Guard. Without a doubt they were pointing out that we had to fight imperialism, capitalism and its top representative, the United States - which is also the main cause of poverty and misery in Latin America."

Chavez has been called the "anti-Bush." He has embraced virtually every enemy of the United States, past and present, from Saddam Hussein to Moammar Khaddafy to the Taliban and Iran. An important early advisor to Chavez was Argentine Holocaust denier and Neo Nazi, Norberto Ceresole. Ceresole believed that Latin America must forge alliances with Arab nations to fight against the United States and what Ceresole called "the Jewish financial mafia." And a few months ago, Chavez played a major role in the first South American-Arab Summit in Brazil, which attacked both the United States and Israel as the chief enemies of Latin America.

And although his government repeatedly denies it, a large body of evidence suggests that Chavez is harboring and supporting the FARC guerillas of neighboring Colombia, one of the largest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.

Chavez calls the United States the world's greatest menace and says he simply wishes to be left alone to do his work. But there is a growing fear that Chavez is preparing to export his Bolivarian revolution to his neighbors. Why else would he need 100,000 recently purchased Russian AK-47s? Why announce plans to increase the size of the army reserves from 50,000 to 1.5 million? Why the ties to guerilla movements?

Chavez says the arms buildup is defensive. His opponents disagree. Taylhardat says, "He wants to do now what Castro failed to do in the 60s, when he sent out Che Guevarra to export the Cuban revolution to the rest of the continent."

Chavez says, "The U.S. administration is behind the opposition in Venezuela, and Mr. George Bush has a black hat, black horse and black flag. He is the main instigator and the main planner of all the movements that have attacked us." Chavez says the U.S. is plotting to have him killed, and he says if that happens, oil shipments to the U.S. will stop. It is a strange relationship between business partners. But get used to it. Hugo Chavez remains the most popular politician in Venezuela. And he shows no sign of going away. He states, "I bet a dollar to Mr. Bush to see who will last longer, him there in the White House or this Venezuelan, Hugo Chavez, here in the Miraflores Palace. Let's see who lasts longer, Mr. Bush."

In his fight with America, Chavez intends to be the last man standing.

[The Third World is coming together in common cause...that cause being the destruction of the West. Individually these two-bit dictators and hateful imams don't amount to much. But let them form an pan global alliance and all bets are off. Never underestimate the power of unity. Especially when the key players in the game are flush with multiplied billions in oil profits. Cash is king. And those who have enough of it can buy anything they want, from nerve gas to biological agents to tactical nukes. Imagine a world in which Chavez and his cronies are successful in rallying Central and South America to their cause. Then our southern border (which is already a joke) would become a point of entry for guerilla fighters and commando units with only one mission...sow chaos in the US. But on second thought, sleep on America. All of this is just the paranoid rambling of some far right nutcase. That could never happen. Not in a million years. - Martel]



"Transnationalists" Don't Take Immigration Reform Seriously

by John Leo

In his 1995 book "The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy," the late Christopher Lasch argued that America's political and cultural elites had opened up a gap between themselves and ordinary Americans. "Many of them have ceased to think of themselves as Americans in any important sense, implicated in America's destiny for better or worse," he wrote. They are increasingly detached from their fellow citizens and drawn to an international culture, Lasch said, or what we would today call a transnational culture.

Consider the current immigration debate in this light. In the transnational view, patriotism, assimilation and cultural cohesion are obsolete concerns. Borders and the nation-state are on the way out. Transnational flows of populations are inevitable. Workers will move in response to markets, not old-fashioned national policies on immigration. Norms set by internationalists will gradually replace national laws and standards. The world is becoming a single place. Trying to impede this unifying process is folly.

The term "transnationals" specifically refers to those working in and around international organizations and multinational corporations. More broadly, it indicates a cosmopolitan elite with a declining allegiance to the place where they live and work, and a feeling that nationalism and patriotism are part of the past.

To some extent, their worldview cuts across Democratic-Republican and liberal-conservative lines, and reinforces the other concerns that prevent immigration control: the desire for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Old-line one-worlders and enthusiastic supporters of the United Nations hear the siren call. So do many academics, judges and journalists who attend international conferences and tend to adopt a common consciousness and world outlook.

The interplay between immigration and transnationalism is a flourishing subspecialty in the academic world. Ethnic studies departments, once conceived as a sop to campus minorities, increasingly stress transnationalism, though exactly what professors mean when they use the word is often not very clear. It is now common to hear that transnationalism will be to the first quarter of the 21st century what multiculturalism was to the last 25 years of the 20th.

The large-scale movement of populations is often seen as an indicator of the coming world society. To transnationalists, it is a positive development that reveals the weakness of the nation-state and adds to that weakness. Loyalties and commitments are diffused. One transnational scholar writes, "Traditional notions like citizenship, political activity, entrepreneurship and culture are de-linked from specific places and spaces."

This theme hums through some of the immigration debate, but transnationalists have hardly been frank in discussing their views. What appears to be primarily a problem of labor, border control and one particular failed economy -- Mexico's -- is to some people an inevitable and welcome stage in the decline of the nation-state. Besides, large-scale immigration helps to deconstruct the traditional historical narrative of the target nation, a traditional item on the multicultural agenda.

Partly because of immigration, the British government appointed a commission on the future of multiethnic Britain. It concluded that "Britishness" had "has systematic, largely unspoken, racial connotations." The report said Britain should be formally "recognized as a multicultural society" whose history must be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned."

John Fonte, of the Hudson Institute, notes that "transnationalism," like "global governance" and "multiculturalism," are presented by advocates as irresistible forces of history. Not so, he says. They are "ideological tools, championed by activist elites."

The astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the elites think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people. As columnist Tony Blankley wrote last week, the Senate was prepared to "legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public."

Lopsided majorities, which normally stay the hand of Congress, want the federal government to take charge and get tougher on illegal immigration. In last month's Quinnipiac University poll, 88 percent of all respondents said illegal immigration is a serious problem (57 percent "very serious," 31 percent "somewhat serious"). Among immigrants or their children and grandchildren, the figure was 83 percent. "Red state, blue state and purple state. Illegal immigration is a serious problem," said Maurice Carroll, the director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. If the majority really wants to win on this, all it has to do is raise the heat on Congress and defeat the amnesty-light non-reforms.

John Leo is a columnist and editor for U.S. News & World Report.

[He's also obviously a clear-minded thinker. - Martel]


How The Imams Terrorized An Airliner

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks - two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

[In the immortal words of Paul Harvey : "Now you know the REST of the story." - Martel]


The End Of One Law For All?

by Innes Bowen Producer, Law In Action

Ethnic and religious courts are gaining ground in the UK. Will this lead to different justice for different people? Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.

"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."

The 29-year-old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors too - he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or "gar", in south-east London.

Aydarus is not alone in this desire. A number of parallel legal universes have been quietly evolving among minority communities. As well as Somali customary law, Islamic and Jewish laws are being applied and enforced in parts of the UK.

Islamic and Jewish law remains confined to civil matters. But the BBC's Law in Action programme has learned that the Somali court hears criminal cases too. One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

So how did this court come about? Some academic lawyers see these alternative legal systems as an inevitable - and welcome - consequence of multiculturalism. Dr Prakash Shah, of London's Queen Mary University, advocates this "legal pluralism". "Tribunals like the Somali court could be more effective than the formal legal system in maintaining social harmony."

Former judge Gerald Butler QC says that while courts such as the Jewish Beth Din can work properly, it's essential that all of the involved parties "freely and voluntarily agree to the jurisdiction... and that they conduct their proceedings fairly and properly". He adds: "What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters. That simply would never be acceptable."

While religious leaders in the UK's Jewish and Muslim communities have not sought to enforce their own versions of criminal law, they have steadily built up their capacity to deal with civil matters within their own religious codes. What's more, they are doing it with the help of English law.

The Beth Din is the most formally entrenched of these minority courts. The UK's main Beth Din is based in Finchley, north London. It oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes. The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision. This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.

Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.

"Orthodox Jews go to the Beth Din to settle their disputes," says Jonathan Greenwood, a solicitor who represents many Jewish businessmen at the court. "They believe it is a religious obligation to go there [and seek redress under Jewish law] rather than the secular courts. But it is also usually quicker and cheaper."

Amongst the UK's Muslims there are sharply contrasting views about Sharia or Islamic law in the UK. Sharia is the historic legal foundations of the Islamic world - like English law, it has developed over centuries but is based on simple principles.

In an ICM survey of 500 British Muslims carried out in February 2006, 40% of respondents said they would support the introduction of Sharia in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. The UK's most prominent Muslim organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain, opposes the idea, saying it will not support a dual legal system.

But some of Britain's Islamic scholars have called for a different approach - Sharia legal code in areas such as family and inheritance, applied through the secular courts.

Mohammed Shahid Raza, a leading Islamic scholar, claims this is a workable model with a British precedent: "When Britain was ruling India, there was a separate legal code for Muslims, organised and regulated by British experts of law." There is already a network of Sharia councils in the UK. They are not recognised as courts but are seen as essential by those Muslims seeking advice and religious sanction in matters such as divorce.

Ayesha Begum sought an Islamic divorce from the Muslim Law Shariah Council in west London. "I had obtained a divorce in the secular courts but my husband refused to divorce me Islamically. In English law I was seen as a single woman but by Islamic law I was still married to him. "I'm a practising Muslim and I wanted to do the right things in the eyes of God. It was very important I obtained an Islamic divorce."

But Cassandra Balchin, a convert to Islam and spokeswoman for the group Women Living Under Muslim Laws, is concerned about the growth of these minority legal systems. "Very often traditional forms of mediation can disadvantage vulnerable groups, such as women, within a community. "I'm concerned about how much choice the weaker party would have in submitting to the governance of these alternative forums."

Despite Ms Balchin's fears, Sharia councils have already begun to follow the Jewish model of turning themselves into recognised courts of arbitration. Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, says he has already adjudicated in a number of contractual disputes. "Because we follow the same process as any case of arbitration, our decisions are binding in English law. Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court."

[My Comments : Awash as we are in a flood of multicultural jibber jabber, this kind of thing passes right by most people without so much as a blink. Not even a whisper from the MSM. However, it is just one more milepost on the road to cultural surrender. The Muslim populations of Europe have absolutely NO intention of assimilating into Western culture. Instead, they plan to build great teeming ghettos walled off from the culture of the host country and seething with anti-Western hostility. From within these fortified enclaves they may well launch a campaign of terror that drives a dagger straight through the heart of European democracy. Or, they may simply wait patiently, biding their time until immigration and birthrate deliver a voting majority, at which point Europe will become dhimmi by default. Anyone who doubts this can happen desperately NEEDS to read Bruce Bawer's excellent While Europe Slept and/or Mel Phillips equally powerful Londonistan. Both books document in disturbing detail how European liberal democracies are being transformed by (largely) Muslim immigration. Read. Reflect. Then find comfort in telling yourself : "It can't happen here." - Martel]



Excerpt taken from Unholy Alliance

Osama (Sami) al-Arian was a Palestinian professor of engineering who operated out of the University of South Florida. Al-Arian created two non-profit organizations, a think-tank associated with the University called the World Islamic Studies Enterprise (WISE) and the Islamic Committee for Palestine, which raised funds and recruited soldiers for Islamic jihad. Al-Arian’s Islamic Committee had featured the blind sheik, Omar Abdul Rachman, as a guest speaker while Tarik Hamdi, a board member of WISE was known by authorities to have personally delivered a satellite telephone and battery pack to Osama bin laden in Afghanistan in May 1998.

Sami al-Arian was, in fact, the North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, one of the principal terrorist organizations in the Middle East, responsible for suicide bombings that took the lives of more than a hundred people including two Americans, aged 16 and 20, before he was arrested in February 2003. An FBI surveillance video of al-Arian’s fund-raising tour of American mosques shows al-Arian being introduced as “the president of the Islamic Committee for Palestine. … the active arm of the Islamic Jihad Movement.” While others in the video praise the killing of Jews and Christians, al-Arian states, “Let us damn America … Let us damn [her] allies until death.” In another speech al-Arian said, “We assemble today to pay respects to the march of the martyrs and to the river of blood that gushes forth and does not extinguish, from butchery to butchery, and from martyrdom to martyrdom, from jihad to jihad.”

In 1997, Al-Arian created another organization, the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. He appointed Kit Gage a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a veteran of the anti-Vietnam left to be its executive director. The specific purpose of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom was to oppose the “Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act”—the predecessor to the Patriot Act—which had been passed in 1996 following the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a terrorist atrocity which killed 175 innocent people. Pursuant to the Act, Palestinian Islamic Jihad was declared a terrorist organization. The Act made “material support” for terrorist organizations illegal and authorized the use of secret evidence in terrorist cases. Sami al-Arian’s brother-in-law Mazen al-Najjar was arrested under its terms, held for three and a half years and eventually deported after 9/11. His attorney was David Cole, the Center for Constitutional Rights counsel in the Los Angeles Patriot Act case and the Ford Foundation’s legal scholar and advocate against post-9/11 immigration controls.

Among the organizations supporting al-Arian’s “civil liberties” crusade against the terrorist legislation were the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the ACLU, the American Muslim Council and the Council on Arab-Islamic Relations (CAIR), two radical Islamic groups which also pretended to be civil liberties organizations. CAIR is an offshoot of the Hamas-created Islamic Association for Palestine and several of its leaders have been arrested as terrorists. The American Muslim Council is the “founder, corporate parent and supporter of several militant Islamic groups, while its leaders have openly championed Hamas terrorists, defended Middle Eastern terrorist regimes, [and] issued anti-Semitic and anti-American statements.”

The 120-page indictment of Al-Arian issued by the Ashcroft Justice Department was based on a seven-year investigation including extensive wire-taps of al-Arian’s conversations with Hamas terrorists in Syria and the Middle East. Among the 200 specific acts connecting al-Arian to the terrorist organization listed in the indictment were a fax sent “to Saudi Arabia, [that] inquired about obtaining palletized urea fertilizer [a chemical compound used in explosives] in fifty kilogram bags suitable for ocean transportation,”[4] and telephone calls arranging payments to the families of suicide bombers, which was one of al-Arian’s responsibilities as financial head of the terrorist organization.

Sami al-Arian was arrested for his terrorist activities in February 2003. He had been under investigation by the FBI since 1996 and had long been publicly identified as a terrorist by close observers of the Islamic jihad movement like Steven Emerson. The basis for their suspicion was fairly transparent. For example, one board member of al-Arian’s think-tank (WISE), a Palestinian academic named Khalil Shiqaqi, was the brother Fathi Shiqaqi the well-known founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. When Fathi Shiqaqi was assassinated, he was replaced as head of the terrorist organization by Ramadan Abdallah Shallah who was the director of al-Arian’s think-tank and a board member of WISE himself. At the same time, Al-Arian’s non-profit—the Islamic Committee for Palestine—was involved in raising money and recruiting at public events across America to “sponsor” Palestinian martyrs and featuring appeals by fundraisers “who begged for $500 to kill a Jew.”

When Emerson began warning the public about al-Arian’s terrorist recruitment efforts and his connections to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, he was ferociously attacked for “Muslim-bashing” and “McCarthyism” by prominent figures in the political left, among whom al-Arian was by now a familiar colleague. On September 26, 2001 al-Arian made the mistake of appearing on the FoxNews Channel’s O’Reilly Factor. The host confronted al-Arian with his public calls for “Death to Israel” and declared, “If I was the CIA, I’d follow you wherever you went.” The ensuing public uproar produced enough embarrassment to University of South Florida officials that they finally suspended al-Arian from his professorship, albeit with pay.

Al-Arian immediately adopted the posture of the victim: “I’m a minority,” he said. “I’m an Arab. I’m a Palestinian. I’m a Muslim. That’s not a popular thing to be these days. Do I have rights, or don’t I have rights?” The American left sprang to al-Arian’s defense. Their efforts included articles in The Nation and Salon.com, whose reporter Eric Boehlert called it, “The Prime Time Smearing of Sami al-Arian” and explained, “By pandering to anti-Arab hysteria, NBC, Fox News, Media General and Clear Channel radio disgraced themselves—and ruined an innocent professor’s life.” Others who joined the al-Arian defense chorus included the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the University of South Florida faculty union, and the American Association of University Professors. The leftist head of Georgetown’s Middle East studies program, John Esposito, expressed concern that al-Arian not be a “victim of … anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry,” and Ellen Schrecker, the foremost academic expert on the McCarthy era (who regards American Communists as well-meaning social reformers and innocent victims of government persecution) called al-Arian’s suspension “political repression.”

After the O’Reilly show and just before al-Arian’s indictment, Duke University held a symposium on “National Security and Civil Liberties.” Al-Arian was the featured (and university-sponsored) speaker. After his arrest, a report on his appearance at Duke was posted on the leftist website CommonDreams.org. It was written by Sarah Shields, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of North Carolina: “Professor Sami al-Arian made an impassioned plea for free speech. An immigrant, a professor, a leader of his Muslim community, al-Arian had campaigned against the use of secret evidence in court, embracing the democratic guarantees of a constitution designed to protect the innocent. Professor al-Arian had seen first hand the triumph of our most valued principles. At a time when Americans needed the information about the growing number of Muslims in this country, he helped found a think-tank [WISE] devoted to the study of Islam in this country. … Sami al-Arian has spent the past decade arguing passionately for the freedom of conscience, for the protections against arbitrary imprisonment that form the very foundations of our civilization. Now he is locked up, unable to appear in court in his own defense, awaiting trial under conditions uncommon for even the worst convicted criminals. … When I was in preschool, I heard fairy tales about all-powerful kings who arbitrarily threw people into dungeons. When I was in Hebrew school, I learned how Jews were rounded up by rulers during times of instability. … And today I wonder: was there a warning in those fairy tales, those stories about bad kings, evil advisors, and their dungeons?”

Sami al-Arian was arrested five months after the O’Reilly episode. The arrest took place seven years after the FBI investigation began, and was made possible only by provisions adopted in the Patriot Act. The reason for the long delay was the existence of a government rule that created a wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, and barred agents of the FBI and intelligence agencies from communicating with each other. It was this rule that had prevented FBI agents in Minneapolis from breaking into the computer of Zacarias Moussaoui—the so-called “20th hijacker”—a month before 9/11. Had the FBI agents been given permission to search Moussaoui’s computer, two of the 9/11 hijackers would have been identified along with the Hamburg cell that planned the attack, and it is possible that the 9/11 tragedy would have been averted.

The rule erecting a barrier between intelligence and criminal investigations had been put in place by Attorney General Janet Reno in July 1995. Referred to as “the wall,” it caused a breakdown in the collaboration between investigators that national security officials had long realized was a danger to public safety. In the words of Mary Jo White, a Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney who was the most seasoned al Qaeda prosecutor before 9/11: “The walls are the single greatest danger we have blocking our ability to obtain and act on [terrorist] information.” One of the important innovations of the Patriot Act was to eliminate these walls. This made possible the collaboration between intelligence agencies and the FBI and led directly to the arrest of Sami al-Arian and his associates.

[My Comments : No single person has done more to "connect the dots" between the various players plotting the demise of Western civilization than Mr. Horowitz. He knows where the bodies are buried...and he knows who buried 'em. To read his books is to have a veil lifted from your eyes as he exposes the networks and shines the cold light of truth on the shadowy and often complex web of conspiracy and secrecy which the MSM simply ignores. For that, we all owe him a debt of deepest gratitude. - Martel]


Imam Barred From US Airways Flight Joins Interfaith Clerics and NAACP Leader for Press Conference, Prayer, and Flight on US Airways

MAS Freedom Conducts Airport 'Pray-in' and Press Conference

11/22/2006 5:20:00 PM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On Monday, November 27th, 8:15 AM, at the US Airways ticket counter located in the Reagan National Airport, Imam Omar Shahin, one of the six Imams removed from US Airways flight 300, will join Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of the MAS Freedom Foundation, Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center of Philadelphia, Rev Graylan Hagler of the United Church of Christ, Hillary Shelton, director of the NAACP-Washington National Office, and other interfaith members for a press statement, public prayer, and flight departure on US Airways.

The "pray-in" is in response to US Airways' removal of Imam Omar Shahin and five other Imams traveling from a religious leader's conference in Minnesota. Three of the Imams were observed praying prior to departure. Subsequent to boarding the plane, the six were removed from the flight, handcuffed, and detained in the airport for questioning for over five hours. Upon release, US Airways and other airlines refused to allow them to purchase tickets for other scheduled flights to Phoenix.

"The detention of these religious leaders, and the refusal of the airline to allow them travel, is a gross example of blatant Islamophobia and the violation of the civil rights of Muslim passengers", said Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation.

"The last time I checked, public prayer was still protected by the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and speech. It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while Black and flying while Muslim. We charge the airline with not only discrimination, but with an action that is insulting and demeaning to these Muslim religious leaders, and to all people of faith."

The MAS Freedom Foundation, and many in the interfaith and civil rights community, feel strongly that in addition to religious discrimination, the issue involving the six Imams is also a religious freedom issue. We have forwarded the case to several prominent civil and constitutional rights attorneys and legal scholars.

[My Comments : Ahh yes. The familiar braying of Mahdi. And isn't it just like our eagle eyed corporate media, ever the vigilant public watchdog, to give Bray a public platform from which to posture as a spokesperson for the "peace-loving" Muslim community? Never mind his sinister associations with the dark underbelly of Islamofascist terrorism. No sir. Mr. Bray is a fine upstanding member of our immigrant community and a model "citizen". What's that you say? The MAS (aka The Muslim Brotherhood in America) is a Jihadist front organization which lends aid and support to the very terrorist groups with which we in the West are engaged in a life and death struggle? No way! That can't be OUR Mr. Bray! He's a friend of the oppressed and a lover of small dogs and children everywhere.

Of course, all of this has already been carefully documented elsewhere. Go here to read Hugh Fitzgerald's excellent profile of Mahdi Bray. You will come away better informed about the good imam's true intentions. Or, if you (like me) want your information voluminous and footnoted, then Steve Emerson's Jihad Incorporated and American Jihad are a must read. Both books are excellent primers on how to start and manage your very own homegrown fund raising front for your favorite terrorist organization. And of course, if you're not inclined to support those nasty capitalist bookmongers over at Amazon, you can always check out either or both books at your local public library. See? It's possible to be informed and still uphold your socialist principles. Ain't America GRAND?

Of course, all of this begs the larger question. And it's the one question which probably causes most of the public to collectively scratch their puzzled noggins. Just how did Left wing clerics and the darlings of "social justice" (read: reparations for slavery) get in bed with a religion so fundamentalist, so reactionary, indeed so inimical to all of the ideals which progressives claim to believe? On the surface of it, they couldn't possibly be more polar opposite. I mean, you don't see the American Council of Churches and the NAACP falling all over themselves to join hands with evangelical Christians in support of school prayer. So what gives here?

I believe the answer is ideological rather than logical. The common thread which links these disparate groups together, as David Horowitz has so penetratingly observed, is their anti-Americanism. They all identify America in particular and Western democracy in general as 'The Great Satan' and the great oppressor of downtrodden peoples worldwide. The heroes of their faith are Pol Pot and Bin Laden, FALN and Hezbollah. The Left and the Islamofascists share one unifying ideal, a hatred of Western capitalism. Western democracies are the enemy which must be undermined and destroyed in order for "liberation" from imperialism and worldwide justice to prevail.

And remember...as always your national media serves up the very finest in news, all carefully screened and vetted for political correctness because YOU can't handle the real truth. - Martel]



U.S. May Boost Security Precautions

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With CIA Director George Tenet warning that terrorists could strike again soon, Bush administration officials were considering boosting security precautions Friday.

Tenet told lawmakers on Thursday that, following terrorist attacks in Kuwait and Indonesia, "you must make the assumption that al-Qaida is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas."

Two administration officials said senior Bush advisers in charge of raising and lowering the nationwide alert were determining Friday whether the warnings and security improvements they've recently made in response to specific threats is enough.

They are not likely to increase the nationwide threat level, but could increase it for specific regions or sectors, the officials said.

The nationwide alert level remains code yellow, or "significant risk of terrorist attacks," because officials do not have specific details on where and when an attack may occur, Homeland Security spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. Yellow is the third-highest of five threat levels.

Different threat levels can be applied to areas seen as potential targets, such as nuclear power plants or national monuments. The officials did not say which sectors might have their threat levels increased.

Last week, the FBI and several federal agencies overseeing certain high-risk sectors such as transportation, energy and agriculture sent warnings urging extra precautions.

Tenet spoke at a hearing by the House and Senate intelligence committees examining what intelligence agencies did right and wrong before Sept. 11. But many lawmakers focused on the future: How likely is another attack and how prepared are U.S. officials to respond to it?

FBI Director Robert Mueller offered few assurances that future attacks could be thwarted.

"I have a hard time telling the country that you should be comfortable, that we've covered all the bases, in the wake of what we saw they were able to accomplish on Sept. 11," Mueller told the House and Senate Intelligence committees Thursday.

Mueller said the FBI is focusing on the threat of terrorists who would use military action against Iraq as a pretext to strike. But he said an attack as meticulously planned and executed as the Sept. 11 hijackings would be hard to stop.

At Thursday's hearing, Tenet offered his most detailed public accounting to date of what the CIA did to stop Osama bin Laden's terrorist network before Sept. 11. He said his agency has saved thousands of lives by successfully stopping terrorist attacks, but acknowledged some mistakes were made.

Tenet said the CIA was convinced months before the Sept. 11 hijackings that bin Laden was plotting to kill large numbers of Americans, but the intelligence available was "maddeningly short" of details.

"The most ominous reporting hinting at something large was also the most vague," he said.

The session was the last of five weeks of public hearings, part of the committees' inquiry into intelligence failures leading up to the attacks. A final report will be issued in coming months.

Tenet, Mueller and National Security Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden rejected criticism by inquiry staff that U.S. counterterrorism efforts were hampered by a failure to share information and that they hadn't made fighting terrorism a high enough priority before the attacks.

Tenet highlighted agency successes, many of them long secret, including the thwarting of planned attacks in Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Tenet also said the CIA lost 18 percent of its budget and 16 percent of its personnel in post-Cold War cutbacks.

But even before he spoke, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said: "It's not enough to say we didn't have enough money or enough people. No one does. That's always the case. It's about establishing priorities."

Tenet also clashed with the committees in an area in which he admitted mistakes: the CIA's failure to put two future Sept. 11 hijackers on watch lists preventing their entry into the United States after they were first associated with al-Qaida, in early 2000. They weren't placed on the lists until a few weeks before the attacks.

Tenet said the CIA had alerted the FBI in January 2000 that one of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had a U.S. visa; the inquiry staff director said no evidence has been found showing the FBI was told about the visa.

After Tenet said that apparently no one at CIA headquarters had read a cable that said al-Mihdhar had flown to Los Angeles, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked if that was a mistake.

"Yes. Of course. In hindsight," Tenet responded.


Associated Press writer John J. Lumpkin contributed to this report.

[My Comments : Old news, I know. But still worth pondering. While CIA Directors (along with other political appointees) come and go, anyone with minimal intelligence knows that it's all just window dressing. Rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic. While Western Civilization sinks beneath the waves of barbarian invasion, everyone's talk-talk-talking but no one's manning the lifeboats. The time to wake up is NOW! The time to act was yesterday! Yet Rome burns while our so-called leaders fiddle the tune of cultural surrender and appeasement. Modern liberal politics suffers from the paralysis of analysis. By the time they figure out what they want to do, the enemy has already struck and left us maimed and blind.

Here's my modest proposal for saving the world. And it doesn't require a single drop of bloodshed.

1. Stop illegal immigration...NOW! Will it be difficult? Yes. Will it be expensive? Undoubtedly. But it MUST happen. And it must happen immediately. Throw up every possible roadblock against illegal immigration. Do everything we can in every possible way to close the floodgates and raise a standard. Will it be 100% successful? Of course not. But what's the alternative? I can tell you, but I guarantee you won't like the answer.

2. Punish employers who hire illegals. Hit 'em where it hurts...smack dab in the wallet. If they hire illegals, they pay MASSIVE fines. Period. Make it very expensive for employers to do business with criminals. When the jobs dry up, the border traffic will reverse as the jobless head back to their homelands. And good riddance. What about legal immigration? Not a problem. Albeit with the exception of a moratorium on Muslim immigration. Yeah...I know...I can hear the howls of protest from the Lefties already. But a ban on immigration from Muslim countries may well be the only way forward in the short term. The very openness and civility of Western culture towards foreign nationals who have absolutely no intention of even learning our language, much less assimilating into our culture, is backfiring on us. And as a result we have growing masses of hostiles gathering within our own borders. They don't want to play by Western rules? Then they don't get to live in Western society. Seems simple enough to me.

3. Burn the books baby! First, it's time to overthrow the dominance of multiculturalism in the academy. Multiculturalism is cultural SUICIDE. It divides our society rather than uniting it. It creates a culture of apartheid and resentment. In other words, far from destroying racism, it effectively institutionalizes it, making it's tenets into sacred shibboleths and building walls around our various ethnic groups. Cultural assimilation will never occur, indeed can never occur, in such an atmosphere. The center cannot hold under such conditions. And I believe that's precisely what certain radical elements in Western society want, but I'll save that for another column. Secondly, we need to take back our history books. Revisionist texts which teach the cream of our youth that Western civilization is the root of all evil need to be challenged and their arguments soundly and clearly refuted. The academic front desperately needs powerful and articulate defenders of Western culture who will fire the opening shots across the bow of the hijacked ship of higher education. To be sure, it's too late for the current generation of spineless lackeys. But it's not too late to re-educate the next. Everything good which modern society enjoys, from cures for disease to representative government, from equal rights for women to trial by jury, from the finest healthcare to the highest standard of living, all of it has been brought to you courtesy of Western civilization. Can you name ONE single contribution to the greater good which has emerged from the lands of everlasting Jihad? I'm waiting. Tick, tick, tick. Nope. Didn't think so. It's time for us to regain our confidence, stop apologizing for the "crimes" of Western civilization, and start defending our culture with courage and vigor.

4. We must come up with creative ways to isolate and weaken the Muslim world. And the first step toward that is ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. We must start applying all of the resourcefulness and ingenuity for which Western culture is renowned toward the development of alternative energy sources. Don't tell me what we can't do. I say that we can. Polio was incurable. But Jonas Salk found a vaccine. If we focus our brightest and best on the task, I believe we can come up with a program which will supply our culture's energy needs for centuries to come. And when we do, then we cut the Muslim world loose. They can drown in their oil. Not one dime for terrorist funding. Not one penny for building the military infrastructure of rogue states. These countries HAVE NO GNP except for oil! When the money dries up, the Caliphate will revert to third world status. And the civilized world will be a better and safer place for it.

So there ya have it. Four simple rules for a safer world. Is it comprehensive? Not by a LONG stretch. But it's a starting point. Will our "leadership" have the balls to even start taking the baby steps? I wouldn't hold my breath. - Martel]



WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The Bush administration has been urged to confront Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries to end their financing of Al Qaida and satellite groups deemed as terrorist.

A report by by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations said the war against terrorism will fail unless Saudi Arabia is forced to end funding to Al Qaida. The report, issued by a panel of experts on counterterrorism, recommended that the administration pressure the Saudi kingdom regardless of the consequences.

Saudi Arabia, the report said, has been painfully slow in tightening restrictions on money laundering. In 1999, Saudi Arabia approved amendments intended to bring anti-money laundering laws into compliance with international standards. So far, these amendments have not been implemented.

"Significant 'source and transit' countries-especially Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, the Gulf states, and other regional financial centers-have special responsibilities to combat terrorist financing," the report, entitled Terrorist Financing: Report of an Independent Task Force, said. "When U.S. spokespersons are only willing to say that 'Saudi Arabia is being cooperative' when they know very well all the ways in which it is not, both our allies and adversaries can be forgiven for believing that the United States does not place a high priority on this issue."

[My Comments : I never thought I would live to see the day that I would actually agree with anything the globalist/socialist cabal at the CFR has to say. But when you're right, you're right. The sooner we awake to the fact that Saudi Arabia is NOT a friend, the better off we're all going to be. Any good investigator will tell you "follow the money". If the bad guys learned anything from the BCCI scandal, they learned where they went wrong and how to be more careful about covering their tracks in the future. Meanwhile, the beat goes on and on as the deep pockets of Arab oil finance Islamofascism and we pay the piper.

Sadly, the current administration has too many conflicts of interest in this regard. So I suspect that the short term future will just mean more of the same. Not that The Commiecrats have any answers either. Perhaps our politicians are afraid to probe into these matters too deeply for fear that their own names will appear on someone's accounting ledger. That wouldn't really surprise me at all. It's just business as usual inside The Beltway. - Martel


Nuclear Capability Becoming Easier

By Ralph Joseph


ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A prominent Pakistani nuclear scientist who has criticized his nation for developing nuclear weapons says he doubts North Korea needs Pakistan's help to make its own atom bomb.

Pervez Hoodbhoy, a professor at the Quaid-i-Azam University, said: "Nuclear technology is not very difficult. In a few years, almost every country in the world is going to have it."

His remarks follow reports that Pakistan supplied North Korean with equipment, including centrifuge machines used to make weapons-grade uranium in exchange for rockets and missile technology.

President Pervez Musharraf denied the reports.

Mr. Hoodbhoy, who has criticized his own country and India for their game of nuclear brinkmanship in the recent military standoff, conceded that U.S. officials had a seemingly plausible theory of a Pakistani-North Korean exchange in the 1990s.

"You know, the Pakistani Ghauri missile is based on the North Korean Nodong," he said.

It was conceivable that Islamabad paid for the missile technology by supplying Pyongyang with uranium-enrichment technology, but the nuclear programs of the two countries are so small that it would be easy for both sides to hide any collaboration. "Only those who are involved would know," he said.

North Korea recently shocked the world by admitting to U.S. officials that it had begun refining bomb-grade uranium in violation of a 1994 agreement to give up nuclear weapons.

Mr. Hoodbhoy said there are sources other than Pakistan for the North Koreans to acquire uranium enrichment technology. "There are the Chinese, for example," he said.

An Indian analyst, meanwhile, suggested that Pakistan had earlier acquired its uranium enrichment technology by stealing it from the Russians. B. Raman, director of the Institute of Topical Studies in Chennai, India, said in an article reprinted in the Lahore newspaper the Weekly Independent that a Pakistani intelligence operative, retired Maj. Gen. Sultan Habib, "had distinguished himself in the clandestine procurement and theft" of nuclear material while posted as defense attache in the Pakistani Embassy in Moscow from 1991 to 1993.

Mr. Raman does not provide his sources but said Gen. Habib was later "posted as ambassador to North Korea to oversee the clandestine nuclear and missile cooperation between North Korea and Pakistan."

[My comments : WMD's in the hands of radicalized Islamic states are not the paranoid ramblings of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. They represent a clear and present danger and are only a heartbeat away from fruition. It truly is Apocalypse Now my friends. While "the progressives" are busy trying to make nice with the enemies of civilization, those same radical elements are working overtime to obtain nuclear capability. And once that happens, well...I shudder to think of the the possibilities. The real issue (and one far too disturbing for most to consider) is just how far down the road toward Armageddon ARE they? - Martel]