Speaking Truth to Power: The Forgotten American

Where Are We Going With Mr. Obama?

This piece should be read by all Americans, anyway those who still believe in America.  To understand the end goal and what we have to look forward to all you have to do is open your eyes and read history yourself.

Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as Associate Publisher.  She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben-Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.

By Pam Geller:

     I am a student of history.  Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life.  I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis.  Yes, these exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

    Something of historic proportions is happening.  I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.  Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.

The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy.  Why?

    We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving.  Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate.  Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, and school boards continue to back mediocrity.  Why?

    We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman.  Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?).  We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic.  To what purpose?

     Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government.  Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.)  The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth.  It is potentially 1929 times 10.   And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

    And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska.  All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?  No? Oh, of course.  The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe are more important.)

      I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now.  This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.  In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure.  Change is indeed coming.  And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

     I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s.  In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.  What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises.  Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker.  And he smiled and waved a lot.  And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission.

    And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression].  Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy.  The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think.  How did he get the people on his side?  He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex.  He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

    He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that?  And he did this all in the name of justice and change.  And the people surely got what they voted for.  (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.)  Read your history books.  Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.  When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.  He was right, though.     Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe.  It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities.  And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors.  All with the best of intentions, of course.  The road to Hell is paved with them.

****************************************************************************
Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.  Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close, or knows somebody that is.  Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.  The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement.

Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

     If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own health-care plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

      Please use the power of the internet to get this message out.  Talk it up at the grassroots level.  We have an election coming up in one year and nine months.  We have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard!  Let’s do it!

    If you disagree, don't do anything.

Obama's Speech to His Muslim Nation: I Am One of You and You Are In The Right.

Tomorrow, Thursday, President Obama is presenting his speech to the Muslim Nation.  This is how his handlers and he, himself, have characterized it.  In addition, during his interview in London, Obama described the United States of American as an Islamic Nation.  What are the connections between these two representations?

As far as the second observation is concerned, it is an empirical fact that the United States is not a Muslim nation.  Muslims make up only about 2% of the American population and historically their contribution has been negligible.  By numbers and consequence America has nothing to do with Islam.  Can Obama be so ignorant as to make this kind of factual mistake, possible; but let's consider alternative explanations. 

On the other hand, America is spiritually Muslim to the Islamic religion that views all of the world as the ownership of the one true religion, Islam.  Within this context Obama is correctly describing American as would any believing Muslim.  To a Muslim there is no State as such.  The political state that is recognized within the context of American political ideas.  These are ideas that came out of the Christian Anglo-Saxon social contract theory of the state.  In Islam there is not political state or nation, only the Nation of Islam, with the Arabs as the top dogs (no pun intended).

For Muslims, Islam's 1.2 billion adherents are one nation, united.  That is the only organization that is recognized as existing physically on earth as a nationality.  The State in traditional liberalism is meaningless.  To Obama the American nation does not exist and holds no loyalty.  For him there is an American political state; but not a nation.  (This by the way is true for his perception of the European states and other political liberal state organizations around the world, including Israel.)  As a Muslim, it makes sense then for Obama to emphasize the notion of America as an Islamic nation.  For him American as a unique nation is a meaningless construction; only as a political state, which is obviously changeable and therefore has no permanence.

This is consistant with his speech to the Islamic Nation.  The President will ramble in his usual way for 45 minutes surrounded by the most anti-Jewish and anti-Christians symbolism and individuals alive in the today's world.  All people of the Judeo-Christian tradition should be disgusted by this spectacle.  The only new fact will be the West's recognition that Islamic Nationhood trumps Western Statehood.  This is already occurring all over Europe and in Detroit, Michigan with the demand that Muslims have self-governance under Sharia law.  This places Muslims in a situation similar to the status of Native-Americans, as a separate nation within the American State.

The most important fact to emerge from his speech will be a recognition of Islam as a total nation.  It is America's recognition that Islam transcends the State and all of its adherents are united as one nation.  Their sole loyalty and existence determined and directed by Islam.  This is why neither Obama, nor anyone else, would think of making a speech to the "Christian Nation."  It would incomprehensible and meaningless.  Christianity is not a nation; it is a religion.

Islam to Obama is a nation and it is his nation.  Throughout his life this has been the one consistent truth.  It is now being made public.  Sadly very little of the main stream media recognize it for what it is; because they do not understand the distinction between a nation and a state; but, Obama does.  The first hint for the American Nation's citizens should have been when he anounced during the campaign the he will give an address to the Muslims as a total nation.

Obama Returns to His Muslim Roots: Anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian

After all the election cover-up, President Obama is now returning to his roots, his Muslim roots.  He will be speaking tomorrow at the Islam's most sacred locations in the world.  During this speedh, he will be showing respect, reverence, and belief in the symbols of Islam.  These symbols, with his speeches, will be located in Saudi Arabia and in Cairo, Egypt.
Unlike his public talks in the United States, the Islamic symbols will not be covered over, they actually will be front and center,  In the United States, whenever Obama speaks, he insists that all Christian symbols be covered over or removed.  Why does anyone think of President Obama as being Christian?  He cannot even claim that he was born one.  His so called "conversion" implemented by Reverent Wright is a well known joke.  Remember, this is the so called pastor who reveres and follows the head of the Nation of Islam.  That is his hero.  It is also remains Obama's.  Christianity is solely a convenience.  Do not misunderstand that.
Obama is about to give the speech which will return him to his Muslim roots and make him an official spokesperson for Islam in the United States, if not the globe.  That is his goal.
It should be kept in mind, President Obama has never, and I repeat never, given such a speech to Christians or Jews.  The only explanation is that he has never considered himself part of the Judeo-Christian tradition; only part of the Muslim one.
What is truely sad and a breach of all considerations of classical liberalism and human rights, is that he will be speaking positively about the most oppresive people in the world, the Muslims, and in the most oppresive countries in the world, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Obama sincerely has no sense of shame.
In Egypt, he will be speaking at the institution that has been the largest promoter of radical anti-Semitism in the world.  Their philosophy is that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.  The Christians are not far behind.  These are the people, the Muslims, who have been murdering Coptic Christians for centuries.
Obama is now showing who he truly is: A Jewish and Christian hater.   This has been his goal and in his speech tomorrow he will show it in its full color.

University of Notre Dame and the Catholic Church Today Are Selling Their Soul

Today, the American Catholic Church has sold its theological soul on the platform of popular opinion and Hollywood popularity.  Today, the best know American anti-life politician, President Barak Obama, will be the honored guest and speaker at the commencement ceremony of Catholicism’s most revered and renowned school of higher education in the United States, the University of Notre Dame.  To put this in perspective, Notre Dame has by far greater influence on American public opinion and therefore the lay Catholic thought than the Washington D.C. based Catholic University of America.  It is true a large part of that did not come from theology.  Knut Rockne was at Notre Dame (Ronald Reagan was not; but the “Gipper” was.)

This is not a question of free speech or academic freedom.  There is no state agency or law preventing President Obama from speaking.  In addition, I am willing to bet that over 90% of the faculty at Notre Dame is anti-life, which is consistent with national academic figures.  Consequently, Notre Dame’s students have been exposed, ironically, primarily to predominantly, if not solely, the anti-life, i.e. anti-Catholic, position.

At a time, this week to be exact, when the American national polls are showing for the first time that more of America’s citizens are pro-life than anti-life, this godless university decides to legitimize the position of proclaiming an abortion free for all by honoring its number one proponent in the world, Obama. 

It is not just that President Obama is for abortion.  He is the most anti-life politician on the planet.  He has voted and argued for abortion positions that most American politicians have rejected as far too extreme.  On this issue, he is even more radical than Mrs. Clinton and Planned Parenthood.  In fact, Obama’s position is definitely more radical than current abortion law is in any European country. 

In this Country, all that may very well be the Obama’s right to believe.  There is no law against being wrong and/or immoral.  But, there is no requirement that a Catholic university honors such a person and legitimizes this radical position.  What the University of Notre Dame is legitimizing is that this is one alternative acceptable position among others.  And further, we do not have a problem with people who hold this anti-Catholic theological position.

Irrespective of what comes out of Obama’s teleprompter today, Notre Dame has done irreversible damage to American Catholicism’s legitimacy when it argues for its cogent theology.  The Pope, by not criticizing the University, has placed politics above belief.  Although in this world that is understandable; it will not win any believers.

The fact is that one cannot be anti-life and still claim to be a Catholic.  All that one is claiming when they say this is that I was baptized a Catholic and that is it.  This might be true but meaningless as far as religion and God is concerned from a Catholic perspective.

Frankly, I am not Catholic.  Yet, I am furious at the Catholic Church for speaking and acting out of two sides of its mouth.  One is theological pro-life, which it tends to feed a lot and stand on in Africa and other “third” world countries.  The other is political correctness to the point of making its beliefs vacuous.  In the process it is not just remaining neutral, it is doing severe damage to the pro-life believers and is defending the killing of created souls.  (By the way, I do realize that there is also a controversy about stem cell research but that is morally so far removed when you are confirming the legitimacy of an individual who supports the literal killing of “mistaken” aborted fetuses.) 

With this speech, the University of Notre Dame and the Catholic Church forever end their place as the pontificators of the moral high ground.  It is ironic, just as people were beginning to listen, the academic have succeeded to undermine the most powerful church in the world.

Obama Uses Chicago Political-Mafia Approach to Nomination Process

Living in the area of Al Capone and Chicago mafia style politics, it is great to see Chicago politics is now alive and well in Washington D.C. It was brought there with full force with the Obama administration’s arrival.
It is beyond reason to believe that any of the President’s advisers, including the President, did not know that they were putting forth tax cheats and frauds into critical political leadership positions in the National government. In Chicago politics, these inconveniences just do not matter.
Let us see who we have now: Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce dropped out before being indicted on a pay-to-play scheme, the Secretary of the Treasury had never heard of self-employment taxes before his nomination, the nomination to be the Federal Government Performance Czar has her house under IRS lien for none payment of employment taxes, and last (but not least) former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle forgot to pay over $120,000 in back taxes until his nomination. It stretches credibility to believe that Obama was not aware of all these and just does not care. (Is this like sitting in a church for 20 years and never hearing what the pastor is saying?) Only in Chicago politics are the last two statements valid.
Tax-dodgers or tax-evaders are the classification of this general category of criminals. They are all frauds. This is the exact practice that sent one of our famous Chicagoan to jail: Al Capone. The American Secretary of the Treasury is a well-practiced tax fraud, another Capon. Barak Obama’s nomination to chief czar for Federal government performance efficiency is renowned tax dodger with a tax lien against her Washington D.C. million-dollar home. (This is a woman, who worked as a high priced consultant, with a professional husband, a professor, and two nannies and a personal helper in her private employment. In addition to the support she was getting from her employer, the international consulting firm of McKinsey & Company.) Why is she not in jail instead of being considered by the Chicago Obama mafia for an Administration position? Finally we have the biggest (but I am sure not final) kick-in-the pants to the American public by the Obama Chicago approach with his nomination of former Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Daschle most important qualification was his early support for Obama and the fact that they have become “friends.” In the Chicago Rizo-Obama tradition, it did not make any difference that Daschle was known for making over $5 million from the very health groups that he was “suppose” to regulate in his new position. (What he and Obama where about to do was ask the American people to bend over and take it again.) However, as Obama knows very well, the Chicago way is to never let how you made your money get in the way of being appointed to a lucrative political positions. Just do not be caught admitting it.
The Obama-Daschle combo finally crossed the line by defending, for the third time, the right of Obama-Chicago (we are now in Washington) mafia to pay taxes only of their choosing.
If one is “caught,” then in Chicago we always describe it as a natural mistake or an oversight. This is the most egregious lie that is ever given. However, it works in Chicago, so why not Washington? There is no reasonable American, either Democrat or Republican, who does not recognize that these four nominees are liars, thieves, and charlatans. We now have a true criminal tax cheat as head of the Treasury Department, which includes the very agency, IRS, whom he defrauded. The irony of this would make Chicago politicians congratulate Washington insiders. I am not even sure we have been able to accomplish this degree of fraud on the citizens here in Chicago-land. The irony of the Obama Administration is that they did this in the open, under so-called media scrutiny.
The final Chicago political mafia move by Obama was his “taking responsibility” during press interviews. This has been an old Chicago political tradition or trick. You state the obvious without suffering any consequences. What does it mean that you take responsibility? It means absolutely nothing in fact. Was anyone fired? Did you take a pay cut? Are you going to pay my taxes? The answer is no to all of those. When everyday Americans take responsibility, there are specific consequences. Obama knows that his “responsibility” is a put on for public relations media effect. That is the joke. By saying that he takes full responsibility, Obama is really avoiding all responsibility for trying to cheat the American public.
From the trenches of Chicago, it is fun to watch how easy it is for these Chicago professional political mafia to manipulate the virgin babes in the Washington political woods. The Washington political class does not have a chance against the Chicago political mafia.

Free-Ride Given to Muslim death squad by American News Organizations

The American mainline news organizations have been the main source of legitimizing, covering, and hiding the greatest threat to America and to Americanism: American Islamist.  The American media has been hiding and covering for terrorist Muslims, which is an exceeding large majority of young Muslims in this Country. 

The mainline news organizations are afraid of political correctness and therefore turn their eyes and ears away when Muslim terrorism happens, even to one of their own.

This is the case of the Oakland, California newspaper editor, Chauncey Bailey, who was gunned down my Muslim terrorist on the street.  There is no question of who did it or why.   It was certified home grown Muslims and he was gunned down broad daylight for investigating the terrorist activity of these Muslims.  He leaves behind a wife and two children.

This is very reminiscent, almost a repeat, of the assassination of the Dutch filmmaker for daring to make a documentary critical of Islam, although it was accurate.

Assassination of newspaper reporters is rare in the United States.  It is crossing a line that make America by definition uncivilized, a third-world banana republic.  Nonetheless, the news organizations of America would not report the story.

It was finally broken an made public by newspapers in England.  Nonetheless it was still ignored until conservative talk shows and bloggers came out and told America the truth.  The truth that this was a Muslim terrorist attack that assassinated a newspaper reporter. 

The first timid reports in the American press began to appear; but, they would not mention that the assassination was by Muslim terrorists.  It would seem like an unrelated death, even possibly a day-to-day murder that happens in Oakland.  No this one was different.  It was the day to day killing by Muslim terrorist that happen all the time all over the world.

Finally the Chicago Tribune newspaper wrote about the story in today's paper.  A front page story, a story about the gunning down of an American newspaper man for the story he was investigating.  An event so rare and in the interest of the newspaper people because it was one of their own.  But it was Muslim terrorism so all civilized norms go out the window.  The Chicago Tribune took over three weeks to report the story that was readily available in England two weeks ago.  The newsroom staff of the Chicago Tribune should be ashamed of themselves; but they were finally embarrassed and shamed enough by the conservative press and radio to print the following story:

Chicago Tribune story on Oakland newspaper editor gunned down by Muslims

Remember it has been over thirty years since a black newspaper reporter has been killed investigating a story, this is rare.  We all should be scared, worried, and on watch for all Muslim activities.  They need to prove their legitimacy and their willingness to live in a civilized society; it is not the duty of the rest of us to "presume" their tolerance until proved otherwise.

That is how the courts work and will work for the Muslim assassin; it is not how a civilized society works.

Australia has Found the Guts

Debate in Australia.
This is true and can be checked at:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.  A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.  Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were
made by parliament.  "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television "I'd be saying to clerics
who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and
would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.  Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced
to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. 

Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.  Separately, Howard angered some
Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.  Quote:  "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It.  I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."  "However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia."  "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."  "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."  "This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials
and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"  "We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly
documented.   It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."  "We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.  All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."  "If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.  We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our
Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."  "If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here.  You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

The Australians have found the guts to "speak truth to power" and to end the political correctness fostered on Americans by overblown intellectuals.  This is the courage that neither party candidates for President are showing in the United States; but it is what the people want to hear.  It is time to end the debate on immigrants and Muslims.  The value of multi-culturalism and diversity is the "big lie" of the past twenty-years.  The United States has never been a multi-cultural society in the way that it is being implemented and there is no evidence that there is any positive, social or economic, value to multi-culturalism or diversity.  The problem is the same; none acceptance of the Judeo-Christian morality and Anglican norms.  Their culture is anti-American that is why they are here not in their home country.  More significantly and often overlooked is that unlike other immigrant waves in the past, both of these new groups are overwhelming in numbers and procreation.  Like locusts they are and will overwhelm every culture and society they come in contact with just by shear numbers.

For future action and attitudes we need to take a page from the Australians and learn what it is to stand up for one's self.  We lost the war on terrorism the day after the war when President George Bush made the United States into a false multi-cultural society by raising Islam, alone, to an equal level with the Judeo-Christian tradition.  This the Australians know better.

As documented by the Chicago Tribune last year and by the FBI in their ongoing investigations and indictments the center of the radicalism of Islam in the U.S. is Chicago.  Dearborn, Michigan, with a larger Muslim (but older) community, may have issues, some of which one may disagree with, but most of that Muslim community there consists of American-Muslims that considers themselves American first, with all that it means.  (In some cases more American than some "American" intellectuals of multi-culturalism we all know.)

The radical Muslim's and the illegal Hispanic's goal, intentional or accidental, is to end all the values that make America worth while and worth fighting and dying for.  It is one thing to criticize policy, which all Americans (residents or citizens), are encouraged to do; it is another thing to demand that the very culture and society that you came to by choice change to fit the society and culture you ran away from.

One, it is empirically wrong that there is not an American standing above all else.  Two, it is immoral; becaue the level of acceptable morality in practice in America by far exceeds all other countries combined.  (This does not say it is perfect; only relatively so.)  Three, it is not polite, which is the Anglo-Saxon way of saying shut-up or get out of my house.

Purdue's Finger to Hoosier Tax Payers

When I was an undergraduate student at Purdue University, West Lafayette, the one outstanding symbol of the University's attitude was its mile-high smoke stack. This smoke stack built of bricks seemed to rise to the heavens and represented the swashbuckling attitude of the University and its Boilermaker students. It was affectionately known by all as Purdue's "finger-to-the-world."

The smoke stack was a vestige of the decades in which the coal fired heating plant was in the center of campus with the world's shortest train line to carry the coal to the plant. Our attitude, which the smoke stack represented, is that not only were we engineers and scientists and other type of brain heads we could still party with the best of them, our men were the most handsome and our women were smarter and prettier.  Even though our courses and degrees were the toughest in the Big-Ten, our teams, football under Coach Jack Mollenkopf and Basketball under Coach George King, would beat any of them.

The smoke-stack was Purdue's finger to the world because in spite of what everyone thought, we Boilermakers were a great contribution to the State of Indiana. Most of the people associated with the University were committed to the Hoosier State and believed in it; not the carpetbaggers we have today.

The smoke-stack was such a point of pride for decades of alumni, that when it was torn down for the more politically correct clock tower, the bricks were sold to alumni and friends to raise money for scholarships.

Now the carpetbaggers have given a new meaning to Purdue's finger-to-the-world. Purdue has flipped the proverbial finger at the very Hoosier taxpayers who support it and for whose benefit Purdue exists. It accomplished this by throwing a lavish over one million dollar party on itself in the middle of the worst tax crisis that Hoosier taxpayers and public officials are going through.

The party, reminiscent of French royalty just before the French revolution, was held in Mollenkopf indoor football arena to celebrate the completion of the $1.7 Billion fund-raising campaign. The party was first reported by the Lafayette Journal and Courier Newspaper (click on the link to see the original story), and it outlines what other items of educational value this money could have been spent on.

The newspaper article only reports $576,778 being spent. But this is very misleading. This amount is only the direct contracts that are known to be signed. This did not include indirect costs and direct State taxpayer funded costs that were included in the festivities but are lumped with other regular payments from State tax money. For example, once a contract is signed a group of people have to administer and manage them. Purdue knows that because it has many contracts with the Federal Government and it knows that there is about a 20% internal administrative cost added to these contracts for "running" them. This would right away add an additional $115,000. We are now up to $700,000.

Who paid for the electricity, water, telephones etc.? The money for these all comes from the University utility bill paid by you and I as Hoosier Tax Payers. Who paid to resurface the arena and the parking lots?  Who paid to direct traffic and handle the traffic jams?  The parking costs, and most of all the thousands of dollars of tax payer funded people time that was utilized, like those people needed to direct traffic, can not be separated from non-direct State funds. As a matter of fact the whole thing was paid by public money.

The University said that half the money came from the Purdue Research Foundation and half from the money raised in the fund raiser. All of the money is public money and belongs to Hoosier Tax Payers. Purdue University Carpetbaggers are somehow renaming monies raised in the name of Purdue University as private money because it was written to the Purdue Foundation. Most of the donors did not know of this scam. When they write their check to the Foundation it is a slush fund for the elite of the University; not to be confused with monies used for the good of the State of Indiana or even Purdue University. This in spite of the fact that the funds were raised solely under the name of Purdue University and under the banner of supporting a great Hoosier institution and consequently the people of that great State.

But no, the Foundation money is for the benefit of the Foundation. It is one of those trick organizations, such as they have in East Chicago, that the Indiana Attorney General is trying to get control over information and mis-spending in these quasi-private entities. Essentially they receive all of their money under the guise of being a public institution with public fiduciary responsibility; but, they spend their monies like a private for profit organization and insist on privacy and lack of transparency in their dealing because they claim they are "private".   The major activity of the Purdue Foundation is owning land and property in the State and remember they do not pay property taxes.  Guess who is stuck with the bill?  Me and you, the Hoosier Tax Payers!!!

The party that was thrown was for only 600 people.  You can do your own math at how elitist these people are for what they cost us Hoosier Tax Payers for each person.  The most common "rationale" for why the party was needed is that the people who gave the money expected it.  Nonsense.  People who give money in the millions do not expect a party; they get their names on buildings and endowed professorships.  In reality, the party was for the University higher-ups.  Why?  Because they could.  Just like the French Royalty before the revolution.

By the way do not be mistaken, not only was this party an embarrassment to Purdue and Indiana, it was an international embarrassment as it was even covered in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Party Tab for Purdue.

The money that was raised is doing nothing for the Hoosier Tax Payer because not a penny is going to reduce the burden placed on us.  For example, over $160 million was raised to pay for endowed professorships.  Did any of that reduce the demand Purdue made on the Hoosier Tax Payer at the legislature?  NO.  Purdue's endowment, the money it has to invest and use the interest for anything it wants, was over $1.5 billion in 2006.  Why has Purdue's burden on the Hoosier tax payer not been reduced, ever?

The reason is that the Purdue Foundation, like its sister the IU Foundation, are there to serve the "private" interests of the people in power in the Universities.  There is no accountability either in the Foundations nor for that matter on the Board of Trustees of Purdue or IU.  What have they done for you, Mr. Hoosier Tax Payer, lately?  Nothing, except have fun themselves at your expense. 

The numbers show that Purdue and IU have done nothing to stem the brain-drain out of the State.  They have done nothing to stem the employment exit out of the State.  To be realistic, the amount of tax dollars they consume, West Lafayette and Bloomington may very well be an overall drain on the State's economy.  The first quarter of 2007, Indiana was number two in the country in states loosing jobs.  Where were the big Universities?  Oh, I forgot, planning their million dollar party.

The number one state in job loss was Ohio.  They realized that this was occurring to a great extent because the universities were out of control and contributed to themselves and not to the state they were a part of.  As a consequence the Ohio Governor and legislature revamped the whole State of Ohio's higher education system of 36+ campuses into a more coordinated, responsive, and transparent system responsive to the people of Ohio.  This is their new web site: The University System of Ohio.  Indiana now has a chance to become number one in the Country in job loss while our universities party away.

Whether you think the universities are thumbing their noses at us Hoosier Tax Payers or "just" giving us the finger, it is time to take control back and make them accountable in totality; for every penny spent and how it benefits the Great State of Indiana, period. 

"Moderate" Muslims -- Where are you?

OUTRAGED MUSLIMS!  OH MY!

We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims around the world.  In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ...  Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem.  It seems that these mighty mad Muslims are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because of cartoons.  Yup ... this latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons depicting Mohammed.   

This one is one of the best one produced.

Given the kind of celebrating that occurs in most Muslim countries, one must admit that this turban/bomb thing could be the next big fashion hit on the Muslim street! And why not? It actually does reflect the actions and beliefs of many Muslims, even if they are called "Islamo-fascists or whatever. The cartoon is even a further correct reflection of what so called moderate Muslims claim they view this group.

Muslim outrage huh.  OK ... let's do a little historical review.  Just some lowlights:

• Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia.  A Christian school.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.  No Muslim outrage.

• A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.  Kills six.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia.  Muslims shoot children in the back.  No Muslim outrage.

• Let's go way back.  Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on Londonsubways and busses.  Over 700 are injured.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.  No Muslim outrage

• Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world.  No Muslim outrage.

• Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.  No Muslim outrage.

• Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.  Muslims are outraged.

Dead children.  Dead tourists.  Dead teachers.  Dead doctors and nurses.  Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Come on, is this really about cartoons?  They're rampaging and burning flags.  They're looking for Europeans to kidnap.  They're  threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon.  They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged.  You don't really need a reason.  You just need an excuse.  Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims.  When, though, do they become outraged?  When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule?  Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims  in a New York Times article three years ago.  "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?" 

Indeed.  Why not?

America's Future

This is what America will face in the future if it does not stop Islamisicist immigration now.  France is gone; it will never recover.  It is doubtful that any of Europe will remain European outside of some countries of Eastern Europe who understand what they are facing.

Read the following and weep for Paris:

WHY PARIS IS BURNING

By AMIR TAHERIFri Nov 4, 6:00 AM ET

AS THE night falls, the "troubles" start — and the pattern is always the same.

Bands of youths in balaclavas start by setting fire to parked cars, break shop windows with baseball bats, wreck public telephones and ransack cinemas, libraries and schools. When the police arrive on the scene, the rioters attack them with stones, knives and baseball bats.

The police respond by firing tear-gas grenades and, on occasions, blank shots in the air. Sometimes the youths fire back — with real bullets.

These scenes are not from the West Bank but from 20 French cities, mostly close to Paris, that have been plunged into a European version of the intifada that at the time of writing appears beyond control.

The troubles first began in Clichy-sous-Bois, an underprivileged suburb east of Paris, a week ago. France's bombastic interior minister, Nicholas Sarkozy, responded by sending over 400 heavily armed policemen to "impose the laws of the republic," and promised to crush "the louts and hooligans" within the day. Within a few days, however, it had dawned on anyone who wanted to know that this was no "outburst by criminal elements" that could be handled with a mixture of braggadocio and batons.

By Monday, everyone in Paris was speaking of "an unprecedented crisis." Both Sarkozy and his boss, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, had to cancel foreign trips to deal with the riots.

How did it all start? The accepted account is that sometime last week, a group of young boys in Clichy engaged in one of their favorite sports: stealing parts of parked cars.

Normally, nothing dramatic would have happened, as the police have not been present in that suburb for years.

The problem came when one of the inhabitants, a female busybody, telephoned the police and reported the thieving spree taking place just opposite her building. The police were thus obliged to do something — which meant entering a city that, as noted, had been a no-go area for them.

Once the police arrived on the scene, the youths — who had been reigning over Clichy pretty unmolested for years — got really angry. A brief chase took place in the street, and two of the youths, who were not actually chased by the police, sought refuge in a cordoned-off area housing a power pylon. Both were electrocuted.

Once news of their deaths was out, Clichy was all up in arms.

With cries of "God is great," bands of youths armed with whatever they could get hold of went on a rampage and forced the police to flee.

The French authorities could not allow a band of youths to expel the police from French territory. So they hit back — sending in Special Forces, known as the CRS, with armored cars and tough rules of engagement.

Within hours, the original cause of the incidents was forgotten and the issue jelled around a demand by the representatives of the rioters that the French police leave the "occupied territories." By midweek, the riots had spread to three of the provinces neighboring Paris, with a population of 5.5 million.

But who lives in the affected areas? In Clichy itself, more than 80 percent of the inhabitants are Muslim immigrants or their children, mostly from Arab and black Africa. In other affected towns, the Muslim immigrant community accounts for 30 percent to 60 percent of the population. But these are not the only figures that matter. Average unemployment in the affected areas is estimated at around 30 percent and, when it comes to young would-be workers, reaches 60 percent.

In these suburban towns, built in the 1950s in imitation of the Soviet social housing of the Stalinist era, people live in crammed conditions, sometimes several generations in a tiny apartment, and see "real French life" only on television.

The French used to flatter themselves for the success of their policy of assimilation, which was supposed to turn immigrants from any background into "proper Frenchmen" within a generation at most.

That policy worked as long as immigrants came to France in drips and drops and thus could merge into a much larger mainstream. Assimilation, however, cannot work when in most schools in the affected areas, fewer than 20 percent of the pupils are native French speakers.

France has also lost another powerful mechanism for assimilation: the obligatory military service abolished in the 1990s.

As the number of immigrants and their descendants increases in a particular locality, more and more of its native French inhabitants leave for "calmer places," thus making assimilation still more difficult.

In some areas, it is possible for an immigrant or his descendants to spend a whole life without ever encountering the need to speak French, let alone familiarize himself with any aspect of the famous French culture.

The result is often alienation. And that, in turn, gives radical Islamists an opportunity to propagate their message of religious and cultural apartheid.

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the "millet" system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.

In parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place. In these areas, all women are obliged to wear the standardized Islamist "hijab" while most men grow their beards to the length prescribed by the sheiks.

The radicals have managed to chase away French shopkeepers selling alcohol and pork products, forced "places of sin," such as dancing halls, cinemas and theaters, to close down, and seized control of much of the local administration.

A reporter who spent last weekend in Clichy and its neighboring towns of Bondy, Aulnay-sous-Bois and Bobigny heard a single overarching message: The French authorities should keep out.

"All we demand is to be left alone," said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local "emirs" engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

President Jacques Chirac and Premier de Villepin are especially sore because they had believed that their opposition to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 would give France a heroic image in the Muslim community.

That illusion has now been shattered — and the Chirac administration, already passing through a deepening political crisis, appears to be clueless about how to cope with what the Parisian daily France Soir has called a "ticking time bomb."

It is now clear that a good portion of France's Muslims not only refuse to assimilate into "the superior French culture," but firmly believe that Islam offers the highest forms of life to which all mankind should aspire.

So what is the solution? One solution, offered by Gilles Kepel, an adviser to Chirac on Islamic affairs, is the creation of "a new Andalusia" in which Christians and Muslims would live side by side and cooperate to create a new cultural synthesis.

The problem with Kepel's vision, however, is that it does not address the important issue of political power. Who will rule this new Andalusia: Muslims or the largely secularist Frenchmen?

Suddenly, French politics has become worth watching again, even though for the wrong reasons.

Amir Taheri, editor of the French quarterly "Politique internationale," is a member of Benador Associates.

from the New York Post

Islam's Penetration of our Schools

Where’s the outrage over Iran’s call for genocide?

Nov. 3, 2005

Maurice M. Eisenstein

Post-Tribune guest columnist

The parents of the Porter Lakes Elementary School second-graders who listened to a presentation on Islam were upset because they were not forewarned.

This public discussion was dominated solely by “politically correct” perspectives. In reality, the parents may very well be feeling as I do: damn mad and not going to take it anymore.

I am damn mad about the “politically correct” watered-down presentation in educational and political circles of Islam, while the Judeo-Christian tradition is presented, if at all, for its centuries-old negative historical consequences. Twenty-first century Islam is a religion overtaken by hatred and intolerance in some quarters, advocating suicide murders and beheadings in the name of Allah.

What’s sad is, most Americans are too trusting to recognize this and too believing to recognize that their tax dollars are going to promote this brand of anti-Americanism.

Last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanded that “Israel must be wiped off the map” during a conference in Teheran entitled “World without Zionism.” I am damn mad that this kind of call for massive genocide, second only to Hitler’s, is going unchallenged in the great halls of power in America.

Where is the anger from the politicians, the civil rights leaders, the church leaders or our educational leaders?

The Iranian’s call is especially enlightening when Islam was the one religion to openly support the Nazis. To this day, wanted Nazi mass murderers have a safe haven in Islamic countries.

What is most striking is that no Iranians or Muslims overseas or in America are challenging this call for genocide. This made front-page headlines in every news outlet — government or independent — in the Islamic world. The foreign ministers of America’s “allies” — the Jordanians, the Egyptians, the Saudi Arabians — all refused to criticize the Iranian president’s comments.

On Friday, after the United States, Great Britain and the United Nations, among others, criticized the president’s statements, more than 1 million Iranian Muslims took to the streets in support of genocide.

Sadly, in our own community, tax dollars go to support many Iranian and Islamic faculty members at Indiana universities. Not one came out to criticize these genocide comments, but they have time to travel back and forth to Iran (and other mother countries) and publish journals and articles critical of America and American values and behavior.

It is difficult to argue that this was the belief only of a small group of fanatic radicals. The call came from the president of a major country with a lot of oil and with a full-fledged nuclear program.

What else did the Islamic president say? The goal of a world without the United States and Zionism “is attainable and could definitely be realized.”

The thinking is that the West, and in particular the United States, placed Israel at the heart of Islam and, therefore, they all must be destroyed.

The defenders of the second-grade presentation stated that it was not for the purpose of proselytizing. That may be true. But many of us certainly see it as propaganda to put America to sleep about the true nature of the war we have been fighting.

The parents should have been much angrier. Forget political correctness; call for accountability for America and your tax dollars.

Maurice M. Eisenstein is a professor at Purdue University Calumet. His comments do not reflect the university. Contact him at

m_eisens@calumet.purdue.edu

Islamic War

7 Myths About Islam
By Timothy R. Furnish

Mr. Furnish, Ph.D (Islamic History), is Assistant Professor, History,

Georgia

Perimeter

College

,

Dunwoody

,

GA

30338

. Mr. Furnish is the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005).

One of the few positive effects of 9/11 has been renewed American interest in Islam and the

Middle East

. Unfortunately, much of the information disseminated in the media about those topics is ignorant and misleading. This is unfortunate because any hope that the predominantly-Christian West and the Muslim world might transcend conflict requires that the former be accurately informed about the latter (and vice-versa, but that's an issue for another column).   There are in particular seven myths about Islam and Islamic history that have been repeated so often in the media that they've achieved conventional wisdom status.

First, it is untrue that Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion. (Mormonism and Scientology also claim this, but few outside of

Salt Lake City

and

Hollywood

believe it.) As Philip Jenkins of

Penn

State

University

demonstrates in his work Christianity—in particular Pentecostalism—is the world's most-rapidly growing faith. Currently there are 2 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims (out of a world population of 6 billion), and in the 21st century Christianity will maintain its lead, thanks to explosive growth in sub-Saharan Africa and China.

Second, despite the claims of even President Bush in a number of public statements, Islam is not solely a "religion of peace." Yes, there are verses of toleration in the Qur'an: Sura(chapter) al-Baqarah:256 says "there shall be no compulsion in religion;" Sura al-Furqan:65ff says that Allah will be merciful to those who repent and do good works; and Sura al-Nisa':19ff enjoins Muslim men to provide financially for wives and ex-wives. But verses such as these are arguably outweighed by others: Sura Anfal:12ff and Sura Muhammad:3ff command the beheading of unbelievers; Sura al-Nisa':34ff allows for beating of one's wives and in verses 74ff and 94ff, promises great reward for those who die fighting for Allah; Sura al-Ma'idah:51 says "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends."  Of course there are violent sections in the Bible—or at least in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament (Joshua and David were military leaders as much as religious ones). But no one denies that, as many—both Muslim and non-Muslim—deny these violent and misogynistic passages in the Qur'an. Many arguments can be made against such verses (they must be contextualized, they are applicable only to that time, they are metaphorical, etc.) but one cannot say they do not exist. Someone who simply rehashs that "the Qur'an teaches peace" obviously hasn't read it. No doubt most Muslims do not read the passages about decapitation as a blueprint for today. But just as some Christians take literally, for example, the command of to Christ handle poisonous snakes (Luke 10:19), some Muslims take literally the injunction to behead unbelievers. And the latter practice is a bit more injurious to other folks than the former.

Third on the misinformation parade is the allegation that jihad does not mean holy war. This falsehood crops up often in text books and in the media, where the politically-correct tirelessly repeat that jihad actually means only "striving to be a good Muslim." This is half-right. But early on in Islamic history, jihad came to mean fighting against unbelievers in order to expand the territory under Muslim rule. al-Bukhari lived in the 9th century CE and was the most authoritative compiler of sayings attributed to the prophet Muhammad; he mentions jihad many times as meaning "holy war." Jihad as "Muslim piety" is mainly the province of the Sufis, the mystics of Islam, and has become a minority view today. Furthermore, Islamic history is chock-full of leaders declaring jihads against their enemies—even the moderately Muslim

Ottoman Empire

declared a holy war against the French, British and Russians in World War I!

Fourth is the whopper that Islam spread peacefully from

Arabia

, as if the followers of Muhammad went door-to-door ringing doorbells and handing out brochures. From the mid-7th century CE Muslims militarily overran regions and then pressured the conquered to convert. (Yes, Christian kingdoms did the same—but, again, no one denies that!) Muslim Arab armies destroyed the entire Persian Empire (modern Iran), replacing its official Zoroastrian religion; about the same time they invaded the surviving Christian Roman (Byzantine) Empire and within a few decades had taken half its territory. In 732 CE a Muslim army from

Morocco

was in

France

! By 750 CE Muslims ruled from the Iberian Peninula to

India

. And Muslim armies would stay on the offensive for the next millennium, with only two exceptions: the "Reconquista" in

Iberia

and the Crusades.

The fifth tiresome myth is that the European Catholic Crusaders started the war with Islam and that for eight centuries Muslims have been brooding over the horrible injustices thereof. Actually, the Crusades, 1095-1291, were simply the first time that European Christians managed to take the fight to their enemy's territory. And besides: why are the Crusades being constantly used as a club with which to beat the West—remember the scathing attacks on President Bush when, not long after 9/11, he referred to a "crusade" against terrorism?—when the Muslims won? Usama bin Ladin's constant references to Americans as "Crusaders" is thus a perfect marriage of historical illiteracy with keen psychological insight into his enemy's self-hate.

Another fairy tale about Islam is that poverty produces terrorists. This hoary myth tells us more about the worldview of its American adherents than it does about the ranks of the Islamists. Most of the 9/11 and

London

bombers were university-educated and at least middle-class. The same is true for Palestinian suicide bombers and most likely those in

Iraq

. Naive Americans take their domestic paradigm about poverty and crime—that the former causes the latter—and apply it to a context where it doesn't fit Regarding the recent London bombings, a British terrorism expert said that "socioeconomic background does not appear to [have] play[ed] a role." Poverty may be necessary, but it is hardly sufficient, to explain Islamic terrorism.

And finally, we have politically-correct mendacity number seven, which even British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently repeated: that Islam has been "hijacked" by terrorists. In this view Bin Ladin, the ayatollahs in

Iran

, the former Taliban rulers of

Afghanistan

, the Saudis with their Wahhabism (a particularly puritanical brand of Sunni Islam)—all are twisting a "moderate" religion to suit their purpose. The "Islam = peace" brigade essentializes Islam as peaceful. UBL essentializes it as jihad. Although there are Qur'an verses, and sayings of Muhammad, on both sides, many do support Bin Ladin and his ilk. Also, Islamic history is replete with Muslim scholars whom the modern Islamic fundamentalists draw upon. The most famous is Ibn Taymiyah who, 700 years before George Bush said "you're either for us or against us," divided the world into the domain of Islam and that of war. The only good ruler is a Muslim ruler, asserted Ibn Taymiyah. And by that he meant one that enforces shari`ah, or Islamic law. Most Muslims do not agree, but some do. (And only 10 percent of 1.3 billion is 130 million.) But it is no use pretending that the UBLs of the world have falsely "hijacked" Islam. Indeed, their view of the faith—however intolerant and violent it may seem—has a basis in Islamic theology and history.

Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and then the Enlightenment led the West to divorce religion and state, thereby removing (mostly) the threat of religious-based warfare. As a fellow monotheist with Muslims, I pray that the moderate strands within Islam win out over the more fundamentalist ones, allowing that civilization to follow suit. And for we in the West to help with that, we need to open our eyes to the reality of the harsher aspects of Islam and Islamic history. Anything else is simple—and dangerous—self-deception.

Under Annan the UN is the International Terrorist

The following article comes to terms with why the US should disown the United Nations until, or if, it gets its moral act together.  Until then there is no moral reasons why the US should not dictate to other countries and entities how they are to behave civily.

It would also not hurt if the Annan familyand their friends were all tried as the war criminals that they are.  They should be brought to trial in the US.

Oops, there goes the UN's 'moral authority'

---

MARK STEYN, THE JERUSALEM POST

Aug. 22, 2005

---

How many Annans does it take to change a light bulb? Well, if the replacement light bulb's being shipped to Uday Hussein's Iraqi Olympic Committee recreational basement as part of the UN Oil-for-Food program, there's no telling how many Annans you'll need.

You'll recall that Kofi Annan's son Kojo – who had a $30,000-a-year job but managed to find a spare quarter-million dollars sitting around to invest in a Swiss football club – has been under investigation for some time for his ties to the Oil-for-Fraud program. But the investigators have now broadened their sights to include Kofi's brother Kobina Annan, the Ghanaian ambassador to Morocco, who has ties to a businessman behind several of the entities involved in the scandal – one Michael Wilson, son of the former Ghanaian Ambassador to Switzerland and a childhood friend of young Kojo. Wilson is currently being investigated for bribery over a $50 million contract to renovate the Geneva offices of the UN World Intellectual Property Organization.

The actual head of the Oil-for-Food racket, Kofi sidekick Benon Sevan, has resigned, having hitherto insisted that a mysterious six-figure sum in his bank account was a gift from his elderly aunt, a lady of modest means who lived in a two-room flat back in Cyprus. Paul Volcker's investigators had planned to confirm with auntie her nephew's version of events, but unfortunately she fell down an elevator shaft and died. It now seems likely that the windfall had less to do with Sevan's late aunt and more to do with his soliciting of oil allocations for a company run by a cousin of Kofi Annan's predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

Meanwhile, Alexander Yakovlev, a senior procurement officer for UN "peacekeeping" missions – and if you're on a UN mission in Africa, no, he can't fix you up with a hot-looking eight-year-old from the local village; Mr. Yakovlev apparently dealt with the non-child-sex aspects of UN procuring – anyway, Yakovlev salted away just shy of a million bucks in kickbacks in his account in Antigua. He's just been arrested in New York and pleaded guilty to money laundering, wire fraud, etc.

Despite the current investigations into his brother, his son, his son's best friend, his predecessor's cousin, his former chief of staff, his procurement officer and the executive director of the UN's biggest ever program, the secretary-general insists he remains committed to staying on and tackling the important work of "reforming" the UN.

Unfortunately, his executive co-ordinator for United Nations reform has also had to resign. Officially, Maurice Strong, under-secretary-general, godfather of the Kyoto Treaty and chief UN negotiator on North Korea, resigned because he'd put his step-daughter on the payroll – she's also quit – and because of his ties to Tongsun Park, a Korean businessman charged by the US Attorney's office with taking millions of dollars from Saddam to act as an unregistered foreign agent for Iraq. Park invested a million of those Saddamite greenbacks in a business of Under-Secretary-General Strong's son – a now-bankrupt Canadian petroleum company.

BY HAPPY coincidence, Under-Secretary-General Strong and Kojo Annan were both appointed, on the same day, to the board of a company called Air Harbour Technologies, a business registered in the Isle of Man and whose directors also included Michael Wilson, the guy under investigation for the UN office renovation contract in Geneva. It's a small world, at least at the UN. AHT was wholly owned by the son of Sheikh Yamani, the former Saudi oil minister. Yamani Jr. was putting together a $60 million oil deal with Saddam and seemed to think the presence of UN officials and offspring on his board might help him.

But not to worry. To demonstrate his ongoing commitment to "reform," Kofi Annan has now put his deputy secretary-general, Louise Frechette, another Canadian, in charge of the "reform agenda." In a February report by Volcker's committee, Mme. Frechette is said to have helped Sevan block efforts to bring details of the Oil-for-Food boondoggle before the Security Council.

How do we know all the above? We only know because the US invaded Iraq and the Ba'athists skedaddled out of town, leaving copious amounts of paperwork relating to the Baghdad end of Oil-for-Fraud, since when Claudia Rosett and a few other dogged journalists have been systematically unstitching the intricate web of family and business relationships around the UN's operations.

YOU'D THINK that by now respect for the UN would be plummeting faster than Benon Sevan's auntie down that elevator shaft. After all, these aren't peripheral figures or minor departments. They reach right into the heart of UN policy on two of the critical issues of the day – Iraq and North Korea – or four, if you're one of those Eurolefties who's hot for Kyoto and peacekeeping. Most of the Ghanaian diplomatic corps and their progeny seem to have directorships at companies with UN contracts and/or Saddamite oil options. I had no idea being a Ghanaian ambassador's son opened so many doors, and nor did they till Kofi ascended to his present eminence.

The other day I sat behind a car from Massachusetts bearing the bumper-sticker "War Is Never The Answer." Well, it depends on the question. In this case, without the war, we wouldn't even be asking the questions. Without the paper trail in Baghdad, who would have mustered the will to look into Oil-for-Food and see it through to the point where it's brought down a clutch of career UN bigwigs?

They're no great loss to humanity: Mr Strong's "legacy," the Kyoto treaty, is already seen as a joke that's likely to crash the economies of those few countries who've made the mistake of taking it seriously (New Zealand), and as for his North Korean outreach, we should be grateful it ended before a full-fledged Kim Jong-Il Nukes-for-Food program was up and running.

But this is how the transnational jet set works, and those sensitive flowers who don't have the stomach to look under the rock could at least do us the favor of ceasing to bleat about, in the marvelously loopy phrase of Britain's former Secretary for International Development, the UN's "moral authority."

In The Times of London the other day, Matthew Parris demanded to know whether I could now admit the Iraq war had been a mistake. No. I'm still in favor of it 100% – and these rare shafts of light on the sewers of transnationalism are merely one more benefit.

---

---

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124677191033&p=1006953079865

Churchill would admire Blair’s response to terrorism

Aug. 11, 2005

By Maurice M. Eisenstein
Post-Tribune columnist

About two weeks ago, a political cartoon in this newspaper characterized a radical Muslim leading a group of neophyte Muslims to become terrorists. The resulting condemnation of this cartoon was represented by two letters to the editor condemning the cartoon as “racist” because it dared to name a particular religion, Islam. It should not be a surprise that the knee-jerkers were out in full force with their usual inability of thinking through the implications by recognizing reality. They continue silently in their rejection of the reality facing America.

The cartoon clearly stated in a label that the leader was representing extreme Islam. By its very nature, a cartoon is a characterization reflecting reality to a substantial degree. Otherwise, how can it be a political cartoon? Would the cartoon have made any sense if the lead character was a Scandinavian, a Hispanic or an Asian? The reality is that terrorism in the first part of the 21st century is predominantly an Islamic phenomenon.

What the whole world has recognized and what no one denies is this: It is a unique group of Muslims, commonly referred to as radical, extreme or fundamentalist, that is responsible for recruiting the necessary soldiers that compose our enemy in this new war. Violence is not part of most fundamentalist or orthodox religions. Further, this century’s terrorism is the response of Islam — at least that is what the terrorists themselves claim. Even the members of the Irish Republican Army never claimed they were acting in the name of Catholicism.

Our collective silence to the truth of what is occurring within the Islamic world and acquiescence to the revision of reality that those who labeled the cartoon “racist” would like to see, will only result in a disaster for us all in the West. After 9/11, after suicide murderers across the world, and finally two cowardly attacks in London that cost more than 50 lives and hundreds wounded, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has come to his senses, or was forced to by both circumstances and the English public, when he publicly called for a war on “British” Muslims who are part of a fifth column in this international war. Only after the second London bombing did he order that any Muslims calling for physical acts against civilians would be removed from the country, irrespective of their citizen status.

Finally, there are political actions in the tradition of Winston Churchill defending a 2,000-year-old way of life.

The cartoon only reflected the exact fact and commitment that the British prime minister made. He recognized that at the center of all this terror is Islam in its extreme — a not uncommon interpretation. No one is going to call Blair a racist or one who easily named a religion as being responsible for terror. The issue not yet openly recognized is the reality that the most conservative estimates place those committed to extreme action at between 10 percent and 20 percent of Muslims. That results in a worldwide army of between 100 million and 200 million people. How do you make yourself safe in Britain from 10 percent of the Muslim population living there?

Where is the American Winston Churchill? This inciting to extreme action was reported on the front page of Chicago newspapers to be occurring openly and universally in the Bridgeport section of Chicago. In America, Illinois, Chicago and Northwest Indiana there was only a yawn. Who are we kidding with this silence for which we will someday pay?

Maurice M. Eisenstein is a professor at Purdue University Calumet. Contact him at m_eisens@calumet.purdue.edu. His opinions do not represent Purdue University.

President Bush Betrays Jews and Evanglical Chritians

Being currently in Israel, I am witnessing first person the result of the betrayal of President Bush of his commitment to the Jewish Nation and to his Evangelical Christian supporters.

This betrayal took the form of the lack of any national official representation from the Bush administration for the opening ceremonies for Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust Memorial.  This event occurred during the sixty year anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the end of the Holocaust.

Like many other presidents before him, Bush is more than willing to sacrifice his principles for the sake of possibly getting a "peace" in the middle-east during his last term in office.  For this goal he and his advisers seem to willing to sacrifice the historical and theological status of the Jewish people.

Not only is he willing to pressure Israel to remove itself from lands that are part of its historical and religious right in fulfilling its proper role to the nations of the world, he and his whole administration is too busy to attend the commemoration of the most important, although, tragic experience of the Jewish people in the Twentieth Century.  Bush officially informed Israel and the Jews that he and his whole administration was to busy to attend the ceremony; besides it was sufficient that the Mayor of New York will be attending.  First the Mayor of NY would be attending anyway and a mayor is not the same as a representative of the national government.

This was a time that the Bush administration could have shown solidarity with the Jewish people and its fulfillment of its biblical covenant.  Someone from the Bush administration could have been attending, not for some middle-eastern balance, but to show the special status of the Jewish people with America and Evangelical Christian Zionists.

No, instead every single member of Bush's administration was busy.  Not only that -- guess was Bush was doing?  He was hosting the so called "moderate" Arab, the King of Jordan, Abdallah.  Now besides the fact that an Arab Muslim moderate is an oxymoron because that is like saying there is such a thing as a moderate murderer, i.e. a murderer who kills his victims quickly so they don't suffer.

Jordan is inherently and unabashedly anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish if you will, and anti-Christian.  Maybe not as openly and as perhaps the Iranian mullahs or the Saudi imams; but nonetheless equally as evil from any religious biblical eyes.

Jordan's constitution, whatever value it has in an absolute kingdom, denies Jews and Christians the right to own property in the country.  Unlike the Jewish nation of Israel that allows both to own land etc. and that other devil according to the Jordanian people, the United States, that also allows Muslims and other none Christians and Jews to own property.

Israeli television commented consistently about the fact that there was no representation from the American nation and none from the American Evangelical community; although the pontiff was represented.  The role of the number one evangelical in the world was placed on President Bush because of the support he pursued and received from the Evangelical community.  If he could not attend, he needed to make sure that there was the show of solidarity with the Jewish people in their commemoration of this greatest of tragic events in their new Nation as promised in G-D's covenant.  There was none. 

In a real way, the commentary of the Israeli television was reminiscent of the abandonment of World War Two.  Most of the other dignitaries that were there, like the UN's Koffee Hannon, the Israelis know are not their friends or supporters.  But, even the U. S. did not show up.  It is a sad commentary on President Bush's lack of sensitivity, along with his new Secretary of State Rice.

The Evangelical Christian community should be up in arms in protest and pray to turn around the moves of this Administration away from its support of the Jewish covenant with the land.  This has been a second term change.  Peace is never bought at the price of support for true Judeo-Christian tradition of support of G-D's covenant.

DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

The nature of the new "democracy" in Iraq is being tauted as the savior of that country specifically and the middle-east in general.  The problem with this is that democracy is a beginning; but only that.  Democracy is a minimal step in the direction of a civilized society.

With a constitution that protects the beliefs of only one religion -- Islam and rejects others, it is difficult to envision a country that is not going to be engulfed by the tyranny of the majority --  and internally this tyranny will be justified as being in line with the dominant religion.  This has been the case in every Muslim country and especially Arab-Muslim countries.  (It has also been true of other none Muslim countries.)

The act of voting in and of itself took a great effort on the part of the U.S.  This was achieved with practically no help from anyone outside the Anglo world.  If one was being honest, it was undermined substantially by all the Arab countries, all of Europe with the exception of England, and the U.S. Democratic party.  It has now finally occurred surpassing all expectations.  The concern now should be that Americans, and in particular supporters of the current administration, are going to confuse voting with liberal values, i.e. individualism, pluralism, and equal participation.

We have already seen that the voting was limited.  Jews who left Iraq under threat were not allowed to vote, especially if they immigrated to Israel.  This already indicated a bigotry that should have been declared unacceptable; but, as usual, we keep quite because the Iraqis are too primitive to understand and they may be offended at American insistence at equality.

We have made this mistake before.  Is there any real belief that, except for a civil war, there is any possibility of understanding of Western liberal values on the part of the Iraqi society?