The End of Columbus Day

Long ago I solved the mystery of why liberals supported such foolishness like open borders, political correctness, multiculturalism and the end of Columbus Day. I learned that their world view was that we citizens of the USA had such a wonderful country because we had stolen resources from all the rest of the world. It was up to liberals to right these wrongs by sharing our wealth, celebrating other cultures while destroying our own – and, in general, cutting us down to size. To be sure, there is a fair amount of self-hatred in their thinking, but they have some outdated facts on their side.

Like most developed countries, like Great Britain, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there was a time when might made right, colonialism was God's work, and slavery (which still exists in some countries) was an accepted practice. We were more successful than most, but the problem is: those days are gone forever, and this is still a very dangerous world.

As I ponder the strange reactions by the Obama Administration to the dual crises of an ebola epidemic possibly developing in our country and the rise of ISIS, a powerful force dedicated to destroying America and all things smacking of enlightened western culture, I ask myself, “Is this liberal world view and self-hatred at work here also?”.

Are we supposed to share the sufferings of the third world because of our past sins? What other explanation is there for the nonsense being put forth as to why travel from the ebola-stricken countries has not been shut down? Why has the response to the threat from ISIS been so lame and so late? Is it from a view that they should be left to work things out – even at the expense of a future confrontation with an enemy of barbarian death-cultists armed with nuclear weapons?

Muslims in America and Everywhere

This is a reprint of an article I posted in 2008.  Thanks to Ivan for e-mailing me the statistics shown in the book excerpted below, and reminding me of this article.  Nothing has changed.  Muslim jihadists are still butchering innocents; Palestinians are still teaching their children that Jews drink Arab blood and are still trying to kill all Jews; Muslims come to America to escape their culture - then promptly try to impose their culture on the rest of us.

Although most of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children as do we, nevertheless, Muslim history cannot be ignored or denied (as American liberals seem to do), and it is clear that 1. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion – and must be dealt with as such, and 2. We must be vigilant in not allowing the Muslim population to grow, nor allow mosques and schools spreading hate to exist in America.

The following excerpt from Dr. Hammond's book shows the extent of the problem, and that it must be dealt with if we are to keep the freedoms so many Americans died to win for us and to keep for us.

"Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat"
by Dr. Peter Hammond

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

We Fight over Trifles as Islam Conquers

America stood idly by as Islamic fundamentalists attacked everywhere, from Afghanistan, where the Taliban stoned women and destroyed priceless Buddhist artifacts, to France, where large areas are off-limits to French society and only Muslims can enter. For our ignorance and lack of concern, we were rewarded by the massacre of 3000 people and the destruction of the Twin Towers. Don’t think we weren’t warned of this, just as today students of the world and its history are warning us that Islam is determined to conquer the world, including America, and is succeeding.

We are withdrawing from Afghanistan, where a successful counter-terrorism policy was replaced in 2009 by a now failed nation-building policy; and we have given away all that our blood and treasure accomplished in Iraq due to the naïve world view now in vogue.

We see the countries in Europe cowering in fear of their Muslim populations. We see Islamic fundamentalists taking over in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Turkey. They are already well-established in Somalia, Iran, Indonesia, Palestinian areas of Israel and in large areas of the African continent; and they are on the move in Mali, the Philippines and Yemen. Other, so-far moderate, Muslim countries are also under the gun, and the list goes on and on.

Just as we stood idly by as Hitler advanced through Europe because, “It has nothing to do with us”, so are we withdrawing from confronting this deadly menace, while we pretend that Muslims in America are absolutely no threat to us, to our legal traditions or to our freedoms.

"I don't think you can overstate the importance that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism will have to the rest of the world in the century ahead-especially if, as seems possible, its most fanatical elements get their hands on nuclear and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them against their enemies." --Ronald Reagan

“Reagan made this statement before the jihad attack on the Khobar Towers, before the jihad attack on the USS Cole, before the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the 7/7 attack in London, and the 3/11 attack on a train station in Madrid. Reagan warned of a worldwide "Muslim fundamentalist revolution" before the Islamic jihad massacre committed by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas; before the Islamic jihad massacre in Bali; before the jihad massacre in Mumbai, and before the numerous thwarted attempts at jihad attacks in the United States over the last two years. Reagan spoke before the nearly 18,000 Islamic jihad terrorist attacks that have been committed since 9/11.

Reagan spoke before there was a significant Muslim presence in Europe. Now the threat and intimidation by Muslims throughout the countries of the European Union is growing at every level.”

The following is a statement by the late Ayatollah Khomeini about the goals of Islam.

"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other [countries] so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world...Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured [by the unbelievers]?

Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

We need to do everything we can to stop Iran from acquiring the bomb; we need to give even more support to Israel as they defend their country and western values; we need to increase the pressure beyond occasional drone strikes to confront and stop the march of Islamic fundamentalists everywhere (especially in Egypt): and we need to stop any further immigration of Muslims into our country before what is happening throughout Europe happens to us.

I am not encouraged by the appointment of former Senator Hagel to Secretary of Defense that we will be able to defend our society from this menace.

The Benghazi-Oslo Syndrome

If you independents and progressives think that a fair and impartial investigation of the tragic Benghazi fiasco is forthcoming, think again.

This group wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them.

Islamophobia Is the Underlying Cause of Benghazi

Richard Butrick November 3, 2012 American Thinker

So sayeth Ambassador Pickering, Hillary Clinton's appointee to head the "Accountability Review Board." Ambassador Pickering is tasked with getting the facts straight (after the election) about what happened in Benghazi and where accountability resides.

According to Ambassador Pickering, in remarks he made during an Oct. 23 panel discussion at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., America is a seething hotbed of "Islamophobia," filled with ignorant racist rubes who irrationally fear the benign Muslim religion. Of course, he couched his message in diplomatese. "Ignorant rubes," in diplomatese, becomes "[d]ata shows that those Americans who do not know Muslims, who do not know much about Islam, are the ones who harbor the greatest feelings of prejudice."

So we can see that Hillary appointed a man who comes into the investigation with an open mind and without preconceived scapegoats.

The real stupefying bafflement in all this is how someone with the experience and acumen of an ambassador can believe such suicidal pap. It is like battered wife syndrome, in which the wife believes that it is somehow her fault. The brutal behavior of her husband is really love gone awry because of her failings. For Pickering, Islam is a religion of peace, and all the hate, outrage, and violence rained down upon us just proves that it is our fault. It is a strange, malignant, suicidal idée fixe that controls his mind (and Hillary's and Obama's?) no matter what transpires.

The evidence is overwhelming. Fourteen hundred years of Islamic brutal suppression, domination, and enslavement of all non-Islamic cultures in North Africa and the Near East and even the Balkans means nothing. The hate-filled spewing from imams, mullahs and ayatollahs from mosques all over the world means nothing.

A just recently published 70-minute documentary entitled The Grand Deception, produced by award-winning journalist Steve Emerson, shows how the radical Brotherhood's tentacles have reached deep inside the U.S. political system over the past few decades. Emerson was able to obtain footage of the leaders of the peace-loving Brotherhood speaking candidly behind closed doors. While Brotherhood representatives dupe the Clinton-Obama team with assurances of commitment to religious freedom, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism, behind their backs they snicker at Western values and consider it all "garbage." The Emerson footage showed them praying in Congress or breaking bread in the White House as "peace-loving moderates," then revealed them just days later, damning America and calling for violent jihad against us and our allies.

The Clintonites and Pickeringites are so far gone in what one author calls the "Benghazi-Oslo Syndrome" that even forced viewing wouldn't dent their bulletproof mental blinders. The zombie Islamodupes need to be run out of town.

Muslim Heckler Attacks Congressman West

The Players: Nezar Hamze, Executive Director of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), and Allan West, Republican Congressman from Florida.  I thought I knew my history, But Congressman West puts me to shame.

It seems to me that every time an American Muslim leader appears in the news, it increases my distrust for Muslims.  Events of the last 40 years have also convinced me that Islam, being both a violent religion and also a political movement devoted to world domination, is inimical to American laws, values and traditions.


Thanks to Dave for sending me this.

Boo Hoo, Congressman Ellison

As part of a well-orchestrated attack to smear Representative King and his Congressional Committee's attempt to define Islamic terrorism and its new tactics, Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota went on television yesterday, apparently sobbing uncontrollably at the unfairness of it all. We have written before about Ellison and his ties to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam and his anti-Jewish associations. We hope no-one takes this performance seriously, just as we hope Rep. Ellison's attempts to advance the cause of Sharia in America fail completely.

Rep. Keith Ellison’s Bigotry

The congressman told a teachable story this morning. One problem: It’s untrue.

Matthew Shaffer MARCH 10, 2011 National Review

This morning, Rep. Keith Ellison (Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, Minn.) appropriated a hearing on Islamic radicalism by weeping his way through a speech about whata-buncha-nasty-bigots Americans are. He chose as his case in point Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Pakistani-born Muslim American who rushed to lower Manhattan on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, to assist in rescue efforts, and died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Here’s how Representative Ellison tells the story of the aftermath of his death:

"After the tragedy some people tried to smear his character solely because of his Islamic faith. Some people spread false rumors and speculated that he was in league with the attackers only because he was Muslim. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were fully exposed. Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens."

Does Ellison’s account check out with reality?

No. It is actually pretty close to the opposite of the truth. In fact, six weeks after the September 11 attacks — before Hamdani’s remains were identified, which Ellison implies to be the turning point of public perception — Congress signed the PATRIOT Act into law with this line included: “Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.” That is, Hamdani was actually singled out for particular high honors among the thousands of victims of the September 11 attacks.

There’s little evidence of the “rumors” of which Ellison speaks, either. Poke around yourself. Go to Google and search for Mohammed Salman Hamdani’s name, using various time frames from before today’s hearings (say, in the week after the September 11 attack). You’ll discover two discordant sets of returns: none for sites and news reports accusing Hamdani of being a terrorist, and many thousands of pages honoring him as a hero while claiming that he was “widely accused” of being a terrorist.

Web pages that do source the claim that Hamndani was “widely accused” of being a terrorist typically trace back to a single report from the New York Post , dated Oct. 12, 2001, and titled “Missing — or Hiding? Mystery of NYPD Cadet from Pakistan.” The piece has been taken offline, but its content is preserved elsewhere.

Here’s what the New York Post wrote:

His family distributed missing-person fliers in the fear that the 23-year- old, who is trained as an emergency medical technician, went instead to the World Trade Center to help and was killed.

But investigators for the FBI and NYPD have since questioned the family about which Internet chat rooms he visited and if he was political.

Hamdani, a graduate of Queens College with a biochemistry degree, had been in the NYPD cadet program for three years. He became “inactive” because he needed to work full time, his mother said.

Police sources said he hadn’t been to work at the NYPD since April, but he still carried official identification.

One source told the Post : “That tells me they’re not looking for this guy at the bottom of the rubble. The thing that bothers me is, if he is up to some tricks, he can walk past anybody [using the ID card].”

Hamdani’s mother, who has been in the United States for two decades, denied her son was political or a religious fundamentalist. Cops at the Midtown Tunnel reported spotting someone who looked like Hamdani yesterday morning.

So the Post reported 1) that Hamdani’s family believed he died in the WTC attacks, 2) that the FBI asked Hamdani’s mother a few background questions after a mistaken sighting, and 3) that an unnamed source felt such questioning implied guilt. No doubt, that was hard on the grieving mother. But frankly, this — a mistaken sighting, and very preliminary investigations of many people, most of whom turn out to be innocent — is the kind of thing that inevitably happens after a major terrorist attack.

After that questioning, the FBI didn’t go farther in a serious investigation, and, a week later, Hamdani was singled out for honors by the United States’ executive and legislative branches with those lines in the PATRIOT Act that immortalized his story.

Then, he was eulogized by the New York Times , had scholarship funds named after him, was honored by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly (both of whom went barefoot to honor Muslim practice) at his funeral, and has been celebrated over and over again by the media.

The belief that Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a victim of anti-Muslim bigotry was never based in reality. It was manufactured by the Left as a rhetorical prop, exploited as a bludgeon against people who want to talk seriously about terrorism. If Hamdani was singled out for his faith, it would appear he was singled out for especially high honors. Most 9/11 victims were not half so celebrated as he was.

Rather than suffering from apocryphal American anti-Muslim bigotry, Salman Hamdani appears to have benefited from America’s eager inclusiveness.

Americans have long seen Mohammed Salman Hamdani as a hero. Too bad Representative Ellison saw him only as a prop.

Mexifornia, Islam and Europe

Until Mexicans and other Central Americans and Muslims immigrated here in significant numbers, every other immigrant group went through about the same sequence of stages of early discrimination followed by assimilation and acceptance. The Irish, the Italians, the French, the Germans, the Polish, etc., etc., etc. - all went through these stages and then became part of the American culture: part of the American dream and of American exceptionalism.

Then the liberals started in with their nasty concept of multiculturalism. Ethnic groups which had sacrificed everything to escape the culture of their homeland, started being told that their former culture was actually superior to American culture, and, rather than assimilate, they should retain and strengthen their own culture. Multiculturalism became part of that which is politically correct; liberals would never say that they were supporting other cultures over our own, but that was the practical effect of their policy, and the beautiful melting pot that led to the creation of the greatest country in the world has begun to turn into something resembling the former Yugoslavia.

We need to look at what has been happening in Europe, and we need to get serious about our borders, serious about Muslim immigration and serious about the great state of Mexifornia. We need to secure and protect our unique American culture and get back to assimilating those who immigrate legally into our country.

Will Multiculturalism End Europe?

By Pat Buchanan February 15, 2011 RealClearPolitics

Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's David Cameron.

Is multiculturalism a failure in France? "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," says President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.

Only in Canada and the U.S., it seems, is the issue still in dispute.

Yet these European leaders are not leading anyone. They are far behind the people, and their belated appreciation of the idea of national identity is but a product of political panic. Take Merkel in Germany.

Last summer, Thilo Sarrazin published a book the title of which may be translated as "Germany Abolishes Itself."

Sarrazin argued that Germany's gastarbeiters, guest workers -- Turks, Kurds, Arabs -- are dumbing down the nation. While Germany's birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.

"It is a matter of culture," said Sarrazin, and "Islam is the culture." This is why Muslim immigrants are "socially, culturally and intellectually inferior to most everyone else." Yet Sarrazin did use the phrase a "genetic minus" to describe migrants from the Middle East.

Were these the ravings of a neo-fascist intellectual and closet admirer of the late Fuhrer? Not at all. Sarrazin was a proud member of the Social Democratic Party of Willy Brandt and a board member of the Bundesbank.

With Merkel and the German establishment howling for his head, Thilo resigned, unrepentant. Two-thirds of Germans said he had a right to speak his mind, a third said they agreed with him, and "Germany Abolishes Itself" has sold over a million copies.

It was in response to the firestorm of the Sarrazin affair that Merkel discovered that multiculturalism was a failure. Her EU colleagues have since been falling all over one another to agree.

Another factor has contributed to the sudden awakening of the EU's elite -- an explosion of anti-immigrant parties that are siphoning off working-class voters from socialist parties and nationalist voters from conservative parties.

Among these are Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front in France, the British National Party, the Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Geert Wilders' Freedom Party in Holland, the Swiss People's Party of Christoph Blocher, which won the battle to ban the burka, the Austrian Freedom Party and Alliance for Austria's Future, the Jobbik Party of Hungary, the Lega Nord in Italy, which favors secession, the Danish People's Party, and the Sweden Democrats, who just won a toehold in parliament.

What these parties share is that all are anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and ethnonational. They want to retain, or restore, a nation of, by and for their own kind, with its own history, holidays, heroes, language, literature, music and art.

They are fiercely resistant to any dilution of the ethnic composition or cultural character of their countries.

What is the menace of multiculturalism these people see?

From Moscow to Marseilles, from Stockholm to Sicily, they see the Muslims pouring in and creating tiny nations within the nation, and being unwilling to embrace a new identity as Englishmen, French or German.

And their fears are not unjustified.

For just as the populist parties are deeply ethnonational, proud of their identity as Swiss, Austrian, German, English, Dutch or Flemish, the newcomers, too, are deeply ethnonational: Turkish, Arab and African.

And Islam is a faith that is itself anti-multicultural.

Devout Muslims do not believe all religions are equal. They believe there is one God, Allah, and submission to his law is the path to paradise. They do not believe in freedom of speech and the press if it means mocking the Prophet. They do not believe in Western dress codes or mixing men and women in schools and sports. They do not believe all lifestyles are equal. Some think adulterers should be stoned and honor killings are justified for girls who disgrace the family.

They wish to live their faith and their culture in our countries, to live alongside us but to dwell apart.

"If you come to France," said Sarkozy last week, "you accept to melt into a single community, which is the national community, and if you do not want to accept that, you cannot be welcome in France."

A little late for that. Some 5 million to 8 million Arabs and Muslims are in France, their birth rate is higher, and more are on the way.

The real questions: Whose idea was it to bring these people in? And what do France, Britain and Germany do if they say: This is a democracy, we will live as we wish to live, according to our beliefs, not yours.

How does a liberal, permissive society that celebrates diversity impose its values on a militant immigrant minority that rejects them?

Answer: It doesn't. All the rest is chatter.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

What do I Want From Muslims?

What do I Want From Muslims? What would shut me up?

My readers are well-aware of my campaign to warn America of the dangers posed by Muslim terrorists and by various attempts to impose Sharia law in a series of hardly-noticeable steps. They are accomplishing Sharia-compliance in England and in other European countries. Just as California provides insights into America’s future on most matters, Europe provides a warning example as to the intentions and successes of Muslim organizations.

1. Move the Cordoba “victory” mosque away from “Ground Zero” and change its name; also change the design of the Flight 93 memorial in Pennsylvania so that it honors the brave passengers and crew who died there, and NOT the terrorists who took it down.

2. Stop funding and making excuses for Islamic terrorists. Every Muslim leader I have heard discussing Islamic terrorists tip toes in their condemnations and then goes on to make excuses and whine about being unfairly treated. Of course the rest of us are angry about all the murderous acts of terrorism happening every day.

3. Break the wall of silence presented by so-called moderate Muslims about terrorism. Speak out publicly and daily and condemn their butchery. If you believe your religion does not support their actions, say so loudly and clearly.

I can understand why citizens of Muslim countries are afraid to speak out, but why should American Muslims be afraid?

4. Renounce the Sharia as being totally out of place in America, and close or reform all those mosques that teach and indoctrinate Sharia law.

5. Acknowledge the incredible assistance given by Americans to Muslims in places like Bosnia, Kosovo and Indonesia, plus the costly removal of the butcher of Baghdad.

Yesterday Began the Rebirth of the Republican Party

Yesterday all 177 Republican members (and 11 Democrats) of the House of Representatives voted against the Obama stimulus bill, which might also be called the “black reparations bill”, or the “transfer of wealth from whites to blacks bill”, or, more politely, the “pork for Democrats bill”. Obama carried the day, but it is hoped that he won a battle and lost the war. Over the next year or two or three, the size of this bill and its contents (and eventually its failure) provides plenty of fodder for Republicans and for the few, fair-minded journalists who are left – to point out just what Obama meant with the words, “hope and change”.

See this:

January 08, 2009 Robert Reich Blog (Excerpt)

The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers

“The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation's roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools. And it will kick-start alternative, non-fossil based sources of energy (wind, solar, geothermal, and so on); new health-care information systems; and universal broadband Internet access...

And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."

Robert Reich is a prominent Obama advisor and former Sec. of Labor under Clinton.

And this:

GOP holds the line: 244-188. This crap sandwich is all yours, Dems

By Michelle Malkin January 28, 2009 MichelleMalkin.com

Own it. Embrace it. Swallow it. The House version of the $1.1 trillion Generational Theft Act of 2009 is all the Democrats’ doing now.

Not one Republican voted for it. (1 Republican had to leave early).

177 Republicans and 11 Democrats opposed.

No bending over today.

Finally. A party of opposition worth its name.

And now… on to the squishes in the Senate.

Savor this while you can.

Kudos to the GOP leadership for showing some spine. More, please.

And this:

PowerLine.com January 28, 2009

Congratulations to the House Republicans: all 177 voted against the Democrats' pork-fest bill. Eleven Democrats joined the Republicans in rejecting Nancy Pelosi's fiscal insanity, which, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed yesterday, would actually cost $1.1 trillion.

The Republicans put together their own stimulus package; they say that, using Christina Romer's methodology--she will be the Chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers--their program will create 6.2 million jobs.

Whether that's right or not, the Republicans' plan, unlike the Democrats', was actually geared to job creation. Here are a few highlights. The Republican proposal would:

* Reduce the lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent.
* Allow small businesses a tax deduction up to 20 percent of income.
* Finance a $7,500 credit for home-buyers who put down at least 5 percent.
* Expand Net Operating Loss carryback rules to give companies that have been profitable in the past but are now losing money prompt infusions of cash.
* Provide an above-the-line tax deduction for private health insurance to equalize tax treatment between those who have employer-sponsored health plans and those who don't.

For the Republicans, this vote is an important first step toward reclaiming the mantle of small(er) government and fiscal responsibility.

No Sharia Here or There

It has been a while since there has been a discussion here of the dangers to a free society posed by Muslims and their Sharia code of laws. Interest in this has faded a bit due to the incredible success of President Bush’s War on Terror. Many Islamic organizations masquerading as charitable groups, but actually supporting militant fanatics, have been disrupted and disbanded, and the turning of Iraq from a vicious enemy led by a murderous dictator laden with oil riches into a friendly, democratic ally of the United States has been momentous, not only in the long term, but with immediate consequences.

If you recall, discussions here championed President Bush’s efforts to ensure that peaceful American citizens who were Muslims were protected, but we also reluctantly concluded that the evidence was overwhelming that Muslims always attempt to impose their Sharia whenever they gain enough numerical strength to do so. They have done that in several European countries, they tried and failed in Canada, and they have somewhat succeeded in Great Britain. Because of this record, no further immigration of Muslims should be allowed into the United States.

What happens and is happening in Great Britain, a country with traditions and values similar to ours, should be watched closely, and the mistakes they make should not be duplicated here.

Britain's No Sharia Campaign

By Deborah Weiss December 18, 2008 American Thinker

A campaign against Sharia law was launched last week in the UK. Titled "One Law for All", it commenced on the 60th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, drawing attention to the contrast between human rights and Sharia law (Islamic law). Organizers of the campaign believe that Sharia law runs counter to the principles of human rights, freedom, dignity and equality for all.

Approximately one year ago, the UK government began giving Sharia court judgments the backing of British civil law enforcement. Prior to that, Sharia courts were able to issue rulings, but they were not legally enforceable. They relied on the parties' voluntary adherence to the awards.

Then in 2007, Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered that under a clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996, Sharia courts could be categorized as arbitral tribunals. Arbitral tribunals issue rulings that are binding by law so long as the parties involved consent to arbitration as the means of resolving their dispute. When they do, they waive their rights to have a British judge or jury hear their case. On the other hand, it can be a more efficient means of dispute resolution than courtroom litigation.

Siddiqi now heads up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which runs five Sharia courts in the UK. Two more such courts are scheduled. From the time they were given the backing of the British civil courts, Sharia courts have heard over 100 cases, issuing legally enforceable rulings. Though they primarily hear cases on divorce, money or property disputes, Sharia courts are increasingly addressing "small criminal matters" such as domestic violence.

Never-the-less, providing British legal authority to Sharia judgments can be very problematic. First, evidence shows that many women in the Muslim community are pressured into submitting to Sharia courts by their families or the Islamic ummah (community). They are not really there on their own volition.

Second, Sharia courts treat men and women very unequally. For example, they typically award twice as much money to sons as they do daughters in inheritance cases. Additionally, they deem a woman's testimony to be worth half that of a man's. Therefore, two woman are required to testify in situations where one man would be sufficient.

Third, the UK has largely failed at assimilating Muslims into mainstream society. Sharia courts will make it more even more difficult for moderate Muslims to integrate into British life. It also makes it harder for Muslims to come to an understanding of Islam that is compatible with notions of tolerance and pluralism.

Some Muslims argue that because religious tribunals exist for Jews (Beth Din courts), Sharia courts must also be allowed. However, there are some important distinctions that should be noted. There is no evidence anywhere around the world that Jews are imposing their religious beliefs on others or adhering to a notion of Jewish supremacy. They do not preach their religion to non-Jews or attempt to persuade others to convert. Nor are they trying to supplant freedom with globalized Jewish law. On the contrary, they adhere to a rule which dictates that they must abide by the laws of the countries in which they live. Sharia law by contrast, does not separate mosque and state. It constitutes a way of life that merges the political with the spiritual. Though undoubtedly there are many freedom loving Muslims around the globe, there are also radical Islamist movements that seek to impose their political ideology wherever possible. Their ultimate goal is to supplant existing governments with Islamic theocracies. Their tactics are evidenced world-wide and take the form of terrorism, coercion, litigation, lobbying, and stifling free speech. Providing Sharia courts with the full force of British law is much more likely to be viewed by radicals as opening the door to achieving their ultimate goals, rather than as a final concession by the British government.

Many British politicians including Dominic Grieve, shadow home secretary, are deeply concerned about the creation of a parallel legal system vis-a-vis Sharia courts. Grieve has declared that it is imperative for British secular law to remain the absolute authority. He believes that backing Sharia rulings with British court enforcement is unlawful.

Even if Sharia courts are deemed permissible in civil cases, it is crucial that they not be allowed to rule on criminal matters. Civil cases are disputes between two or more private parties, often pertaining to torts or matters of money or property. The goal is to make the aggrieved party whole. Therefore, restitution is generally in order, and the remedy is usually financial compensation.

Crimes, however, are wrongs perpetrated upon the State. That is why in murder, theft, robbery or other crimes, no restitution to the victim is ordered. The penalty is imprisonment. The state holds the right to take away a convicted criminal's freedom, partly to punish him, but also to prevent him from committing further harm to society.

Therefore, if a man abuses his wife through domestic violence, he not only hurts her, but commits an affront to societal values. Sharia courts should not be allowed to divert authority away from the British criminal law system. Yet, when Sharia courts hear domestic violence disputes, they often merely order the husband to attend anger management classes and encourage the wife withdraw her police complaint. Sharia courts do not have the authority to jail criminals. However, their use in cases that would otherwise be deemed criminal, can dissuade victims of crime from utilizing the British criminal system.

Proponents of the No Sharia Campaign are requesting that the Arbitration Act of 1996 be amended to allow only one law for all -- a British secular law. They insist that it is inappropriate and undesirable for the British government to endorse any religious rulings by conferring upon them the power of British law enforcement.

The No Sharia Campaign is enthusiastically embraced by a wide range of renowned individuals as well as numerous human rights organizations. If the campaign achieves its goal, it will be a victory for human rights and the rights of Muslim women in Britain. It will also send the much needed message that Britain will not subordinate its values to Sharia law and refuses to incrementally relinquish its freedom.

Will Radical Socialists Steal the Rest of America?

The radical socialists have stolen our retirement money, they have stolen the values of our homes, they have ruined and closed our banks and stolen the value of our vote, and, now, the polls say, they will apply the final coupe de grace with an Obama victory in November. First they infiltrated our schools and colleges and our media; then the liberal Democrats passed laws that extorted and forced banks into giving home mortgages to persons who had no chance of repaying these loans – to people with little or no income – in the guise of “fairness”. It’s not “fair”, you see, that you who worked and saved and planned and purchased a home that you could and did afford should have a home, while those who are unable to earn an adequate income should not have their own homes.

Under the pressure of regulations and fines, banks gave out millions of these loans, which led to an atmosphere of widespread fraud and enticed normally honest people into dishonesty, not only among the recipients, but also among the financial institutions and government-backed enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought and packaged these mortgages. So many fraudulent, subprime mortgages were issued to so many people that a housing bubble was created, and when the bubble burst, the book values of these mortgages and the derivatives based on them also crashed.

While these socialists were putting in place this corruption of the American dream – this fraud on honest home buyers and savers, they were also electing more socialists (Democrats) through corrupt organizations we funded, like ACORN, who were registering non-existent people to vote. ACORN, which is also heavily involved in the housing scandal, was not registering Republicans, they were registering fraudulent Democrat votes.

Even though the liberal, Obama-supporting, mainstream press have tried to keep these facts from American voters, we have learned who the politicians were who have been most involved in this disaster. They are Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Barack Obama. Obama, with his ACORN connections and former role as a “community organizer”, received huge contributions from Fannie Mae and hired their corrupt ex-managers to work in his campaign. Dodd and Frank prevented any action to restrict the lending practices of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd not only received favorable treatment on his own home mortgage, but collected more in political contributions than any other Senator. Since Obama entered the Senate, he has collected the most in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Please vote accordingly

The coming liberal thugocracy

Michael Barone October 13, 2008 Washington Times (Excerpt)

“"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers….

Corporate liberals have done their share in shutting down anti-liberal speech, too. "Saturday Night Live" ran a spoof of the financial crisis that skewered Democrats like House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank and liberal contributors Herbert and Marion Sandler, who sold toxic-waste-filled Golden West to Wachovia Bank for $24 billion. Kind of surprising, but not for long. The tape of the broadcast disappeared from NBC's Web site and was replaced with another that omitted the references to Mr. Frank and the Sandlers. Evidently NBC and its parent, General Electric, don't want people to hear speech that attacks liberals.

Then there's the Democrats' "card check" legislation that would abolish secret ballot elections in determining whether employees are represented by unions. The unions' strategy is obvious: Send a few thugs over to employees' homes - we know where you live - and get them to sign cards that will trigger a union victory without giving employers a chance to be heard.

Once upon a time, liberals prided themselves, with considerable reason, as the staunchest defenders of free speech. Union organizers in the 1930s and 1940s made the case that they should have access to employees to speak freely to them, and union leaders like George Meany and Walter Reuther were ardent defenders of the First Amendment.

Today's liberals seem to be taking their marching orders from other quarters. Specifically, from the college and university campuses where administrators, armed with speech codes, have for years been disciplining and subjecting to sensitivity training any students who dare to utter thoughts that liberals find offensive. The campuses that once prided themselves as zones of free expression are now the least free part of our society.

Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. In this campaign, we have seen the coming of the Obama thugocracy, suppressing free speech, and we may see its flourishing in the four or eight years ahead.” Washington Times

• Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist, respected by all sides.

Can A Leopard Change Spots? Can Obama Really Be Trusted?

Judging by last night’s debate and other recent statements, Senator Obama has reversed himself on a lifetime of positions, votes and statements to convince you that he is a fairly conservative and moderate guy who loves America, its history and its military. Only a few months ago, though, we learned he was part of a black, liberation theology church preaching hatred for America and for white people. He has thrown them under the bus now and has also: reversed himself on taxes, on saluting our flag, on respect for our military, on surveillance of terrorists, on public financing of campaigns, on Russia’s role in Georgia, on the threat that Iran poses, on gun control, on his ideas on health care – and on just about every vote he ever cast that made him the most liberal member of Congress.

While his thugs are out silencing his opponents and sliming Sarah Palin and John McCain, and those who ran against him in Illinois (and who were forced to drop out because of the dirt thrown at them) are putting their lives back together, we find that we should not worry about his close association with a domestic terrorist because “Obama was only 8 years old when Ayers was setting off bombs to kill government officials and policemen”. Let’s just look at this one aspect of his life and his lies.

In 2001, when Obama was 40 years old, this picture appeared in an article Ayers wrote stating he had “no regrets” for the bombing campaign he was part of.

GOP.com October 6, 2008 (Excerpt)

"The Relationship Between Barack Obama And Bill Ayers Is Much More Extensive Than Obama's Campaign Is Willing To Admit

Obama's Top Campaign Staff Have Attempted To Downplay The Relationship Between Obama And Bill Ayers:

Obama Spokesman Robert Gibbs Said That Obama And Ayers Weren't Close And That Obama Was Only 8 Years Old When Ayers Was Bombing Buildings. Robert Gibbs: "If you read the article ... it says these two men weren't close, this man isn't involved in our campaign. Bill Ayers is somebody that Barack Obama said his actions were despicable and these happened when Barack Obama was 8 years old." (FOX News' "FOX & Friends," 10/6/08)

Gibbs Has Also Limited The Relationship Between Obama And Ayers To Serving On Two Boards Together. John Roberts: "Barack Obama knew Bill Ayers and had contact with him between 1995 and 2005. Exactly what was the nature of the relationship?" Robert Gibbs: "Well, John, as The New York Times reported this weekend, they served on two boards together during that time period." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/6/08)

Even Obama Has Previously Referred To Ayers As "A Guy Who Lives In My Neighborhood" And Not Someone He Exchanges Ideas With "On A Regular Basis." Obama: "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08)


But Obama's Connections With Bill Ayers Are Much More Extensive Than He Or His Campaign Staff Is Willing To Admit:

In 1995, During Obama's First State Senate Campaign, William Ayers And Wife Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him." "In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... 'I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,' said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn.

'[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' ... Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)

From March Of 1995 Until September Of 1997, Obama And Ayers Attended At Least Seven Meetings Together Relating To The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Board Of Directors Meeting, Minutes Of The Board, 3/15/95, 3/31/95, 4/13/95, 6/5/95, 9/30/97; National Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Meeting, List Of Participants, 5/24/95; Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Chicago School Reform Collaborative Meeting, Minutes, 10/23/96)

• NOTE: Bill Ayers Was Asked To Help Obama Formulate The Chicago Annenberg Challenge By-Laws. (Chicago Annenberg Challenge Board Of Directors Minutes, 3/15/95)
In 1997, Obama Praised Ayers' Book On The Juvenile Justice System. "The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city's education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers's book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it 'a searing and timely account.'" (Jo Becker and Christopher Drew, "Pragmatic Politics, Forged On The South Side," The New York Times, 5/11/08)

• Obama On William Ayers' "A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court": "A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair." (Chicago Tribune, 12/21/97)
"[Obama And Ayers] Have Also Appeared Jointly On Two Academic Panels, One In 1997 And Another In 2001." (Russell Berman, "Obama's Ties To Left Come Under Scrutiny," The New York Sun, 2/19/08)

From 1999 To 2002, Obama Served With Ayers On The Board Of Directors For Woods Fund Of Chicago. "[Ayers] served with [Obama] from 1999 to 2002 on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group." (Timothy J. Burger, "Obama's Chicago Ties Might Fuel 'Republican Attack Machine'," Bloomberg, 2/15/08)

• During The Time Obama And Ayers Served Together On The Woods Fund, Ayers Was Quoted Saying "I Don't Regret Setting Bombs ... I Feel We Didn't Do Enough." "'I don't regret setting bombs,' Bill Ayers said. 'I feel we didn't do enough.' Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970's as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago." (Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)

• NOTE: Obama, Born August 14th, 1961, Was 40 Years Old When Ayers Was Quoted. (Obama For America Website, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 10/6/08; Dinitia Smith, "No Regrets For A Love Of Explosives," The New York Times, 9/11/01)

• While Obama And Ayers Were Serving On The Woods Fund Together, Ayers Posed Standing On An American Flag For An Article In Chicago Magazine Entitled "No Regrets." (Marcia Froelke Coburn, "No Regrets," Chicago Magazine, 8/01) GOP.com

***********************

TERROR VICTIM'S QS FOR BARACK

By MAGGIE GALLAGHER

October 8, 2008 New York Post (Excerpt)

“WHEN John Murtagh was 9 years old, Bill Ayers' friends tried to kill him.

"I remember my mother's pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn't leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside," wrote Murtagh recently in City Journal.

It wasn't personal. John's dad was a judge presiding over a trial of some Black Panthers. John still remembers the red graffiti on the sidewalk the next morning: "Free the Panther 21; The Viet Cong Have Won; Kill the Pigs."

As best he recalls, Bernardine Dohrn, who's now Ayers' wife, first claimed credit for bombing John's home in 1970.

John Murtagh is a now lawyer and Yonkers city councilman running for the state Senate on the GOP ticket. I reached him this week through his campaign. It wasn't hard.

Has Barack Obama ever tried?” New Yorl Post

Who is Barack Obama; What Are His Plans For Us?

Just who is this Barack Obama, what experiences has he had, and what does he have in store for us – particularly if he gains the White House with large Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate ready to help him carry out his plans? You are known by the company you keep and by your past actions. Much of what you say during a political campaign must be discounted, but sometimes a little truth slips out. The picture was blurred, but has recently become much clearer.

Obama is a long-time member of a black liberation theology church, a church whose members believe in getting even with whitey and in reparations for blacks. Obama profited from associations with terrorists, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn, and worked closely with Ayers in developing education programs that taught that America is an evil society. Obama believes in income redistribution, and has definite plans to carry out this Marxist philosophy. Obama also has close ties to ACORN, a group well-known for voting-fraud tactics to elect liberals to office.

Obama has profited mightily from his associations with the felon, Tony Rezco, accepting huge contributions and obvious financing to purchase his home, and his closest political advisors are the same James Johnson and Franklin Raines, who ran and destroyed Fannie Mae and then walked away with many millions of dollars in bonuses. Obama is also second only to Chris Dodd in contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

None of these conclusions are based on assumptions or on unsupported rumors that are floating about on the internet; they are based on known facts about his record and his statements.

Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution

By Ken Blackwell September 23, 2008 RealClearPolitics (Excerpt)

“During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on "damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own plan.

Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism, Team Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.

The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans pay federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans who pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.

That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government take money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it to those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's Marxist.” RealClearPolitics

*************************
Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

By STANLEY KURTZ SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal (Excerpts)

“Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

Bill Ayers.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda….

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.” Wall Street Journal

Mr. Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Real Reasons for the Financial Turmoil

There is no one explanation of what went wrong with the financial markets. Simply put, it is a case of many people deciding that age old rules need not be followed anymore – combined with breathtaking corruption. Both political parties share some blame in some stupid things that happened, although the Democrats seem to be well in the lead as far as corruption and stupidity goes. Let’s trace some history.

1. During the Great Depression of the 1930’s, one reform that came out of the crash of 1929 was the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, that prohibited banks from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities which led to segregation of investment banks from commercial banks. Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed for many large financial institutions by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. This repeal of a time-tested wall of separation was sponsored by Senator Gramm, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democrat President (Clinton).

2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, agencies now known as Government Sponsored Enterprises, were also creatures of the Great Depression, and were government agencies until the late 1960’s. President Johnson, wanting to get their debts off the budget, had them privatized. Then and now, they have access to funds at below market rates, and hold or guarantee most of the home mortgages in the country.

3. Under pressure and legislation from Congress to make home mortgages more accessible to people who were not qualifying for loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to accept and insure questionable loans and to pressure banks to provide them. Since executives of both agencies got bonuses tied to the quantity of loans granted, this added to the snowball effect. Banks also began more and more to sell off their mortgages rather than keep them in house, obviously deciding that this was a way to reduce their own risk. This pattern actually started way back in the Carter Administration, but President Clinton put it in high gear.

4. Reform efforts were hijacked by politicians either benefiting personally with favored loans, or by political contributions numbering in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The major recipients of these benefits were Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. Senator McCain can show that he received much smaller contributions – and also that he recognized and tried to do something about the storm of problems that the multiplication of these risky loans was about to unfold. In fact, Senator McCain, in 2005, co-sponsored a reform bill that was killed by the ranking Senate Banking Committee member, Senator Dodd. Unfortunately, the Republican Congress allowed this to happen.

5. With this background of a mushrooming inventory of mortgage loans that should never have been issued, a rapidly rising level of home prices attracted millions of people to buy homes on speculation for profit and buy homes they could not afford – getting these loans at favorable interest rates. As usually happens when a speculative bubble takes off, the bubble burst, and home sales and home prices went into a steep and rapid decline. A huge number of these mortgages became unsustainable for the borrowers who stopped paying or walked away from their obligations.

The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

9/15/2008 INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

This Careful Generation By Roger W. Gardner

This Careful Generation
By Roger W. Gardner June 19, 2008 Cross-posted from Stop The ACLU

This, my friends, in case you haven’t noticed, is a very careful generation. In fact, I’ve lived in this wonderful country of ours for a little over seven decades now, and this is without a doubt the most “careful” generation that I have ever had the misfortune to live amongst. Somehow we’ve managed to become the most careful people in the world, maybe the most careful people in history. We live in constant fear that we might inadvertently say something truthful that might offend someone, somewhere. We’ve learned to call this pervasive state of denial Political Correctness. But is it really Political Correctness, I wonder, or is it something else?

I ask myself, is this present pacifistic crop of Chamberlainesque appeasers really being “careful” of other people‘s feelings, or merely being cowardly? Are all of our so-called PCisms truly demonstrations of our consideration for others, or are they rather an expression of our fear of others? Are we avoiding confrontation with those who threaten our lives and our culture out of kindness and tolerance, or are we just desperately trying to avoid that confrontation? Are we perhaps concerned that we might just antagonize our antagonists even more by naming them? Are we hoping to avoid the inevitable nastiness of these confrontations by hiding behind this intricately-wrought screen of euphemisms called Political Correctness?

When you think about it, isn’t this really that same old weasely logic that in the 1950s induced us to call a Jew “someone of the Jewish persuasion”? As though they had somehow been persuaded to become a Jew. Isn’t this just the latest manifestation of that same old hypocritical crap? Did we also talk about “someone of the Christian persuasion” in the 1950s? I don’t think so.

In short, this is nothing all that new, it’s that old familiar circuitous obfuscation that wouldn’t allow us to call a Jew a Jew. Why? Would a Jew be offended to be called a Jew? Hardly. Every Jew I’ve ever known was proud to be a Jew. Could it be perhaps that we found that word so offensive that we could hardly bring ourselves to say it? Were these semantic acrobatics really evidence of our consideration for others or evidence of that intransigent American brand of anti-Semitism? Was this an example of some early form of Political Correctness in action? Or are we really talking about something else here. Something a little bit easier to understand, but something too awful to actually put it into words. Something called the truth.

Well, I’m going to get a lot of people pissed off right now — or at least I‘m going to give it a good try. You see, I’m getting sick and tired of being careful. I don’t know how the hell I ever let them talk me into all this [bull****] in the first place.

This all started when I read that incredible little article this past Christmas, which I’m sure you’ve all heard about by now, about that Santa school Down Under that instructed their student Santas to no longer say “ho-ho-ho”, because it had a double meaning in the American Black Community, and that some people might find it offensive.

What???

My God, what have we become? We stand by meekly and watch as our wonderful English language becomes increasingly denigrated and devalued, we allow the primitive animalistic gruntings of our Black Inner City Gangsta Rap, pants-falling-off-the-butt “culture” to infiltrate and diminish almost every aspect of our lives: our music, our movies, our television, our sports, the way our kids act and dress — and now we’re going to tell our Santa Clauses not to say “ho-ho-ho” because it too closely resembles that Gangsta Rap word for “whore”?

Wait a minute. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

Who are the folks here who should be offended?

After that, I read another article that purported to be an investigation into the causes of the enormous increase in the murder rate in one of our largest East Coast cities — actually, two articles written explicitly to address this single major problem. However, throughout the entire two articles, not one mention was made of what had actually happened to this city. Not one single reference to the fact that this wildly escalating crime rate just happened to correspond to the most catastrophic societal upheaval in that city’s four-hundred year history. Not only did the articles not even mention these irrefutable truths, but somehow the author ingeniously avoided mentioning that any racial changes had taken place there at all. If someone didn’t know the actual facts of the city in question they would be left to surmise that the city had just suddenly started becoming more criminal for no apparent reason. This, my friends, is what currently passes for Political Correctness. But is it?

Here’s what happened: the Inner City turned Black and the crime rate soared.

Sorry, but that’s what happened.

And I really am sorry; because it was my city of origin that was the subject of these counterfeit articles. I was born and brought up there.

And this Black murder rate in this Black Inner City is a Black problem, not a White problem. These Inner City Black Gangstas are not selling crack because their great-great-grandmothers were slaves. And that disingenuous author who so adroitly skirted the most obvious by never once mentioning race, by referring to “these people and their drug problems” would have had that same delicate problem back in the 1950s calling a Jew a Jew.

The murder of young Black males by other young Black males in the Black Inner Cities is a Black problem and can only be solved by Blacks. Blacks who are willing to be honest with themselves. Blacks who are getting sick and tired of that criminal-worshipping, female-degrading, drive-by shooting, Gangsta Rap drug world of self-destruction. Blacks who are willing to listen to those honest and tough love messages of respected Black people like Bill Cosby, and even from those unapologetic liberals, like Juan Williams. Blacks who are willing to accept responsibility for their own lives and want to quit blaming everything on the Whites, who finally have the courage to disassociate themselves from those so-called Black Leaders, like Al Sharpton and that extortionist Jesse Jackson, who are nothing more than enablers, living off the suffering of others. Offering their followers that same old false comfort of self-pity and victimization by perpetuating the myth of White subjugation.

By pretending that this is still a White problem, that only White people are smart enough to fix it, those delusional liberals are only making matters worse. It’s trying to cure the alcoholic’s problem by telling him he has good reason to drink. And it just ain’t gonna work.

So, what are we really talking about here? Blacks? Jews? Racism? Anti-Semitism? No, we’re still talking about Political Correctness — or perhaps, more precisely, that same old cowardly dis-ingenuousness in it’s latest disguise? A problem we’ve been wrestling with throughout that whole tumultuous course of human history. It’s called moral integrity. Some people simply call it honesty.

Now, before all you liberals out there rush to get your ammunition and start bombarding me with those familiar epithets of Racist and Bigot, just answer this one simple question. If we are afraid to even identify a problem, how the hell can we expect to fix it? If no one can even address these issues for fear of being labeled a racist or bigot, then tell me how we are going to discuss the issues? With obsequious code words like “these people and their drug problems“? For God’s sake, what people are we talking about? The Swedes? The Chinese?

If the Chinese people were the major contributing factor to the rise of the crime rates in most of our major cities, then we should most certainly be able to acknowledge this fact and try to do something about it. But it isn’t the Chinese people who are causing these terrible Inner City problems, is it? And it isn’t always the Blacks. Sometimes it’s the Mexicans, and sometimes it’s somebody else. But, if we ever hope to do anything about these enormous and growing problems, we had better learn how to talk about them honestly. And have the courage to say who it is we are really talking about.

We have, it seems, traded our language of truth for some weak-kneed second-rate vocabulary of denial; and, most unfortunate of all, some of us are actually pleased with this ignoble transaction. They call it progressive; I call it regressive. They call it Political Correctness; I call it cowardice.

During this past Christmas season, when a television commercial were enticing us into thinking about buying a brand new Lincoln for our lover, while adroitly managing to circumvent that contentious word “Christmas”, substituting it with that inept and meaningless word “Holiday”, were these car manufacturers sincerely interested in promoting cultural inclusiveness, or just afraid of the ACLU? Was this just one more example of this new-fangled ideology called Political Correctness? Or was it just that same old-fashioned cowardice hiding its ugly head?

We are losing our national nerve. We live in constant fear. We are afraid of being sued, afraid of being attacked, afraid of being disliked, and we are afraid of being called names. Fear has infiltrated every area of our lives and corrupted our ability to be effective as a people, as a nation. We are even afraid to admit that we are afraid. We are even becoming afraid to be patriotic Americans.

The school board who lifts the Lord’s Prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance from that unfortunate school’s curriculum isn’t doing this out of some high-minded noble concept of inclusiveness — they’re afraid of being sued by some loathsome Dr. Newdow (described by one enthusiastic atheist as “…one of the greatest heroes in the war against religious demagogues”).

To attempt to hide this blatant cowardice behind some shining shield of Political Correctness is a lie which we can no longer ignore, and which we can no longer afford to tolerate.

When we choose to refer to our brave Israeli ally’s ongoing attempts to protect their tiny nation from that continuous generational onslaught from their vicious and hate-filled neighbors and their brutal suicide-bombers as an “Arab/Israeli conflict”, rather than calling it what it is — “The Arab War Against Israel” — are we not demonstrating to the world our unconscionable lack of moral fiber? Did we refer to that WWII horror show in the Pacific as some morally-neuter “Japanese/American Conflict”? Hell no.

If I get stopped by a cop for driving without a license, will he let me go if I explain that what I’m doing isn’t really illegal, that I’m really just an undocumented driver? We have become so accustomed to navigating through the perils of this world using these subtle subterfuges and lies we no longer even notice them.

On September 11, 2001 we were attacked by nineteen Muslim terrorists. They left final testaments clearly explaining their motivations for committing this horrendous crime against humanity. They wanted to kill the Infidels. And they killed 2,987 innocent people that day — and we have still not managed to conjure up the political will to profile Muslim men at our airports.

Does anyone still believe that this is truly an expression of Political Correctness, our good-hearted and sincere efforts to avoid offending anyone of a different faith or race? Or is this just one more instance of a government and an industry caving in to fear. The fear of being sued by CAIR or their faithful ally, the ACLU.

While Islamic leaders worldwide exhort their eager followers to kill the Infidel, and describe this monumental struggle with unabashed clarity as a War of Islam against the West, of Muslims against Infidels, our own president very carefully describes this same militant religion as a “religion of Peace”. We console ourselves with the comforting illusion that what we are really up against in this so-called War on Terror is just a small fanatical minority who have hijacked a “peaceful religion”. We ignore all information to the contrary, no matter what its source, no matter how valid. Islam has declared War on the West but, none the less, we must be very careful not to offend any Muslims. They might think we’re racists. CAIR might sue us. Jimmy Carter might get upset.

Somehow, my friends, before it really is too late, we have to come out from behind our warm and fuzzy euphemisms and have the courage to confront this world that‘s really there, not the one we wished was there. We can no longer blame our dishonorable inaction on Political Correctness. For, when all is said and done, our so-called PC culture is nothing but another form of cowardice. And this cowardice is not only never going to allow us to solve any of our problems, it’s going to get us killed.

What Americans Need to Know about Islam

I had a delightful luncheon with two of my grandsons on Fathers Day, and one of the topics under discussion was what the older one had observed about the clashes between Muslims and the native populations in several European countries he had visited, including Holland and France. President Bush, as president of all Americans, has often reminded us that Muslim-Americans should not be subjected to harassment as an expression of our anger about barbaric Islamic terrorist acts carried out against Americans – including 9/11.

President Bush, not wanting the War on Terror to become a religious war, has also stated several times that most of the world’s Muslims are peaceful people who want the same things for their children as do we. Nevertheless, Muslim history cannot be ignored or denied (as American liberals seem to do), and it is clear that 1. Islam is a political movement as much as it is a religion – and must be dealt with as such, and 2. We must be vigilant in not allowing the Muslim population to grow, nor allow mosques and schools spreading hate to exist in America.

What Virginia’s Islamic Academy Doesn’t Want You to Know
June 13, 2008 - by Patrick Poole Pajamas Media (Excerpt)

“The [1] Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax County, Virginia, is funded by the Saudi government and operates as an arm of the Saudi Embassy. It has been in the [2] news this week following a [3] report issued by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which found that textbooks used by the academy are filled with incitements to violence and racial and religious bigotry.

Missing in most of the national establishment media coverage of the story, however, is the raid on the school last month by state authorities after academy officials failed to report a five-year-old student’s claims of sex abuse by a parent and later attempted to eliminate any traces of the report.

According to a local [4] news report [[5] video] on June 3, the female student reported her claims to her teachers, and a report on the matter was drawn up by the teachers and the school’s principal and submitted to administrators. But when the allegations reached the desk of school director Abdullah Al-Shabnan, he didn’t believe the girl and failed to report the sex abuse claims to law enforcement within the 72 hours required by state law.

Apparently tipped off on a cover-up, law enforcement authorities raided the school on May 23 to seize computers and look for evidence after Al-Shabnan ordered the original report deleted from school computers.

Just three days before the raid, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors [6] voted unanimously to renew the academy’s lease of county property, ignoring multiple reports of the school’s promotion of violence and hatred.

This is far from the first time that the Islamic Saudi Academy has received unwelcome public scrutiny. Just a few days ago, the academy’s 1999 class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, had his 2005 conviction [7] upheld by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on charges that he joined Al-Qaeda and had plotted to assassinate President George W. Bush. Abu Ali was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

As [8] noted by Evan Kohlmann at Counterterrorism Blog, Abu Ali had joined an Al-Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia while studying at the University of Medina, and one of his Al-Qaeda co-conspirators was killed in a shoot-out with Saudi authorities.

Last October the USCIRF sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice [9] asking her to close the school if academy officials continued to [10] refuse to turn over copies of their textbooks to ensure that passages advocating violence against Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims were scrubbed. At the time, USCIRF Commissioner Nina Shea [11] observed that since 9/11 the school had alternately denied that such passages existed, claimed it had already removed such (non-existent) passages, and stated that it was working on removing such (non-existent) passages.”

And thanks to Gabe for providing us with this overview of Islam in the world:

“Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious rights.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious rights, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.”

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat