Muslims Muzzle Memphis

Muslims Muzzle Memphis

Posted: April 10, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Brigitte Gabriel
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Universities, for those of us who lecture on campuses, are the battleground for the heart and soul of the next generation of leaders. It is the battleground where we must fight to win back the opinion and allegiance of American college students. This is made harder when Islamists in both the college and local communities try to intimidate us and deny our free speech on campuses in some of the least likely places.

We have grown to expect these things on the major East and West Coast "elite" university campuses that harbor radical professors and anarchist student and radical Muslim community activities. But not in the heartland where I spoke last week at the University of Memphis. What was shocking was that it occurred in the South, in "Bubbaland" as my friends from the region call it.

I was invited to give a lecture sponsored by Professor David Patterson of the Judaic Studies Program. When news about my appearance spread, the Muslim community both on and off campus launched a full-scale campaign to stop my lecture. They demanded that Dr. Patterson cancel my speech. E-mails flooded the University of Memphis administration and Dr. Patterson from Muslim students on campus and Muslims in the community and mosques. Here are some of their comments:

"People like Brigitte are plenty in the world, they are the true enemies of Islam. And despite their rubbish talks, the truth about Islam is spreading like a wildfire across Americas and across the globe (All Praise to Allah)."

"Dr. Patterson, hosting of this lady is orders of magnitude worse than hosting of the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan."

"Do you honestly think the scheduled lecture will serve any useful purpose other than inflaming the Muslims, insulting them and spilling poison in the community?"

It is interesting to see the reaction of the Muslim community to someone with Muslim shrapnel in her body who speaks against butchering innocent people in the name of Allah. If they would put the same energy into condemning the radical element within Islam and join us in saying that slaughtering people in the name of Allah is murder – not jihad – maybe we wouldn't question their loyalty as American citizens. Dr. Patterson refused to bow to their intimidation and insisted on going on with the scheduled speech.

By the time I showed up at the amphitheater-style lecture hall on campus, police officers were already standing at each entrance. Nearly half of the hall was filled with Muslims with their leaders dressed Osama bin Laden style sitting in the front two rows at eye level making "their point," that I wasn't going to get away with speaking freely.

Just as the program was about to begin, a Muslim student walked to the front and asked the crowd to raise their hands if they believed that this lecture was "undemocratic." They complained that I would be taking questions on cards instead of allowing them to ask them publicly. Experienced in these settings, I knew they would make speeches, spew anti-American and -Israeli sentiments, and create chaos in the room during the Q&A. I decided that they were not going to do that. The provocative Muslim student behavior before I even began my lecture proved my foresight. Dr. Patterson explained that taking questions from cards distributed to the audience was normal protocol at university speaking events like mine.

Patterson tried to calm the unruly crowd, but nothing was working.

Fed up, I went straight to the podium and ordered everyone to sit. I told them, this is my lecture and I run the show. If they didn't like the way I conducted my lecture and my questions they could leave the room, now. Shocked at my behavior and authority they shut-up. The non-Muslim members of the audience applauded.

I finished, asked Professor Patterson to make introductory remarks and returned to my seat.

Dr. Patterson introduced me by telling the audience what an eye-opener this lecture had become because of the reaction. He stated that he never realized that here in Memphis a speaker should be threatened for his/her safety just to speak on a college campus. He introduced me and I delivered my speech with police officers on both sides as well as about eight others in the lecture hall and around the building.

Unknown to me, a Muslim student attending the University of Memphis was arrested weeks prior to my lecture for, among other things, possession of DVDs on pilot training and charts on the layout of the Memphis airport. They found links on his computer to sites associated with a radical Sunni Muslim organization in Iraq, and searches for information on how guns and bombs can be smuggled past airport security. After witnessing the Muslim reaction to my lecture and what happened few weeks ago at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, when an Iranian Muslim student drove into – for Allah's sake – innocent students gathering on university grounds, the Memphis police were not going to take any chances.

It is a sad state of affairs when any speaker on any American University campus has to be surrounded by police officers to protect their freedom of speech and person from intimidation and menace. America is the country where free speech is protected under our Constitution. Who would have expected that in the home of the Beale Street Blues, W.C. Handy and Elvis, I would be confronted by Muslims trying to muzzle my free speech, and perhaps all of us?

At the end of the lecture, the Muslims immediately in front swarmed over me questioning and intimidating. Police officers quickly moved in and pulled me out straight to the police cars as the enraged Muslims started shouting.

Based on what happened to me in Memphis, I think its time for Americans to wake up as to what is occurring within their very midst. It is time to be energized and empowered to stand up and fight to take back our universities. It's incidents like this that spur speakers like me to defend our civilization and everything it stands for.


Brigitte Gabriel is an expert on the Middle East conflict and lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She's the former news anchor of World News for Middle East Television and the founder of AmericanCongressforTruth.com .

What is Wrong With You People ?

Lorena G.
10 May 2006

Good afternoon. I am Lorena, a Romanian MA student living in London (hopefully not for long.) I am well-travelled, well-read and rather more open-minded than not; nevertheless, whenever I happen to travel to yet another European country, usually in the interest of my studies, I cannot help but wonder endlessly whatever is wrong with these people. You might assume that, given the contents of your website, whom I mean are Muslims. Nothing is further from the truth. I do not wonder at all what is wrong with Muslims; I know already. Compared to Europeans, nothing is wrong with them; it is only natural and logical for them to eat like moths into our culture until their jaws hurt. It is logical to breed like (r***) when our taxpayers support their offspring. It is logical to take this offspring to the Finsbury Park mosque where preachings are hissed about how each Muslim should ''shed unbelievers' blood''; since all this is legal and encouraged in every way, it is only logical for them to take advantage.

Instead what I truly wonder is what the hell could be so awfully wrong with all the people other than Muslims. Are they blind, deaf and mute at the same time? Are they suicidal? Did they take leave of being persons altogether, are they reduced to behaving in a way no more effective than the way of vegetables in a garden? Fact: Multiculturalism (equals pro-Islam) is force-fed to people, trumpeted in their ears and micro chipped in their brains just like communist propaganda used to be once in my own country. But to the difference of communist propaganda, no one resists multiculturalism and pro-islamization. It is the trendy way, the wanted way, the way. Adopt it not and you are fiercefully taxed- starting with your next doors and very best friends. My best childhood friend, a Romanian MA graduate is married to a leftish idealist utopian English PhD student. What these people have in common is that they are monstrously clever. She is also the kindest person I have ever met, with a brilliant personality and beyond doubt one of the people I would give my life for. Yet a few weeks ago she pushed me in the street. Pushed me hard and shouted at me; shouted that I should ''start behaving like a civilised person''. Because these days in London it is uncivilised that your friend should teasingly express an opinion such as that in some 50 years the UK will be a colony of Pakistan. It was a joke anyway. This wonderful couple also reacts like you are poking their balls with a hot iron rod if you dare mention that Muslims have a backward mentality or that islamization affects European societies in ways not so nice as they should think. They deny terrorism. One could easily categorize him; he is a young, intellectual English atheist according to whom the benefit of having a kebab and curry shop every five meters these days is far more relevant than the danger of having mosques take over churches and Muslims pull down museums in 100 years' time. As for losing a cultural identity based on Judaeo-Christian values- he doesn't give a flying (f***). He would eat as well (maybe not read Communist books as well) in an islamized society. Yet what about her? She is Orthodox Christian, like me and like mostly everybody in our part of Eastern Europe. She has a BA and a MA in Cultural European Studies. What is wrong with these people?!

Now let me take you on a trip to my local library- the Idea Store in the council of Tower Hamlets (East London.) It may be local, but it is a very prestigious library with quite a few branches. It is huge and membership is free = there is permanently a majority of Muslims inside. During daytime and week-ends this translates into a place where Muslim ladies come to chat, allowing their children to run wild and scream. If they obviously never think to keep their children near them or to forbid them from shouting it is not out of wickedness; they simply can't realise that a library is not the substitute for open fields and that people go there to do research, not to exchange bleaching products and the neighbourhood gossip. All this is a piece of cake, and a sweet one at that. Here comes the real problem. There is an ''Islamic'' book collection (not that I have heard of the existence of a Christian or Jewish one, or Buddhist or Shinto, or Hindu or...) which contains a few tens of books only God knows where they have scraped up from. Out of sheer interest I proceeded to read some in my free time. The following are extracts: - ''The invitations of non-Mulsims should be turned down, because there is a goal to belittle the unbelievers (...)'' -'' Western women are sex-objects.'' -''A woman must have sex with her husband at any time, in any position he desires, as many times as he wants to, even if she doesn't want it.'' -''A woman must abandon all other activities immediately, including the baking of bread, in order to have sex with her husband when he asks for it.''

Apart from that whole chapters were found to preach (not even ''recommend''; they openly preach it as the only right way and highest norm) physical violence towards women and its acceptance by the latter, polygamy, hate for people of other faiths that are constantly referred to as ''unbelievers'' and ''infidels''- attitudes that in the UK fall under the incidence of the law. Almost everything that is preached in the Islamic Collection of the Idea Store Library in Tower Hamlets is illegal and anticonstitutional. Thinking in all innocence that the management of the library are ignorant about the contents of the books, I prepared a 7-page report in which I presented the situation, referencing appropriately. They have the exact quotations and the sources, so nothing should be unclear and no claims of ignorance could be made. After a rather long while, I received an e-mail with apologies and a statement that the Idea Store did not apply a censorship policy. Fair enough- and my next question was: ''How come in this case you do not store anything pro-nationalism or anti-multiculturalism?'' The mysterious answer came: ''We don't know.'' Arguing that a non-censorship policy does not mean that materials preaching illegal lifestyles should be included, I asked to be referred to the general manager and that my complaint should be forwarded to her. I have no doubt that it was done; even so I have received no answer to this day (about five months have passed in the meantime.) Yesterday I found this jewel of wisdom on the shelves of the library:
(Do not choose) ''from the names forbidden for our sons and daughters particular to our enemies, the Jews and the Christians, like: George, David, Michael, Joseph (etc.), since use of these names causes-sooner or later- love of them and feeling of closeness to them and imitating them in their manners and customs and we-Muslims-have been forbidden to imitate our enemies and to have love for them and ties of friendship.'' As far as I know there is something called The Religion Hate Law which this amazing extract should interest. But it probably only works to defend islamization and Muslims' interests. Its mentioning certainly failed to scare the management of the library, who chose to acquire such materials (probably with the help of taxpayers' money) and now choose to shut me off and let them glisten on the shelves of the library like open rotting tumours. Their attitude is the same good old one my best friends sport- remember ''I don't give a flying (f***)"? At the moment a great lady, Oriana Fallaci- an eminent writer and journalist from Italy, once the land of humanism, is awaiting a court decision. In Europe, our Europe, people are going to prison because they dare to speak out their thoughts- such as whether Moors raped or not nuns at certain monasteries hundreds of years ago. Is this just a bad dream, or is it here to stay? If La Fallaci, one of a kind, elderly and suffering, risks being thrown in prison in the middle of us, in the middle of Europe for writing a book, why is a three-a-pence Muslim author allowed to openly and freely preach hate against Christians and Jews from the shelves of a London library?

By the way, the book is ''Manners of Welcoming the New Born Child in Islaam'' by Yoosuf ibn 'Abdullah Al-'Areefee, translated by Aboo Talhah Daawood ibn Roland Burbank, published by Maktaba Dar-us Salam (UK), Birmingham B9 5XL, Tel/fax 0121-772-1572. The quotation is from page 45.

I am desperately asking for your help. Is there any English journalist willing to review some of these books and bring to the knowledge of the public their content and the abuse of the English laws the Idea Store library is committing?

With anticipated thanks, Lorena G.

A Somali Girl's Story

In a nomadic culture like the one I was raised in, there is no place for an unmarried woman, so mothers feel it is their duty to ensure their daughters have the best possible opportunity to get a husband.
And since the prevailing wisdom in Somalia is that there are bad things between a girl's legs, a woman is considered dirty, oversexed and unmanageable unless those parts--the clitoris, the labia minora, and most of the labia majora-are removed. Then the wound is stitched shut, leaving only a small opening and a scar where the genitals had been-a practice called infibulation.
Paying the gypsy woman for this circumcision is one of the greatest expenses a household will undergo, but is considered a good investment. Without it the daughters will not make it onto the marriage market.
The actual details of the ritual cutting are never explained to the girls-it's a mystery. You just know that something special is going to happen when your time comes. As a result, all young girls in Somalia anxiously await the ceremony that will mark their becoming a woman. Originally the process occurred when the girls reached puberty, but through time it has been performed on younger and younger girls.
One evening when I was about five, my mother said to me, "Your father ran into the gypsy woman. She should be here any day now."
The night before my circumcision, the family made a special fuss over me and I got extra food at dinner. Mama told me not to drink too much water or milk. I lay awake with excitement, until suddenly she was standing over me, motioning. The sky was still dark. I grabbed my little blanket and sleepily stumbled along after her.
We walked out into the brush. "We'll wait here," Mama said, and we sat on the cold ground. The day was growing lighter; soon I heard the click-click of the gypsy woman's sandals. Then, without my seeing her approach, she was right beside me.
"Sit over there." She motioned toward a flat rock. There was no conversation. She was strictly business.
Mama positioned me on the rock. She sat behind me and pulled my head against her chest, her legs straddling my body. I circled my arms around her thighs. She placed a piece of root from an old tree between my teeth. "Bite on this."
Mama leaned over and whispered, "Try to be a good girl, baby. Be brave for Mama, and it'll go fast."
I peered between my legs and saw the gypsy. The old woman looked at me sternly, a dead look in her eyes, then foraged through an old carpet-bag. She reached inside with her long fingers and fished out a broken razor blade. I saw dried blood on the jagged edge. She spit on it and wiped it on her dress. While she was scrubbing, my world went dark as Mama tied a blindfold over my eyes.
The next thing I felt was my flesh being cut away. I heard the blade sawing back and forth through my skin. The feeling was indescribable. I didn't move, telling myself the more I did, the longer the torture would take. Unfortunately, my legs began to quiver and shake uncontrollably of their own accord, and I prayed, Please, God, let it be over quickly. Soon it was, because I passed out.
When I woke up, my blindfold was off and I saw the gypsy woman had piled a stack of thorns from an acacia tree next to her. She used these to puncture holes in my skin, then poked a strong white thread through the holes to sew me up. My legs were completely numb, but the pain between them was so intense that I wished I would die.
My memory ends at that instant, until I opened my eyes and the woman was gone. My legs had been tied together with strips of cloth binding me from my ankles to my hips so I couldn't move. I turned my head toward the rock; it was drenched with blood as if an animal had been slaughtered there. Pieces of my flesh lay on top, drying in the sun.
Waves of heat beat down on my face, until my mother and older sister, Aman, dragged me into the shade of a bush while they finished making a shelter for me. This was the tradition; a little hut was prepared under a tree, where I would rest and recuperate alone for the next few weeks.
After hours of waiting, I was dying to relieve myself. I called my sister, who rolled me over on my side and scooped out a little hole in the sand. "Go ahead," she said.
The first drop stung as if my skin were being eaten by acid. After the gypsy sewed me up, the only opening left for urine-and later for menstrual blood-was a minuscule hole the diameter of a matchstick.
As the days dragged on and I lay in my hut, I became infected and ran a high fever. I faded in and out of consciousness. Mama brought me food and water for the next two weeks.
Lying there alone with my legs still tied, I could do nothing but wonder, why? What was it all for? At that age I didn't understand anything about sex. All I knew was that I had been butchered with my mother's permission.
I suffered as a result of my circumcision, but I was lucky. Many girls die from bleeding to death, shock, infection or tetanus. Considering the conditions in which the procedure is performed, it's surprising that any of us survive.
The Marriage
I was around 13 when came home one evening and called, "Come here," in a soft voice. Normally he was very stern, so I began to feel suspicious.
He sat me on his knee. "You know," he began, "you've been really good." Now I knew something serious was up. "You've been working hard as any man, taking good care of the animals. And I want you to know I'm going to miss you very much."
When he said this, I thought he was afraid I was going to run away like my sister, Aman, had when he had tried to arrange her marriage.
I hugged him. "Oh, Papa, I'm not going anywhere."
He pulled back, stared at my face and said, "Yes, you are, my darling. I found you a husband."
"No, Papa, no!" I shook my head. "I'm not going to marry."
I had grown into a rebel, sassy and fearless. Papa had to find me a husband while I was still a valuable commodity, because no African man wanted to be challenged by his wife. I felt sick and scared.
The next day I was milking my goats when my father called, "Come here, my darling. This is Mr.-"
I didn't hear another word. My eyes fastened onto a man sitting down, holding on to a cane. He was at least 60 years old, with a long white beard.
"Waris, say hello to Mr. Galool." (name has been changed to protect privacy)
"Hello," I said in the iciest voice I could muster.
The old fool just sat there grinning at me. I stared at him in horror. I looked at my father, and when he saw my face, he realized his best tactic was to shoo me away so I didn't scare off my prospective husband. "Go finish your chores," he said.
I ran back to my goats.
Early the next morning my father called me. "You know that was your future husband."
"But Papa, he's so old!"
"That's the best kind. He's too old to run around. He's not going to leave you. He'll look after you. And besides," Papa grinned proudly- "he's giving me five camels."
As I sat watching the goats that day, I knew it would be the last time I looked after my father's herd. I pictured my life with the old man in some isolated desert place. Me doing all the work, while he limped around with his cane. Me living alone after he had a heart attack, or raising four or five babies by myself after he died.
I made up my mind--this was not the life for me.
That evening after everyone went to sleep, I went to my mother, who was still sitting and whispered, "I'm going to run away."
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/Waris.html



--
Even after all these years,
the Sun never says
to the Earth
"You owe Me."
Look what happens -
with a Love
like that,
It lights
the whole
sky.
Hafez

The Truth Hurts ...

This one you don't want to read, and have to think again about tomorrow, or next year....

Who was it that said ....."the truth hurts?"

Drawing the Line

by Yashiko Sagamori

It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any point.

Euclid's 1st Postulate

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence



A couple of weeks ago, I was driving home from work while listening to Sean Hannity on WABC. Sean was telling his audience how much every human being outside the United States, in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, craved democracy. He was proudly saying that the US army had liberated 26 million Iraqis. He seemed to think that the Euclidian clarity of the most famous quotation from the Declaration of Independence made it immune to disbelief and objections.

What he apparently failed to understand was the simple fact that if the equality of all men had been universally self-evident to all men, there would have been no need to state it explicitly. What the Declaration of Independence actually means is that "We, unlike the rest of the humankind and against the laws and customs of its majority, have decided to hold these truths to be self-evident".

What he apparently failed to take into account was the fact that every society, every civilization is based on a set of truths its members hold to be self-evident and irrefutable, and that more often than not any two sets of those self-evident, irrefutable truths prove to be mutually exclusive.

What he apparently could not comprehend was the fact that it is even theoretically impossible to liberate a person for whom only two human conditions exist: a slave and a slave-owner. (The Arabic equivalent of the English adjective free literally means not a slave.)

What he disregarded completely was the fact that 1.2 billion people living on this planet and, in rapidly increasing numbers, among us in this country, adhere to a totally different set of self-evident truths, namely, that all men are created Muslim, even if they are born to infidel parents. And if those infidel parents commit the crime of raising their inherently Muslim children in a false faith, it is both an inalienable right and a sacred duty of every properly raised Muslim to undo their crime by either converting the victim back to Islam (the Muslim term for conversion to Islam is reversion) or, if the victim is unwilling to submit (the Arabic word Islam means submission), then by killing him or her, thereby earning oneself a place in Paradise.

While still driving and listening, I received sudden and painfully humiliating proof that I was right. I was driving in the left lane. In the middle lane, a couple of car lengths ahead of me, I saw a black SUV with a custom license plate. The license plate read:

SHAHID K

I have no idea what the K stands for.

I pulled forward a bit to take a look at the driver and saw a fat woman in her forties with a heavily made up, stupid, unhappy, un-American face. In case you are wondering, this encounter took place neither in Ramallah nor Fallujah. It happened in Westchester County, NY, and the offensive license plate was issued by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles, whose wisdom and efficiency have caught my attention before.

I came home and sent an e-mail describing the sighting to the Department of Homeland Security. They never bothered to respond, and I believe that in the foreseeable future, the woman with the un-American face will continue driving along American roads unmolested, along with millions of her fellow observant Muslim settlers in this country. For all I know, that woman might even be working for Homeland Security herself. You don't expect the Department of Homeland Security to practice profiling, do you?

Now, please don't take me wrong. I don't believe that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect my patriotic felings. Neither do I believe, however, that its purpose is to provide safety to enemies of the United States of America on American soil, among American people, during a war they have unleashed against us. We used to be a powerful country. Benign power breeds magnanimity. In times of peace, we could afford to ignore anti-American verbiage of our many enemies. But our power is waning, and these are not times of peace.

Again, don't take me wrong. I am not calling for restricting anyone's freedom to express him- or herself by using the license plate to announce their heartfelt desire to exterminate us. I am calling for throwing our avowed enemies out of the country before they have a chance to fulfill their loud and clear promise. Then, and only then, we will be able to enjoy all the freedoms the Constitution grants us.

During World War II, half a dozen German agents were smuggled aboard a submarine to our shores with the purpose of committing sabotage and terrorizing the population. They were captured, tried, and soon afterwards hanged. I don't believe they were allowed to keep their copies of Mein Kampf while they were awaiting their execution. If they were, they never complained about their jailers' disrespect to the “sacred” book that had brought them to the gallows. Or, if they did, nobody paid attention, for those were the times before liberalism degenerated into multiculturalism, and political correctness.

During World War III, millions of Muslims openly and, for the most part, legally, just like Mohammad Atta and his cohorts, immigrated to the United States and settled here with the openly stated purpose of replacing the rule of the Constitution with the rule of Sharia, planning to turn this land into yet another province of the world-wide Caliphate. They are being accommodated in every way possible. They walk among us unafraid and unmolested, protected by the Constitution that, due to its novel, purposely defeatist interpretation, can no longer protect us from them.

While the government removes all references to the Ten Commandments from public display, the White House openly celebrates Ramadan, and Muslim employees of our government shamelessly go on all fours during their working hours to perform the salat. Even though everyone knows that the next massacre on our soil will be planned, executed, and openly celebrated by observant Muslims, government-issued edicts effectively forbid subjecting them to the same regular security procedures at the airports and other points of extreme vulnerability that the rest of us, thanks to our uninvited guests, have to go through without complaining.

The politically correct crowd keeps reminding us that this is exactly what makes the United States of America a free country. Unfortunately, there is a problem with their optimistic assertion. This problem stems from the obvious fact that a murderer and his intended victim cannot be equally free at the same time and place. You either restrict the freedom of the former or, eventually, you will have to bury the latter. The enemy's ever growing presence in our land has eroded our freedom beyond anything even the most vicious, right-wing government conspiracy could ever dream up. To give you an idea of the terrible scale of that erosion: we are no longer free to kill our enemies in the time of war. But we are still free to tolerate their vile presence in our country.

John Lindh is an American citizen. He was captured in Afghanistan while fighting against the United States on the side of the Taliban. Obviously, this constitutes a crime. As every human being, he is entitled to a due process. Considering the circumstances of his capture and the nature of the crime he undoubtedly committed, due process in his case should have consisted of exactly two steps: a speedy hanging and hygienic disposal of the body.

Unfortunately, we don't do this kind of thing anymore. Instead, he was brought back to the United States to stand trial — inexplicably, in civilian court. The government quickly realized that, due to excessive humanity of our civilian laws, hanging him for killing our soldiers was out of the question, because no one who had witnessed him killing American soldiers had come forward to testify against him. He entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to 20 years in jail. His parents, looking as if their heads were still reeling from all the weed they had smoked in the 60's, called a press conference and shamelessly announced that their Johnny was a true American patriot. Nobody threw an egg at them.

In a more recent case of American idiocy, a jury that had previously decided that Zacarias Moussaoui was eligible for a death penalty, failed to sentence him to death. Apparently, they subscribed to the defense assertions that his role in the 9/11 conspiracy was minor. I also happen to think that his role was minor. Let's say, he bears just 1% of the responsibility for the attack. It means that he is personally responsible for the murder of 30 American civilians. How does that mean that he deserves to live even one hour longer than absolutely necessary for the process to be deemed “due”? But even if his role in the attack of 9/11 was completely non-existent, he, according to his own proud admission, came to this country with the purpose of killing Americans. In a time of peace, he should have had his head examined before, or maybe even instead of, the trial. In a time of war, he should be hanged.

Of course, from now on, Zacarias Moussaoui's life will not be too pleasant. He will be locked up in one of the Supermax prisons where he will be subjected to 23 hours a day of solitary confinement in a sound-proof concrete cell for the rest of his life. The main difference between his punishment and being buried alive is that it will take him much longer to die. Judge Brinkema promised Moussaoui that he would die with a whimper. However, where there is breath there is hope. Apparently, the French government is preparing to initiate proceedings to transfer Moussaoui, who is a French citizen, into French custody. He may still die with a roar.

On a wider scale, consider the terrorist organization commonly known as the “Palestinian Authority”. Imagine that Israel, instead of celebrating its 58th anniversary, miraculously disappeared overnight without a trace, along with all its Jewish population, all Jewish cities, all Jewish settlements, all Jewish hospitals, all Jewish greenhouses, all kibbutzim, all synagogues, and everything else that Jews have created on their land and heroically defended throughout six decades of incessant Arab war against them. Regardless of who runs that terrorist organization — Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, or any other bunch of Arab murderers — do you really believe they would be able to cease the opportunity and become a country?

I think not; because the people the world calls “Palestinians”, besides being Arabs, have only one thing in common: their passionate desire to murder Jews. Let history students correct me, but the Arabs, throughout their bloody history have demonstrated no more talent for nation building that for any other kind of positive, constructive endeavor. The borders of most Arab countries you can find on the map today were drawn either by the British or be the Turks. As to their hatred of Jews, no matter what suicidal intensity it reaches, it cannot provide a foundation upon which a nation can be built.

Since 1964, the world has poured billions of dollars into their little enterprise. How have they used the money? To kill thousands and maim tens of thousands of Jews; to make Arafat and his minions rich; to brainwash hundreds of thousands of their own children into becoming suicidal maniacs; in short, to do everything in their power to avoid the responsibilities of nation-building for themselves.

They have managed to not even create a rudimentary economy. Their jurisprudence makes lynching seem humane in comparison. Their differences in political opinions are being routinely resolved by one group outgunning, rather than outvoting, the other. As soon as the West, in a hopeless attempt to save its long lost face, responded to Hamas electoral victory by withholding a part of its regular donations, the “authority” found itself unable to even pay salaries to its employees. In what twisted vocabulary have the proponents of “Palestinian” independence found their definition of the term?

Following its age-old tradition, world opinion blames the Jews, and this time I happen to share that world opinion. This festering wound would never have existed had Israel not waived its sacred right to kill those who are trying to kill it. It is as simple as that. I can understand the reluctance of civilized people to kill enemy children, even if it means saving the lives of one's own people. However, I refuse to understand the reluctance to kill those who dedicate their lives to turning their own children into murderers.

Or consider Iran. One of the major oil producers in the world, a country technologically backward even when compared with some other Muslim countries, Iran declared its burning desire to switch to nuclear power. I wish my government had done that. Their diplomats assure everyone that their intentions are perfectly peaceful; however, their president threatens to obliterate Israel and to share nuclear arms with every Islamic entity in the world. And their nuclear facilities are well protected by layers of rock and closeness to population center. Can we do anything to stop Iran?

Of course, we can. Remember, arms don't kill people. People kill people. This is equally true for an illegally purchased handgun, as well as the nuclear arsenal of a backward Muslim country. We don't need to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. What we need instead is to eliminate forever Iran's capacity to threaten us. It means sending their leadership to the long awaiting heavenly virgins, turning their religious institutions into dust, confiscating their oil fields, and killing as many Iranians as it takes to render them harmless till the end of time. No democratization; no nation-building; no Marshall plan. And, most importantly, no attempts to install a friendly government, because a country whose people hate us, literally to death, cannot be our ally, no matter who is in control of its government. Unfortunately, we've been too slow to learn this simple lesson as it pertains to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and even Iran, as well as every other Turdistan on the planet whose kingpin doesn't mind dealing with the infidel for the sake of promoting jihad and making a few extra billions in the process. Come to thing of it, had we done this to Pakistan, there would be no problem with Iran today.

Am I talking genocide? No, our enemies are talking genocide, openly and without shame. What I am talking about is merely necessary self-defense.

Can we expect this from our government?

Here's where one of the major achievements of our democracy comes into play in the international arena. I am talking about term limitations. President Bush has produced more than his fair share of major blunders during his six years in office. His desire to postpone any development that might force him to take action against Iran is palpable. He strongly prefers his successor to have to deal with that problem, along with every other problem he or, most probably, she, will inherit from Bush-43.

In the meantime, our situation becomes simpler with every passing day. We are quickly nearing the point where killing our enemies, both foreign and domestic, will no longer be one of the many options that have been historically available to us as a superpower. Beyond that point, the alternative to kill or to be killed no longer exists. It won't be us or them. Inevitably, it will be just them.

Moving to Mexico ...

Dear President Bush:

I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.

I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.

So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.

2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.

3. All government forms need to be printed in English.

4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.

5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.

6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.

7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.


8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.

9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.

10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.

11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.

12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws.

13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy. I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Reply to Spencer Article

[This comment was submitted anonymously]

This message is to Mrs. Spencer's comments on Immigration last night which I found so appauling to say the least.

Yes there are illegall immigrants who commit crimes but please don't confuse this with the majority who are here for a better life. The majority are here to make a better life for themselves and family members.

Yes, you are so fortunate that your father took the time to give you and your brothers a great education and that he sacrifed so much. However, the majority of illegal immigrants don't have that luxury. My mom was here as an illegal immigrant for many years.

When my dad, she worked 2 jobs and brought us to this country for a better life. She has never committed a crime in her life. She is now a US citizen, a business owner, has own several houses. Her 3 daughters have grown to be citizens of this country and all go to school.

Please don't judge the behavior of some Mexicans in this country for the behavior of all immigrants. There are people from all of the world illegally for many reasons.

To say that there is no racism in the US is being blind. No one should blame their personal problems on racism but racism does exist in this country. Please do not blame the state of this country (crime, violence, trash and basic human respect) on illegal immigrants.

These issues have being going for quite a while and have to do with where this Nation is at, with leadership, and the blindness of this era. There so many factors for these issues than immigration.

There others who are damaging this country: politicians, white supremacist, religious supremacist, the lack of caring. I am appaul as you of what is happening to this country, however, illegal immigrants are one quarter of the problem. Please open up your eyes to everything that is happening to this country.

The new breed of homeless people (18 to 30s ages).



Greetings,

Thank you for your comments about the Spencer article. A dialogue on this subject is a start to an amicable agreement.

Citizens, naturalized citizens, and legal immigrants all agree that entering another country illegally, no matter how hard working and otherwise law abiding you may be, is still illegal. So most illegals are totally missing the point, becoming defensive, and demanding unrealistic solutions.

Illegal means that a law was passed, placing certain constraints and/or punishments on a given act. The act of crossing another countries borders without permission of that country is illegal and has constraints and punishments for committing that act.

But, since the United States Government has opted to not strictly enforce laws against illegal border crossings, all illegals assume that if you can make it into the country without being caught you automatically should receive all benefits that legal immigrants are entitled to. It is as though the squatters rights of many Central American countries are valid in this country as well.

Now I am asking you, what would my fate be if I entered any other country illegally as you have, and began demanding the right to vote, right to free medical care, right to free education, and the right to avoid being taxed or counted in the census. In Mexico I would be imprisoned. This is a fact. Furthermore, in order to legally live in Mexico or other central American or Caribbean countries, I must guarantee that $2,000 US will be deposited in a local bank each month. If the money stops, I am asked to leave.

In 2002, several dozen American citizens living legally in Baja were kicked out of their homes and their property ceased. They were there legally, and had bought (long term lease) the property and paid locals to build the homes. The properties were paid for, and legal documents existed which supposedly protected their rights. But Vicente Fox ceased the properties and offered no recompensation while threatening the Americans with jail if they did not vacate.

You may rest assured that neither you nor your mother will be kicked out of the country, imprisoned, or your property ceased without recompensation, even though you are here illegally. You will simply be required to go through the same entry process as all other legal immigrants, and that is not only fair to the legals, it is fair to you.