Obama Grants China Eminent Domain

Impeachment Time: Obama Grants Eminent Domain Rights to China to Secure Debt

February 27, 5:11 PM
by Bill Dupray, DC Republican Examiner

They own us.

The time for partisan bickering just ended. This is as serious as a heart attack. Obama is going to spend so much money, which he intends to get from China via the sale of government backed bonds, that the Chinese apparently don't think he'll be able to make good on them.

So President Obama gave the Chinese eminent domain rights to American land and businesses as collateral - i.e. we don't pay, they now own America.

From Patriot Room.

Because it looks like our wonderful new administration is granting the Chinese eminent domain as collateral for US debts. Yea you read that right. That means when we can no longer pay for all this massive spending the Chinese can call in the loans and take our land.

The thought that American citizens and businesses could lose their land as a means of payment is downright scary. I highly doubt ANY American citizen would have voted for Obama if they knew this was coming down the pike.

Live Leak has more details.

Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's continu More..ed purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

This cannot stand. It is traitorous and Obama should be impeached.

CBS Discredits Documentary

CBS Tries to Discredit Homegrown Jihad Documentary

25 Feb 2009
On Wednesday, February 11, 2009, the Christian Action Network premiered Homegrown Jihad: Terrorist Camps Around the U.S. at Washington, D.C.’s Landmark Theater. The crowd of 160-175 people left the theater with their jaws dropped, only moving their mouths to thank the members of CAN for their hard work. The robust Q&A session brought only positive remarks and constructive questions about the networks of an organization known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a group led by a Pakistan-based cleric named Sheikh Mubarak Gilani with at least 35 radical Islamic compounds here in the United States under the name “Muslims of America.”

A key feature of the documentary, which is available at ChristianAction.org, is the “Soldiers of Allah” videotape, on which Gilani is seen instructing his followers on how to hijack cars, set off explosives, murder guards, and use various other terrorism tactics as part of what he admits is “one of the most advanced courses in Islamic military warfare.” This is followed by an open invitation for interested Muslims to contact any of his Muslims of America compounds in the United States to receive such training. He even warns the viewers of the tape to not allow it to fall into non-Muslim hands and not to make illegal copies.

The compounds are in isolated areas all over the country from Washington down to California, to Tennessee and Michigan, and New York all the way down to Georgia. While the Christian Action Network manages to identify some of these camps and is even seen visiting some of them in the film, Sheikh Gilani has mentioned having sites in many states that have not been located by CAN.

These are not simply isolationist Muslims seeking to get away from the sinful ways of American society. The camps have websites that are devoted to Sheikh Gilani, hailing him as a miracle-worker that is a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. One site in Red House, Virginia, even has a street named “Sheikh Gilani Lane.” Gilani, while espousing to be a man opposed to terrorism and extremism, has made such statements as “Jews are examples of human Satans” and “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are in America.”

The intention of these compounds is clear: to house, recruit, and train Muslim followers of Sheikh Gilani, many of whom have engaged in terrorist and criminal activity. Despite the large numbers of ul-Fuqra members involved in despicable crimes, the State Department has decided not to list the group as a “foreign terrorist organization,” even through the group was warned about in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism reports during the 1990s. Using our own freedoms and ignorance as weapons against us, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has disarmed law enforcement from having the authority to tackle the organization as a whole and search these compounds — which range from 25 to 300 acres large — instead being forced to prosecute ul-Fuqra members on a case-by-case basis after a crime is committed.

Despite the documentary’s use of government documents and reports funded by the government, Sheikh Gilani’s own words and videotape, and on-site interviews, CBS News quickly put out a five-paragraph article on the night of the premiere, which somehow required three reporters according to the byline, in an attempt to discredit Homegrown Jihad, and in the process doing us the favor of discrediting themselves. Boasting of their investigative prowess, the article opens with “CBS News has obtained a copy of the trailer,” giving us an early glimpse into how little actual reporting CBS News decided to do.

Armed with a keyboard so they could type “Homegrown Jihad” into YouTube’s search box and an anonymous official, CBS went to work writing an article that should give hope to every journalism student who failed out of school and still dreams of a job at a major news station.

CBS then says that “officials” say the film is not credible, quoting one as saying its purpose was just to “upset and inflame people.” “No current intelligence exists to suggest any threat connected with this group, which officials describe as ‘wannabees’ and not terrorists,” the report says. If CBS had its way, you’d dismiss Homegrown Jihad based on the words of an anonymous official with an anonymous agenda, sleeping soundly knowing that Jamaat ul-Fuqra are just “wannabe” terrorists, but not actual terrorists — a statement akin to reassuring a housewife that her husband only wishes he could be abusive, but lacks the strength to do so.

Ironically, on YouTube, the sole tool that CBS used to do its research for this article, there is an investigative piece by one of CBS’s own affiliates about one of the group’s sites in Tennessee. Not only did CBS fail to call the Christian Action Network for comment and request further documentation and fail to even bother to watch the film, but CBS didn’t even check its own reports on the topic.

Luckily, real experts, who have bothered to actually watch the film and study the government and think tank reports cited in it, have reacted with applause and a mission to warn the rest of the American public of the threat exposed in it.

“What if someone had produced a film that ‘connected the dots’ before al-Qaeda’s operatives did at a cost of nearly 3,000 American lives and, by some estimates, a trillion dollar loss to the U.S. economy?,” Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense, asks in a recent National Review column.

“As it happens, those authorities have just been given a comparable gift in the form of a documentary about the terror next time,” he says referring to Homegrown Jihad.

America’s strength does not come from our technology, our economy, or even our military. It comes from the vigilance of our citizenry. The huge response to Homegrown Jihad proves that despite our weaknesses, the American people will never back down in the face of a legitimate threat.

Geert Wilders NYC Speech

February 25, 2009
Wilders: "Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left"
Here is Geert Wilders' speech at the Four Seasons in New York on February 23:

Thank you.
Thank you very much for inviting me. And – to the immigration authorities – thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West – in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that - I quote - “Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons. In 1982 President Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.

My Muslim President

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
"MY MUSLIM PRESIDENT OBAMA"
Muslim in the White House.

When I wrote those words as far back as January 2007- I was called every name in the book. I was a hater, a racust, an islamophobe. When I wrote this oped, Obama, the Muslim thing and why it matters back in November 2007 - I was excoriated. There were 265 posts at Atlas from January 2007 until the election under the heading: Muslim in the White House. Remember , you were not allowed to say it.

Well all that is chnaged. Snap! Just like that. Imagine if the following piece ran during the election. Or better yet, after 911 when we still had our marbles.
It is a devastating piece. Today in Forbes magazine - it is finally declared (hat tip Michael in Portugal)

MY MUSLIM PRESDIENT OBAMA,

Why members of the Islamic faith see him as one of the flock.
I know it's odd to say this. At first, I thought I was the only Muslim engaging in this folly, and I am reluctant to express it lest right-wing zealots try to use "Muslim" as a smear and cite my theory as proof of an Islamic traitor in the White House or some such nonsense.

That would be me I guess. As if being a Muslim has no implications. Looking over the global landscape, it is patently obvious that Islam is of no consequence. /sarc off

Truth is hate speech.

But, since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, "I have to support my fellow Muslim brother," would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice.

Of the few Muslims I polled who said that Obama is not Muslim, even they conceded that he had ties to Islam. These realists said that, although not an avowed and practicing Muslim, Obama's exposure to Islam at a young age (both through his father and his stint in Indonesia) has given him a Muslim sensibility. In my book, that makes you a Muslim--maybe not a card-carrying one, but part of the flock for sure. One realist Muslim ventured that Obama worships at a Unitarian Church because it represents the middle ground between Christianity and Islam, incorporating the religious beliefs of the two faiths Obama feels connected to. Unitarianism could be Obama's way of still being a Muslim. (And let's not forget that the church Obama worshiped at for so many years had a minister who reminds most Muslims of their own raving, excitable ministers. Even if Obama really is Christian, he picked the most Muslim-esque minister out of the bunch to guide him.)

This is all part of Obama's plan to turn this country away from it's Judeo-Christian foundation and pervert it to an Islamo-Christian nation. Don't Christians know they will be eaten whole once the changeover is complete. READ HISTORY.

The rationalistic, Western side of me knows that Obama has denied being Muslim, that his father was non-practicing, that he doesn't attend a mosque. Many Muslims simply say back, "my father's not a strict Muslim either, and I haven't been to a mosque in years." Obama even told The New York Timesadhan, the Islamic call to prayer, which the vast majority of Muslims, I would guess, do not know well enough to recite. he could recite the

I think many of us Muslims see Obama as Muslim, or at least of Muslim heritage, because his background epitomizes one of the major Muslim experiences--a diverse upbringing that eludes any easy classification as specifically one religion or one culture. So many of us Muslims around the world have Islam in common, but an altogether different culture from one another. Many Muslims share a culture with a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist community but not the same religion. When faced with such diversity, there are no hard and fast rules for Muslim identity.

What no Jews? Were Jews deliberately omitted from her taqyia? We know how wonderfully Islam has treated the Christians, Hindus and Buddahists? READ HISTORY!

So it's the ummah after all. Ummah first - expansion of Islam.

The Qur'an speaks often of the umma, or the worldwide community of Muslims. In the early days of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad led the small umma. Every decision, every effort, everything was for the umma--people who were often unrelated by blood but had become related by choice as Muslims. In those early days, many Muslims had gone against the wishes of their own families in converting to Islam, pitting brother against sister, father against child. Perhaps that's why the concept of umma became so dear and is still echoed today--in my opinion, echoed more than that Western favorite jihad--in Muslim homes, whether those homes are in the United States or in Palestine.

Perhaps it is my--and most Muslims'-- loyalty to the umma that is behind our insistence on seeing Obama as Muslim. Islam survived and continues to survive because Muslims believe we have to respect and take care of each other, as members of the umma.

Survive? At 1.5 billion Muslims, you're not surviving honey. That submit or die thing is very effective.

If we were to start excluding members, or revising our broad guidelines for admittance, the very essence of the community feeling that is important in Islam, that gives me and other Muslims comfort everyday, would be undercut.

Broad? I hardly call the punishment of death for apostasy "broad".. I smelleth the taqiya!

So when Obama says he's not Muslim, my umma mentality says I know better. Once you have a Muslim parent, especially a dad, you're in. Whether you like it or not, Muslims all over the world see you as one of them.

We have always known.

Posted by Pamela Geller on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Texas National Guard On Alert

State Senator Dan Patrick: "TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD ON ALERT"

Texas State Senator, Dan Patrick, was on FoxNews this morning at 8:45am. He said he had some “breaking news to share”. Boy was it!!! The Texas State Legislature had been trying very hard to get the Obama Administration to respond to a critical situation on the Texas Border. The Administration had not gotten back with Texas as of last night. So the State of Texas told Washington D.C. basically they could go jump, and “we’ll take care of Texas!”.

As of last night… the Texas National Guard has been put on High Alert. This is the first time in history! Texas tried, desperately to get Washington’s approval… but when they could not get it… they acted on their own. Which I say…. it’s about damn time!

I personally applaud the guts it took to defy the Feds and act in our best interest. In case you are unaware of what the problems are, Sen. Dan Patrick spelled it out nicely:

1) 100’s of PRO-DRUG CARTEL Mexicans were blocking the entrance to the United States, yesterday and today, banging cars, shouting and holding signs. 10 people were killed Wed. and 12 more yesterday at the border (5 of which were children)

2) They aren’t sure … but they think the Drug Cartel is paying the demonstrators to do what they’re doing.

3) This will spill over into the States. Mr. Patrick, and the other State officials,. are convinced that road-side bombs and car bombs will make it across the border and WILL NOT allow that to happen.

4) Mexico is breaking out in Civil War in the western part of the border and they expect it to spread the entire border with no end in sight.

5) The National Guard will be activated as the scenario worsens and is on Alert now and will remain so until (and IF) Washington does something to end the danger on the border.

READ MORE

Iranian Offer We Can't Refuse:

February 21, 2009
Iran offered to halt attacks on UK troops in nuclear pact

The Iranians' impeccable logic to the British infidels was this: We will stop killing some of you in Iraq now, if you allow us to develop nukes unhindered, so we can kill many more of you later. "Iran 'offered to halt attacks on UK troops' in nuclear pact," by Damien McElroy for the Telegraph, February 21:

Iran offered to halt attacks on British soldiers deployed in Iraq in return for a secret pact that would enable it to continue its nuclear programme, a senior British diplomat has said.

Sir John Sawers, the British ambassador to the United Nations, revealed that Iranian officials openly acknowledged complicity in attacks that killed scores of British soldiers in southern Iraq.

In private talks in hotels around Europe, the unnamed Iranians floated a grand bargain that would have derailed efforts to impose sanctions on Iran to stop its covert nuclear programme.

"There were various Iranians who would come to London and suggest we had tea in some hotel or other," Sir John tells the final part of a BBC documentary on the Islamic Republic's relations with the West, to be broadcast on Saturday. "They'd do the same in Paris, they'd do the same in Berlin, and then we'd compare notes among the three of us.

"The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear programme: 'We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there, you allow us to carry on with our nuclear programme without let or hindrance'."

Iran supplied arms, training and strategic direction to Shia Muslim militias that were battling British forces for control of Basra and other southern cities. Iran supplied the militias with a deadly bomb, the shaped-charge explosive device, that required precision engineering at its military factories...

Regardless, NATO hopes to eventually enlist Iran's aid in stabilizing Afghanistan.

New UK Anti-Terror Code

February 19, 2009

UK: Any Muslim advocating for the caliphate, sharia, jihad, and the slaying of homosexuals to be branded "extremist" -- new anti-terror code

In other words, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain. Yet "opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further." If a Muslim believes in all the above, he/she has already alienated themselves from UK society; and so, it is a moot point for the UK to worry about "further alienating" them.

"Anti-terror code 'would alienate most Muslims,'" by Vikram Dodd for the Guardian, February 17:

The government is considering plans that would lead to thousands more British Muslims being branded as extremists, the Guardian has learned. The proposals are in a counterterrorism strategy which ministers and security officials are drawing up that is due to be unveiled next month.

Some say the plans would see views held by most Muslims in Britain being classed by the government as extreme.

According to a draft of the strategy, Contest 2 as it is known in Whitehall, people would be considered as extremists if:

• They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

• They promote Sharia law.

• They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military.

• They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah.

• They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Contest 2 would widen the definition of extremists to those who hold views that clash with what the government defines as shared British values. Those who advocate the wider definition say hardline Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an leads to views that are the root cause of the terrorism threat Britain faces. But opponents say the strategy would brand the vast majority of British Muslims as extremists and alienate them even further.

The Guardian has also learned of a separate secret Whitehall counterterrorism report advocating widening the definition of who is considered extremist. Not all in Whitehall agree with the proposals and one official source said plans to widen the definition were "incendiary" and could alienate Muslims, whose support in the counterterrorism effort is needed. There were also fears it could aid the far right.

Contest 2 is still being finalised by officials and ministers. Those considered extreme would not be targeted by the criminal law, but would be sidelined and denied public funds. Ed Husain, of the Quilliam Foundation thinktank, said the root causes of terrorism were extremist views, even if those advocating the views did not call for violence.

Husain, once an extremist himself, said: "Violent extremism is produced by Islamist extremism and it's only right to get into the root causes."

Inayat Bunglawala, a former spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain, said such plans would affect many British Muslims. Bunglawala, who now runs Engage, which tries to get Muslims to participate in politics and civic society, said: "That would alienate the majority of the British Muslim public. It would be counterproductive and class most Muslims as extremists."

Well, Bunglawala, if the shoe fits -- wear it.

In a speech in December, the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said the government's counterterrorism strategy had to include challenging nonviolent extremist groups that "skirt the fringes of the law ... to promote hate-filled ideologies".

The Contest strategy was put in place in 2003 as the UK beefed up its response to the threat of al-Qaida inspired terrorism.

But the security service's assessment shows no drop in those they consider dangerous and the UK's terror threat level remains at severe general.

The Home Office said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

Aussie Prime Minister Gets It Right

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to
get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head
off potential terror attacks..


Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he
supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of
this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their
culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge
in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '


'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and
victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'


'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese,
Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our
society . Learn the language!'


'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing,
political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian
principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is
certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your
new home, because God is part of our culture.'


'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that
you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'


'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining,
whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or
Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great
Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'


'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You
asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

Goodbye 33: Idiots' Delight

[February 7. Writing now is an exercise in futility. The computer has crashed. I cannot send or receive, and most terrifying, all addresses have disappeared. Nothing has come in since the 9th. Apologies to those of you whose emails were unanswered.

There might be some grim satisfaction in knowing someone thought me important enough to attack with a virus. Alas, it is my own incompetence that’s to blame. Nobody around here seems able to fix it. My son has promised to take a crack at it, but no date is set.]



[Lord of the Challahs: The Last Stand. Yes, this sounds like one of those sagas that go on forever. Hopefully this will be the last chapter, for a while.

One morning last week Rachel found six or seven chunks of bread on our front lawn. I took this as a declaration of war and planned to retaliate. Fantasies about hidden cameras catching him in the act were quickly abandoned. Costly and pointless. The Hurler is a Yemenite revered for his piety, I a crippled curmudgeon avoided for my nastiness. Even if caught in the act he would get the sympathy of most.

But I had to retaliate, if only to secure my reputation as Le Misanthrope. The opportunity presented itself when the Shas party, in which the Hurling Tzaddik is an active member, left plastic bags filled with election material – photos of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef modeling a selection of beachwear, a DVD guaranteeing a place in Paradise with numberless modestly attired virgins for every Shas voter, etc – at each resident’s door.

I filled the bag with the chunks of bread and hurled it on to the Hurler’s porch.
No agonizing over how to retaliate for the Tzaddik: The following morning our parking lot looked as if a bread delivery van had overturned during the night.

Comforting myself that the bread wasn’t on our lawn, I haven’t responded. So far, all quiet on the refugee camp front.]



GOODBYE 33: IDIOTS DELIGHT



It is February 8, two days to the election. By law there are no election ads or polling results allowed. But the media, pretending to simply report the news, are working overtime to boost Livni. She is shown smiling, dancing, confident, accepting the cheers of young supporters. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is shown frowning, nervous, clearly in distress. Barak is seldom seen, and Lieberman is demonized by constantly showing “moderate Arabs” concerned about his supposed racism.

I fear that Livni, expected to do badly, is being given a boost among the reported 20% of undecided voters. You in the States elected an empty suit who is at least articulate. We may elect an empty dress who has the intelligence of a gnat, the personality of a nit, the ideology of a newt.

Here in the refugee camp there will be a few votes for Lieberman from former Russians, a few for Shas [see above], a handful for Netanyahu. The majority will be divided between the National Union and the National Religious Party/Jewish Home. Just as the most savage fighting during the Russian Revolution took place between the Communists and Mensheviks and Social Democrats, all ostensibly in the same camp, so here among the refugees it is the NU and the NRP who are at each other’s throats. We tear down each other’s posters before the glue is dry. I am grateful for the entertainment.


February 9.

Rachel’s voting card arrived in today’s mail. Mine hasn’t. A voting card is not a requirement – your ID is all you need – but it tells you at which polling station you are registered. There are three polling stations in the refugee camp.

During Local Council elections last year I was sent from polling station to station, finally voting at the lone station in the Nitzan settlement on whose cherry tomato and watermelon fields the refugee camp is located.

Yes, there are telephone numbers to call to determine where you vote, but these – in my case, at least – invariably give out the wrong information.



February 10

What a glorious day for the charade of elections! Torrential rain, thunder and lightning all morning. It cleared until the evening, when the good stuff returned.

Rachel had no difficulty voting. Yours truly, as is traditional – and I am nothing if not traditional – was turned away at all three refugee camp stations, with the added indignity of having to suffer the smirks and pitying “pathetic bastard” smiles of the election workers. Humble Moshe is satisfied with having been able to provide them with some amusement.

Many calls, tears, arguments later – rumor has it my tale of woe finally elicited a papal dispensation from Pope Benedict – I voted in the Nitzan settlement. And that wasn’t simple, either. The polling station was located on a basketball court surrounded by open fields. The rains had turned the ground into a swamp here, a lake there. Locals were using canoes for the lake, stilts for the swamp. I simply slogged through, feeling – like Humphrey Bogart in “The African Queen” – the leeches attaching themselves to my skin. The physical embodiment of my emotional life here…

Of course we stayed up for the results. That the Empty Dress outpolled Netanyahu is being described as a personal victory for her. Nonsense. It is simply the triumph of the media steamroller.

Even more nonsensical, the analysts [really, talking heads, as there is no analysis here] claim that Right wing parties netted 65 seats to 55 for the Left.

The so-called Right:

The Likud is headed by the invertebrate Netanyahu who has long declared his desire for a wide centrist coalition.

Shas and United Torah Judaism are for sale to the highest bidder. I would describe them as prostitutes but that would be unseemly given they do everything, as they see it, for the greater glory of the Almighty.

Israel Beitenu… A dear friend in Los Angeles asked me to compare Natan Sharansky and the Israel Beitenu leader Avigdor Leiberman. Both are tough Jews and former Russians. That ends the similarities. Sharansky is a thinker, a humanist, too honest and straightforward to succeed in Israeli politics. Leiberman is shrewd, ruthless, an ‘operator’ unencumbered by any ideology, perfectly suited to succeed here. He is a thug, but we thought of him as ‘our thug’. Just as we thought of Ariel Sharon as ‘our thug’…

National Religious Party/ Jewish Home. Despite the nationalistic patina, no different from Shas and United Torah Judaism. Actually they are different. They can be bribed for far less than Shas and United Torah Judaism.

Which leaves the National Union. Four seats, four lousy seats for the sole party ideologically and emotionally committed to The Land of Israel.

Rachel, ever optimistic, believes that most Israelis have been awakened by our expulsion from Gush Katif and the subsequent horrors that have befallen the country. I disagree. They are still sleepwalking, as the election results show. They remain uncommitted to anything other than a trouble-free existence. Can this be what our long and tortuous history has come down to?

After all the tough talk and conciliatory talk and preening and posing that pass for forming a coalition, we will end up with a government of the Practical Right, Practical Left, Practical Center. A government for which the demands of America, Europe, the UN, etc, are far more relevant than the demands of God. More or less what we had before: A government of national suicide.

See why I referred to the ‘charade’ of elections?



February 11

Rachel’s old school, the Ulpana, put on a play this evening, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. The venue was the auditorium in Bat Hadar, a community south of Ashkelon that serves as the administrative center for local farming communities.

Fortunately the performance was for women only, so I was able to smoke my brains out outside. It was a cold evening and I had done enough to destroy the ozone layer, so I went inside and sat down on a chair in a hallway.

After a while a scrawny black kitten approached. ‘Scrawny’ hardly does it justice. Like calling a skeleton ‘very slender’. The kitten was skin and bones, almost bald of fur, scarred, limping, her right eye a pink gash. For me it was love at first sight.

Even when she climbed on to my lap and leaked on my jeans, I remained exhilarated. We even share a weak bladder!

I found some milk among the intermission refreshments and petted her while she lapped it up. So passed one of the happiest hours in a very long time.

When the play ended and the crowd poured out of the auditorium the kitten disappeared.

February 16. My voting card arrived in today’s mail. The polling station listed is not the one in which I voted…



February 18

Is there no limit to our capacity for self-deception? Headlines today said “President Peres admits disengagement was a mistake”, and some here were relieved that one of the most prominent supporters of the expulsion acknowledged the injustice done to us.

But examining the text of his statement, we get an altogether different message. What he said was, there were mistakes made in the execution, and he concludes with “We should have done it differently”.

This afternoon I was asked to drive a neighbor to Bat Hadar, and wait while she dealt with some bureaucratic nonsense. I jumped at the chance, and used my time there looking for ‘my’ kitten. No sign of her. Perhaps it’s just as well. Now she can remain a happy memory.

La Passionara and I are off for a week of R’n’R at the Terminally Ill Sea from Sunday, the 22nd. Make good use of our silence: read a book, rob a candy store, mug an old person. Anything socially useful…

moshe

Muslim Brotherhood In Full Control

February 17, 2009
Former FBI special agent: Every major Muslim organization in the U.S. is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood

A former FBI special agent sounds the alarm about the stealth jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

"Islamic subversion alleged by speaker," by Brian Mosely for the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, February 17 (thanks to Weasel Zippers):

A former FBI special agent told law enforcement and Homeland Security personnel that a network of Islamic organizations are working to incrementally implement Islamic law in the United States.
During a presentation at the Bedford County Emergency Management Agency, former FBI agent John Guandolo briefed members about groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which he claims is working with other Islamic groups to slowly implement Shariah, also known as Islamic law, which encompasses all areas of life.

Guandolo worked in the FBI since 1996, including nine years as a member of its SWAT team. After 9/11, he worked in the Bureau's Washington Field Office's Counterterrorism Division, developing expertise concerning Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood organizations and the Islamic movement in the U.S.

He now works with Stephen Coughlin, former Islamic Expert for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to advise leaders at the federal level and also brief local law enforcement about the Islamic threat at home.

Coughlin was fired from his position with the Joint Chiefs following a report revealing opposition to his work by officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, according to a Washington Times report dated Jan. 4, 2008.

Coughlin had run afoul of a key aide to England, Hasham Islam, who accused him of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials, the report states.

Muslim Brotherhood

Every major Muslim organization is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, the former FBI agent said, which he said was formed to overthrow America and establish Islamic law.

"They're having great success of implementing Shariah law, I could give you a thousand examples," Guandolo said.

He said small concessions like installing foot baths, and colleges forced to have separate swimming times for Islamic men and women so not to offend Muslims, are other parts of the strategy.

But Guandolo said that federal leadership is reluctant to act against these Islamic organizations due to political correctness and the threats of lawsuits.

He said that Muslim groups will demand concessions on matters by saying, "You have to do this; you have to do this or I will be offended."

"The solution to this is you," Guandolo said. "If you are looking to DHS, the FBI and Congress to solve this ... you're going to be woefully disappointed."

Read More

The Last Best Hope ...

The night we waved goodbye to America . . . our last best hope on Earth
London Daily Mail
Peter Hitchens
10 November 2008

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernize Heaven and Hell - or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilization. At least Mandela-worship - its nearest equivalent - is focused on a man who actually did something. I really don't see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama's victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books, and Obama calendars, and if there isn't yet a children's picture version of his story, there soon will be. Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular savior, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn't believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he'd promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn't worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America's Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton's stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to. Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a 'new dawn', and a 'timeless creed' (which was 'yes, we can'). He proclaimed that 'change has come'. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn't know what 'enormity' means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr. Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (don't try this at home!).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated - but rather hesitant - invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will - 'Yes, we can'. They were supposed to thunder 'Yes, we can!' back at him, but they just wouldn't join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He'd have been better off bursting into 'I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony' which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidized slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King - in schools, streets, neighborhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joints. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr. Obama's election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn't. Mr. Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lots of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination program aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn't get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them. And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn't vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington, DC the night of the election. America's beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street - which runs due north from the White House - the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America , it also now has a new division, and one, which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan. As I walked, I crossed another of Washington's secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique. These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America's conservative party - the Republicans - to fight on the cultural and moral fronts. They preferred to posture on the world stage.

Scared of confronting left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US , like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth??

Honor Killings Tolerated ...

Headless body in gutless press
Mark Steyn

Muzzammil “Mo” HASSAN, the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV and moderate Muslim who chopped his wife's head off yesterday, did so in a culture that sanctions depraved Islamic law. The USA. Islamic culture thrives as a culture within a culture here. Media silence and both their reluctance and law enforcement reluctance to prosecute Islamic crime is a stunning victory for creeping Islamic supremacism - special rules for a special class. This New York honor killing was not committed by some recent third world immigrant. This was a successful business man, assimilated into Western culture (as much as Islam allows). He committed no crime according to sharia law. In the heinous Texas honor killings of Amina and Sarah Said, Amina feared that her father would take her to Egypt to kill her (because, he repeatedly told her, "honor killings are legal there").

One can only imagine the homemade prison, the abject terror the beheading victim, Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, had to live in (and die under). She sought to obtain an order of protection from her Muslim husband. To no avail. It was, sadly, her final act of bravery, for which she paid with her head.

HONOR KILLINGS SHOULD BE A CAPITAL CRIME. Period. Because this is war ...... and the war is about women, power, ownership, ..... dominance.

Read All Of It

Lord Ahmed Threatens Parliament

England MP Lord Ahmed Threatens UK Democracy With 10,000 Terrorists

Hamas supporting, Jew, Christian bashing Lord Ahmed
brings Islamic Jihad into English House of Lords.

By Herb Brandon
Israel News Agency

Jerusalem --- February 14, 2009...... Illustrating Islamic Jihad in England, MP Lord Ahmed has threatened to mobilize 10,000 Jihadists against the English Parliament.
Hamas supporting Ahmed was responding to a member of the England House of Lords to invite colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch parliament who was invited to screen his anti-terrorism movie Fitna.

Wilders branded the British Government “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe” after he flew in to Heathrow yesterday and was promptly put on the first plane back.

"I am going to Great Britain because I was invited by another politician [the UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Rannoch]. I am a democrat. I am serving freedom of speech. They are not only being nasty to me, they are being nasty to freedom of speech. They are more Chamberlain than Churchill," said Wilders.

The MP had been invited to attend a showing of his 17-minute film at the House of Lords by Lord Pearson. The film features verses from the Koran with images of terrorist attacks in New York, London and Madrid, and calls on Muslims to remove “hate-preaching” verses from the text. Lord Pearson said that the screening would go ahead regardless.

The decision to refuse Wilders entry provoked Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Foreign Minister, to call David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, to protest against the decision. “The fact that a Dutch parliamentarian is refused entry to another EU country is highly regrettable,” Mr Verhagen said.

The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in?

A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Wilders’ opinions with him.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place last Thursday was cancelled. But after several hours of discussions on freedom of speech the event was placed back on.

Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistan press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”

A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the UK House of Lords.

Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistan born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted an inciteful, hate smitten book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”

Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”

Thomas Landen of the Brussels Journals states: "What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords."

If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders into England, the home of the Magna Carta, should surely open their eyes. Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday. This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But shortly afterwards the British government announced that it was banning Wilders from the country. A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said: "the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK."

English newspapers were not silent.

The Times states today: "Again and again we are told that Islam is a religion of peace and equality; how does that tally with some of what the Koran says?

What makes such anxieties really toxic is the feeling that they are suppressed and ignored by our government. Critics of Islam, however reasonable, know they are likely to fall foul of the many new Labour laws against freedom of expression, in particular against incitement to religious hatred, which was enacted under Muslim pressure.

Yet despite these laws, which silence critics of Islam, Muslims are allowed to teach views that are illegal in public mosques. The awkward truth is that certain teachings in the Koran are against the law in this country – teachings about homosexuality and the position of women, for example. In some places the Koran and some other Muslim teachings are sexist, homophobic and likely to incite religious hatred.

To call the Koran “fascist” as Wilders has done is stupid, empty and needlessly offensive. However, to say that some of its teachings, taken literally, are unacceptable in this country is merely to report a fact.....Wilders was kept away because of tacit threats from some British Muslims who won’t accept criticism of any kind. I don’t think the ban had much to do with the equally, but differently, agitated feelings of the non-Muslim majority: if Smith had considered them, she might have realised that it was equally inflammatory not to let Wilders in. David Miliband, our gaffe-prone young foreign secretary, was quick to point out that Fitna is “ a hate-filled film designed to stir up religious and racial hatred and is contrary to our laws”. But he then had to admit that he hadn’t seen it either."

The Independent in an editorial says: "Joan Smith: Free speech has to be for all, Home Secretary. Let's start by getting a couple of things clear: Jacqui Smith is an idiot for banning Geert Wilders, and even more of an idiot to do it after the Government was lobbied to ban him by Lord Ahmed. The Home Secretary's argument for refusing to admit Mr Wilders again (he was here in December) is feeble; the only way his presence might threaten public security is if there was an intemperate reaction by people who don't like his views. Demands for a ban are based on the same perverse reasoning that led to Salman Rushdie's being accused of having "blood on his hands" – by Lord Ahmed – because some idiots chose to respond violently to his novel The Satanic Verses. According to this sophistry, it isn't someone's fault if he loses his temper and hits me; it's mine for upsetting him in the first place. It's got so bad that when Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque showed imams preaching hate in British mosques, the Crown Prosecution Service and the West Midlands Police began investigating the film-makers, coming to their senses only when they found themselves on the wrong end of a libel action. I don't like Mr Wilders' politics, but he doesn't advocate killing people, unlike Sheikh Qaradawi, who was allowed into this country until someone belatedly noticed that he supports suicide-bombing."

The Telegraph states: "Geert Wilders may be obnoxious, but he was elected; Lord Ahmed was not. Lord Ahmed claims that Wilders is guilty of incitement. He isn't. Being obnoxious is not a criminal offence. To find someone guilty of incitement, you need to show that they, you know, incited someone. Some of the preachers that Wilders excoriates are guilty of incitement in this sense, but this never seems to impede their entry and re-entry into the UK. No doubt in future all members of the Saudi Arabia ruling class will be denied entry, too. They do not call for the banning of the Bible and outlawing of Christian worship in their kingdom - they have done it. "

Melanie Phillips of the Spectator says: "So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide. If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard."

Lord Ahmed, has not only taken aim at Salmon Rushdie and Geert Wilders but is openly advocating the arrest of British Jews.

"I asked Her Majesty's government if they were aware of British citizens who may have been involved with the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defense Force and Israeli Defense Reserves. Her Majesty's government did not have any figures because dual nationals do not have to inform the government. However, there are reports in the Daily Mirror and The Sun with the names of British citizens who have been fighting in Gaza," said Ahmed.

"The point I was making is that war crimes have been committed, white phosphorous has been used and if there are people who have broken the 4th Geneva Convention, then whoever they are, when they return to this country, they should be arrested and charged - unlike the Major General who escaped in 2005."

Press TV asked Ahmed: "Are you certain these are up to date reports about British citizens serving in Israel?"

Ahmed responded: "These are very new reports, dated January 2009, of British citizens who have gone out to fight against the Palestinian people as part of the IDF. Their names and ages are mentioned in these reports. We know that there are student unions that have been actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defense Force and we also know that there are young Jewish students who go and serve on the kibbutz and also in schools, who are also then doing national service in Israel."

Ahmed attempts to play divide and conquer with British Jews quoting England MP and self-hating Jew Gerald Kaufman. "We know that very fine members of parliament like Gerald Kaufman MP, who is himself Jewish, very openly said that just because these people were victims of the Holocaust does not mean they should perpetrate another holocaust on the Palestinian people." Gerald Kaufman is one of England's leading Jewish critics of Israel. Kaufman has called for economic sanctions and an arms ban against Israel, citing the success of such measures against apartheid South Africa. He has called Israel a "pariah" and its senior politicians "war criminals". Kaufman also made a comparison of Hamas terror members in Gaza to the Jewish resistance during World War II, saying: "The spokeswoman for the Israel army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of Palestinians. She replied instantly that '500 of them were militants'. That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants." And he said: "It is time for our government to make clear to the Israeli government that its conduct and policies are unacceptable and to impose a total arms ban on Israel.”

Kaufman sounds more like an Islamic Capo than a Jew. He actually supports Hamas, a US defined terror organization, which openly declares its intent to destroy all of Israel. Israel, which left Gaza three years ago in a unilateral peace move, has been attacked by over 8,000 missiles from Gaza in that time.

Twenty years ago, on February 14 1989, when the Iran Islamic leader, Imam Khomeini delivered his fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's death, Ahmed was truly elated. It was a very welcome reminder that British Muslims did not have to regard themselves just as a small, vulnerable minority; they were part of a truly global and powerful movement. Ahmed said: "If we were not treated with respect then we were capable of forcing others to respect us."

In London, Lord Ahmed, Britain's first Muslim peer, said he had been "appalled" by the award to a man he accused of having "blood on his hands".

The UK's first Muslim life peer has joined forces with a number of British-based Islamists to sign a letter praising Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who walked out of a recent debate after a bitter argument with President Shimon Peres over Gaza.

Lord Nazir Ahmed recently led a delegation to the Turkish Embassy in London to pay tribute to Erdogan for walking off the stage during the appearance with Peres at last month's Davos Conference, according to a London-based think tank, the Center for Social Cohesion (CSC).

The letter was signed by a number of radical Islamists, including Mohamed Ali Harrath, who was convicted in absentia in 1992 for terrorist-related offenses by a Tunisian court, and Mohammed Sawalha, described by a US court as a former Hamas leader, and presented by the delegation to the embassy.

Harrath was on Interpol's most-wanted list, and had connections to Osama bin Laden, the CSC said.

According to the BBC, Sawalha masterminded much of Hamas's political and military strategy in the West Bank. He also served as president of the Muslim Association of Britain, described in parliament as the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a document submitted as evidence in a US federal court, the movement's goal is described as a kind of grand jihad aimed at destroying Western civilization from within and "sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

"By being part of this delegation, Lord Ahmed is allying himself with some of the most radical Islamists in the UK," CSC researcher Robin Simcox said.

Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle writes: "On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas. The gist of Shamir - Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the [political] parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

Why would Lord Ahmed have hosted such a man in the Lords, asks Pollard?
It is, of course, possible that Lord Ahmed had no idea that Shamir - Jermas was a rabid anti-Semite. Yet it takes only a quick Google to discover his views and background. He has worked for Zavtra, Russia’s most anti-Semitic publication, and is allied with the Vanguard News Network, set up by an American, Alex Linder — a man so extreme that he was even ostracised by the US neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Ahmed did nothing to dissociate himself from Shamir and to this day must, we assume, be proud of having issues his invitation.

So that gives us a pretty good idea of what he considers acceptable. David T takes up the latest instalment in the tale of Lord Ahmed:

"Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has moved in a very few years from a liberal to an anti-immigration position, that has brought him close to the neo Nazi party, Vlaams Belang. He is facing prosecution in the Netherlands, in connection with his film “Fitna”.

A member of the House of Lords has proposed a screening of Geert Wilders’ Fitna. This is what happened next: The British Parliament has canceled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right-win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community. The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords. The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community. The Far-right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been canceled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”

As David T writes with regard to Ahmed's invitation to Shamir: There were no meetings with whips or leaders. There were no demonstrations. The meeting was not cancelled.

I think it's pretty clear where we Jews and Christians stand with Lord Ahmed now.

Clearly Lord Ahmed is selective about the types of free speech he chooses to condemn."

And so is the current British government.

Great Britain, famous for appeasing Adolph Hitler a half century ago, is appeasing today all those who seek to replace English law with Islamic Sharia law.

After all, many English MP's need the Muslim vote to stay in power and the Arab oil rich states to finance their next electoral campaigns.

England, which once stood proudly as an icon for freedom and democracy, today allows supporters of Islamic suicide bombers to enter their nation while banning those who wish to talk about 9/11 and 7/7 Islamic terror London bombings.

No, He Can't

A Black Woman's View - No He Can't, Anne Wortham

Anne Wortham is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.

She has published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality. Recently, she has published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness.

_____

No He Can't
by Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America . I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America .

I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like them.

I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University 's Kennedy School of Government.

I would have to believe that "fairness" is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!" Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over - and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.

The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America. Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left - for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

No He Can't

I Am A Zionist

Yair Lapid is a journalist and TV personality. His father was Yosef "Tommy" Lapid, also a journalist and attorney, who was Justice Minister and established the Shinui party, which called for separation of religion and state, civil marriage and burial. He died less than a year ago. His mother is an author of Hebrew novels.

The article appeared in last week's paper in Hebrew and has been translated now.

He has said here what a lot of us feel and have never been able to put into words.

Yair Lapid says he belongs to tiny minority that influenced the world more than any other nation.

I am a Zionist.

I believe that the Jewish people established itself in the Land of Israel,
albeit somewhat late. Had it listened to the alarm clock, there would have
been no Holocaust, and my dead grandfather – the one I was named after –
would have been able to dance a last waltz with grandma on the shores of the
Yarkon River.

I am a Zionist.

Hebrew is the language I use to thank the Creator, and also to swear on the
road. The Bible does not only contain my history, but also my geography.
King Saul went to look for mules on what is today Highway 443, Jonah the
Prophet boarded his ship not too far from what is today a Jaffa restaurant,
and the balcony where David peeped on Bathsheba must have been bought by
some oligarch by now.

I am a Zionist.

The first time I saw my son wearing an IDF uniform I burst into tears, I
haven't missed the Independence Day torch-lighting ceremony for 20 years
now, and my television was made in Korea, but I taught it to cheer for our
national soccer team.

I am a Zionist.

I believe in our right for this land. The people who were persecuted for no
reason throughout history have a right to a state of their own plus a free
F-16 from the manufacturer. Every display of anti-Semitism from London to
Mumbai hurts me, yet deep inside I'm thinking that Jews who choose to live
abroad fail to understand something very basic about this world. The State
of Israel was not established so that the anti-Semites will disappear, but
rather, so we can tell them to get lost.

I am a Zionist.

I was fired at in Lebanon, a Katyusha rockets missed me by a few feet in
Kiryat Shmona, missiles landed near my home during the first Gulf War, I was
in Sderot when the Color Red anti-rocket alert system was activated,
terrorists blew themselves up not too far from my parents' house, and my
children stayed in a bomb shelter before they even knew how to pronounce
their own name, clinging to a grandmother who arrived here from Poland to
escape death. Yet nonetheless, I always felt fortunate to be living here,
and I don't really feel good anywhere else.

I am a Zionist.

I think that anyone who lives here should serve in the army, pay taxes, vote
in the elections, and be familiar with the lyrics of at least one Shalom
Hanoch song. I think that the State of Israel is not only a place, it is
also an idea, and I wholeheartedly believe in the three extra commandments
engraved on the wall of the Holocaust museum in Washington: "Thou shalt not
be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but above all, thou shalt not
be a bystander."

I am a Zionist.

I already laid down on my back to admire the Sistine Chapel, I bought a
postcard at the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, and I was deeply impressed by
the emerald Buddha at the king's palace in Bangkok. Yet I still believe that
Tel Aviv is more entertaining, the Red Sea is greener, and the Western Wall
Tunnels provide for a much more powerful spiritual experience. It is true
that I'm not objective, but I'm also not objective in respect to my wife and
children.

I am a Zionist.

I am a man of tomorrow but I also live my past. My dynasty includes Moses,
Jesus, Maimonides, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Albert Einstein, Woody Allen,
Bobby Fischer, Bob Dylan, Franz Kafka, Herzl, and Ben-Gurion. I am part of a
tiny persecuted minority that influenced the world more than any other
nation. While others invested their energies in war, we had the sense to
invest in our minds.

I am a Zionist.

I sometimes look around me and become filled with pride, because I live
better than a billion Indians, 1.3 billion Chinese, the entire African
continent, more than 250 million Indonesians, and also better than the
Thais, the Filipinos, the Russians, the Ukrainians, and the entire Muslim
world, with the exception of the Sultan of Brunei. I live in a country under
siege that has no natural resources, yet nonetheless the traffic lights
always work and we have high-speed connection to the Internet.

I am a Zionist.

My Zionism is natural, just like it is natural for me to be a father, a
husband, and a son. People who claim that they, and only they, represent the
"real Zionism" are ridiculous in my view. My Zionism is not measured by the
size of my kippa, by the neighborhood where I live, or by the party I will
be voting for. It was born a long time before me, on a snowy street in the
ghetto in Budapest where my father stood and attempted, in vain, to
understand why the entire world is trying to kill him.

I am a Zionist.

Every time an innocent victim dies, I bow my head because once upon a time I
was an innocent victim. I have no desire or intention to adopt the moral
standards of my enemies. I do not want to be like them. I do not live on my
sword; I merely keep it under my pillow.

I am a Zionist.

I do not only hold on to the rights of our forefathers, but also to the duty
of the sons. The people who established this state lived and worked under
much worse conditions than I have to face, yet nonetheless they did not make
do with mere survival. They also attempted to establish a better, wiser,
more humane, and more moral state here. They were willing to die for this
cause, and I try to live for its sake

Geert Wilders Banned From UK

GEERT WILDERS' SPEECH IN HOUSE OF LORDS IF HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

vrijdag, 13 februari 2009

London, Feb. 12, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me. Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for showing Fitna, and for your gracious invitation. While others look away, you, seem to understand the true tradition of your country, and a flag that still stands for freedom.
This is no ordinary place. This is not just one of England’s tourist attractions. This is a sacred place. This is the mother of all Parliaments, and I am deeply humbled to speak before you.

The Houses of Parliament is where Winston Churchill stood firm, and warned – all throughout the 1930’s – for the dangers looming. Most of the time he stood alone.

In 1982 President Reagan came to the House of Commons, where he did a speech very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.

What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

Communism was indeed left on the ash heap of history, just as Reagan predicted in his speech in the House of Commons. He lived to see the Berlin Wall coming down, just as Churchill witnessed the implosion of national-socialism.

Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

Thank you very much for letting me into the country. I received a letter from the Secretary of State for the Home Department, kindly disinviting me. I would threaten community relations, and therefore public security in the UK, the letter stated.
For a moment I feared that I would be refused entrance. But I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

Well, if you let in this man, than an elected politician from a fellow EU country surely is welcome here too. By letting me speak today you show that Mr Churchill’s spirit is still very much alive. And you prove that the European Union truly is working; the free movement of persons is still one of the pillars of the European project.

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all it’s calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

The Court’s decision and the letter I received form the Secretary of State for the Home Department are two major victories for all those who detest freedom of speech. They are doing Islam’s dirty work. Sharia by proxy. The differences between Saudi-Arabia and Jordan on one hand and Holland and Britain are blurring. Europe is now on the fast track of becoming Eurabia. That is apparently the price we have to pay for the project of mass immigration, and the multicultural project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack. In Europe, freedom of speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural component of our existence is now something we again have to fight for. That is what is at stake. Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue. The question is: Will free speech be put behind bars?

We have to defend freedom of speech.

For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

The choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.


Geert Wilders MP
Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)
The Netherlands