Pride of Lions, Part 9

In Part 8, we looked at how Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups are coordinating their efforts to target France for unrest. We also considered in Part 5 and Part 6 how France may be moving in the direction of a civil war.

In Part 7, we looked at how British mosques serve as a forum for the spread of hatred and calls for violence among radical elements of the Islamic community against infidel cultures.

It is not just Muslims being radicalized by some elements within their mosques; as we also saw in Part 6, there is a deliberate effort on the part of Islamic terrorists to recruit "lily whites", who are people with no prior connection to Islam or to terrorism, for conversion to Islam and deployment as terrorists in the jihad against the infidel world.

Now we consider Salmond backs plans for Islamic faith school by Murdo MacLeod, Political Correspondent, May 18, 2008:

SCOTLAND'S first state-funded Islamic school could get the go-ahead within months after First Minister Alex Salmond declared he was "sympathetic" towards the controversial move.

Campaigners are planning to submit a detailed proposal for the faith school to Glasgow City Council within two months and officials last night confirmed they would consult on the proposal.

But former Scottish education minister Sam Galbraith condemned the move as a "retrograde step", arguing that it would be bad for the Muslim community by hindering integration.

Do the opinionmakers and leaders within the Muslim community want Muslims to integrate - or to dominate?

Scotland has around 43,000 Muslims, about 18,000 of them in Glasgow. While there are more than 100 Islamic schools south of the border, both private and state-supported, Scottish Muslims have so far failed to establish a faith school and some in the community question whether it is a good idea in an age of increased ethnic and religious tension.

Scotland has more than 400 publicly funded Roman Catholic schools as well as three state-supported Scottish Episcopalian schools and a publicly funded Jewish school.

A spokesman for Salmond said: "We are very much sympathetic to the idea. The First Minister is supportive. He thinks that faith schools are a good thing and they make a great contribution to Scotland. The issue is whether there is a sustainable demand for them.

"We would expect a local authority to react positively where there is a sustainable case."

After failing in a previous campaign, a group of Muslim community leaders in Glasgow is preparing a case for at least one school, which they will present in about two months' time. They are gathering names of families who they think will want to send their children to an Islamic school.

A spokesman for the campaign said: "We're working on things right now so that we can present a strong case to the authority – to show that we are united behind this and that there are enough of us so that the case is obviously sustainable."

Glasgow City Council said it would consider any reasonable plan that parents could come up with. A spokeswoman for council leader Stephen Purcell said: "Basically, if the parents come forward with a sustainable plan, both financially and educationally, we will consult on that plan."

We now consider some background regarding that Glasgow situation, reviewing Glasgow Opposes Muslim School, dated Sun., Oct. 29, 2006 / Shawal 7, 1427:

CAIRO — Senior education officials in the Scottish city of Glasgow oppose the establishment of a state-funded Islamic school though other faith communities in the second largest city in the country have their own, according to a secret memo made public on Sunday, October 29.

The document, obtained by the Scotland on Sunday newspaper under the Freedom of Information legislation, cites "serious concerns about an inclusive education for Muslims in the city beyond faith and the social isolation of Muslim children within the city."

It adds that senior officials at Glasgow City Council had written to the head of the authority's education committee, Margaret McCafferty, about their reservations.

"Why would we assume that a state-funded Muslim school would not see the same problems that the privately funded Iqra Academy in Glasgow experienced and was subsequently closed by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education?"

The academy was closed down in 2003 after inspectors had accused its administration of devoting too much time to Islamic subjects and maltreating girls.

A Muslim school that maltreated girls - imagine that!

We pause this article for a moment to look at the next segment of the The Gina Khan Interview - Part Two:

Q: Was your husband taken in by any Islamist teachings?

I had been a victim of domestic abuse and polygamy myself. The first time my husband slapped me after I questioned him he said "don't question my authority - in our religion you are not allowed. I'm your husband."

After divorce I made a promise to him that I would raise the issue of polygamy in the community and expose the consequences Muslim women silently endure, a woman would rather see her husband burn on a pyre than take on another wife. I stated that it wasn't him I was after. I was after the true kafirs - the extreme Islamists who advocate the practices that taught him that he could slap a woman across the face and take on another wife in the name of Islam. Backward practices must be erased. What happened in the 7th century or 18th century can't be continued in the 21st century. Women have a right to their full humanity as full human beings.

He wasn't a bad person; he had been forced into an arranged marriage with a cousin. Our children were ostracised from his family as a consequence of it not working out.

Polygamy destroys the soul of a woman. I knew polygamy wasn't beyond him. In any case our love story had ended. Polygamy and forced marriages destroy the lives of both men and women. Children often pay the price for broken homes and witness escalating domestic violence and oppression. The British Government hesitates in stamping it out - not wanting to instigate racial tensions; they should show some backbone because right now we are suffering.

Q: Surely local religious leaders step in and help women out, as would say a vicar or parish priest?

Not one mullah or leader of any mosque locally has ever done anything progressive for the emancipation of Muslim women, let alone help them out when they are divorced and lone mums. No one is addressing these issues seriously.

My children have been hit several times around the head in the local mosque and I was treated like an outcast - as if my stigma of being a lone mother was deserved. They wanted me to think that it was my entire fault - that I was mad not to have conformed to their ideologies. This hurt my kids - it felt like we were being punished.

"Not one mullah or leader of any mosque locally has ever done anything progressive for the emancipation of Muslim women, let alone help them out when they are divorced and lone mums."

"My children have been hit several times around the head in the local mosque".

We now continue with Glasgow Opposes Muslim School:

Although the letter, which carries the initials of Glasgow's director of education Ronnie O'Connor, is dated December 15 of last year, a source close to the council told the newspaper that the position of officials remains unchanged.

Keep in mind that that article was from October, 2006, so it refers to a letter from late 2005.

Muslims have been pressing for a state-funded Islamic school in Glasgow, which allows Roman Catholic and Jewish schools.

Education chiefs had for the past year met their calls with promises and sweet talk.

"Our education services will consult on the general principal of creating a Muslim school if a well developed proposal and widespread community support comes forward," Deputy Education Convener Gordon Matheson had said.

Misplaced

Muslim leaders in Scotland criticized officials for not coming public with their concerns.

"It's disappointing that they haven't raised these concerns with us up to now, the issue has always been one of proving the demand, which we are confident we can do," said Osama Saeed, the Scottish spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB).

Not coming public with what concerns? That females might be "maltreated" in a Muslim school?

What would happen to any public official who might dare to suggest that? There would be cries of Islamophobia at least, if not calls for that official's death. I mean, just try drawing a cartoon about the Islamic community, and see what happens!

Opposition councilors also criticized officials for keeping their stance secret and failing to meet the needs of the Muslim minority in Scotland, estimated at some 50,000 people.

"It is wrong to keep these concerns hidden. They should be aired," said John Mason, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP).

"I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of telling the Muslim community that it is up to them to come up with a plan."

Saeed also dismissed the officials's concerns as misplaced.

"The concerns are completely misplaced, studies of pupils from Islamic schools in England have shown that they are more tolerant and open than those not in Islamic schools," he said.

A British government study published by the Independent newspaper on October 21 found that white students are less tolerant and are a barrier to integration than their Muslim peers.

Commissioned by the Home Office, the Lancaster University study found that nearly a third of white students believed one race was superior to another.

Sure - Islamic schools are more tolerant - more progressive, perhaps?

From Teacher accuses Islamic school of racism, by Alexandra Frean, Education Editor, dated April 15, 2008:

A former teacher at an Islamic school, who alleged that it taught an offensive and racist view of non-Muslims, has been awarded £70,000 by an employment tribunal after winning his case for unfair dismissal.

Colin Cook told the tribunal in Watford that pupils were taught from Arabic books that likened Jews and Christians to "monkeys" and "pigs" at The King Fahad Academy, which is funded and run by the Saudi Arabian Government.

Saudi support for a curriculum "that likened Jews and Christians to 'monkeys' and 'pigs'." Imagine that!

The tribunal ruled that Mr Cook, a British Muslim, was unfairly dismissed from his £36,000-a-year post at the school in Acton, West London, in December 2006 after blowing the whistle on systematic cheating at a GCSE exam.

The panel found that the school created a "smokescreen" to try to justify his dismissal after 18 years' unblemished service.

It awarded Mr Cook £58,800 in compensation for loss of earnings and £10,500 for injury to feelings. But it rejected his claim that the school discriminated against him on racial grounds.

Mr Cook told the hearing that after leaving the school another member of staff gave him extracts from an Arabic textbook, which encouraged students to believe that all religions other than Islam were worthless.

The books referred to "the repugnant characteristics of the Jews". Another passage said: "Those whom God has cursed and with whom he is angry, he has turned into monkeys and pigs. They worship Satan."

Mr Cook alleged that the books were spreading race hatred. "They should not be brought into this country and they should not be used in this country," he said.

The school denied ever teaching any form of racial hatred and insisted that the offending passages in the books were "misinterpreted" and were never used in class. But it later got rid of the books.

The Religion of Peace is always "misinterpreted" and "taken out of context".

The school was established in 1985, with the aim of providing a high-quality education acceptable to the Saudi and British authorities for the children of Saudi diplomats and other Muslim families in London.

Some of the children of the jailed extremist clerics Abu Hamza al-Masri and Abu Qatada are pupils at the school, which charges fees of up to £1,500 per year for day students.

Mr Cook alleged that in June 2006 staff wrongly allowed pupils to refer to heavily annotated course books during an English language GCSE exam.

The tribunal was told that when he suggested that the school might be trying to cover up his allegations, a senior colleague told him: "This is not England. It is Saudi Arabia."

Mr Cook then took his complaints direct to the Edexcel exam board.

Mr Cook of Feltham, West London, taught English as a second language at the school. Giving evidence to the tribunal, he said that some pupils "talked as if they did not live in London at all".

Complete with oppression of women?

Next stop - honor killings? (Oh, I'm sorry - it's the UK; "honour killings".)

What was that about "a 'retrograde step'"?

When he queried how Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada could be paying school fees when they were said to be on benefits, he was told to mind his own business.

He also claimed the school was seen as an extension of the Saudi Embassy rather than part of Britain, with Saudi teachers even enjoying diplomatic immunity.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - our ally in the War on Terror.

Mr Cook's solicitor, Lawrence Davies, said: "Safeguards under English law were thrown out of the window when Mr Cook was sacked.

"This school must learn that it is not the Saudi way or the highway. The tribunal has upheld justice and protected the whistle-blower."

The tribunal panel was not required to rule on Mr Cook's allegations about the school's curriculum. But in its judgment, it said it had considered Mr Cook to be a "truthful witness".

As he was a respected teacher, with an 18-year unblemished record, it ruled that the impact of his dismissal had been "nothing short of life-changing" for Mr Cook. He had received a "harsh punishment for doing what he thought was the right thing to do", it concluded.

Mr Cook said last night: "I have been accused by people at the school and outside the school of lies and distortion. The school inferred that I had endangered pupils with my allegations.

"The evidence speaks otherwise. I told the truth all along. Islam teaches peace and honesty. Hopefully, my accusers will now realise that I acted justly and for the good of the school."

No one at the school was available to comment.

"Islam teaches peace and honesty."

For someone like Gina Khan, perhaps Islam is a religion of peace that teaches these things.

But, for the elite of the Arabian peninsula, Islam has always been a vehicle for conquest and imperialism.

Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as Pride of Lions continues.

The Titanic

We review an editorial entitled Sinkable Israel by Ayman El-Amir, Sunday, May 11, 2008:

Next week Israel will celebrate the 60th anniversary of its declaration of independence in the presence of an enviable number of dignitaries and heads of state. One week later, on May 15, the Palestinians will commiserate their Nakba — the day they were driven from their homeland by Jewish paramilitary settlers who established the State of Israel.

On May 11, they're saying "next week" about Israel's anniversary, then "one week later" referring to May 15...?

Israel's independence was declared on May 14th, 1948; the next day, on May 15th, al Naqba, which is an Arabic word that means "the catastrophe" began; it was the Arab world's declaration of war against Israel. A catastrophe it was, because the Arabs got clobbered, and lost a great deal of land.

While Israel will be showered with words of admiration and congratulation, principally by those countries that helped create it, the Palestinians will be huddled together in exile or under military occupation, encircled by the Israeli wall of shame that was probably inspired by the Nazi wall that enclosed the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw in 1940. The only statements making reference to them will be the empty rhetoric of Arab officials calling for peace and the establishment of a Palestinian state, and probably maligning Hamas. Victors will continue writing history, at least as long as they remain powerful.

The reason "the Palestinians will be huddled together in exile or under military occupation" is because they are being used as a distraction. Saudi Arabia - the nation where the newspaper from which this article was taken - certainly has both the land and the money to provide a home for the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia does not offer to do so. The Saudis could also fund economic development in Palestinian territory. Again, the Saudis do not do so.

Instead, Saudi Arabia exports hateful anti-Israeli propaganda - much like the editorial we are reviewing - and funds mosques, where Saudi-trained "holy men" spew their anti-Israeli venom. They help organize, train and equip terrorist forces to attack Israel from territory ruled by the "Palestinian Authority", which is mostly a refurbished terrorist organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO grew rich and powerful off not just terrorism, but the organized crime that funds terrorism. This thugocracy sees no benefit in peace with Israel, so it is in bed with the corrupt leaders of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi royal family, for its part, is also a bunch of hypocrites; the "Palestinian issue" helps distract their Arab brethren from the fact that Saudi princes party very heartily, with booze and scantily-clad women, when they are outside their little desert kingdom. Saudi money goes to fund terrorism, instead of building an economy able to survive when Saudi oil runs out - which is beginning to happen.

So, the "Palestinians" are pawns - the real occupation is the thugocracy that rules them, and the Arab powers (not just the Saudis) that turn Palestinian land into a battleground by promoting suicide attacks on Israeli targets.

By the way - the Palestinian Arabs have never been the only Palestinians. Prior to Israel's declaration of independence, Palestine had a substantial Jewish population. These people were Palestinians, too. There has been immigration of people to the land of Israel since Israel declared its independence, but we should not lose sight of the fact that many Jews were "Palestinians" as well.

Ah, but that is not so politically correct to say, is it?

At 60, Israel appears solid, focused, constantly expanding and basking in the adulation of its powerful supporters and the resignation of its intimidated neighbors. By contrast, the Palestinians, evicted from their homeland, appear weak, divided, starved, vulnerable and spurned by most Arab leaders. Israel, a warrior state armed to the teeth with conventional and nuclear weapons, represents a success for the great powers in more ways than one. Their most important achievement was offloading the centuries old "Jewish question" on the Arabs. Ever since, Israel has proved a belligerent state bent on aggression and expansion, which was also useful to the powers that nurtured it. However, Israel's atrocities against the Palestinians and other Arabs, and its extensive settlement under occupation of their land, makes it appear more like a giant on stilts than a peace-loving nation that lives by the norms of international law.

The "resignation of its intimidated neighbors" - the Arab neighbors were so intimidated that they declared war on Israel the very next day, and have done so periodically over the years.

The reason they stopped is because they kept getting clobbered, and kept losing more and more land.

Finally, they hit upon a strategy that worked: terrorism.

Terrorism means that Arab armies do not get slaughtered due to the incompetence and corruption of their leaders, terrorism means that no more Arab land will get occupied during Israeli counterattacks, and terrorism means that the terrorists get some degree of respectability - and even money from foreign nations - for being the government of a group of people who are worth more to the Arab world as victims than as people.

Yes, the plight of the Palestinians is terrible, isn't it?

In spite of the glow of success, two historical factors are corroding the underpinnings of Israel as a state. First, Israel was founded on the 17th century doctrine of settler colonialism — the New World migration model of which the United States is the unique surviving example. As European settlers arrived in droves in the New World that Christopher Columbus discovered in 1492, the land was ethnically cleansed of its indigenous population, especially North American Indians. Hundreds of tribes and ethnic communities were systematically devastated or driven west of the Mississippi River to make room for European colonists. In 1778, even before becoming the nation, new Americans signed a treaty with the Indian Delawares — the first of what would become a body of more than 380 treaties that never held in the face of the desire to expand. Under those treaties, the nascent US gained more than one billion acres of Indian land in North America, mostly by force, coercion and outright war, with some bought for as little as 10 cents an acre.

Notice how there is no discussion of the ethnic cleansing of ancient Christian peoples throughout the Middle East.

Neither is there discussion of the ongoing ethnic cleansing of ethnic Serbs in "Kosova".

Of course, with these high-sounding words, can we expect the Islamic world to relinquish its claim to places like Al Andalus? The people of Iberia finally reconquered their peninsula from its African and Arab colonial masters on January 2, 1492. But no, classic hypocrisy, the extremist version of Islam officially promoted by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claims every inch of land that ever was under Muslim rule, even as it tries to impose submission on the rest of the world.

But, we don't hear much about Arab and African colonialism in Iberia, do we?

Consciously or otherwise, this was the model adopted by the Zionist movement to seize Palestine under the fallacy of "a land without a people for a people without a land", with the support of the British via the Balfour Declaration. This shared model of ethnic cleansing and land expropriation is the strongest bond between Israel and the US.

Well, considering how the Bush Administration sides with Kosovo terrorists who just declared their independence from Serbia, maybe the author has a point here?

Of course, the point leads back to hypocrisy of the Saudi government, supporting Islamic extremists in their land-grab in the Balkans, but denouncing what they claim to be comparable conduct on the part of Israel.

During its so-called "war of liberation", Israel committed 70 massacres and atrocities against the Palestinian people as part of a methodical campaign of ethnic cleansing. It terrorized and expelled 85 percent of the population from 747 Palestinian towns and villages. Most of these were either obliterated to prevent the return of Palestinian inhabitants or given to immigrant Jewish settlers. At the time, this created a population of 900,000 refugees who were "temporarily" relocated to neighboring Arab countries. Palestinian refugees are now estimated at 4.5 million, half of them in host Arab countries.

According to Salman Abu Setta, general coordinator of the Right of Return Congress, 80 percent of the Jewish population of Israel lives in about 10 percent of the historic land of Palestine under the British mandate. Most of the territories extending from Beersheba in the south to the northern swathe of the Upper Galilee are scarcely populated. The density of the Palestinian population in Gaza is 6,000 individuals per one square kilometer — a total of 1.5 million Palestinians heaped upon each other under inhuman blockade conditions. Israel rejects the Palestinians' right of return even to these vacant areas, justified by what amounts to a racist policy of maintaining the "Jewish" nature of the state — another echo of Nazi Germany under Hitler.

But, Egypt has similarly built a wall to keep its Palestinian Arab Muslim brethren out.

And, when Saudi Arabia needs workers (because none of the King's many cousins want to do the work themselves), where do they get them from? Do they offer jobs to their Palestinian Arab Muslim brethren who are kept under such inhumane conditions?

According to the Wikipedia article Palestinian Refugees, less than a quarter million Palestinian refugees are in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; meanwhile the article Jewish exodus from Arab lands puts a total of well over three quarters of a million Jews who have fled Arab lands since Israel came into existence; most of these lands now have between zero and a thousand remaining Jews.

Immigration to Israel has become a matter of economic opportunity, not the claimed pseudo-religious Zionist ideology of "return to the Promised Land". The population of Israel is 5.2 million out of a world Jewry population of 13 million, with about five million living in the US. Immigration to Israel is declining; the fertility rate among the Jewish population is 0.5 percent, far below the population replacement value, while the Palestinian fertility rate is nearly three percent. Israeli politicians regard this as a bomb ready to explode. Israeli concerns have prompted rising calls to declare Israel an exclusively Jewish state where only Jews are eligible for citizenship. The rest — that is, the Palestinians who have lived on that land since the time of the Canaanites — are regarded as a nuisance to be evicted when circumstances are favorable.

Again, the eviction of Jews from Arab lands seems to have passed under the radar.

Israel's main problem, however, is that unlike the American Indians or indigenous populations in other colonized lands, the Palestinians refuse to disappear or melt away. Despite the brutal occupation, genocide, mass detentions, numberless checkpoints, the economic blockade, daily humiliation and starvation, and the powerful support afforded to Israel by the US administration, Palestinians refuse to be amassed together in a reservation under the title of a Palestinian state. Palestinian elders keep the keys to their original houses, the deeds to their property, and teach their children about the horrors they had to endure at the hands of those they once embraced as neighbors in the historic land of Palestine.

Sixty years after its "independence", Israel has lost its moral compass. Aggression, occupation and expansion have become its most vaunted practices. Hence it has no sense of security. It seeks regional recognition and cooperation but enforces a system of apartheid against the Palestinians.

This from the controlled press of our ally in the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia.

It forces a stop at Yad Vashim on the schedule of every visiting dignitary but kills Palestinian men, women and children, bulldozes their houses and orchards, confiscates their land, pumps out their water, arrests and detains thousands of them indefinitely, violates every human dignity under the sun, and denies the nation it subsumed its legitimate rights. Israel is not planning on any just and lasting settlement with the Palestinians. Like its master, the US, it only believes in the force of arms — the ability to subjugate by destruction. That is what the Nazis did to the Jews and other minorities in Europe; and that is what the Jews of Israel are doing to the Palestinians. What Israel and the Western alliance call "acts of terrorism" by fundamentalists are the same acts they cheered as heroic by the resistance to Nazi occupation in Europe.

Almost treating them like dhimmis, huh?

Saudi Arabia has zero credibility.

When the White Star Line launched the Titanic ocean liner on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York in February 1912, it was widely promoted as a passenger ship "designed to be unsinkable". It was equipped with the most sophisticated available technology and the best crew of the time.

While en route to New York the Titanic hit an iceberg on Feb. 14 and sank to the bottom of the Atlantic, to the shock of the world and the maritime industry. How long can Israel afford to behave as the unsinkable ship of the Middle East?

Actually, Israel is only the tip of an iceberg of infidels; the real Titanic in the world today is Wahhabism and related versions of militant extremist Islam.

The Islamic States of America?

From Half a Billion “Americans”? by Srdja Trifkovic, August 31, 2007 (minor typos have been edited out of the text):

The latest report from the Center for Immigration Studies on how immigration may impact the future size of America’s population has been released. Their findings are based on the Census Bureau projections, and show that if immigration continues at current levels, the U.S. population will increase from 301 million today to 468 million in 2060—a 167 million (or 56 percent) increase. New immigrants and their descendants will account for 105 million (or 63 percent) of that increase.

The report says that, at the moment, approximately 1.6 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the United States each year and 350,000 leave, resulting in net immigration of 1.25 million. The total projected growth of 167 million would exceed the current total population of Central America (41 million), the Caribbean (37 million) and Egypt (79 million). The 105 million from immigration by itself is equal to the present population of Mexico.

The immigration statistics that Dr. Trifkovic cite here factor in illegal immigration, and, to be accurate, they should.

Even those staggering figures are based on the assumption that immigration levels will remain static. Net immigration has been increasing for the past half-century, however, and there are no signs that the trend is changing. If it continues, the increase caused by immigration may well be higher than the projected 105 million—taking us easily to an America of half a billion people five decades from now.

Notice also that Dr. Trifkovic here calls attention to the change in the rate at which immigrants are arriving; that rate has been accelerating, but the Census Bureau projections apparently are not factoring that in?

On the other hand, if the annual level of net immigration was reduced to 300,000—which can be done if the political will is present—future immigration would add 25 million people to the population by 2060. That would be some 80 million fewer than the current level would add.

Enforcing existing immigration laws would have quite an impact.

But, as Dr. Trifkovic so astutely points out, there is the question of political will.

If El Presidente Jorge "My Way or the Highway" Arbusto doesn't have the will to enforce them, do you think President Hillary would?

By the way... why won't Washington enforce the laws and seal our borders?

One of the most interesting findings of the report is that immigration does not have an impact on the overall aging of this country’s population—which is a key argument used by the proponents of open-door policy. In reality,

At the current level of net immigration (1.25 million a year), 61 percent of the nation’s population will be of working age (15 to 66) in 2060, compared to 60 percent if net immigration were reduced to 300,000 a year. If net immigration was doubled to 2.5 million a year it would raise the working-age share of the population by one additional percentage point, to 62 percent, by 2060. But that level of immigration would create a U.S. population of 573 million, double its size in the 2000 Census.

Yes, that is interesting.

Why is it significant?

Some countries have found themselves in an entitlement crisis. They have promised government subsidies and pensions to people, especially retirees, even as birthrates have gone down. Consequently, they have created a problem -- not enough people in the work force to pay for the pensions of the retirees, plus the subsidies for those of working age who don't work.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Their solution is to open up the doors of the nation, and import immigrants.

But, some of these immigrants get generous government aid, and have no need to work.

Absent the need to work, if the culture of these immigrants does not instill in them a desire to work, then they become an added drain on those who do work.

If, in addition to that, they do not integrate into the host society, but rather adopt a hostile, even predatory, attitude towards their new home, then you really have a problem.

If, on top of that, the host culture is too "politically correct" to say anything about the developing problem, you have a recipe for disaster.

Does any of this sound familiar?

The report does not tackle the national security aspect of the problem. The number of Muslim immigrants in the united States is growing more than twice as fast as the already rampant total. Growth of overall immigration since 1970 has been 300 percent, but growth of immigration from the Middle East over the same period has been 700 percent—from under 200,000 in 1970 to 1.5 million in 2000. In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent U.S. residents—almost 100,000—than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted legally in 2005, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Why is it that specifically Muslim immigration is addressed in the context of national security?

On current form, in 2010 the expected number of immigrants from the Middle East alone will exceed 2,500,000. Lavishly financed by Saudi and other Middle Eastern oil money, an intricate jihadist infrastructure has come into being to cater to this large and growing community. The number of mosques and Islamic centers stands at around two thousand and keeps growing. The total number of mosques increased 42 percent between 1990 and 2000, compared with a 12 percent average increase for the evangelical Protestant denominations, and a two percent average increase among old-line Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox groups.

There's Saudzilla! Establishing an infrastructure for its version of the Religion of Peace....

Notice how Saudi Arabia will not even allow so much as a Bible in the Kingdom.

How's about some reciprocity, Your Majesty?

That would fly in the face of the obvious goal: Arab Imperialism superimposed on Islamic Imperialism. Saudi Arabia is doing a high-finance version of what the Arabs did so many centuries ago when they swept out of the depths of the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of Allah: Arab Colonialism.

The figures for immigration from the Middle East are already matched, and are likely to be exceeded, by the number of Muslim immigrants from the Indian Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh). Currently Muslims account for one-tenth of all naturalizations, and their birth rates exceed those of any other significant immigrant group.

In order to be effective, these Muslim immigrants have to be Saudified and Wahhabized. This is why, in the global plan, Saudi Arabia funds mosques not just in the West, but in South Asia and elsewhere, as well.

Far from enhancing America’s “diversity,” the coming deluge threatens to impose a numbing Third-World sameness, to eradicate the remnants of this country’s identity, and to demolish what survives of her special character. On current form, not only will English-speaking Americans of European origin become a minority in their own country half a century from now, but they will share an increasingly overpopulated, polluted, lumpenproleterized, culturally unrecognizable country with tens of millions of actual or potential jihadists and their accomplices, aiders and abettors.

The concern here does not seem to be those immigrants who come here and work, and who integrate into, or at least are friendly to, American society... in short the concern does not seem to be those immigrants who appreciate their share of the Land of Opportunity.

The concern is those who come here essentially to take over and take (unfair) advantage.

Whether this colossally criminal idiocy can be stopped, and how, is open to doubt. The cultural-Marxist ruling class sees self-annihilation of peoples with a historical memory and a cultural identity as the key to its revolutionary project. The founders of the United States rebelled against King George for sins far lighter than those of which our rulers are culpable.

"colossally criminal idiocy" -- heh.

King George....

The problem is the new King George, and the previous King Bill.

How's about Queen Hillary?


The Islamic States of America? -- It will never happen here.

You can bet on that.

Bush's Kosovo Policy

Chronicles Magazine is an interesting site. One of the reasons I like it so much is because it features the work of Dr. Srdja Trifkovic. Dr. Trifkovic is of Serbian heritage, and is very well-educated and articulate. He has a particularly good handle on Eastern European affairs, though I find that his articles are well worth reading, regardless of what topic he writes about; he does his research, and develops his points logically, using clear and appropriate analogies.

Dr. Trifkovic has a fairly recent article entitled The President’s Painted Corner. Please go to the link and read it; as always, Dr. Trifkovic's article is most excellent.

In his article, Dr. Trifkovic addresses the policy of the current Bush Administration to promote the independence of Kosovo.

My readers my not be familiar with the background and significance of Kosovo, and it is beyond the scope of this article to address that in depth. Briefly, however, Kosovo is now a mainly ethnic Albanian/Muslim area in Serbia. In that respect, it is somewhat akin to certain regions of the United States, in that the United States is predominantly an English-speaking, Protestant country, which has regions with significant Spanish-speaking, Catholic minorities. However, generally speaking, those two groups in the United States get along reasonably well; this has certainly not been the case between the 1) Slavic and Orthodox Christian Serbs and the 2) ethnic Albanian and Muslim people in Kosovo.

In the fourteenth century, Kosovo was the scene of a big battle between the Serbs and invading Muslim armies. In that respect, a comparison with the Alamo, scene of a battle between Texans seeking independence from Mexico and the Mexican Army under Santa Anna, is somewhat useful.

It should be emphatically noted, however, that such comparisons only serve up to a point; again, relations between the "anglos" and the "latinos" in America are not bad, relations between the United States of America and the United Mexican States are generally good, and, in any case, any historical animosities are neither as deep nor as old as they are in the Balkans.

For a little more background on Kosovo, you may wish to begin with the Wikipedia article.

I have reproduced here some excerpts of Dr. Trifkovic's article, along with my comments:

It is not prudent for the United States to insist that Kosovo should and will become independent—as President George W. Bush did in Tirana last June, followed by similar sermons from Dr. Rice and her aides on an almost daily basis—even as it is obvious that Russia will veto any attempt to achieve that goal through the U.N. Security Council, and even as the European Union is increasingly reluctant to participate in any scheme to bypass the United Nations. Statements by U.S. officials that Kosovo’s independence is “inevitable” are a classic case of irresponsible policymakers painting themselves into a corner on a peripheral issue, and then claiming that the issue had morphed into a test of American resolve.

Never mind that it is not prudent -- which, as we will see, it is actually quite foolish -- but why would we want to?

Keep that question in mind as you consider this topic: Why does the Bush Administration insist that Kosovo become independent?

A mature, self-confident and globally hegemonistic “hyperpower” would never allow Kosovo to become such a test for three reasons.

Quite apart from its historic, cultural, moral, and legal aspects, the issue of who controls the southern Serbian province is perfectly irrelevant to American interests. It is a small, land-locked piece of real estate, of dubious “objective” value, away from all major Balkan transit corridors, and not nearly as rich in natural resources as both Serbs and Albanians like to imagine. If Kosovo were to disappear tomorrow, no ordinary American would be able to tell the difference.

Okay, no reason there to insist on Kosovo's independence from Serbia....

The change of Kosovo’s status against the will of Belgrade, in addition to being a clear violation of international law, would set a precedent potentially detrimental to U.S. interests. To enable an ethnic minority to secede from an internationally recognized state on the grounds of that minority’s numerical preponderance in a given locale would open a Pandora’s box of claims all over the world, not least among Russian speakers in the Crimea, parts of Estonia and Latvia, northern Kazakhstan, and eastern Ukraine. It could also affect the future of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and perhaps even California, when Mexicans achieve a simple majority in those states. (The question is indeed “when,” not “if.”) State Department officials Nicholas Burns and Daniel Fried still insist that no precedent would be set by creating an independent Kosovo, but they cannot control reality, and their assurances are nonsensical.

There Dr. Trifkovic outlines some serious counterincentives.

If a group of people can simply move in to an area, and continue arriving until members of that group become a majority in that area, and then have an internationally-recognizable claim to independence from the country to which they immigrated, that would really cause some problems.

Sweden would become "balkanized", places in France would no longer belong to France, and, as Dr. Trifkovic alludes to, the United States might quickly no longer be united.

The Muslim world will not be appeased by Kosovo today any more than it was appeased by Bosnia a decade ago. America will not earn any brownie points among the world’s “Jihadists of all color and hue” (to borrow a phrase from Rep. Tom Lantos) for creating a new Muslim state in the heart of Europe. Albanian “gratitude” would prove as valuable to America today as it has, over the years, to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. On the other hand, the failure to create an independent, internationally recognized Kosovo would be yet another sign that Emperor Bush has no clothes and that America has no sureness of touch. Furthermore, favoring the imposition of a “solution” from the outside against the will of one of the parties could set a dangerous long-term precedent for Israel.

Danger to Israel by imposing a solution from the outside....

But, what's this about no "brownie points" for America among the world's jihadists?

Well, those guys are so mean, they hate themselves -- literally.

But, what about certain other elements in the Islamic world?

Is there anyone in the Islamic world to whom Bush hopes to endear himself? Anyone whose policies he seems to further? Anyone that he is exceptionally close to, both in business dealings and on a personal level?

Our policy is not sensible. It panders to the aspirations of a small and primitive, yet shrewdly opportunistic, polity with territorial pretensions against all of her neighbors. President George W. Bush declared in Tirana last June that America is committed to Kosovo’s independence, and he was greeted almost as enthusiastically as Benito Mussolini, Nikita Khrushchev, and Chou En-Lai had been greeted by the Albanians over the decades. As Nicholas Stavrou noted in the National Herald, Mr. Bush reflects the Albanians’ talent for choosing patrons who fulfill three criteria: They must be big enough, far enough, and willing to offend the interests of Albania’s neighbors:

President Bush’s venture into the Balkan tinderbox is nothing short of a blatant provocation aimed at two nations that stood side by side with the United States in two wars, Serbia and Greece. It is part and parcel of a neo-conservative agenda, formulated by the same gang that produced the Iraq war . . . and threatens to engulf the Middle East into a regional conflagration. The ultimate goal, of course, is the conversion of Russia into a first class enemy. The new Cold War warriors view the Balkans as a “logical extension of the Middle East” that ought to be part of a new arrangement that would facilitate integration of Islamic and non-Islamic cultures. Russia, in their view, cannot be trusted with any role in their nefarious schemes to “modernize” Islam and redefine the Middle East as a “region that starts in the Persian Gulf and ends in Sarajevo.”

Serbia and Greece, two nations that have historically been on the front lines against violent Islamic expansion, the kind Osama bin Laden advocates....

And President Bush, who made the comment:

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

is siding with Kosovo, whose links to Islamic mafia and Islamic terrorists are well-known.

Our policy is perfectly sensible. We just need to (forgive me for using this over-used buzz-phrase) "connect the dots."

It is plainly irrational to insist on Kosovo’s independence, with all the risks such a policy entails, while the United States faces so much other “unfinished business” around the globe. The list is well known and depressing. Iraq is a disaster, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Afghanistan is a lesser calamity only when compared with Iraq. Any solution to the challenge presented by Iran will depend on Washington’s ability to have Russia on its side as a partner, which is impossible if Moscow’s concerns over Kosovo are treated as illegitimate. Russia is also an essential partner in helping control Kim Jong Il and devising a sustainable long-term energy policy for the Western world.

Insisting on Kosovo's independence is only irrational if you are concerned about US national security -- or the national security of Serbia, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, etc.

In short, Kosovo is an asymmetric issue. Mr. Bush cares about it only as it relates to U.S. “credibility.” The second greatest blunder of his presidency may result from his willingness to accept the assurances of inherited Clintonite bureaucrats of Mr. Burns’ ilk, who have insisted that the Serbs will cave in and that the Russians will budge.

If push comes to shove, Mr. Bush will face Moscow all alone. There is a great deal of dissent in Europe, from Madrid to Athens to Bucharest and Bratislava, but not even those Europeans who are nominally pro-independence—notably, the Germans—would sacrifice a single day’s supply of natural gas over Albanian claims. By contrast, this is, for Serbia, an existential issue and, for Russia, a litmus test of her ability to be a great power once again.

The most important reason the United States should not support Kosovo’s independence is and always has been cultural and civilizational; but trying to explain that to the chief executive who is fanatically supportive of a blanket amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens in the United States is as futile as trying to reform Islam.

George W. Bush has painted himself into a tight corner in the Balkans, and he will get a bloody nose if he does not relent. That is bad news for the church-burning Albanian Muslims of Kosovo, and bad news for their heroin-financed lobby in Washington, but it is very good news for America and the civilized world.

Saudi Arabia has been pouring a great deal of resources into Islamic communities in the Balkans.

The Saudis have been financing mosque construction and renovation, they have been training mullahs and sending them to the Balkans....

The Saudis sent mujahideen to the Balkans in the 1990's; although their holy warriors were of little use on the battlefield, they had a great impact committing atrocities against the infidels, and increasing the level of brutality in that war, provoking Serb reactions. Saudi "freedom fighters" (terrorists) even managed to irritate the Croats, who were Muslim allies against the Serbs -- so much so, that on at least one occasion the Croats were pulling troops off the lines facing the Serbs, and putting them on the lines facing the mujahideen!

The Saudis have a vested interest in Kosovo becoming independent from Serbia. They also have a vested interest in seeing that precedent set, so other lands that have growing Muslim minorities can some day have their Muslim enclaves demand independence from the nations to which the places where they live now belong.

That would mean the dismemberment of Sweden, Norway, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Holland, Denmark, Spain, Canada and the United States, to name a few Western nations.

Russia (Chechnya!), China (Ningxia, Gansu, Xinjiang!!), India (Kashmir!!!) and other countries would not be immune, either.

And Bush is furthering this goal -- although whether deliberately or through incompetence remains to be legally established.

Allahu Akbar, Mr. President!

SAUDZILLA HUMBLES SUPERPOWER

In an article that appeared at FrontPageMag.com today, entitled Jihad U, the spread of radical Wahhabi Islam throughout the USA is addressed.

From the East Coast through the American Heartland to the West Coast, a rapidly growing and extremely popular Islamic studies program is bringing Wahhabi extremism and Muslim Brotherhood activism into mosques and Muslim student groups throughout North America. The Al-Maghrib Institute features motivational-style speakers, aggressive marketing, savvy use of the Internet and slick multi-media presentations as part of their for-college-credit courses leading to an Islamic Studies degree offered at mosques in at least thirteen cities: [9 in the US, and 4 in Canada]

...

The organization’s Wahhabi-influenced extremism, rabid anti-Semitism and Holocaust denials, and militaristic preaching of jihad even have other Muslims expressing concern about the radicalizing effect of Al-Maghrib’s preaching and programs.

Wahhabist activity in the United States, openly supported by officials of the Saudi government who blatantly abuse their diplomatic status, is not new. The Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences (IIAS) in Fairfax, VA,

was operated by Saudi diplomats as a branch of the Saudi Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University until it came under pressure from the US government when the diplomatic visas of 16 school’s instructors were withdrawn by the US, according to a report in the Washington Post; after the Saudis withdrew their support in 2004, the Institute was closed and searched by the US government for its links to terrorism.

Our government closed a school. How many are still open -- just within a short drive from the Capitol?

Saudi-backed incitement to terror and the resulting carnage -- Islamic Terror -- is tolerated in a way that no other terrorism is. In another article from FrontPageMag.com from 2002 entitled Defeating Wahabbism, the comparison is made:

In the U.S., when certain Christians advocate terrorism against abortion clinics, nobody views such discourse as protected religious speech. It is seen as extremist incitement and dealt with as such.

In Northern Ireland, when Protestant fanatics label Catholics non-Christian - exactly as the so-called "independent" Muslims in Uzbekistan label the adherents of traditional Islam [Note: more to follow about Uzbekistan. Y.D.]- the result is that Protestants throw bricks at Catholic schoolchildren. Such preaching is not seen, especially in the United Kingdom, as protected religious speech. It is treated as terrorist incitement.

Even in Israel, advocacy of the physical liquidation of Arabs and Muslims by Jewish ultra-radicals is treated as terrorist incitement as punished by the state.

But, Saudi-backed Wahhabist terror is different. It is special. It is the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the floor in the "lobby" that nobody in Washington wants to deal with, or even see.

What, to summarize, is the goal of the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance? To destroy the traditional Islam present from Bosnia-Hercegovina to South Africa, and from Morocco to the Philippines, and to replace it with their extremist, ultra-rigid, and Puritanical version of Islam.

In other words, their goal is ideological enslavement of any place that has ever been Muslim.

They do this through indoctrination, infiltration, and financial subsidies. Wahhabi-Saudi penetration of local Islamic communities may begin with the construction of Saudi-funded mosques, with Saudi-trained imams assigned to them. A reportage in Newsweek states that "at least 250 out of some 1,200 [recognized mosques] nationwide" - that is, in the U.S. - function under direct control of the North American Islamic Trust, a Wahhabi-Saudi body. Further reflecting Wahhabi-Saudi ideological influence over American Islam, Newsweek points out a really extraordinary fact: "An April 2001 survey by the Council on American-Islamic Relations found that 69 percent of Muslims in America say it is 'absolutely fundamental' or 'very important' to have Salafi teachings at their mosques." "Salafi" is a cover term for Wahhabi - comparable to "socialist" for Soviet-controlled Communists.

Translated, that means they're buying their way in to America with petrodollars -- quite successfully. They train their operatives in schools in Medina and elsewhere in their little "kingdom", then send them here to subvert us in the name of religious freedom.

"Wahhabization" may also begin with the distribution of literature - more properly designated as Wahhabi hate propaganda. I recently helped produce a report on the distribution of Wahhabi hate literature on the soil of the U.S., by institutions controlled by the Saudi government, online at www.defenddemocracy.org.

[Note: www.defenddemocracy.org is linked on the sidebar as Foundation for Defense of Democracies.]


("Oh, but we're just teaching about Islam. Why are you looking at us like that, you racist islamophobe pig? What, you're Christain? Then you're a racist islamophobe ape. The Jews are the racist islamophobe pigs. No matter; once we take over, we'll just kill you all, and let Allah sort it out.")

Wahhabism is as different from "ordinary" anti-Israeli ideology, or even from most of so-called "militant" Islam, as Nazism was from the mentality of the German military in the first world war, as different as Stalinist Communism was from the radical socialism of a generation before. It is a nihilistic, violent, Islamofascist movement that seeks not only to impose conformity on the world's Muslims, and to completely wipe out Shi'a Islam, but also to attack the world's Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other worshippers.

It also seeks to attack all the world's non-worshippers. It seeks to make the world a Wahhabi-Muslims-Only Club.

The extensions of the Wahhabi conspiracy - centered in such organizations as the Muslim World League and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth, both headquartered in Saudi Arabia - are visible throughout the world, wherever Muslims are found, including on U.S. soil.

AND OUR ELECTED LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON HAS NO BALLS TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE IT!

(Please pardon my outburst.)

The failure of Western political and intellectual leaders to adequately understand the internal crisis in Islam, and the conflict between tradition and extremism, led to obliviousness in the face of the terror revealed on September 11th. At this point, certain measures have become imperative. One of them is for the U.S. to demand a full, transparent accounting of Saudi involvement in September 11th from the Saudi authorities. Another is to demand that the Saudi government, like the Soviet government and various right-wing dictatorships before it, entirely cut off its subsidies to the extremist Wahhabi ideological establishment. Third and most important, is to protect, support, and otherwise encourage Muslims opposed to Wahhabism to develop their own community institutions and to produce a new, articulate network of authoritative advocates who can bring the truth about traditional Islam to the Western public. The last is the mission of the Islam and Democracy program created by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

How's about closing the schools in Medina where this ideology is taught?

How's about holding the little kingdom's royal family accountable?

How's about regime change in Saudi Arabia?

...


Since nobody in Washington seems to want to deal with this, one can only assume they see things a little differently.

Instead of a sorry little desert kingdom with no military capability to speak of, perhaps they see something more sinister...

Perhaps they see something more ominous...

Perhaps they see something more threatening to their political careers...

Perhaps when they gaze into the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula, they see...

SAUDZILLA!