Here is what Daniel Pipes has said about it:  http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/724

I think we have a 910 exclusive. (Somebody had to do it; as the press that was in attendance has apparently completely boycotted airing anything about it.)
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Willyatyouutube

Transcripts being created now; updates to follow in comments.

The one big question I wake up with and go to sleep with each day is: How deeply into the psyche of America is this Marxist hegemony wedged? And is there a deeper level yet not touched by its vileness? For America’s sake, and the world’s, I hope so. I know that there are many in the Western World who do not fall for the false hopes of a Godless solution to the world’s ills. Will that be enough? I hope that the values engendered by 2000 years of Judeo-Christian values, which produced Europe and America, and instilled in our societies will be sufficient to recognize and to answer the call to throw off the false secular ideology of cultural Marxism.

I don’t believe there is a secular solution, but rather a spiritual solution is necessary. Spiritual solutions always begin with oneself. And the problem there is that we have rejected most of the spiritual archetypes of our ancestors. I see this as failure of pedegogy and of the clergy the world over. So we are left with raw emotion, raw courage to enter the arena, and hopefully, an innate living memory instilled by God. And yet we are doing it - we are living our lives, trying to follow the good. We have had the freedom to live and possibly to grow spiritually - because of our forefathers’ stand for liberty. What we are fighting for now is our children’s and their children’s freedom to do the same. But we must understand that in order to grow spiritually, we need to wake up and look within ourselves in honest appraisal. We are a society too focused on our own goals. We need to open up the boundaries of our own limited goals to include the world’s needs, as well.

What was once a solid, Republican base has now become tarnished by its own greed and ambition. Since there is no viable third party whose values reflect a moderate, conservative platform, we are kind of stuck with the Republicans for the foreseeable future. And there are yet good, strong voices on the right. I pray that the agenda of the cronys leave some room at the table for clear-minded leaders to come to the fore.

Someone told me this story once:

Once a woman had a little three-year old boy, to whom she was utterly devoted. Often she would take him down to the ocean to play in the sand, and in the little tide-pools. Then it happened one day, out of nowhere, a rogue wave crashed onto the shore where they were sitting. When the wave receded, her little boy was gone. Distraught, she rushed about, shouting “help, help” - but no help came. Devastated, she dropped to her knees, and sobbed, “Oh, God, please, please give me back my little boy, whom I love more than life itself!”

For a few moments nothing happened - then suddenly another wave crashed in depositing her son at her feet. She wept for joy, sweeping up her son in her arms, hugging him and kissing his face over and over. Then she carefully looked him over and, seeing he was unhurt, looked up again and said in a loud voice, “He had a hat”.

And as I have been writing of disorders of the psyche, here is one explanation of what we are up against…we find an effective counter to this and Islam and all their dreams of domination will evaporate like a summer shower.

From Town Hall

Monday,Dec 4, 2006

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. - a forensic psychiatrist - explains the madness of liberalism in his new book, The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.

The following is an excerpt from his book:

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area.

The following is a translation by a feature article from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and is crossposted here and on Gates of Vienna as well as on The New Zonka Blog, I have used the Baron’s corrected and improved version of my translation here.

Naïvists and Human Nature

Kai Sørlander, Author and Philosopher

When democracy let the optimists succeed in classifying the pessimists as xenophobes and Islamophobes, it embarked upon a catastrophic course. And the media who have aided to maintain the illusion bear a particular part of the blame, says the writer.

Political discussions often take place on two levels: a substantial level where the parties have differing opinions about some concrete issue, and a secondary level, where the aim is to get your political opponent classified in a way that implies that you yourself are right on the substantial level.

If you can affix your own labels on your opponent, then you can make it impossible for him to voice his substantial arguments. It is a tactical game which is part of the democratic game.

This game can thus also be found in the political disagreement about the last thirty to forty years of immigration policy.

This was a case in which anyone should have known in advance that there would be serious consequences for Danish society, and thus it should have been discussed openly and in all of its aspects. All parties should have had the opportunity to be as clear as possible in presenting their opinions of how many immigrants from relatively distant cultures they thought that Danish society could manage to integrate. And then they should have been required to argue their position, why they believed that their answer was the right one. But at the same time they should also have recognized that there would be a major uncertainty about the answer. Nobody could be sure that his own answer would be superior in the long run.

The optimists should thus also have recognized that there could be a certain amount of rationality in the pessimism, however that recognition was held back. The optimists avoided entering into a serious debate with the pessimists.

Instead they made being a pessimist equivalent to being xenophobic. Those who didn’t share the optimists’ belief in how many immigrants it was possible to integrate into society were classified as xenophobes.

In this the optimists were the ones who ruined the debate, and were greatly helped along the way by the media. Instead of entering an equal debate with the pessimists, they rendered them morally unworthy.

The same rhetorical game also marks a more particular aspect of the political discussion about the conditions for immigration. As an consequence of the fact that many of the immigrants that came into the country in that period were Muslims, it was rational to consider the issue of Islam and democracy. Then one began by recognising that democracy as a rational political order requires a realisation that the laws are made by humans and have to be approved through a parliamentary decision.

Thus one has to recognize that a democratic order more easily integrates a religion that itself recognizes that the laws of society have to be made by humans, than a religion that wants to decide itself how the laws should be. And isn’t that the main difference between Christianity and Islam? Isn’t that exactly the explanation why democracy has been able to develop within Christianity but not within Islam?

Who knows what is right? Under all circumstances we are talking about real problems, which for the sake of democracy there was every reason to seriously discuss in connection with Muslim immigration. But was it done?

No, here also the optimists, who couldn’t see any problem, skipped over the pessimists. Instead of an equal debate, the pessimists were labelled Islamophobes. They suffered from a phobia; they were sick; there was no reason to debate with them.

In this way the optimists succeeded for a long time in creating a climate that made it impossible to take seriously the problems that resulted from liberal immigration policy. Because even to take them seriously was labelled as an expression of xenophobia and Islamophobia.

The consequence then was that nothing was done, and the problems were allowed to grow. Therefore they have also become harder to ignore. And thus it is not quite as easy for the optimists to block serious debate about immigration policy by calling their pessimistic opponents xenophobes and Islamophobes.

On the contrary, the pessimists can now begin to win in the media for their interpretation of the consequences of the immigration policy. And what are the pessimists doing? They naturally uses the same rhetorical trick as the optimists.

They label the opponent in such a way that it is implied that they are mistaken. This can be seen in the title of Karen Jespersen’s and Ralf Pittelkow’s recently published book Islamists and Naïvists. Here the optimists are labelled as naïve, gullible, simple-minded, or even foolishly kind.

Thus the scenario is in place.

In the center is the question itself about the consequences of the liberal immigration policy, surrounded by the two parties, which look with their differing seriousness on these consequences, and which are characterizing each other as xenophobes and naïve. Who is right in this conflict? Are the optimists right that the pessimists are xenophobic? Or are the pessimists right that the optimists are naïve?

A complete answer to that question can naturally only be given once history has taken its turn, and we can’t wait that long when we have to make a political decision. But the answer also requires that we have our concepts in place, and that is something that we don’t need to wait for.

We can get our concepts in place immediately. And on the face of it there is one thing that sticks out: the obvious asymmetry between the way that optimists and pessimists are labelling each other. Where the optimists make the pessimists xenophobic and thus evil, the pessimists only makes the optimists naïve. The demonizing is one-way.

What is the cause of this asymmetry in the parties’ judgment of each other?

The answer must be found the different views of human nature. When the optimists doesn’t see any serious problem arising from the immigration of people from alien cultures, it is because they assume that man by nature is good, and that it is culture that makes people narrow-minded and self centered. In that light multiculturalism is positive, because it sets everybody free from their primary culture and gives them the possibility to live out their natural goodness towards one another. Thus the deconstruction of the prevalent culture is a beneficial project, and those who resist it are evil. They are demonized as xenophobic.

When the pessimists looks quite differently at the consequences of the immigration of people from alien cultures, it is because they have another view of the nature of man. To them man by nature isn’t good, he is combative, and has the potential for both good and evil. And cultural education is necessary to give man the means to interact in such ways that he can suppress his combativeness and live in peace with those in his society.

It is this difference between the optimists and the pessimists in their views of the nature of man that results in the demonization of the pessimists and not the other way around.

For the optimists the pessimists appear dangerous, because they do not believe enough in the goodness of man. For the pessimists the optimists appear dangerous because they believe too much in the goodness of man. And when the optimists then make the act of believing in the goodness of man a requirement for being good, there follows the demonization of the pessimists.

But who is right? Which view on the nature of man is the right one? If we ask soberly, then there is no reason to believe the optimists. Then all experience and logic says that reality is with the pessimists, and since it is dangerous to build your policy on an illusion, it is imperative that the truth be heard in the political debate.

When democracy let the optimists succeed in labelling the pessimists as xenophobes and Islamophobes, it took a catastrophic course. And the media, particularly the taxpayer-subsidised media who have participated in maintaining this illusion, have a particular part of the blame. If democracy is to get back on track, then rational pessimism has to be at the helm again.

That point of view sees the naïveté behind the optimism. And here Jespersen’s and Pittelkow’s book is an essential contribution.

When so many have shared the optimists’ belief that man by nature is good, it is because one saw a connection between oneself being good and believing in the natural goodness of man.

Anyone who didn’t believe in the natural goodness of man had to be evil. And that connection is simply not going to hold.

As an individual, one doesn’t become good by believing in the natural goodness of man, but by being good and helpful, although one realizes that one also has many impulses in the opposite direction.

Whew! It’s been four ‘very fast’ months since we went from a twinkle in the blogosphere’s eye to today. I want to share with you a glimpse of our newsletter, our latest way to keep in touch with 910 Group members.

If you would like to join us ‘to get active’! — come to www.910group.com/forum and register. (To avoid delay, since we manually approve everyone; similar to a strip search at the airports, include a few notes in the registration pages about your background, interests, and what you can offer in practical terms to this MOVEMENT. If you include a blog or website url, and your country/location, we can more efficiently get you into one of our intrepid pioneer outfits — and you can keep your shoes on.)

CONTACT US WITH ACTION ALERTS AND UPDATES FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION:

In the forum, post your suggestions for the newsletter here: http://forum.910group.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=61

Progress Report

ACTION ALERT #1: Sign the Pledge Urging Support for the war in Iraq

ACTION ALERT #2: Write to Protest the Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia Conference

ACTION ALERT #3: Looking for Videos on “Clash of Civilizations” Debate

ACTION ALERT #4: Oppose Legislation that will Stop Profiling of Criminals and Terrorists

UPDATE #1: Meeting with Rep. Virgil Goode (R. VA) on Islamist terror compounds

UPDATE #2: Three Ex-Terrorists Speaking Tour

UPDATE #3: SIAD and Free Speech: updated email address to support them.

910 Weekly Roundup

The 910 Group began in late September 2006 as a response to a simple but powerful question posted on a blog: ‘What can we do?’. We all recognized the threat, were in agreement about core issues, and wanted to DO something. An initial group who frequented The Gates of Vienna blog recognized that some others, especially from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance, were in agreement – we were ready for action. We quickly made a decision that we could – we must – do something!

Since then, here is what we have done in four very short, very active months:

1. You responded with emails, letters and published letters to the editor (Roanoke Times) to defend Rep. Virgil Goode’s protest against Rep. Keith Ellison’s swearing in on a Koran.
2. Our blogger members put additional pressure on Rep. Ellison to intercede on behalf of women treated unjustly under Islamic laws of sharia.
3. Your support for Nazanin, the Iranian girl unjustly accused of murder, helped prevent her execution. Your continual pressure will result in her release from jail.
4. You have made your views known on Section 20 of U.S. Bill S 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. The bill may penalize grassroots lobbying efforts, especially of small citizen’s groups like the 910 Group.
5. Many of you wrote to support Denmark’s SIAD organization’s right to assemble against radical Islamists, after their own government did not protect them from attacks.
6. Several members are starting to track U.S. state legislature initiatives, starting with bills limiting the right to do terrorist or criminal profiling.
7. Many members wrote to support the right of free speech for Canadian Pastor Donald McKay and ex-terrorist Zachariah Anani, to present their lectures on Islam.
8. Several members plan to attend the Washington, D.C. rally on Saturday, January 27, 2007, in support of victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Global War on Terror, and a counter-gathering along the route of an ‘antiwar’ march later that day.

1. THE 910 YAHOO GROUP & 910 GROUP FORUM:
   The 910 Forum is our private discussion board where ideas are discussed and refined into focused, effective projects. This forum superseded our initial six weeks of vibrant discussion which occurred on the yahoogroups elist (which is being deactivated). We have nearly 1,000 members now, roughly 700 are registered at the 910 Group Forum, over 200 have contributed to identifying priorities, and several dozens are regularly engaged in productive discussion.
2. THE 910 GROUP PROJECTS PORTAL:
   Starting in late December, members began turning ideas into focused projects on the 910 Portal. This secure, private collaborative workspace has several teams developing research projects and reports. (To work on a project, first join in and participate on the 910 Group forum, and then contact staff or directors to express your interest in a specific project.)
3. THE 910 GROUP’s PUBLIC PRESENCE:
   The 910 blog has been revamped and is becoming more active each day. Please visit and contribute to the growing wealth of commentary tailored for the blogosphere. Our major interface with the mainstream public will be the Vigilant Freedom website. (The Center for Vigilant Freedom is the name of our newly formed non-profit organization.) This content-rich website will provide the public and our coalition partners with information and support. We plan to have our initial presence unveiled in early February.
4. INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE, GROUP PARTNERS, and ADVISORS:
   We recognize that our strength is in our members and our relationships with group partners. Neither the 910 Group, nor the Center for Vigilant Freedom, is designed to duplicate or reinvent any wheels! We want to identify, prioritize, and leverage the entrepreneurial spirit in our individuals and the productivity already demonstrated in the many groups with projects underway. We are increasing relationships with other group leaders to form a cadre of experts so we may serve as a network of the networks. We will be establishing a formal Board of Advisors soon, to ensure the experience and maturity already developed by so many is capitalized upon.

SO – to sum up this first 1/3 of a year – we wish to recognize the intrepid pioneers who have all asked, “What can I do?” and said, “I want to do more”. The goal of the existing staff is to help you do just that. This is where we have real success. We ARE a movement of the willing, and we are cooperating – by using our variety of experience and perspectives, we are strengthening our resolve and moving forward. Four months ago none of us was focused as one vital group to prioritize and leverage the needed action. But now we are.

It’s up to you, to each of us, working together to make the difference we want to see in the world. We cannot afford to wait for mainstream media to inform public opinion, we cannot waste time complaining about the government, and we shouldn’t expect someone else to tell us what to do or how to make our lives and our world better. We are creating this as we go, and each of us must take responsibility for stopping jihad. That’s the real progress of 910: individuals willing to step up and take responsibility to protect the way of life we love, to fight for our freedoms, and make the differences needed for the future.

For those who may have become frustrated with us due to our ‘unformed newness’ and necessary questioning or apparent confusion, please consider returning to active participation. We are an all-volunteer organization, and it is only our combined, cooperative energy that will ensure success. And, as ever, deepest appreciation to all who are so selflessly providing time and talent and funding to further this vision of success.

Our results are only just beginning to show. Just imagine — where will we be a year from now? Even in another two months? We must envision the future, and work diligently, boldly, to ensure that freedom prevails.

The currently proposed resolutions in the US Senate, by Senators Biden and Warner, are barely-masked attempts to ensure failure in Iraq. Is that acceptable? Hugh Hewitt doesn’t think so. In a powerful piece he lays out the case against anti-war proposals. Please follow his lead by signing a pledge that states the issue clearly. Over 12,000 have already signed. See Hugh Hewitt’s full posting here:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/f2010221-89c7-4c6b-a351-5c48d2ba61fc

Here for the pledge to sign: http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia, a Sunni group with terrorist ties — that openly advocates overthrowing the Democratic Australian Government and replacing it with an Islamic caliphate — is hosting a ‘Khilafah Conference Program’ on the 28th of January. Details here:

http://www.risala.org/khilafah-conference//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=29

Australian members and supporters from around the world can protest the conference by contacting IMMEDIATELY The Hon. Morris Iemma, BEc, LLB MP, member of the Legislative Assembly for Lakemba, and Minister for Citizenship.

Contact Mr. Iemma, Member for Lakemba

Address 48 Thurlow Street,

RIVERWOOD NSW 2210

Phone (02) 9584 1788 Fax (02) 9584 1945

Email lakemba@parliament.nsw.gov.au

http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/E55B7298155D99934A25674500016574

Also — post to the 910 Group Forum what you have written, and then add a follow up with any reply you receive. Our goal is to not only encourage action, but to follow up with what responses the governmental representatives provide.

Saturday January 20. Renowned historian, author, and Islamic expert Daniel Pipes debated the current Mayor of London Ken Livingstone about the “Clash of Civilizations”. Although around 150 representatives of the media attended, there has been little to no media coverage. Fortunately, a 910 member was in attendance and we have some video that we will make available. If you see any media coverage, videos or transcripts available, contact our PR Coordinator, dkshideler in the 910 Forum.

Here is an update from Pipes’ blog: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/724

“… One organizer on the mayor’s staff told me that the audience numbered about five thousand and that over 150 media had registered for the conference. Despite the many journalists and video cameras, and despite the GLA having recorded and simultaneously transcribed the event, and despite two and a half days having passed since it took place, there has been – quite to my surprise – not a single media account of the debate, nor a video made available, nor a transcript.”

A few bloggers who attended the debate offered their perspectives:

http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2007/01/daniel_pipes_su.html

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2007/01/livingstones_fo.html

http://sharonchadha.blogspot.com/2007/01/clash-of-civilizations.html

Also: WRITE to the media outlets, especially the TV channels and newspapers in the UK – and ask them why this event was considered so ‘un-newsworthy’, when it had 150 media representatives, 5,000 attendees, and was hosted by the Mayor of London! What do they base their decision upon? With any contacts, please post it to the 910 Group Forum so we can document their responses and force them into more accountability.

New York State Anti-Profiling Bill

In our January 19 Newsletter, we asked US members to check if their State legislatures are considering bills to limit criminal and terrorist profiling. We need to track these bills, so check your state legislatures at Project Vote Smart: http://votesmart.org/mystate_government_resources.php

Mitchell Langbert, one of our 910 Group advisors ( http://www.democracy-project.com ), found that the New York State Assembly will be considering a new anti-profiling bill soon. New York residents are encouraged to contact their representatives regarding this issue as soon as possible.

Bill A00627 Summary: Prohibits police officers from using racial and ethnic profiling; requires that a procedure be established for the taking and review of complaints against police officers for racial and ethnic profiling; allows an action for injunctive relief and/or damages to be brought against a law enforcement agency, any agent of a law enforcement agency and the supervisor of an agent.

Come to the forum, and let us know what you have written and what reply you receive.

The 910 Group members sent many emails and letters supporting Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) when he opposed the use of a Koran for Rep. Keith Ellison’s swearing in. On January 23, members of the 910 Group, along with one of our coalition partners, Christian Action Network, met with Representative Goode to discuss new findings of Jamaat ul Fuqra compounds in Virginia and elsewhere in the U.S. Jamaat ul Fuqra is a terrorist organization founded by a notorious Pakistani cleric, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, although the Clinton administration removed its designation as a terrorist organization in 2000. More on the meeting and JUF at Gates of Vienna:

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/01/visit-with-virgil-goode.html

In the January 20 newsletter, we asked you to lend your support to ex-terrorist Zachariah Anani, who was silenced by CAIR-CAN from speaking at a small church in Windsor, Ontario. On January 30, members near Dearborn, Michigan can go to hear him speak, along with two other former terrorists:

Three Ex-Terrorists Speaking Tour

Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani and Kamal Saleem are 3 former terrorists who now promote freedom and tolerance using their personal experiences to lend credibility to the message. Next week, they will be in the heart of radical Islam in America, Dearborn Michigan.

Date: January 30th Time: 7pm

Location: University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Rackham Auditorium

Full details here: http://www.3xterrorists.com/

Anani received death threats warning him against speaking at the university.

If you can attend, or want to create a 910 car pool(!) – post in the forum and let’s see if we can organize a 910 crew!

Our Danish counterpart organization is still fighting for their right to free speech. SIAD appreciates our support, noting that international cooperation is crucial. The address to contact them directly is here: post@siad.dk

Check The 910 Group blog for details and to let us know of your support: http://910group.com/blog/2007/01/20/update-on-siad/

There’s a bit more in the newsletter — but you have to get in the door to read it.

Welcome to the future; and making it happen!

Robert Spencer of JihadWatch on Hot Air, January 25, 2007

If you haven’t watched Robert Spencer on the Undercover Mosques Dispatches from the UK Channel 4, and the muslim reaction to the airing of that programme then proceed immediately to Hot Air and get your fill, there is naturally also a discussion over at JihadWatch about the issue that is worth reading.

And I would like to add JihadWatch.org to Vicktorya’s slapping list

I’ve written previously about the organization called Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, also known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Established in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, its goal is to return Islam to its roots in the Koran and the Hadith, purify Muslim practices, and re-establish Islamic governance under the Caliphate.The Muslim Brotherhood was (and is) a Sunni organization, but that doesn’t stop it from working with other branches of Islam that share a common goal of defeating the infidel and overthrowing secular governments.And now, according to The Politics of CP, there seems to be a link between the Ikhwan and the Sufi terrorist Sheikh Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, founder of the Muslims of America and Jamaat ul-Fuqra. CP, as the premier online investigator of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, has discovered the apparent connections:

A Visit With Virgil Goode

by Baron Bodissey

Yesterday afternoon the 910 Group, the Christian Action Network, and Gates of Vienna joined forces to pay a visit to the Hon. Virgil H. Goode, Jr., in his office on Capitol Hill.

Gary Olds and Martin Mawyer (at right, with Congressman Goode) represented CAN, Christine from the 910 Group was there to listen and answer questions, and I was there as a constituent, to represent Gates of Vienna, to take photos, and to sit in on the conversation.

As most of you already know, Congressman Goode wrote a letter to a constituent last month about newly-elected Rep. Keith Ellison and the Koran. When the letter was made public he found himself in hot water with CAIR, the media, and other members of the Islamophobia Grievance League.

In an effort to clear up any misapprehensions he might have about Islam, Rep. Goode has been visited by Muslims from various organizations. But that’s not his only source of information on the topic — as a member of Congress, he has access to classified information about the Islamist groups that are operating secretly within the United States.

“I tell you, there are some dangerous people right here in the United States — real terrorists,” he said. “The American people need to be aware of it.”

Read the whole thing on Gates of Vienna, and then, if ye be daring, the www.910group.com/forum may be available to you, so you can get down to work.

Because I do think Little Green Footballs should be an honorary member of the illustrious 910 Group Blogroll, (available to forum members only!)  I must ensure that anyone on the planet (aka Earth; the one that is getting hotter by the minute) who doesn’t check LGF regularly should be … sent to sit in the corner with a dhimmi hat.

or, worse yet, a dhimmicrat.  There’s 10 slaps I can vote for. Here’, I’ll just provide some snips. No reason to gild the lily

… our Iran-friendly wire services aren’t reporting it, but today Ahmadinejad also said Israel and the US will soon die.

Israel and the United States will soon be destroyed, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday during a meeting with Syria’s foreign minister, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) website said in a report.

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives,” the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

UPDATE at 1/23/07 5:01:42 pm:

The MEMRI Blog reports a disturbing statement from an Iranian “Expediency Council” official:

The Iranian news agency Mehr reported that in light of the increasing U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf, and the continuing Iranian nuclear crisis, Iranian Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezai has said that “the Iranian nation will strike 10 slaps to the face of America, in such a way that it will no longer be able to get up on the stage.”

This is reposted, from The Gates of Vienna (The 910 Group’s progenitor). This post is now also on several blogs. I repeat it here because I cannot see how we make our way forward. I know we are becoming aware, those of us who read this; but to what extent does our knowledge permeate to the rest of public opinion. And is public opinion that which is required to turn this tide? I do not give up, will not, but I do not see the way forward. Yet.

The Week Britain Died
by Paul Weston

When future historians look back at what was Great Britain, they would do well to note the events of January 15th-22nd 2007.

In a quite extraordinary week, the people of Britain were given several clear indications of where there country was going, yet these indications were resolutely ignored by the media, the people and the government.

The TV Company, Channel Four, was at the forefront of the news, but for all the wrong reasons. In one programme they bought the nations attention to the sheer bigotry, intolerance and racialism of one section of our community, which was subsequently endlessly debated by the media and deemed worthy of such importance that even Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were sucked into the national breast beating.

This programme was “Big Brother” which for those mercifully unaware is a reality TV show charting the ignorance, pathology and hysteria of social degenerates locked together in a house for the viewing delectation of British people of ALL social backgrounds. Last weeks programmes focussed on the unpleasantness with which an English girl and her friends treated an educated Indian actress. By mimicking her accent and calling her “that Indian” so a continental political rift ensued between Britain and India, smoothed over by the intervention of the aforementioned Blair and Brown. By the end of the week this unedifying spectacle attracted over 9 million viewers.

In another Channel Four programme, “Undercover Mosques” an intrepid journalist with a hidden camera put his life quite literally on the line and bought us news from various Mosques around the country. This news, essentially, was that homosexuals should be killed, paedophilia condoned, women as second-class citizens beaten — as should girls who do not wear the hijab, and lastly, Islam must take over the UK and run it under Sharia law whilst waging Jihad against the infidels.

To rub salt into the wound it transpired that some organisations calling for all the above have been singled out and praised by Tony Blair and the British police as role models for their inter-faith and multicultural activities. Perhaps this is why our politicised police, so keen to prosecute the BNP’s Nick Griffen for accusing Islam of being wicked, have done NOTHING in the face of Islamic calls for murder and conquest.

The viewing figures for this highly important programme were between 1 to 1.5 million people. Given the pre-release advertising and the importance that UK Muslims would put on such a programme it is probable that the vast majority of viewers were not of the race and faith singled out for extinction, but the Muslims themselves. Indigenous Brits may have numbered in the low thousands.

For the first time in this Country the mainstream population was given information previously only available to the tiny minority of people with sufficient interest and intelligence to seek it out via “right-wing” websites or books conspicuous by their absence in Waterstones.

I have always thought that if the general population knew what I knew, then the political scene would change. I was sadly mistaken, and not just about the population at large. What should have triggered outrage was ignored by all, including the so-called highbrow newspapers. The Guardian refused to even mention it, whilst the rest of the British media were interested in one thing and one thing only, Big Brother.

“Undercover Mosques” is perhaps the most important programme to have been made in the UK since the invention of the television. It is not the time to detail the transcript here, but it was chilling, terrifying stuff. That the British, in their entirety, ignored it in favour of the appalling and degrading Big Brother, possibly the worst programme ever made is cause for concern, yet could the pathologically suicidal British fall any lower? Well yes, they could.

There were two other stories in the papers this week, both related to the European Union.

The first was that the British Parliament would nod through a watered down version of the EU constitution without, as previously stated, a referendum.

The second was that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, was intending to re-introduce said constitution despite the previous no vote from the Dutch and French. It would appear obvious that the EU Socialist Super State will be inflicted upon us undemocratically. Should we care about this or is Big Brother still uppermost on the warped, adolescent minds at the BBC? Both stories, of course, went unmentioned by the TV media.

Angela Merkel was an East-German Communist. Whilst at the Karl Marx University in Leipzig she was Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda in the Community youth wing. She will find this in keeping with the unelected EU Commissioners where ex Communists make up seven of their twenty seven members, including it’s current President, José Manuel Durão Barroso, once one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party).

Vladimr Bukovsky is on record as stating that Communism never died and is now being inflicted incrementally on the West via the European Union. Do the British know anyting of Bukovsky, or indeed of Communism? No, they do not, the BBC et al refuse to talk to him, after all, as an imprisoned and tortured dissident what does he REALLY know about Communism in comparison to the utopian, idealistic British liberal elites who run our government, media, civil service, police and educational institutions.

Do the British in fact know anything, absolutely anything of any significance at all anymore or is the limit of their thought process set at the bar of Big Brother? We also learned this week that a pass mark of 18% is all that is necessary to gain a C grade exam pass. 50% of our schoolchildren leave school without attaining this in English and Maths, yet 100% of them know everything about TV “celebrities” who can barely speak their native language.

And so we ignore the ideology of one movement who state they wish to eradicate us and another which killed close to 100 million people, whilst we embrace the ideology of celebrity, ignorance and pathology.

From my viewpoint, and I say this with great sadness, we deserve all that we get, which barring a revolution will be one of the following.

• An Islamic State.
• A Totalitarian Socialist State within the European Union.
• A Failed State — after the economic collapse of the EU — caused by bureaucracy, an illiterate and inumerate workforce and unopposable competion from the East.
• Revolution — in the event that the British revolt before these scenarios unfold there will be carnage and civil war, possibly even European war. This is the least probable. We sit slack-jawed and glassy-eyed on our draylon sofas, worshipping at the Altar of television, dressed in polypropolene casual wear, remote in one hand, chips in the other. We have all the Soma we need to insulate ourselves from reality.

So, this week we have been shown our choices and we have chosen the path that 50 years of progressive education, Communist subversion, mass immigration and media brainwashing has pre-chosen for us. Much as we may wish to continue shopping on credit cards, watching reality TV shows and imbibing drugs and alchohol, I am am afraid it is no longer up to us.

This was the week that Britain died from infantilism, liberalism, ignorance and decadence, manifesting themselves in our utter indifference to our survival. We deserve to go, just as future Arnold Toynbees will relate.

I’ll also add this to the week’s litany of milestones ignored.

Some members of The 910 Group attended this well-publicised debate of Daniel Pipes and London Mayor Ken Livingstone. I understand that about 150 members of the media also attended; it received zero (?) coverage in the mainstream media.

We will have material from it available on the forum soon.

My Debate with London Mayor Ken Livingstone,
by Daniel Pipes
It all began with a faxed letter from Ken Livingstone, mayor of London, arriving out of the blue on April 4, 2006:

I will be hosting a conference to discuss the thesis of the “clash of civilizations” first popularized by Professor Samuel Huntington’s book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. I would like to invite you to debate this thesis with me at the opening session of the conference, which will be held 10am-1pm on Saturday, 10 June 2006.

The conference was twice delayed, before finally taking place two days ago, on January 20, 2007.

It was quite an event, held in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, across the street from Westminster Abbey. The mayor told me in a private chat before the event that when he conceived of the event two years ago, he wondered if anyone would show up. He need not have worried; the Greater London Authority’s website indicated there had been “an unprecedented demand” for tickets and several days in advance of the event shut the ticketing. One organizer on the mayor’s staff told me that the audience numbered about five thousand and that over 150 media had registered for the conference.

The mayor and I each invited a seconder to help us make our arguments: he chose Salma Yaqoob, a councillor in Birmingham, and I chose Douglas Murray, the London writer.

Due to the large crowd, the event started a half hour late but even truncated, it still went for slightly over two hours.

Despite the many journalists and video cameras, and despite the GLA having recorded and simultaneously transcribed the event, and despite two and a half days having passed since it took place, there has been – quite to my surprise – not a single media account of the debate, nor a video made available, nor a transcript. (This reminds me in a way of my University of California-Berkeley talk three years ago, which created quite a stir but had zero media coverage.)

There have, however, been a number of blog accounts – interestingly, every one of them sympathetic to Murray and myself; it would seem that the mayor’s supporters took a pass on reporting the event. In alphabetical order by author, here are the fullest and most interesting accounts that I have located (the list will be updated as needed):

• Sharon Chadha, “Clash of Civilizations?” SharonChadha.com, 21 January 2007.
• Gandalf, “Clash of Civilizations.” UpPompeii.com, 21 January 2007.
• Ami, “A Very Civilised Clash.” Harry’s Place, 22 January 2007.
• Jonathan Hoffman, “Daniel Pipes survives Livingstone’s Lions’ Den.” Adloyada.com, 21 January 2007.
• أمان الله حسام, “باستضافة عمدة لندن: نقاش ساخن حول “صراع الحضارة والهمجية“.” [”Heated Debate About ‘Civilization and Barbarism’”] BBC Arabic, 22 January 2007.
• Adrian Morgan, “Is UK Biggest Terror Threat to US?” FamilySecurityMatters.org, 25 January 2007.
• David Pryce-Jones, “Debating Clash.” National Review Online, 20 January 2007.
• Beila Rabinowitz and William A. Mayer, “Dr. Daniel Pipes and Douglas Murray Triumph over ‘Red’ Ken Livingstone in London Debate.” PipeLineNews.org, 22 January 2007.
• Beila Rabinowitz, “Dr. Daniel Pipes’ Defense of Liberal Democracy Elevates London Debate with Ken Livingstone.” PipeLineNews.org, 24 January 2007.
• Stephen Schwartz, “Arguing the World: Red Ken Livingston tries to reconcile Socialism and Islamism.” The Weekly Standard Online, 25 January 2007.

…

Shall we add this event to the list of what has been ignored? Will the historians of the present please look now? Are there any?

Hat tip Larwyn,
from LGF:

While Charles isn’t hopeful that this service can be used ‘for good’ — I imagine we may be able to find some information that could be productively leaked, aye? Why not? Problem is, as usual, information overload. With a million documents waiting to find a venue, I doubt the immediate ability to tailor the leaks to only ‘moonbat-worthy’ would be overwhelming, and if that is the underlying policy, then we need to know.

what they say is this, in their FAQ:

Instead of a couple of academic specialists, Wikileaks will provide a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and falsifiability. They will be able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context. And so on.

I’d suggest we use it. One 910 Group Leak Service, coming up.

Here’s the website: http://wikileaks.org/index.html

“Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, …”

Check out their FAQ on the website.

What is Wikileaks’ present stage of development?

Wikileaks has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands required before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators.

…

Who is behind Wikileaks?

Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

Our advisory board, which is still forming, includes representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.

Sounds like it’s right up our alley. What’s not to like?
Vicktorya

__________________________________

This is what Charles wrote on LGF:

“A new web site promises to help moonbats subvert Western civilization without suffering personal inconvenience: Website offers whistleblowers chance to go global.Any wiki-savvy whistleblowing volunteers want to help expose the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Didn’t think so.”

From Jyllands-Posten today:

Political group files Charges against police and minister
By Kristoffer Pinholt
Minister of Justice Lene Espersen (Cons.) and Chief police Inspector Per Larsen and Police Director Hanne Bech have been reported to the police

Friday the party Stop Islamification of Denmark (SIAD) filed charges against Lene Espersen and Copenhagen Police, personified by chief police inspector Per Larsen and police director Hanne Bech. The step was taken because SIAD is furious that the police according to the party have not put enough resources in on solving a violent attack on several members of the party, and because Copenhagen Police have disallowed a demonstration by the party on Blågårdsgade on Nørrebro.

Watch and listen to this.

UPDATED 19 January 007 –

the following links were to youtube; the documentary has been pulled from youtube, and other sources.

… [ links removed ]
UPDATED: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24026_Busted_Islamic_Leader_Reacts&only

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5621979422472502457

So can we get these to the local news channels? It would be appropriate ‘equal time’ to CAIR disinformation. Or, local council planning commissions may appreciate the review. Perhaps they could have a new zoning ordinance for ‘treason zone’.

I imagine the movement has creative ideas for getting the videos around to those who need to see it.

godspeed!
VSK

PS: News just in, Iran has banned YouTube

_________________________________

Follow up posted by JMJ2 at the forum:
(you must be registered and approved to view this link:
http://forum.910group.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1208

All the 910 volunteers should be all over this NOW!!

Like Vic said we should all be sending these You Tube URLs to our local news organizations NOW!!

We can also use them for the long term benefits as well but the news cycle is short and we should be an instrument to get this thing out there so all the pundits on the talk shows are talking about this.

this may never come along again!

They will be searching and x-raying any strange faces that want to enter their mosques.

They will become very cautious after this.

Now is the time to act!!!!

Email and call your local stations now.

Of course, Little Green Footballs is all over it.

and on top of it: http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2007/01/dispatches-undercover-at-mosque-this.html

by the way, ‘thanks’ — to whoever got in and got this for us, and got it out.
good job.

The idea that wearing one is going to save your sorry …

thanks again Larwyn.

We may need a subgroup formed for Kucinich Watch.

(UFO’s included no extra charge.)

VSK

Dan Riehl ’s Here They Come in forms us that Hewitt’s favorite interviewee, Dennis Kucinich is also behind pushing a bill for a new Fairness Doctrine,

Kucinich said in his speech that “We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda” and added “we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.” link

Yes, we have no progressivism in media, we have no progressivism in media today-ay-ay! Is castrati Kucinich in touch with reality, or hearing little voices from not wearing headphones while having listened to Ted Kennedy bellow so long?

Ace answered that question yesterday in V2K, Baby: Tinfoil Hat Brigades (Literally!) Form Support Groups