Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live for at least one hour every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Friday, February 29: Our guest at the bottome of the first half hour of the show is John Bootie. John Bootie is a candidate for President of the United States. You can read brief synopses of his positions on various issues HERE.

At the top of the second hour and of more interest to regular readers here at this web site, Dave Gaubatz and David Yerulshalmi of Mapping Shari’a In America will discuss their stunning investigative findings, recently published in World Net Daily.

If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

UPCOMING SHOWS
March 7: Janet Levy and GM Roper
March 14: Walid Shoebat and Mark Alexander
March 21: Elisabeth of Austria
March 28: Robert Spencer

According to the Washington Times, the Dutch MP, Geert Wilders has finished his 15 minute movie of the Qur’an. Mr. Wilders said the film will be finished tomorrow (30.02.08) and will be posted on a Web site, http://www.fitnathemovie.com/, when it airs on television.

Wilders:“The film will show that the Koran isn’t a dead work, but the face of Islam — a tremendous hazard,”

Steven Suleyman Schwartz, director of the Washington-based Center for Islamic Pluralism and a western convert to Islam has this to say about the movie: it was “strange” and “ahistorical” to think that a 1,400-year-old text could become a threat to the West.

Mr.Schwartz will have a very difficult time, if not an impossible one, trying to prove that such an Islamic history ever existed. Professor Efraim Karsh from King’s College, University of London, has thoroughly documented Islam’s threat to the West over the centuries, in his scholarly work “Islamic Imperialism A History“. Here is an excellent interview of Karsh concerning his book.

Another scholar worth mentioning is Dr.Andrew Bostom, whose extensively documented book “The Legacy of Jihad“, cronicales the centrality of the Qur’an and the Jihad ideology throughout the history of Islamic hegemony.

Schwartz continues:“My advice to Muslims is to ignore such trivial provocations, maintain their dignity and faith and work to improve their communities,” Mr. Schwartz said. “Mr. Wilders has a right to make whatever films he wants and Muslims have a right to ignore them.”

Schwart’s suggestion by the way,  is something that the CVF hopes the entire Islamic world would endorse. But most importantly, at the minimum there are at least some 91 million radical jihadists out there, who would be willing to tear Mr.Schwartz from limb to limb for even suggesting such a radical idea.

Perhaps the Geert Wilders‘ film will be provocative, but what is even more provocative than a film about Islam, is the inconvenient truth that many verses within the Qur’an, promotes and espouses violence against the unbeliever and apostates, as well as demanding the head of those who dare to criticize many of its totalitarian precepts. Now that’s what I call provocative. More here.

From Bruce Bawer (author of While Europe Slept, get it at Amazon if you don’t own it yet, a must-read) about the censorship of the vital Human Rights Service in Norway(H/T DhimmiWatch):

February 21, 2008 (2:13 P.M., CET): It is reported today that Imbera, a Norwegian firm that hosts the website of Human Rights Service, removed three items from that site without notice because two of them were illustrated with Kurt Westergaard’s famous Muhammed cartoon from Jyllands-Posten and one was illustrated with a Muhammed drawing by Lars Vilks. Imbera claimed to be acting in accordance with the EU directive on electronic commerce, and law professor Jon Bing says that Imbera had not only a right but a legal obligation to do what it did. But Nils Øy of the Association of Norwegian Editors disagrees, while Per Edgar Kokkvold, head of the Norwegian Press Association, calls Imbera’s action “unacceptable,” noting that if Internet hosting services can do this to HRS they can do it to newspapers, too.

The good news is that HRS has already received an offer from Linpro AS, which hosts Jyllands-Posten, to take over its site for three years free of charge. (”Freedom of speech is important to us,” writes Linpro head Per Andreas Buer.) The bad news is that Imbera’s action is just one more sign of the ongoing erosion of free expression in Europe. As HRS observes today on its site, Norwegians are now living in a “threat culture….The government, bishops, and others don’t see that they have capitulated to this threat culture, but prefer to define it as a dialogue. But where the threats begin, the dialogue stops.”

Go to the HRS website - as you’ll see, it appears that the 3 motoon illustrations are back up, so maybe they’ve already migrated to the Linpro AS server. Linpro deserves a big thumbs up for doing the right thing.

If you’re hosting your website in Europe, know the threat doctrine that the European Union will employ to remove your site - thanks to Bawer for bringing this to everyone’s attention again.

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/02/kosovos_stark_warning.asp

Kosovo’s US-backed declaration of independence is deeply troubling. By setting a precedent of legitimizing the secession of disaffected minorities, it weakens the long-term viability of multi-ethnic states. In so doing, it destabilizes the already stressed state-based international system.

States as diverse as Canada, Morocco, Spain, Georgia, Russia and China currently suffer problems with politicized minorities. They are deeply concerned by the Kosovo precedent. Even the US has latent sovereignty issues with its increasingly politicized Hispanic minority along its border with Mexico. It may one day experience a domestic backlash from its support for Kosovar independence from Serbia.

Setting aside the global implications, it is hard to see how Kosovo constitutes a viable state. Its 40 percent unemployment is a function of the absence of proper economic and governing infrastructures.

In November, a European Commission report detailed the Kosovo Liberation Army’s failure to build functioning governing apparatuses. The report noted that “due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread… Civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism.” Moreover, “Kosovo’s public administration remains weak and inefficient.”

The report continued, “The composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality,” and “little progress can be reported in the area of organized crime and combating of trafficking in human beings.”

Additionally, the prosecution of Albanian war criminals is “hampered by the unwillingness of the local population to testify” against them. This is in part due to the fact that “there is still no specific legislation on witness protection in place.”

The fledgling failed-state of Kosovo is a great boon for the global jihad. It is true that Kosovar Muslims by and large do not subscribe to radical Islam. But it is also true that they have allowed their territory to be used as bases for al-Qaida operations; that members of the ruling Kosovo Liberation Army have direct links to al-Qaida; and that the Islamic world as a whole perceived Kosovo’s fight for independence from Serbia as a jihad for Islamic domination of the disputed province.

According to a 2002 Wall Street Journal report, al-Qaida began operating actively in Kosovo, and in the rest of the Balkans, in 1992. Osama bin Laden visited Albania in 1996 and 1997. He received a Bosnian passport from the Bosnian Embassy in Austria in 1993. Acting on bin Laden’s orders, in 1994 his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri set up training bases throughout the Balkans including one in Mitrovica, Kosovo. The Taliban and al-Qaida set up drug trafficking operations in Kosovo to finance their operations in Afghanistan and beyond.

In 2006, John Gizzi reported in Human Events that the German intelligence service BND had confirmed that the 2005 terrorist bombings in Britain and the 2004 bombings in Spain were organized in Kosovo.

Read the entire article here.

From Judith Apter Klinghoffer

NO VISA TO “CONNECTED IRANIANS”

Here we go again. Another IAEA reports bemoans Iran’s failure to answer all El Baradei’s questions or more precisely, to curtail it’s nuclear development. Experts have concluded that Iran will have the bomb within a year. The next to worse option, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities seems more and more likely with every passing day. Why? Because the one step which could seriously pressure the regime is NOT taken. Indeed, if I hear one more time that the US, unlike Europe, is doing everything it can to pressure Iran, I am going to scream. It is simply NOT TRUE. We did not stop providing the Iranians with the most important escape hatch which prevents that counry from overheating - we did not clamp down on visas to young Iranians. We did not even clamp down on visas to Iranians directly tied to the regime. How about not issuing visas to anyone connected with the Revolutionary guards? How about not issuing visas to the family members of the conservative parties? You get my drift. To understand the reason I am so focused on the visa issue, one only needs to read the Middle East Reports article entitled Escaping Iran; the New Brain Drain:

TEHRAN - Over the last three decades, Iranian society has suffered a continuing brain drain. Now it is facing a new crisis affecting its young people, which might best be described as the “escape from Iran”. The results of a poll published last month showed that at least eight out of ten young Iranians are interested in leaving to live in a developed country. The widespread participation of young Iranians in the American Green Card lottery and the countless applications for immigration to countries like Canada, Australia and even the United Arab Emirates serve to underline this astonishing figure. The strong motivation to leave Iran is clearly apparent when you talk to young people. They see emigration as the only way to escape economic and other difficulties. It’s not that they are fascinated by life in the West, or that they have some ideal city in mind that they’d like to live in. The desire to leave is instead a reaction to difficult circumstances. Today’s young Iranians enjoy very few opportunities to realise their ambitions. Hardly any of them believe they will be able to pursue what they’re interested in if they stay in their own country. It isn’t just the widespread unemployment, the difficulty of getting married, the high property prices or anything else. It’s that they feel the doors are closed to them. The urge to get out of this impasse can be seen in the recent popularity of pyramid schemes. In the three years that companies running this kind of scheme have existed in Iran, around three million young Iranians have been drawn to just one of them, called Gold Quest. All of them hoped to earn huge amounts by taking part.

The notion that America has been closed to those who support the regime and to their family members may just provide the Iranian elite with the incentive it needs to act against Ahmadinejad and his fellow conservatives. During the Cold War the United States did not issue visas to any former member of the Communist party. Sometimes innocents got caught in the trap. My Hebrew University diplomatic history professor, Dr. Bella Wago, was one of them. He was no Communist but to teach at Bucharest University he was forced to be a party member. But he understood the American policy despite it’s effect on him. In other words, it may not be a feel good solution but it is much superior to both bombs, war or a nuclear Iran. C’mon, Time is running out!

Now here is a leftist politician that gets it. Villy Søvndal, leader of the Socialist People’s Party tells it like it is, responding to a demonstration held by the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark last Friday, the socialist leader stated on his blog that:

“the group was to ’seek other pastures’ and that their ‘undertakings had no perspective, nor future, in Denmark’.”

Now if only other European socialists and politicians across the political spectrum, were to get on board and confront the Islamists with the same line of reasoning, we would see a dramatic shift away from the moronic political correctness that currently blankets the political atmosphere in Europe. Søvndal also adds:

“‘If they want to live in a religious dictatorship so badly, they can go to those countries in the Middle East where such dictatorships exist.”

Right again, and how refreshing! About a proposed banning of the group:

‘Instead of turning them into martyrs with a ban, they must be put in the spotlight. It would expose their completely ridiculous views”

Instead of practicing selfcensorship and fawning gross tolerance towards the intolerant, we should be actively engaging these religious fascists in open, public debate. The more we dare to draw the public’s attention to the lunacy of Islamism, and unfettered immigration for people who come from a part of the world that traditionally resists modern thinking and modern living,…the better.

Villy Søvndal then levels his disgust at Birthe Rønn Hornbech, Denmark’s integration minister, for meeting with Kassem Ahmad, [spokesperson for the Islamic Society in Denmark] behind closed doors. Ahmad had participated in the march, being seen walking alongside Fadi Abdullatif, leader of the Hizb ut-Tahrir in Denmark:

‘It is strange that religious representatives should be given preferential treatment in a secular democracy. If the minister wanted to speak with ethnic minorities, she could have spoken with members of city council who were democratically elected.’

This shows that some Leftists actually do understand what’s at stake, and that Islamism has no place within the democracies of Europe. Only when the Left becomes more engaged with the dangers Islamism poses for western societies, can any headway be made. This is all very good news. Once again Denmark shows the rest of Europe the mess it has gotten itself into, and most importantly…the way out. More here.

What a great combination, Islam and mafia-style criminal gangs, does any of this sound familiar? And then Israel wonders why the Europeans are so keen on bringing into being a Palestinian state that embodies all the same qualities. Well, the Europeans and the US have now shown their hand in wanting to do the same in the soft under belly of Europe! I’m sure that they won’t be satisfied until Kosovo is made a EU member to boot! KEGS

Kosovo Declares Independence

by Baron Bodissey

Today Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia, and was recognized by the United States and various European countries as a sovereign nation.

In 1999 the United States waged an air war against Serbia to drive Serbian forces out of Kosovo and allow the UN to take charge of the province. At the time some people insisted that Bill Clinton was using the opportunity presented by Kosovo to distract attention from his impeachment. However, he may just been making nice with the Saudis and doing a favor for the Europeans, who were alarmed by the bad press coming out of Serbia.

In any case, the Clinton administration started us down the path that led to today’s events. The Bush administration gladly took over the Kosovo project and pursued it vigorously. After 9-11 it was especially important to demonstrate that we weren’t anti-Islam, that we were willing to allow Christians to be ethnically cleansed and killed in order to benefit Muslims.

We’ve got nothing against you, Islam, and Kosovo proves it. So now do you love us? Well, do you?

An independent Kosovo is one of the most grotesquely wrong-headed policies ever pursued by the United States, ranking up there with Jimmy Carter’s love-feast with the Sandinistas in 1979.

It’s not just that Kosovo is Islamic. The province is a sinkhole of corruption, crime, and religious fanaticism all rolled together, and will be unable to function as a viable independent country for the foreseeable future. It’s the Gaza Strip of the Balkans.

In the nine years since the UN took over, Wahhabists funded by the Saudis have penetrated the area thoroughly, building mosques, recruiting violent radicals, and forming a “government” that is a deadly combination of Islam and mafia-style criminal gangs. The Kosovars have set themselves up as the kings of the European heroin trade, and an independent Kosovo will provide an unprecedented opportunity to compromise the new state’s banking system and make the government indistinguishable from a criminal enterprise.

An independent Kosovo in this form serves interests of noWestern country. Drugs, gun-running, the prostitution of pre-teen girls, money-laundering, protection rackets, intimidation, and deadly turf wars, with all the proceeds going towards the funding of jihad and the further penetration of radical Islam into Europe.

Thank you, President Bush, for this present to southeastern Europe. It’s a gift that will keep on giving for decades to come.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
The Serbs have vowed to resist the establishment of an independent Kosovo. They responded to today’s events by recalling their ambassador to the United States. According to the AP:

Serbia has recalled its ambassador to the United States in response to the Bush administration’s recognition of Kosovo’s independence, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said Monday.

“This decision by the United States will not turn the false state (of Kosovo) into a real one,” Kostunica told parliament. “The government has ordered the immediate withdrawal of the ambassador from Washington.”

The United States and key European countries recognized Kosovo as independent a day after the province’s ethnic Albanian leaders declared independence from Serbia.

Giddy Kosovars danced in the streets when they heard of the endorsements.

- - - - - - - - -

Kosovo’s leaders sent letters to 192 countries seeking formal recognition and Britain, France, Germany and U.S. were among the countries that backed the request. But other European Union nations were opposed, including Spain which has battled a violent Basque separatist movement for decades.

“The Kosovars are now independent,” President Bush said during a trip to Africa. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush “has responded affirmatively” to Kosovo’s request to establish diplomatic relations.

“The establishment of these relations will reaffirm the special ties of friendship that have linked together the people of the United States and Kosovo,” Rice’s statement said.

As word of the recognition spread, ethnic Albanians poured into the streets of the capital Pristina to cheer and dance.

The European Union was unable to settle on a unified policy towards the new country - they ended up agreeing to disagree:

EU nations stood deeply divided over whether to recognize Kosovo as their foreign ministers met in Brussels, Belgium, to try to forge a common stance. At the end of the meeting, the ministers adopted a statement clearing the way for some member nations to endorse independence.

Kosovo’s declaration was “a great success for Europe, a great success for the Kosovars and certainly not a defeat for the Serbs,” French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said in Brussels.

Spain, however, said the independence bid was illegal under international law.

And what will Serbia and Russia do?

Serbia’s government has ruled out a military response as part of a secret “action plan” drafted earlier this week, but warned that it would downgrade relations with any foreign government that recognizes Kosovo’s independence.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that independence without U.N. approval would set a dangerous precedent for “frozen conflicts” across the former Soviet Union, where separatists in Chechnya and Georgia are agitating for independence.

The further south and east you go in Europe, the more resistance there is to Kosovar independence. After much argument, Italy has decided to recognize Kosovo:

Italy will recognize the independence of Kosovo, Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D’Alema said here on Monday The caretaker diplomatic chief added that the former Serb province would be recognised as a ‘‘sovereign state under international supervision”.

But opinion within Italy was far from unanimous. According to AGI:

‘Italy should not recognise Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence and should not belong to the first group of countries to recognise the new state,’ said in a statement the minister for social solidarity Paolo Ferrero.

‘The decision made in Pristina, outside the UN framework, will further destabilise the Balkans. A region where the populations have been suffering for more than fifteen years from the effects of the war. The problem concerning the question of Kosovo is not side with someone against someone else, but to have at heart the reasons of peace and togetherness between the peoples.’

All the feel-good brouhaha in the media obscures the fact that Europe, and the EU itself, are deeply divided on the subject of Kosovo. After all the handshakes and photo-ops and bromides by President Bush the real trouble will begin.

According to ANSAmed:

United on the need to maintain stability and the European future for the western Balkans, including Serbia, but divided over recognising the independence of Kosovo.

It will be a difficult meeting, the one that the EU foreign ministers will have today in Brussels. Only a few hours after the declaration of independence by parliament in Pristina, they have to decide what to do after sending a civilian mission of 2,000 policemen and magistrates to Kosovo in order to assist its transition.

“Various EU member states are ready to recognise Kosovo,” Slovenian Foreign Minister and rotating president of the EU, Dimitrij Rupel, said specifying that the recognition is an individual act of each member state. And the EU does not want to be divided over a prerogative that it cannot even exercise. Therefore the EU presidency is working on a joint declaration that will only “take notice” of Pristina’s proclamation and will leave each member state free to act as they want.

Currently there are six states that have said that they will not recognise the new state: Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Spain. Madrid, which has already expressed its doubts, dismissed today all expectations to revise its position. “Spain will not recognise the unilateral proclamation of independence by the parliament of Pristina because it violates the international law,” Spanish minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said.

According to Madrid, the proclamation of Kosovo’s independence is an illegal act as it is made without an agreement between the two parties and outside of a UN mandate. “We do not know what the consequences of this act could be,” Moratinos added.

And what about the Kosovars? After we (meaning the UN) have done so much for them, they’re properly grateful, aren’t they? Now that we’ve proved we’re no Islamophobes, they love us - or do they?

Checkout this Swedish reportfrom last June. It may not be up-to-the minute, but it’s unlikely that things have changed all that much since last summer. The author was reporting from Pristina:

“Revolution”, says Albin Kurti, emptying his cappuccino in one gulp, “we are going to make a revolution”. When he has said this for the third time people in the coffee shop start turning our way. They recognize him, they observe with expressionless eyes but prick up their ears.

He does not look like a revolutionary. More like an over-aged student from Berkeley. Somewhat chubby from hours spent at the computer, glasses, pale skin, soft white hands. But appearances can be deceptive. Albin Kurti is the idol of the young and that says a lot in a country where every second person has yet to turn 25. Ten years ago he had a Rastafarian hairdo and led the student protests against Milosevic. When peaceful actions turned out to be pointless he became a translator and an ideologue with UCK, the armed guerilla.

HE ALREADY HASenough followers to poster the whole country with the word “Vetëvendosje”, (”self-determination”, which is also the name of his movement). Few people doubt that he could get the masses on to the streets.

Albin Kurti assures me that this revolution will be peaceful. One hundred thousand people will surround the headquarters, the police station and the court. They will stay as long as it takes. For a week, or maybe a month. That is how the colonial power will be chased out, this power that partitions his land, plunders its people and destroys its women. If I want to see where the Kosovo money went, says Kurti, I should look for newly built exuberant villas in London. Or in Amsterdam. If I want to learn about the morals of the colonial power I should count the number of brothels. “They were not here before you came.”

Outside jeeps pass by. The diesel-fuelled electric generators growl while Kurti quotes UN declarations, Malcolm X and African nationalist leaders. “Self-determination is the right of all peoples!” It could have been Congo in the sixties. But as I said we are in Kosovo, within a stone’s throw from Rome. And the colonial power, which will be thrown out - dear reader - is you and I. That is to say Sweden, one of the most dedicated members of the UN, who for seven years has governed Kosovo or in local slang “Unmikistan”, after UNMIK: United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo.

WHEN THE UN LANDEDalmost eight years ago we were welcomed as liberators. Since then Swedes have been wounded and killed in this mission. More then eight billion crowns of taxpayers money (the biggest assistance per capita ever recorded) has been spent on security, rule of law, refugee help, education and economic development. But nowadays it actually happens that people spit in our faces or destroy our cars. In October there was a water closet placed outside the UNMIK headquarters inviting us to relieve ourselves there instead of in the country. “The only way to keep Kosovo clean is to kick you out of here” was Albin Kurtis message.

So after nine years of UN “protection” the Kosovars loathe the UN. Funny about that.

And they can’t wait to get rid of the blue helmets:

BEFORE WE PARTKurti says: “Do you remember Algeria? The guys who threw out the French had “freedom, equality, brotherhood” on their banners. We will throw out the UN in the name of the UN ideals, ideals which you betrayed in Kosovo.”

Kosovo is an economic basket case, or at least the legal part of the economy is:

WELL INTO THE EIGHTH YEARof the UN mission, after spending close to twenty-two billion euros on an area the size of Scania (with a population of about 2 million), the black economy is thriving whereas the white one is close to collapse. There is a standard explanation to this misery: As long as Kosovo’s independence from Serbia is not confirmed, nobody dares to invest in the country. Very probable. But what investments do you need to grow cucumber?

I comb the markets to find some local produce. The soap is from Bulgaria, the shirts from Taiwan. How about the flour? Czech. Drinking water from Hungary. Kosovo’s GNP per capita is lower than Rwanda’s, so it is a surrealistic feeling to have to buy tomatoes from Turkey and salad from Italy - in an agrarian country where the fields lie fallow.

Why do they? Because, explains Mr. Bajrami at the Chamber of Commerce, it pays better to sell chewing gum to the UN staff than to toil in the fields. But also because the UN courts after seven years still have not managed to determine to whom the fields actually belong. Finally, what makes him most upset is the fact that the UN allows Europe to dump prices on food in Kosovo. (Yes, it is strange. One litre of milk travelling from Slovakia gets cheaper on its way. You can buy a bottle of imported Coca-Cola for only 29 cents.)

[…]

How is it possible, you ask yourself, that a UN-run state, possessing enough lignite to light up the whole of Balkans, who invested seven hundred million euros in its two power stations, has not managed to generate sufficient electricity, but instead create pollution 70 times above the limit permitted by the EU? Kosovo does not require much electricity, somewhere between 600 and 1,000 megawatts, similar to what is produced by one reactor of the Forsmark nuclear power plant. But most people have electricity only a few hours a day, others not at all.

[…]

Let’s look at the stakes. Next to ethnic hatred, corruption is Kosovo’s biggest problem. It drains the economy and dilutes justice. But a handful of brave individuals chose to do exactly what the UN have told them to. They defy clan culture (”never tell on your kinsman”) and take big risks by agreeing to give evidence to the investigators. (One person has been murdered in connection with this bribery business. The kind of risks the used women are running I need not tell.) They deserve all admiration and support.

But what a misunderstanding. It seems the villains are the ones enjoying protection by the UN.

You have to say that the persons who put their trust in the UN learned a lesson they will never forget.

Now that Kosovo is its own master, expect it to give the UN the boot, all the while holding its hand out for more “aid”.

But then who will protect the gangster state from the Serbs and the UN? Who will guard the borders and run the air patrols? Whose high-tech equipment and “advisers” will be called in when the need arises?

I’ll give you three guesses.

That is the upside down world in which we live. At a time when Imams in Britain are caught by camera preaching hate and incitement of non-Muslims, the British criminal system wants to pick up a lone blogger (with a miniscule readership) for writing how he sees the daily situation where he lives. Just how screwed up is that?

Web logger seeks asylum in States

“A controversial ‘web logger’ from Dunstable is seeking asylum in America because he faces arrest in the UK for stirring up racial hatred.

Paul Ray, who regularly writes an online diary as ‘Lionheart’, was due to attend Bedford’s Greyfriars Police Station on February 18 as part of Bedfordshire Police’s investigation into his blog.

However, he has decided to apply for political asylum in America because he risks charges which carry a maximum prison sentence of seven years.

His blog includes his opinions on the heroin trade, Islamic fundamentalism and police corruption.

Mr Ray, 31, speaking to told Luton on Sunday on the phone from South Carolina, said : “I was going to meet Bedfordshire Police on Monday. But I don’t want to come back to England and get arrested.

“I had death threats in Dunstable and I wrote everything down.

“I did it because if anything happened to me then I wouldn’t just be another statistic.

“I have just written my thoughts down while I have been on the run.”

Ezra Levant scores victory against Islamic fascism

Says battle not over, intends to sue radical imam

Radical, Sharia-in-Canada promoting imam Syed Soharwardy has abandoned his nuisance complaint against former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant, who had published the infamous Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons.

“Over the two years that we have gone through the process, I understand that most Canadians see this as an issue of freedom of speech, that that principle is sacred and holy in our society,” said Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

“I believe Canadian society is mature enough not to absorb the messages that the cartoons sent. Only a very small fraction of Canadian media decided to publish those cartoons.”

BUT…

Mr. Levant said he isn’t buying Mr. Soharwardy’s promise, calling it a “temporary, tactical truce.”

“I don’t believe him. He thought this would be easy to do, just sic the human rights commission on me and it would be done. But I decided to fight back,” said Mr. Levant.

“He’s hurting right now. . . . What he’s now saying he is going to do is not a true reflection of his feelings.”

I agree with Ezra. It’s just like what the “Palestinians” do with their phony “ceasefires” and what the Taliban do when they run away from NATO soldiers. It’s also Soharwardy demonstrating the practice of Taqiyya, or lying in the interest of the advancement of Islam. It’s typical of Muslims who realize that they can’t win this battle, so they submit to lick their wounds, rearm, regroup, plan, plot their next mode of attack.

In fact…

Ezra plans to sue Soharwardy for tens of thousands of dollars for his bogus, unconstitutional, hateful nuisance complaint, which cost Mr. Levant so much money to defend against.

Good! Teach the extremist asshole a lesson! This is the way to deal with such folks who try to hurt us just because we’re not Muslims and/or we “offended” Muslims in the process of merely exercising our rights.

This isn’t over. Islamic fascists must be made to understand that they must stop trying to intimidate non-Muslims, stop trying to impose Islam, stop trying to Islamize non-Muslim nations, stop trying to get our state apparati to take away our rights whilst leaving them in place and reinforcing them for even the most extreme Islamic fascists.

If it isn’t going to be terrorism, it’s going to be Islamization. And never forget that Imam Soharwardy is on public record as wanting to implement the horribly, violently intolerant Sharia Law in Canada, something that millions of Canadians would rather have a civil war to stop than submit thereto, should there be any actual process brought underway to impose this barbaric thing.

Canadian Sentinel

Ezra Levant’s blog

Levant on Imam Soharwardy’s submission and withdrawal

Union of Bloggers(Canada, new, to defend bloggers against phony “defamation” lawsuits, founded by Ezra Levant)

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday beginning at noon, Pacific Time.

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.

Callers welcome!

Friday, February 15 (90-minute show): This week’s guest for the entire show will be Cassandra, author of the book Escape! From an Arab Marriage: Horror Stories of Women Who Fled from Abusive Muslim Husbands and of the blog site No Slaves of Allah in America. We’ll be discussing with Cassandra America Truth Forum’s recent symposium (video here) and the genital mutilation of children.

Note: If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

UPCOMING SHOWS
February 22: Mustang, Allan Goldstein, and Saleem Siddiqui
February 29: Jason Bootie
March 7: Janet Levy and GM Roper
March 14: Walid Shoebat
March 21: Elisabeth of Austria
March 28: Robert Spencer

Labour minister says aim is to prevent foreign workers from ever gaining political voice in Gulf region.
RIYADH -” Saudi Arabia’s labour minister said in remarks published on Monday that Riyadh supports a residency limit on the millions of foreign workers in the Gulf to prevent them from ever gaining a political voice in the oil-rich region. “We do not want the day to come when we are forced allow the (foreign) workers to be represented in our parliaments or municipal councils,” Ghazi al-Gosaibi told the Arabic language Al-Eqtisadiah.

He said he feared that international pressure would in the future force states in the region to enfranchise expatriate workers.”

 KEGS: I believe that the West should reciprocate the Saudi move.

A link to a .pdf document has come into my possession that might indicate a connection between the recent disorder in Kenya and plans to institute Shari’a law.

Read the document and witness the sort of demands that are being made. Following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent outrageous statement we can look at the contents of this document in the context of a future Great Britain. Below I highlight some quotes from the document followed by some of my own concerns about the future of Britain:

(1) ‘Coast Province shall…have full autonomy’ – If Shari’a law is allowed to take root in Britain, how long will it be before areas start demanding autonomy and thereby compromising the territorial integrity of the British state? What guarantee is there that this would not happen?

(2) ‘re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognise Shariah as the only true law…for Muslim declared regions’ – In my view accepting elements of Shari’a law in Britain would eventually lead to demands such as these. After all, if one aspect of Shari’a is accepted on cultural grounds then why not all? Surely if one set of demands are met then others will inevitably follow. Shari’a is an alternative legal system not a supplementary one.

(3) ‘popularise Islam, the only true religion’ – Perhaps this is the role that Dr Williams sees himself performing in England.

(4) ‘total ban on open-air gospel crusades’ – What would be the status of non Muslims in Britain if Shari’a law gradually becomes the law of the land. Will restrictions be placed on the practice of other religions?

Shari’a law should not be allowed to take root in Britain. Britain should remain as a peaceful united country.

Posted over at the Tundra Tabloids.

It shouldn’t have ever happened, and the supporters of a secular Turkey are in shock. No, it would be better to describe them as being outraged, that the Turkish parliament voted 403 to 107 in favor for a change in the Turkish constitution, that would permit “hijabs” or headscarves to be worn in public by Muslim women.

The founder of the modern state of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, is turning over in his grave that the Islamists have finally succeeded in scaling back on the secular nature of the Turkish state. You see, Turkey –up until now– was the only modern Muslim state near the Middle East region to whom supporters for reform have looked to, as the example for other Muslim states in the region to follow.

After yesterday’s vote, the specter of Islamism that has for some time now, been casting its long shadow on the wall, has now come fully into the light of day. But what’s all the fuss about a “hijab” you say? The problem about the hijab is that it has attained the status of a “religious symbol”, in much the same way as a Christian cross or a Jewish kipa/jarmulke, but its more of a political symbol than anything else.

The Turks, who are no strangers to Islam, realize the political ramifications of allowing the hijab to be worn in public, sooner or later, if not already, women are going to be forced to wear them. This is something that the West repeatedly (as a whole) shows itself unable to comprehend, that this piece of headcloth symbolizes much more than just religious devotion.

Dr.Patrick Sookhdeo explains the methodology of the Islamists at the recent Counter-Jihad conference that the Tundra Tabloids participated in last year. Dr.Sookhdeo has opines about the direction that Turkey is heading in, and what it means for Europe in the future.

“I think that Turkey is a member of NATO and a very valued member, I can see a place where Turkey in terms of economics and trade can have a relationship with the European Union, but I think for Turkey to become a full member of the European Union would pose real challenges to Europe. The size of the Turkish population by 2020, it could be up to 100 million, that’s a quarter of Europe, would then be an Islamic Muslim position.

The present government is moving away from the secular state, and is moving towards an Islamist state. Europe, if they weakened in terms of its foundations, its Judeo/Christian basis (Pamela: would be so easy to infiltrate), precisely. So I would be uneasy with a fully integrated Turkey into the European Union because I believe that it could pose real difficulties for Europe, for the future, and if, there are those who have suggested that if Europe (means Turkey) enters into the European Union by 2020, Europe could have as much as 45 percent Muslim and begins to pose real difficulties for a country that would be shaped by Islam.”

Europeans have been cheerleading the Islamists for some time, all under the guise of “protecting” Turkish democratic institutions, though it all might dangerously backfire in europe’s face as the Turkish state spirals itself further into Islamism and invariably away from the democratic norms Europeans take for granted.

The Tundra Tabloids is not predicting it will happen overnight, but like a frog in pot of cold water put on a very slow boil, Turkey, and yes Europe itself, is putting its own democratic traditions in jeopordy for the sake of appeasing aggressive Islamist demands today. More here. *L* KGS

Minister of Migration and European Affairs Astrid Thors, gets it only half right, which is more than what most European ministers in charge of immigration can boast.

Minister Thors  was addressing the current situation situation in Helsinki involving the the Finnish Islamic Party (FIP), which is currently trying to get 5000 signatures in order to become registered as an official political party in Finland. The FIP has thus far been able to gather at least 1000 signatures, in its quest to participate in local Finnish elections.

Minister Astrid Thors, giving a speech to the Swedish People’s Party board on Friday stated that: “that those who are trying to set up the new party are aiming at the implementation of sharia law, which she said violates the principles of Islam.” It is very commendable that the minister does indeed understand the stark differences between European and Islamic (sharia) law, and that the latter has no place within Europe. But then Thors loses her way in her description of sharia law, which for some odd reason, she claimed that it “violates the principles of Islam.” If only it were true.

But most importantly is Thors’ observation that Finland’s political registration policies need to be changed, because presently, the present system doesn’t demand any respect for democracy and human rights from potential parties wishing to register.

“She said that when a new party is registered, there should be a check as to whether the organisation follows democratic principles. However, she pointed out that current law does not require that such groups agree with democratic aims or respect human rights. As Thors sees it, the establishment of the Islamist party would not advance intercultural dialogue within Finland. The organisation that is seeking to set up the party — which is led by Finnish men who have converted to Islam — has attracted plenty of attention although it remains far from collecting the 5,000 signatures of supporters necessary to found a new political party.”

Shari’a is a total system, not a pick n’ mix system and will remain so whatever misguided and misinformed political and religious leaders say. Shari’a is an alternative to civil law and not a supplement to it. Any moves to allow any form of Shari’a law in any form is a slippery slope and should be opposed by those who want to see the continuation of Western values in our legal system.

There are of course aspects of Shari’a law that have been accepted by the British legal system and legislation is urgently need to reverse this situation. Surely if you support Shari’a finance, you are also in my opinion also accepting the principle of Shari’a law. No form of Shari’a should be endorsed because it demonstrates a willingness to make concessions that will in my view eventually undermine, weaken and finally destroy our entire legal and political system.

There is no guarantee that the embryo of Shari’a in the form of Shari’a finance will not grow incrementally into full Shari’a. Until such a absolute guarantee is provide not concession what-so-ever in the direction of accepting any form of Shari’a should be considered.

While I am dismayed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent support for Shari’a law I am even more dismayed by our politicians who have effectively created heresy laws to stifle criticism of religion If Islamic law forbids criticism of the so-called Prophet Mohammed then it is not for a Western state to endorse such prohibitions. Those that create laws and conventions that effectively do this are in my view contributing to the slow movement of Shari’a law into our legal system. Media codes that lead to self-censorship are also contributing to this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been heavily criticised by the media and by politicians, and rightfully so. However, those same politicians and media organisations have also contributed in a much more significant way to the gradual replacement of civil law with Shari’a law. They should take a good look at themselves before criticising others and take responsibility for their own misguided actions.

From thisislondon.uk - Calls for his idiotship the Archbishop of Canterbury to quit and care for his roses full-time (or perhaps he can try setting up a new liberal Anglican church in Saudi Arabia - oh, right. Wait, Sudan - no, hmm. Iran? oh well, darn it. I’ve got it- UAE, where they’re so modern! No? Really? but he’s so open and well-meaning and accomodating to sharia law….)

On the other hand, his opponents are so addicted to the British art of understatement, one wonders how much they actually do oppose his appalling lack of intellect, common sense, morality, justice, courage, virtue and leadership.

Sack him now. No understatement here. This is an understatement-free zone.

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit

The Archbishop of Canterbury was facing demands to quit last night as the row over sharia law intensified.

Leading bishops publicly contradicted Dr Rowan Williams’s call for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.

With the Church of England plunged into crisis, senior figures were said to be discussing the archbishop’s future.

One member of the church’s “Cabinet”, the Archbishop’s Council, was reported as saying: “There have been a lot of calls for him to resign. I don’t suppose he will take any notice, but, yes, he should resign.”

Officials at Lambeth Palace told the BBC Dr Williams was in a “state of shock” and “completely overwhelmed” by the scale of the row.

It was said that he could not believe the fury of the reaction. The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali.

He said it would be “simply impossible” to bring sharia law into British law “without fundamentally affecting its integrity”.

Sharia “would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

“This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy.”

The church’s second most senior leader, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, refused to discuss the matter. But he has said sharia law “would never happen” in Britain.

Politicians joined the chorus of condemnation, with Downing Street saying British law should be based on British values. Tory and LibDem leaders also voiced strong criticism.

Even prominent Muslims were rounding on Dr Williams. Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, said: “I haven’t experienced any clamour or fervent desire for sharia law in this country.

“If there are people who prefer sharia law there are always countries where they could go and live.”

Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, rejected the idea that British law forces Muslims to choose between their religion and their society.

He said: “This will alienate people from other communities because they will think it is what Muslims want - and it is not.”

The Muslim Council of Britain came to Dr Williams’s aid, however, describing his comments in a lecture to lawyers and a BBC interview as “thoughtful”.

But Oxford University Islamic scholar Professor Tariq Ramadan admitted: “These kinds of statements just feed the fears of fellow citizens. I really think we, as Muslims, need to come up with something that we abide by the common law and within these latitudes there are possibilities for us to be faithful to Islamic principles.”

The archbishop is likely to come under heavy fire next week at a meeting of the Church’s General Synod.

Liberal and feminist critics have been appalled by the thought of sharia law while evangelical opponents believe Dr Williams has failed to defend Christianity.

The archbishop was already battling intractable difficulties within the church over gay rights, a row which began nearly five years ago and has brought him criticism from all sides. Later this year he has to face a conference of hundreds of bishops from around the world which threatens further bitter division.

Dr Williams’s opponents on the conservative evangelical wing - who resent his liberal beliefs on issues such as gay rights - were suggesting last night that the archbishop is finished.

The Reverend Paul Dawson of the Reform group of around 500 clergy said: “We are very sad that he does not seem to be able to articulate a clear Christian vision for Britain. It is true to say that there is a lot of dissatisfaction.”

Dr Williams defended himself in a Lambeth Palace statement saying he had been trying to “tease out” the issue.

The archbishop had said it could help build a better and more cohesive society if Muslims were able to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters, for example, dealt with in a sharia court. The adoption of some elements of sharia law “seems unavoidable”.

But the statement insisted: “The archbishop made no proposals for sharia, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.”

Even fellow bishops, however, think this is precisely what Dr Williams did say.

Bishop of Southwark Tom Butler, a liberal who would normally be expected to defend Dr Williams, said the archbishop had been entering a minefield and added: “It will take a great deal of thought and work before I think it is a good idea.”

He was more blunt in a circular to clergy in his diocese, saying he had yet to be convinced of the feasibility of incorporating any non-Christian religious law into the English legal system.

H/T Janet Levy, founder of the Women Against Sharia Project:

Our adversaries’ goal, as with all political pressure groups, is to get us negotiating “how much shariah law we adopt this year as a parallel and ultimately superior institution” ; not “how much shariah law we make illegal and criminal this year pre-emptively before it takes root.” Our goal should be the latter. I’m for the pre-emptive legal strike myself.

And a bit of uprooting if needed, as the Constitution is a fine tool for protecting the tree of liberty from the weeds of tyranny, and shariah law is nothing if not tyrannical.

In the UK, shariah accomodations are required in various towns - along with shariah mortgages and other UK legally recognized forms of shariah finance . These “minor” accomodations are this week’s justification for the Anglican Archbishop’s encouraging - nay, inviting - shariah law as a parallel legal system to British Law. Pre-emptive Dhimmitude, a casually destructive gesture that will drive still more from the empty shell of his church and the emptier shell of England.

Here’s the constructive gesture I would offer back in the U.S.

Let’s anathematize shariah law as an unconstitutional system that advocates apartheid for women and all non-Muslims, female genital mutilation (the most common Sunni school of shariah requires it), execution of apostates and homosexuals, endless warfare, and on and on through the whole barbaric incoherent muddle. Those are, in fact, the “family law” aspects of shariah law now endorsed by the Episcopal church, new apologists and enablers of shariah fatwas. Those who will suffer first, and most, will be ordinary Muslims, especially women, children, anyone daring to question the “traditional” and “moderate” enforcers of the Muslim Brotherhood (motto: “Negotiate with us or we loose the terrorists on you; have a nice day”).

With supporters like these, will Obama also endorse shariah as a “separate but equal” legal system as part of his party platform? Because shariah’s so filled with …Hope for the Ummah? Audacity for the jihadists? But hey, it would be CHANGE so don’t worry….

Of course, there aren’t enough Muslims in the U.S. to constitute much of a voting block - 2-3 million estimated of a population well north of 300 milliion.

One percent.

Not that this has stopped Gordon England or George Bush from meeting with the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood front groups, in the name of reaching out to this miniscule constituency. And changing U.S. policy domestic and foreign to appease them.

But then that was always about pleasing media, foreign and plutocratic elites, not winning elections.

Muslims for Obama, a new interest group, is preparing their 2009 legislative calendar:

 

ISSUES & SOLUTIONS

QUESTION: What are issues and recommendations for solutions that are unique to Muslim Americans?

1. A Law against harrassment of a Muslim women wearing Hijab at the Airport, DMV and other public arenas.

2. Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take a hours off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.

3. Make the 2 Eid’s, recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.

4. Optional Halal meals in federal buildiings, public schools and colleges.

5. Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)

6. Organize a Muslim American group to assist in recommendations for US foreign policy affecting majority Muslim countries.

Submit your recommendations…

EuropeNews - no tolerance for intolerance, no apology for being free…

http://europenews.dk/en

Press Review » February 08 2008

Newsletter » Roundup

EuropeNews back online

EuropeNews is back online after 7 hours of downtime. The DDoS attack of yesterday was averted, but today the server was knocked out solid. We are still analyzing the exact cause of the event.

We’re alive and kicking, so plese enjoy the articles

Excessive Turkish reactions to the fire in Ludwigshafen

Why so much bad news?

News »

UK: Incorporating Sharia into legal systems

Archbishop faces barrage of criticism over Sharia comments

Puzzled voices among Bradford’s Muslims

Archbishop of Canterbury ’should resign’ over Sharia row

Opinion: British Muslims’ right to ‘the call to prayer’

The Shari’a

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies

Sharia law: your views

What is sharia law?

Q and A: Sharia law explained

Theology, Research … : Islam in English Law: Civil and Religious Law in England

UK: Sharia and other religious courts

Reaction in quotes: Sharia law row

UK: Outrage at top Anglican cleric’s sharia comments

UK pays price of polygamy

UK PM rejects special laws for Muslims

Cleric Abu Hamza to appeal against extradition

UK: Tatchell criticises ban on Islamic scholar

Female Muslim medical students choose faith over safety

ES: 9/11 terror suspect extradited to Spain

Dutch Cabinet says it wants to ban burqas in schools and government offices

ES: Immigration, a Polarising Electoral Issue

Finland’s Thors says registering Islamic party would mean legal failure

Illegal immigrants found gassed in tanker

The European project and democratic consent: disconnection or disengagement?

Serbia remains deadlocked over EU deal, Kosovo

The American Election and Islam

IQ: Violations of ‘Islamic teachings’ take deadly toll on Iraqi women

Muslim Brotherhood Drafts Party Platform

Islamic Banking - Too Islamic for Some?

Turkey - Veiled democracy?

Palestinians fire 30 Kassams at Israel

When Hamas founded a mini-state

EuropeNews – German Version NEW!

Short answer - Yes.  We’re being herded like cattle, prodded by terrorism real and threatened,  into the corral of shariah, appeasement, and dhimmitude.

This piece by Sultan Knish is so good, I’m going to make his blog a regular stop here.

Our political leaders on both sides of the aisle are complicit, in Congress, in the UK, in the EU.

When you’re being herded into slavery, you need to turn around and go the other way.

Time to turn:

From Sultan Knish, a situation assessment from within embattled lands of the UK and  US…

Polls show that 40 percent of British Muslims want Sharia, Islamic Law implemented in the UK and the government has moved to accommodate them. Tony Blair’s government passed a law that would essentially criminalize blaspheming Islam. The law was weakened in the House of Lords but it will return again stronger than ever especially as the electoral and terror power of Muslims grow along with the desire of Western governments to appease them.

Norway and Sweden have already begun the process of implementing similar laws. In parts of Australia criticizing Islam can get you jail time. In Israel a woman was sentenced to prison for drawing and distributing a cartoon of Mohamed as a pig. In Russia and Belarus newspaper editors have faced jail time for reprinting the Danish cartoons.

If you believe that this can’t happen in America, you are very wrong. The legal framework for it is already in place. Hate Crime laws allow for actions that are not in and of themselves criminal to be treated as criminal actions. Increasingly such laws also define a hate crime not based on the motive or action of the accused perpetrator but on the perception of the presumed victim. Beyond the legal statues, perceived intolerance is penalized in numerous ways economically and socially.

Despite the fact that Americans have stronger freedom of speech protection than Europeans, fewer American than European newspapers printed the Mohamed cartoons. A handful by comparison. Europe’s newspapers still need laws to be censored, our newspapers gladly censor themselves without even facing any real threat of violence as Europeans do. Even before the mobs have come, the press has voluntarily obeyed them.

For all intents and purposes, from our government to our media to our public entertainment and educational system; the first law of Islam has been implemented.

The First Law of Islam: Thou Shalt Not Criticize Islam.

The laws beyond that will follow. Since this special status of Islam leaves all other religions unprotected, Islam already has a superior status to other religions while other religions have an inferior status to Islam. With the first law in place, WE ARE ALL ALREADY DHIMMIS.

The Second Law of Islam: Islam is Superior to All Other Beliefs

Islam may be propagandized in schools while Judaism or Christianity may not. Muslims may pray in schools, members of other religions may not. Muslim holy books are treated as holy, while the holy books of other religions are treated as myth. The violence of other religions is condemned, while the violence of Islam is covered up. This leads us to Islam’s second law, Islam Is Superior To All Other Beliefs. By giving exclusive status to Islam, we have already implemented this as well.

The Third Law of Islam: You Will Obey Us

By giving in to Islamic rage, we have already set the pattern of functioning as Dhimmis, of responding to Muslim tantrums with appeasement. The pattern continues from there with Muslims in public life enforcing their religious laws on everyone else. Muslim taxi drivers are already doing this by refusing to carry passengers who carry alcohol, seeing eye dogs for the blind and Muslim cashiers are refusing to handle pork.

There are Islamic laws that place restrictions on women. These won’t require government authority to legislate. Muslims simply implement them by making clear what happens to women who don’t. In parts of the world that has meant throwing acid into the faces of schoolgirls who don’t wear the Hijab as in Indonesia, preventing women from entering public areas if they are not dressed ‘modestly’ as is widespread in African countries where Islam is on the rise, treating any woman not dressed in the Islamic manner as a legitimate rape target as in Europe.

Sharia Law doesn’t need to function officially as long as Muslims have the leverage to implement it by force on an individual level. Through sensitivity training and religious protection laws, Muslims are forcing schools to allow Hijabs and Sex Separation as their requirements for women and through violence and harassment will force women to follow those requirements. At Nigerian protests a female Muslim reporter was stoned for not wearing the Hijab head covering, a head covering that was itself developed during the Lebanese conflict and modeled on the wimples of Catholic nuns to enable Arab Muslim fighters to distinguish between Christian and Shiite women as legitimate targets for assault. Harrassment by Muslims of Jewish students is already prevalent on campuses while the administration looks the other way. The same feminists who hold Take Back The Night Rallies along with solidarity rallies for Palestine will discover themselves the targets soon enough, as women increasingly face harassment from Muslim bosses, clients and customers for not complying while the various offices of civil and human rights naturally look the other way.

The only major step Muslims have yet to achieve is to force disputes between Muslims and Non-Muslims to be mediated in Muslim courts. This will begin as part of workplace sensitivity regulations for Muslims requiring disputes with the company to be arbitrated in a Muslim forum and some disputes between civil authorities and Muslim workers as well. The media and government broadcasting and rebroadcasting with the propaganda that Islam is a Religion of Peace will have nothing but praise for them. CAIR and similar groups will run puff pieces on how these arbitration mechanisms function much more peacefully than civil courts and save everyone money.

Then there will be Muslim unions that will strike not over job issues but over political ones. Support for Israel or sanctions against Iran or any opposition to a Muslim demand by a city will mean striking transit workers, taxi strikes and work stoppages that will derail local, state and national economies. It will be cheaper and simpler for most to simply give in. If this is hard to believe, consider that American labor is increasingly immigrant based and unions are trying to compensate for their loss of influence by aggressively recruiting immigrants. It won’t be long before those same immigrants are running the unions. The New York transit strike was orchestrated by a man who could barely speak English. Today he’s Haitian, tomorrow he’s just as likely to be Pakistani or Yemeni.

The hour is much later than we think.

If Europe is putting up something of a fight, it is we who are giving in without a fight. For all the patriotic rhetoric of the Bush Administration, we may be fighting a particular group of Islamic terrorists but we are surrendering to most of the others and the terror has only begun.

Caroline Glick in the Jewish World Review, on AIPAC and its support of companies doing business with Iran…lobbying for the suppliers to the Iranian war machine….pre-emptively “negotiating with ourselves” …

Josh Mandel is a first-term legislator in the State of Ohio’s House of Representatives. He is also a US Marine Corps sergeant in reserves. Last year, Mandel arrived at the state house after a tour of duty in Iraq. There, he saw first-hand how Iran was fuelling the insurgency that is killing his fellow servicemen and Iraqi innocents. His experience led him to introduce a bill that would divest Ohio’s public employee pension funds from companies that do business with Iran and fellow state sponsor of terror Sudan.

As his bill made its way through the various committees, Mandel’s initiative received a body blow from an unexpected direction. AIPAC representatives approached him and asked him to pare down his bill’s divestment requirements to include only companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s oil and gas sector.

Mandel was surprised. Why should companies that invest in Iran’s defense, telecommunications and other sectors be immune from divestment? AIPAC went over his head to Ohio’s House Speaker Jon Hustead. Hustead amended the bill along AIPAC’s suggested lines.

Mandel’s experience is not unique.

Christopher Holton works as the Director of the Divest Terror Initiative at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy where I also serve as a senior fellow. In August 2004, the CSP launched its campaign to divest public employee pension funds from companies that do business with countries listed as state sponsors of terror by the US State Department. The decision was inspired by a study of companies invested in states which sponsor terrorism undertaken by Roger Robinson, the founder and president of the Conflict Securities Advisory Group.

Working from Robinson’s research, the CSP discovered that on average, 15-23 percent of American state employee pension funds were invested in companies that do business with state sponsors of terrorism. In 2004, the estimated value of those total investments was $188 billion. Some $70 billion were invested in companies which did business with Iran, Syria and North Korea.

After coming across the CSP’s research, in 2005 Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman divested a portion of Missouri’s pension plans from companies which do business with state sponsors of terror.

In late 2006, the terror divestment campaign received a major boost when Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu embraced it as a means of slowing down Iran’s race to nuclear capabilities. Encouraged by Netanyahu, Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich announced their support for the plan in late 2006. Their announcements induced state legislators around the US to introduce bills that would follow the Missouri example and make their pension funds free of investments in countries that sponsor terror. Working with Robinson, the FTSE financial index announced last November that it would begin providing a series of terror-free screened indexes which will allow public and private investors to easily screen their portfolios and divest from countries that do business with state sponsors of terrorism.

And then, AIPAC moved in.

Holton assists state legislators in their bid to introduce divestment bills. He explains that in Texas and California, AIPAC lobbyists led by AIPAC’s policy director Brad Gordon, advocated that divest terror bill sponsors take North Korea and Syria off their bills. As they did in Ohio, they also strongly recommended that divestiture from companies invested in Iran be limited to companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s oil and gas sector.

In Texas, AIPAC’s interference so frustrated the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Dan Patrick, that he allowed the initiative to fizzle out. In California, the bill passed into law reflected AIPAC’s view except that at the insistence of the bill’s sponsor Assemblyman Joel Anderson, it also divested California from companies involved in Iran’s defense and nuclear sectors.

In Florida, AIPAC pre-empted supporters of broad-based terror divestment. It advocated its pared-down, Iran only, oil and gas sector only divestment plan before a broader-based initiative could get off the ground.

Currently, AIPAC is working to pare down proposed divestment bills in Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Georgia. In the meantime, without AIPAC’s intervention, the Louisiana legislature moved towards a broad-based divestment policy by establishing a terror-free investment index last year. Mississippi and Utah are also considering broad-based bills.

A message to Gordon’s office this week requesting his comments on AIPAC’s actions went unanswered. Ron Dermer, who as Israel’s economic minister at the Washington embassy works on the issue with AIPAC provided three general explanations for AIPAC’s actions. As Dermer explained, first, AIPAC wishes to limit divestment to large investors in Iran’s oil and gas sector because that sector - which makes up at least 80 percent of Iran’s exports and 40 percent of its governmental revenues — is the engine of Iran’s economy and its Achilles heel.

Second, AIPAC argues that it is unconstitutional for states to divest from companies that do business with terror sponsoring states. Third, AIPAC believes that by limiting the divestment program to Iran’s oil and gas sector, they will mitigate opposition from pension and hedge fund managers and so enable more divestment laws to be passed than would be passed if states tried to adopt a broader approach.

Yet, AIPAC’s arguments — as explained by Dermer who does not work for AIPAC — fail to stand up to scrutiny. While it is true that oil and gas are the anchor of Iran’s economy, it is also true that Iran’s ability to function economically, support terror and build nuclear bombs is dependent on many other economic sectors as well. It is also clear that the strength of Iran’s fuel economy is not dependent only on direct investments in oil and gas but also on indirect investments from other sectors.

Take Iran’s dependence on imported refined fuel products for instance. Although Iran is the second largest exporter of oil and gas after Saudi Arabia, it lacks refining capabilities and so is dependent on imported fuel products. Last week one source of that refined fuel disappeared. India’s oil refiner, Reliance decided to end its supply of refined oil products to Iran after the French bank BNP Paribus announced that it would no longer issue letters of credit for Iran. BNP Paribus and its cohort Calyon bank stopped offering Iran letters of credit due to political pressure from the US Treasury which sanctions financial institutions that deal with Iran. So in the BNP Paribus example, financial sanctions from the US government on the banking sector, is making it more difficult for Iran to run its oil and gas sector.

Many other firms not involved in oil and gas similarly contribute to the viability of the Iranian regime and its rogue activities. For instance, Alcatel SA, a French telecommunications firm has operations valued at $300 million in Iran, Sudan and Libya. Much of its technology is inherently dual-use with major civilian and military applications. Alcatel’s militarily relevant operations in Iran include the provision of data transmission and switching network capabilities to state-owned companies. Alcatel is also installing an undersea telecommunications cable in Iran. It is undertaking similar activities in Sudan and Libya.

Germany’s Siemens has operations in Iran valued in excess of a half a billion dollars. They include the development of Iran’s mobile telephone network, its power plants, and its transportation sector. All of these projects have enormous military implications. Austria’s Steyr-Mannlicher arms manufacturer sold Iran sniper rifles in 2006. None of these companies are targeted in AIPAC’s limited divestment plan.

Beyond that, as Holton explains, most of the major companies invested in Iran’s oil and gas sector like France’s Total SA and Norway’s Statoil and China’s Petro China invested in Iran’s oil and gas sector after Iran was declared a state-sponsor of terrorism. That is, they made a conscious decision to invest in Iran in spite of its behavior and irrespective of the financial implications for doing so in their trade with the US. The likelihood that these companies will end their operations in Iran as a result of the divestiture movement is not large. In contrast, many companies whose investments in Iran are below $20 million would be more likely to pull out their investments if maintaining them cost them US investment capital. So AIPAC’s plan targets companies that are less likely to change their behavior while giving a free pass to companies that are more likely to be convinced by the divestiture movement to pull out from Iran.

AIPAC has informed state legislators who push for broad divestment that it would be unconstitutional for individual US states to divest from companies that do business with Syria. Their contention is based on Supreme Court decision from 2000 relating to a Massachusetts’ statute that prohibited the state from signing business deals with companies that also do business with Burma.

But according to Prof. Orde Kittrie, who served for years as an attorney at the State Department working on issues related to international sanctions, there is a distinction between divestment and taking direct action against foreign firms. A state is within its constitutional rights to decide where to invest its funds.

Finally, AIPAC’s argument that broad-based divestment bills cannot expect to pass is troubling on two different levels. First, objectively, this is untrue. Louisiana’s law is broad-based. Currently broad-based divestment bills are moving through the Utah and Mississippi legislatures. But even if AIPAC is right, and these broad-based divestment bills lack sufficient political support, why AIPAC is actively working to undermine them is a mystery.

There is a legitimate debate regarding the capacity of financial tools to compel governments to change their behavior. Generally speaking when dealing with ideologically motivated, terror sponsoring regimes like Iran, Syria and North Korea, financial tools will be insufficient to force a consistent and credible change of behavior. But they can make it more difficult for such states to conduct their nefarious business as usual.

In the case of Iran, these extra difficulties can conceivably buy the West more time to either strike Iran’s nuclear facilities militarily, or induce regime overthrow by backing regime opponents, or both. What is absolutely clear is that the broader a divestment plan the worse for Iran and its fellow state sponsors of terrorism.

AIPAC’s arguments are not without merit. It is not the contentions that are strange but their source. It is simply bizarre that of all the organizations in the US, the organization dedicated to strengthening America’s alliance with Israel is leading the effort to shield the North Korean, Syrian and Sudanese economies from divestment and to limit the damage the divest terror movement can exact on Iran’s economy.