Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Islamic bombers launch metro attack

This article from the Sun UK

A PAIR of "Black Widow" woman suicide bombers killed at least 38 people today in horrific twin attacks on Moscow's metro subway.

The Islamist terrorists detonated belts packed with plastic explosives on packed trains at the height of the rush hour in apparent revenge attacks on Russia's FSB security service.

Police recovered the severed head of a young woman bomber and the remains of an older woman believed to have carried out the atrocities, which wounded a further 102 people.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Getting to know you!

The Enslavement Of The Sharia: A Speech At The English Defence League Demonstration In Bolton on 20 March 2010

An article from the International Civil Liberties Alliance

English Defence League Bolton Speech 20 March 2010

Our fight is with those Muslims, and their allies, who would harm our society and exchange our current freedoms of democracy and liberties for the enslavement of the Sharia.

Our allies in this fight are all those who cherish freedom of speech, democracy, the right of assembly and the right to protest and bring grievances to the government of the day.

To the State and all the institutions of the State: the police, courts, civil service, military, government of the day, etc. we say: we hold you accountable and demand that you protect and defend these precious rights.

As a new and growing organization, the English Defence League has experienced a variety of reactions from the police, courts and local and national government bodies.

Despite our best efforts and without evidence, some media lazily resort to calling us Racist, bigoted, violent thugs. Others expect a purity that could only possibly exist in a group that has existed far longer than we have. Our shortcomings are being addressed by the leadership, for example, our increased use of stewards on our demonstrations.

Over the last nine months the police have responded in a mixed way also. Some Forces have praised and protected our right to demonstrate and there has been a sense of cooperation which we seek to nurture. But a low point was the arrest of members of the leadership of EDL just before the demonstration in Edinburgh on Feb 20th. Before we were able to join in solidarity with the Scottish Defence League, EDL members were detained without cause and arrested for “incitement to cause a breach of the peace”.

This intimidation by the police will not succeed! Let the police carry through with the charge and defend their allegations in a court of law. Our consciences are clear. Our cause just. To stand firm against the Islamisation of society is our duty. The EDL will not cower from the exercise of our basic human rights.

However, we agree on one point; we recognise that indeed ‘a breach of the peace’ has occurred. It has occurred by those who call for Sharia and all its manifestations: for example, in the growth of Sharia courts throughout this land, in the imposition of halal foods in more and more eating places, in the call for the segregation of men and women and Muslims and non-Muslims in swimming pools and other public places,

by the Muslim gangs who terrorise our neighbourhoods and in many prisons call the shots, etc., and with great cultural insensitivity and ignorance some Muslims have called for our Queen to embrace Islam! All this and more is based on teachings found in the Qur’an which state that men are superior to women, Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and non-Muslims are unclean.

But the greatest ‘breach of the peace’ by our enemies in this country occurred in London on 7 July 2005. This murderous assault, inspired by the teachings of Islam, resulted in the death 52 people and 700 injuries.

Yes, we challenge the police to bring charges against us and prove that it is we, and not our enemies, who are inciting a breach of the peace. We ask: What will the Government do about this breach of the peace which threatens to destroy our green and pleasant land? The police forces in this country have choices to make. For our part we have decided. Our work is merely a response to, and exposes, the many

breaches of peace committed by our enemies over many years.

We challenge the State to intervene in this crisis on the side of British values and not be intimidated by political correctness, Saudi Arabian petrol dollars, or block-voting by Muslim refugees and immigrants imported by the Labour Party.

The many efforts to impose Sharia on the world has been going on for 1400 years, inspired by their leader Mohammed who has said: ‘I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah,…’

This push for Sharia will not go away; But neither will we. No matter the

difficulties, we will push back the forces of Sharia for as long as it takes.

We will not submit!

Thank you for joining us in this struggle to preserve our precious heritage.

May God bless and guide our efforts,

God bless the Queen!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Nearly 300 Congress members declare commitment to 'unbreakable' U.S.-Israel bond

This article from

Nearly 300 members of Congress have signed on to a declaration reaffirming their commitment to "the unbreakable bond that exists between [U.S.] and the State of Israel", in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The letter was sent in the wake of the severe recent tensions between Israel and the U.S. over the prior's decision to construct more than 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a project it announced during U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's visit to the region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took advantage of his trip to the United States this week to try to mend the rift with the Obama administration, but he was greeted with cold welcome by the White House.

Netanyahu also met during his visit with members of Congress, who welcomed him with significantly more warmth.

The letter from Congress expresses its "deep concern" over the U.S.-Israel crisis, and emphasizes that lawmakers had received assurances from Netanyahu that the events leading up to the recent tensions would not be repeated.

Letter from members of Congress

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts.

The announcement during Vice President Biden's visit was, as Israel's Prime Minister said in an apology to the United States, "a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred." We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu's commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises, however unintended, will not recur.

The United States and Israel are close allies whose people share a deep and abiding friendship based on a shared commitment to core values including democracy, human rights and freedom of the press and religion. Our two countries are partners in the fight against terrorism and share an important strategic relationship.

A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East. We are concerned that the highly publicized tensions in the relationship will not advance the interests the U.S. and Israel share. Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.

From the moment of Israel's creation, successive U.S. administrations have appreciated the special bond between the U.S. and Israel.

For decades, strong, bipartisan Congressional support for Israel, including security assistance and other important measures, have been eloquent testimony to our commitment to Israel's security, which remains unswerving.

It is the very strength of this relationship that has, in fact, made Arab-Israeli peace agreements possible, both because it convinced those who sought Israel?s destruction to abandon any such hope and because it gave successive Israeli governments the confidence to take calculated risks for peace.

In its declaration of independence 62 years ago, Israel declared: "We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land."

In the decades since, despite constantly having to defend itself from attack, Israel has repeatedly made good on that pledge by offering to undertake painful risks to reach peace with its neighbors.

Our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.

As the Vice-President said during his recent visit to Israel: "Progress occurs in the Middle East when everyone knows there is simply no space between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to security, none. No space."

Steadfast American backing has helped lead to Israeli peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. And American involvement continues to be critical to the effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

We recognize that, despite the extraordinary closeness between our country and Israel, there will be differences over issues both large and small.

Our view is that such differences are best resolved quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies. We hope and expect that, with mutual effort and good faith, the United States and Israel will move beyond this disruption quickly, to the lasting benefit of both nations.

We believe, as President Obama said, that "Israel's security is paramount" in our Middle East policy and that "it is in U.S. national security interests to assure that Israel?s security as an independent Jewish state is maintained."

In that spirit, we look forward to working with you to achieve the common objectives of the U.S. and Israel, especially regional security and peace.





Saturday, March 27, 2010

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

This article from the Canada free press.

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”
— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

  1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
  2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
  3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
  4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
  5. $102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
  6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
  7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
  8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
  9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
  10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
  11. $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
  12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
  13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
  14. $60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
  15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
  16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
  17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
  18. $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
  19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
  20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
  21. $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
  22. $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Mass immigration kills Aussie culture, says demographer Bob Birrell

This article from

TRADITIONS based on heritage, sporting culture and common language are threatened by mass immigration, a leading demographer has warned.

Monash University population expert Dr Bob Birrell has said the huge influx of people with few or no English skills had created social problems in Melbourne suburbs such as Dandenong, Sunshine and Broadmeadows and most major cities were feeling the population strain, the Herald Sun reported.

"This is not a pretty picture," he said. "Social divisions are becoming more obvious and geographically concentrated and certain areas are being overlain by an ethnic identification."

Dr Birrell made the explosive comments in an article for Policy, a magazine published by the Centre for Independent Studies, a right-wing think tank.

In a plea to the Rudd Government to slash the current immigrant intake of 180,000 a year, Dr Birrell warned that the predicted population of 35 million by 2050 would be a disaster for urban living and the environment.

"One would have to wander deaf, dumb and blind through Australian capital cities to not notice how urban congestion has already reduced the quality of life," he said.

The intake dominated by people from non-English speaking backgrounds was transforming Australia, Dr Birrell said. (Click to see the Immigration department's statistics on migration and where migrants have come from.)

"We are losing core elements of what was once shared. Almost all could once aspire to a house and land ... and sharing a common language, sporting culture and heritage," he said.

But mass migration was creating ethnic enclaves in suburbs with cheap housing, and planning rules were forcing Australian-born "losers" and non-English speaking background migrants to live in congested neighbourhoods, "cheek by jowl".

Population target

Kevin Rudd has made it clear that he believes in a big Australia. In a recent speech he declared that migration was "good for our national security, good for our long-term prosperity, good in enhancing our role in the region and the world".

But the Federal Opposition and the Greens said questions needed to be asked about Australia's immigration plans.

Opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, told the ABC there should be an inquiry into how many people the nation can support.

"It's about what the carrying capacity is," he said. "We need to get that perspective from regional areas as well as metropolitan areas, where issues of congestion and housing affordability are major problems as well as public transport.

"What's more important, is the process for planning. For example, the states and territories have no input into questions of immigration and migration intakes but they're the ones at the end of the day that have to service the needs that are created by it."

Greens Leader Bob Brown said there should be an independent national inquiry into Australia's population target.

"So that politicians do have an idea of the carrying capacity of this country, its infrastructure, its ability to deal with those quite worrying projections of 35 million people by 2050," he said. "We've got to do better than just say well let it happen."

Other leading academics have also questioned the challenge that mass intake of migrants will pose.

In their book Australia's Immigration Revolution, Andrew Markus, James Jupp and Peter McDonald agrue that while immigration "offers ‘the most immediate and simplest short term measure to deal with labour and skills shortages" it also comes with serious questions about social cohesion.

Prior to the 1950s 80 per cent of immigrants came from the United Kingdom. Between the 50s and the 1960s migrants from continental Europe became the majority.

After the abolition of the White Australia policy in the early 1970s the mixture of migration changed again. Today, the largest proportion of immigrants come from Asia and Oceania. China and India rival New Zealand and Britian as the biggest source of immigrants.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Dr. Leonard Peikoff. America versus Americans

A great lecture, well worth listening to, to gain a greater understanding of the mistakes which have occurred through the last ten years, in relation to the war on terror (war on Islam), and the pathetic policies of appeasement which have occurred ever since 9/11.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Looking beyond the veil

This snippet is from page 3 of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald , I thought it was bloody hilarious. hahaha.

One of the most disturbing encounters the Herald heard about was described by "Susan", a convert from Catholicism. She recalls sitting on a bench at Strathfield railway station last year reading a book when she became aware of a station rubbish collector approaching her. "Out of the corner of my eye, I saw that he was using one of those long-armed implements that you use to pick up rubbish. Suddenly I could feel this tugging on my headscarf. I looked up and it was him. He said, 'Excuse me, I thought it was rubbish'."


Sunday, March 14, 2010

Sharia is not an option

From the Australian Conservative.

A radical and dangerous change was proposed for Australia this week. A prominent Muslim leader called for parts of Islamic law (sharia) to be legally recognised in Australia.

The President of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, was speaking at what appears to be the heart of Islamic Fundamentalism in Australia, the Lakemba Mosque, last Saturday.

The Lakemba Mosque has been the forum for a number of speakers advocating or defending radical actions which does little to quash claims that some attendees are linked to the Taliban and Hamas terrorist groups.

Few Australians will forget Sheik Hilaly’s ‘uncovered meat’ defence of those convicted of the gang rape of a young Australian woman.

More recently, the conviction and sentencing of five men under Australian terror laws was ridiculed by a Lakemba mosque leader who made claims of bias and an anti – Islam ‘hysteria’ that would damage Australia’s international reputation.

Well, nothing would damage Australia’s international reputation, way of life and culture more than the introduction of sharia law.

We have a legal system that works perfectly well. It is built on common sense and the common good. It has shaped our values and our culture and is constructed in accordance with our Judeo-Christian heritage.

It now appears that some Australians don’t want to live within our laws. They want their own special rules – initially regarding family law and inheritance. It sounds innocent enough until you examine what has happened in other western nations where sharia law operates as a virtual parallel legal system.

In some cases, domestic violence claims have resulted in husbands being asked to take anger management classes rather than more appropriate sentencing. Sons are regularly favoured over daughters in inheritance disputes and some child custody matters can be determined solely by the father. Men can initiate and finalise divorce via text message

At its most extreme, sharia operates in a number of nations where homosexuality, blasphemy and adultery are punishable by death.

The European Court of Human Rights has determined that ’sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy’.

On that basis alone sharia has no place in Australia – now or in the future.

Cory Bernardi is a South Australian Liberal senator. His columns and essays are available at his website.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

How Rudd the dud dropped Australia in the alphabet soup

Article from the Sydney Morning Herald February 22, 2010

Rarely has a government promised so much, spent so much, said so much, and launched so many nationwide programs, and delivered so little value for money and expectation. Two years of Kevin Rudd has produced 20 years of debt, and most of it cannot be blamed on the global financial crisis. This alphabet soup is self-inflicted.

Asylum seekers. Unless the government can show otherwise, it appears that about 98 per cent of asylum-seekers are getting Australian residency. In contrast, the latest figures from the United Nations refugee agency show most asylum applications worldwide are rejected. The bulging Christmas Island detention centre has become a grossly expensive sham and a mockery of a core election promise.

Beijing. Supposedly Rudd's strong point, the relationship with China deteriorated badly last year after a series of serious missteps with Beijing.

Computers in schools. A million computers promised to schools, one for every student. This turned out to be much harder than it sounded.

Debt and deficit. The Rudd government inherited a massive $90 billion financial firewall when it came to office, via a federal budget surplus, the Future Fund and two infrastructure funds. In two years the budget has gone from $20 billion in surplus to $58 billion in deficit. Net federal debt has gone from zero to a projection of between $130 billion and $180 billion. It took the previous government 10 years to dismantle the $96 billion debt mountain that it inherited. It took Rudd one year to build it back up again.

ETS. The Copenhagen climate conference was a disaster. Rudd's emissions trading scheme is abstract, complex, expensive and polls show about 80 per cent of Australians do not understand or trust it. A T-shirt produced by Newcastle steelworkers distils the political problem: "Rudd's ETS: Higher Prices. Lost Jobs. 0.001 degrees cooler."

Fuelwatch. Big promise, empty outcome.

Grocerywatch. Ditto.

Hospitals. Ditto.

India disaster. Last year Australia degraded relations with the two emerging Asian superpowers.

Juvenile justice. The plight of young Aborigines is worse than ever, with ideology trumping pragmatism. Children are shipped off to violent foster families while government exhibits a mesmerised inertia in the face of pockets of endemic violence.

Kaiser. The aptly named Mike Kaiser, former ALP Queensland state secretary and state MP, became the umpteenth poster boy for the Labor patronage machine this month by landing a $450,000-a-year lobbying job with the national broadband network. The job was not advertised.

League tables. The government's one-size-fits-all league tables for schools, plagued by glitches and misleading data, is another centralised scheme that serves as a substitute for tackling the union-imposed rigidities on teacher performance.

Migration. Permanent migration to Australia surged 550,000 during the first two years of the Rudd government, the highest two-year increase in history. This is at odds with the government's rhetoric on reducing Australia's carbon footprint. It was also never mentioned before the election.

National broadband network. Last year the Rudd government spent $17 million looking for a private partner to co-build the network. The process yielded nothing. The government will now build and operate the network itself at a cost of $43 billion. A money sink.

Opposition theft. The Rudd government inherited the strongest budget position and banking sector of any major Western economy, which protected Australia from the global financial crisis. The government pretends this was all its own work.

Power. The national solar power rebate is a political debacle. The GreenPower scheme has failed. The renewable energy trading certificates scheme is in disarray.

Question time. Question time has blown out by 50 per cent over its traditional running time because of long ministerial answers and incessant points of order, while the time devoted to answering real questions, rather than Dorothy Dixers, has shrunk to less than 30 per cent of question time; a blatant corruption of the process.

Roof insulation. Send in the fraud squad. A good idea gone bad. Rampant false billing and over-charging. Cowboys everywhere. People dead. Houses unsafe. Systemic overspending. A hapless bureaucracy detached from the realities of the building industry.

School spending. The $16 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme is bloated with systemic overspending and over-charging. The problems were encapsulated by a builder who told me: "My company is involved in the BER work and it involves mismanagement, overcharging, schools being railroaded into decisions not in their interests, all hidden behind a smokescreen. It is the country's most expensive political stunt ever." Another money sink.

Tax increases. The federal budget in May will begin to reveal the consequences of panic, hubris, overspending and waste as the government seeks to offset its profligacy with higher fees and taxes. Superannuation was just the start.

Union power. The unions, having bankrolled Labor's election campaign in 2007, have received their payback, with an increase in union rights and powers. Union muscle-flexing is back, from the mining sector to small business. Endemic corruption, blackmail and violence in the building industry was finally curbed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Julia Gillard is shutting it down.

Vanity. See B, K, O, Q and U.

Whitlamesque. Spendthrift programs. Empty rhetoric. Self-congratulation. Deficit spending. Debt blowout. Two years of the Rudd government produces 20 years of debt and poses the question: worse than Whitlam?

X Y Z Generations X, Y and Z They will be stuck with the bill.

Monday, March 8, 2010

Geert Wilders to the House of Lords: 'The Left is facilitating Islamization'

House of Lords, London, Friday, March 5, An article from The World Tribune

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film ‘Fitna’. Thank you my friends for inviting me

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: “Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (…) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book ‘The River War’ from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”. End of quote.

Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent”. End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. It are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ “the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, bur pregnant with its message”. As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book ‘The Second World War’, a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill’s comparison of the Quran and ‘Mein Kampf’ is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being destroyed. Burqa’s, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don’t get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine – Elsevier – calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don’t know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was, and I quote, to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”. If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The Left is facilitating Islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn’t in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned.

Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. Fortunately, my dear friend and heroic American psychiatrist dr. Wafa Sultan is one of them. But their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I’m being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to ‘Mein Kampf’. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial… Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me, not about Geert Wilders. Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book ‘The Rage and the Pride’. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing ‘legal jihad’. This is Islamic ‘lawfare’. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. With all our strength. With all our might. Free speech is the most important of our many liberties. Free speech is the cornerstone of our modern societies. Freedom of speech is the breath of our democracy, without freedom of speech our way of life our freedom will be gone.

I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. These heroes cannot have died for nothing. It is our obligation to defend freedom of speech. As George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. We must make haste. We can’t wait any longer. Time is running out. If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don’t be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let’s elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words ‘This is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be “This is London”? Or will it be “This is Londonistan”? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

Thank you very much.

Creeping Sharia in Australia

An article by PAUL BIBBY at The Sydney Morning Herald
March 8, 2010

ELEMENTS of Islamic law - the sharia - should be legally recognised in Australia so that Muslims can live according their faith, a prominent Muslim leader says.

Addressing an open day at Lakemba Mosque on Saturday, the president of the Australian Islamic Mission, Zachariah Matthews, said parts of sharia could be recognised as a secondary legal system so that Muslims were not forced to act contrary to their beliefs. ''Sharia law could function as a parallel system in the same way that some traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law was recognised in the Northern Territory,'' Dr Matthews told the Herald after the session.

''I don't think we are so unsophisticated that we cannot consider a multilayered legal system as long as it doesn't conflict with the existing civil system.''

The comments shocked some attending the open day. They felt Dr Matthews was advocating the introduction of the penal system under which women have been stoned to death for adultery, and corporal punishment is meted out for some offences.

''It came as quite a shock to some non-Muslims in the crowd when sharia law and the idea of a parallel legal system was mentioned,'' one audience member, Jasmine Donnelly, said.

''One group of people just left straight after that.''

But Dr Matthews said he was referring only to certain elements of family law and inheritance law and was not advocating the sharia penal system.

''I wasn't talking about sharia law in its entirety - we are not calling for the introduction of the penal system which calls for cutting off hands,'' he said.

Dr Matthews said a clash occurred in some custody matters. ''Under sharia law, if a couple divorce and the mother remarries, her former husband has the right to decide whether the children will live with the new husband or not,'' Dr Matthews said.

''There is still a preference for the child to go with the mother, but the father has the ultimate decision.

''This does not exist in Australian law but I do not believe it clashes fundamentally with Australian values or the Australian legal system.''

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Mosab Yousef - Islam is a lie

Some more "Cultural Diversity"

Koran teacher jailed for sex attack on boy

A man has been jailed for abusing a boy while giving him lessons in the Koran.

Atta Ur-Rehman, 38, was found guilty of a number of sex offences against the young victim.

Appearing at Bolton Crown Court , he was sentenced to six years in jail.

He attacked the boy at an address in Rochdale in May last year where he was supposed to be giving lessons in reading the Muslim holy book.

The boy, who was upset and embarrassed, told his mother about what happened.

Ur-Rehman – of Hearies Road, Sheffield – at first feigned ignorance when confronted by the parents, but then asked the boy's parents for forgiveness.

The boy's parents then called the police.

Detective Constable Kirsty Simcox, who investigated the case, said: "Ur-Rehman abused the trust the victim's parents placed in him in the most terrible way.

"The boy showed immense courage to confide in his mother, and thankfully his parents then came to the police to ensure justice could be done.”

Article from Manchester Evening News

Friday, March 5, 2010

The Wilders Momentum

Yesterday’s local elections in the Netherlands resulted in a victory for the Freedom Party (PVV) of opposition leader Geert Wilders. On June 9th the Dutch will again be called to the voting booths for the general elections. Yesterday’s outcome reinforces the PVV’s momentum, which may result in a political landslide next June with repercussions all over Europe.

In yesterday’s local elections – the first ever in which Wilders’ party, established as recently as 2007, participated – the PVV became the biggest party in Almere and the second party in The Hague, two of the country’s major cities. The PVV won 21.6% of the votes in Almere and 16.9% in The Hague. The parties of the left had mobilized Muslim immigrants to come out and vote against Wilders. Many of them did so.

The Hague and Almere were the only two municipalities where the PVV fielded candidates for yesterday’s local elections. The PVV would also have done well in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, but decided not to run there. Wilders is leading a young party which still lacks a solid local structure. Rather than concentrating on quantity and fielding candidates wherever he could, even if he was not sure about the candidates’ background and talents, Wilders concentrated on quality. He could not afford to take the risk that in the three months remaining until June 9th, local PVV newcomers might discredit the PVV’s good reputation.

Wilders is a shrewd but cautious political strategist. He has learned from the experience of the LPF, the party of the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. In many respects Fortuyn stood for the same ideas as Wilders. After Fortuyn’s assassination the LPF fell apart in quarrelling factions. In 2007 the party lost its 8 seats in Parliament, while the PVV gained 9 seats in the first parliamentary elections in which it participated.

A poll taken yesterday by Dutch state television NOS predicts that Wilders will gain 24 of the 150 parliamentary seats next June. This would make the PVV the third biggest party in the country, after the Christian-Democrats (CDA) of the current Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende, and Labour. There are, however, other polls, such as the De Hond poll, which many consider to be the Netherlands’ most respected, which predicted yesterday that the PVV is to become the biggest party with 27 seats.

CDA currently has 41 seats; the NOS poll predicts that it will drop to a mere 29, De Hond predicts an even lower 26 seats. Labour currently has 33 seats and is predicted by NOS to drop to 27 and by De Hond to 24 seats. The center-right Liberal Party VVD is predicted in both polls to keep its current 21 seats. The Christian Union (CU) has seven seats in both polls, one more than the current six. Hence, both NOS and De Hond predict that the current center-left coalition of CDA, Labour and CU loses its parliamentary majority. A center-right coalition of CDA, Wilders’ PVV, VVD and CU would in both polls have a comfortable majority of 81 seats.

Geert Wilders is currently the most interesting political phenomenon in Europe. He is an anti-establishment politician who has a good chance of becoming a leading member of his country’s next government. Wilders defends Dutch national sovereignty and opposes the European Union’s centralizing policies. He also defends Dutch national identity and opposes the Islamization of the Netherlands. Wilders’ themes appeal to people in other European countries as well. They are equally concerned about the loss of national sovereignty and identity and feel that Europe’s traditional parties no longer speak for them.

From the center-right to the center-left Europe’s establishment parties share the consensus that Islamization and EU centralization are inevitable and must be facilitated if the parties want to survive and hold on to power. Wilders, however, is a politician who, in a Buckleyan tradition, “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.”

On international issues Wilders adopts positions which also go against those of Europe’s ruling political and intellectual establishment. He is an opponent of Turkey’s entry into the EU, an outspoken defender of Israel and an advocate of stronger American-European relations. This makes him unpopular with the media, but it has not harmed him with the electorate.

During the past three years, Wilders has been screening and training potential candidates for the parliamentary elections. To avoid attracting political opportunists and quarrelsome wranglers, he has been bringing potential candidates together in “class rooms” every Saturday. He has also had them coached by the party’s current parliamentarians. When the Dutch government fell two weeks ago, Wilders announced that he was ready for the elections and able to field a list of decent and capable candidates.

Wilders has carefully avoided international contacts with foreign anti-establishment and anti-immigrant parties who have been tarnished by anti-Semitic elements in the past. Wilders regards support for Israel as the litmus test to decide with whom he is willing to cooperate. His only official contacts so far have been with the Danish People’s Party (DF) and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The PVV leader has traveled to Denmark and Britain to speak at the invitation of the DF and UKIP. Last year, the British Labour government banned Wilders from entering Britain when he traveled there to speak in the House of Lords at the invitation of UKIP leader Lord Malcolm Pearson. The ban has meanwhile been overruled in court. As it happens, Wilders will be in London tomorrow, Friday, to hold the speech which he was prevented from holding in February 2009. On this occasion he will also show the short documentary Fitna which he made in 2008 to warn the world about Islam, which in his opinion is a dangerous ideology rather than a religion.

Wilders has succeeded in making Islamisation one of the major themes of the coming elections. Ironically, the Dutch authorities have helped him by taking him to court over Fitna. They have accused him of racism and incitement to hatred and discrimination against non-Western ethnic minorities. Although Wilders is an elected member of Parliament, he could be taken to court because the Netherlands, unlike some of its neighboring countries, does not grant politicians immunity from prosecution.

The Public Prosecutor argues that by stating his opinions on Islam, Wilders has “insulted” Muslims. The politician, however, emphasizes that he has never said anything negative about Muslims; he has always carefully restricted his criticism to the ideology of Islam and has done nothing else but state what he honestly sees as the truth. Wilders asked the court for permission to summon 18 expert witnesses in his defense. These include academics, former Muslims, but also Islamist apologists of terrorism. In early February the court brushed aside the request, allowing Wilders to summon only two Dutch academics plus the Syrian born American author and former Muslim Wafa Sultan. Moreover, to prevent the trial from turning into a trial about the nature of Islam – with Islam in the dock rather than Wilders – the court ruled that the three experts will only be heard behind closed doors. Finally, the court decided to postpone the case for a few months.

If the case is reopened before June 9th, it will seriously hamper Wilders’ electoral campaign because he is obliged to attend the court’s sessions. On the other hand, it could gain him the sympathy of additional voters and bring his ideas even more into the foreground as the major theme of the elections.

If the PVV manages to become the largest party in the Netherlands, Dutch Queen Beatrix is expected to ask Wilders to try to form a coalition government, although the Queen is not legally obliged to do so. It is the tradition, however, that the leader of the largest party becomes the nation’s next Prime Minister.

In Almere last week, Wilders announced that one of the first things a PVV led coalition will do is introduce a ban on headscarves for civil servants and for all institutions, foundations or associations that receive municipal subsidies. He added: “For all clarity, this ban does not include crosses or yarmulkes, because those are symbols of religions that belong to our culture and are not – as is the case with headscarves – a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”

The American journalist Diana West, author of the book The Death of the Grown-Up, says that Wilders is “so important as a politician leading the reversal of the Islamization of the West” because of the clarity of the distinction which he makes between Islam and other religions. “He defies the multicultural lock on truth as he rejects the cultural relativist’s denial of identity.”

If Wilders becomes the next Dutch Prime Minister he will be able to influence decision making at the level of the European Union and become a major political figure on the international scene. Some observers expect that the mainstream Dutch center-right parties – the Christian-Democrats and the Liberals – will not be willing to form a coalition with him because they want to keep him away from the international political scene. If that is the case, however, the most likely outcome of the June elections will be a center-right minority government that depends on the support of the PVV. The Netherlands have no tradition of minority governments. Denmark, however, has. In Denmark, the center-right governs with the support of the Danish People’s Party. It is a formula which has allowed the DF to set the government’s agenda without being part of the government.

Wilders is familiar with the Danish model. In the past three years he has met the DF leadership in the Danish Parliament on two occasions. Not being a member of a government coalition, whilst still being able to set its agenda, might be an attractive alternative to the shrewd Dutch political tactician. It would also give him the opportunity to continue visiting Western countries, including America, to warn the West about the danger of Islam and to build an international political movement opposing multiculturalist relativism.

Dutch anti-Islam leader is major winner in polls

This article by Paul Woodward on March 4, 2010 is available from the War in Context website

Dutch anti-Islamist leader Geert Wilders scored major gains in local authority polls Thursday, making him a serious challenger for power in a June national election, preliminary results showed.

In the first test of public opinion since the collapse of Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s coalition government last month, Wilders’s Freedom Party (PVV) led in the city of Almere and was second in The Hague.

The results came on top of an opinion poll showing that the PVV, which campaigns against Muslim immigration as its main platform, would win the most seats — 27 in the 150-member Dutch parliament — in the June 9 election.

That would make it tough for Balkenende’s Christian Democrats, projected to win one seat less, to forge a strong coalition without Wilders. Months of talks between parties, and the resulting policy vacuum, could threaten a fragile economic recovery and cast doubt on the scope of planned budget cuts.

The popularity of Wilders, who compares Islam to fascism and the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf,” has dented the image of the Netherlands as a country that has often portrayed itself in the past as a bastion of tolerance.

geert wilders interview.mp4