Joe McCarthy ... where are you?
You're right Anne ... Joe was right.
Excellent piece!
I pray to God that after he is re-elected, George Bush will be inclined and able to address these facts frankly, without fear of the PC that keeps the whole truth cloaked.
Thanks for posting this.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
-- Winston Churchill
From the post: "Islamic schools"
Does anyone know how many there are of these "schools" and is this the only form of education the children get? Is the American government in any way involved - funding - etc - ?
Is anyone in government allowed to check what is being taught? Just wondering -
How many from Japan were in America at the start of our involvement in WWII - ? It's easy to mistrust - but to mistrust a whole - ?
With American liberals they're halfway there. Liberals, like the French, will appease anyone to save their butts.
Middle America is another story, and unlike Europeans, they have guns, love their freedoms, and are rabid Christians.
LINKS OF INTEREST
http://www.truthusa.com/LinksOfInterest.html
This was done mainly through picking an isolatable subject (black males), struggling with lower education access, lower pay scales, a sense of lack of respect from others not of the same skin color, and being imprisoned.
Searching for meaning during interrment, they were easy marks for Islamic based ministering. Offering a method to gain respect for ones-self, from others, and restart a bad life, it seemed a wonderful rehabilitation for many young black (or any ethnic group) men.
It turned out that the wonderful leader that brought this to America, was a hypocrite as far as following the mandates of his own religion, but that happens everywhere.
The problem we perceive now is that this was just a means to establish an organized and trained and used to following orders!, physically fit militia within the United States borders, at command able to be hostile to "the man"... whomever it is decided that label goes on at the time.
Radical Islam's 'plan' to take over America - Arab-American author outlines secret 20-year strategy to undermine country
BUMP
Tolerance is not tolerance for things judged to be good or true. Such things do not need tolerance. Tolerance is tolerance for error, or it does not merit the name. The reason we tolerate error is error is the natural state of mankind, and to require lack of error on the part of men (1) condemns must men to justified punishment and (2) requires an infalliable judge to decide what is and what is not error. Such a judge does not exist in this world. Governments are least of all capable of it. Governments are no arbiters of truth. Their record in the matter is abysmal, a river of blood spilled for the grossest superstitions and the most patent errors.
We tolerate because we prefer the danger of misguided fellow citizens to the danger of an omnipotent government that claims the sole possession of the truth. Not because there is no danger in the first. We keep the right to bear arms to protect from either. We aren't scared of wicked private individuals because we fully expect to defend ourselves against them if they appear, not because we think they do not exist. When individuals engage in criminal acts we throw the book at them, judging them ourselves in our capacity as jurors, not trusting anybody else to do so with our interests in view.
Freedom is not based on the desire for safety in the first place. It is independently desired even if it brings danger, as preferably to living as a ward of paternalistic states arrogating all judgment of truth, necessity, danger, or guilt to themselves. We expect and get no assurances we won't be endangered by doing so. We will be dangerous ourselves, right back, when the occasion demands.
In the case of militant Islam, we consider preposterous the notion that millions of fellow Americans will prefer so ridiculous and unjust an ideology. But if they do, we will fight against them. We have put up with idiocies from our domestic left that are at least as dangerous - including people who gave atom bombs to Joe Stalin and lobbied for the Khmer Rogue. We tolerate not in ignorance but in majestic strength. Even when they do their worst, they will not stop us. We will re-elect W and wage our war, in contempt of anything either Muslim radicals or the international left can do about it.
Ping
What have we done to counter this threat? Dubya has made a start but where are the leaders in Congress, the press, the academy and elsewhere who have come up with effective ways to stop this mortal threat? We should both make clear that those with good ideas are praised and those who support the attack on the United States are identified. FR is helping. What other groups are? We can help knit them together into an effective force. I would like to start by pointing to the Hudson Institute; they have transitioned from their former focus on "thinking the unthinkable" to very good programs on this threat. There are others. Let us bring them to the fore.
That is their plan for America, just as it is with Europe!
Europe is being overrun with Islam fanatics!
So which is more dangerous? Militant PCism or Militant Islam? The Libs with their head in the sand attitude are the biggest danger, because they refuse to recognise a problem, much less fight against it.