A horrendous switch

This is what has happened all over Europe and Canada and it is coming to the USA faster than you can imagine!

The following is a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15. 2011. It doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate the message to the rest of Europe - and to the rest of the world.

THIS WAS IN A SPANISH NEWSPAPER:
"EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ "

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

"I walked down the street in Barcelona and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz ...We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned.

And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.. A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves. Recently, the UK debated whether to remove The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it.

It is now more than sixty years after the Second World War in Europe ended. This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the six million Jews, twenty million Russians, ten million Christians, and nineteen-hundred Catholic priests who were 'murdered, raped, burned, starved, and beaten, experimented on and humiliated.' Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

Socialism-The UKs problems will soon be here!

Want to know where this country is going if we follow this absurd march towards socialism? Europe is broke as a DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR SOCIALIST UTOPIA and now the gig is up. Austerity basically means NO MORE SOCIALISM or you WILL go broke and your country WILL collapse. Read this and find out what the UK is going through, what the world is running away from and where the obama gov. wants to take us! A fool learns from his own mistakes...a wise-man learns from somebody else's!

 A new report out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has thrown a light on the abuses that invariably come when you socialise healthcare. This one focused on home care for the elderly run by local councils. The chronic disregard of pensioners was found to be so appalling many have been left ‘wanting to die’. Of the 500k people that are under government care, 250k experienced horrendous neglect. Here are some examples of what ‘carers’ get up to:

• Refusal to heat food in a microwave and serve due to “health and safety” concerns
• Soiled sheets unchanged for weeks
• The frail put to bed at 2:45pm
• Lack of time to carry out vital tasks like washing and dressing
• Physical abuse such as rough handling and shouting
• Systematic theft of money
• Leaving food out for a blind and deaf man and not telling him where it is

And it is no better in hospitals, where a study earlier this year exposed similar abuses, like leaving food out of reach, so that patients starved and were so thirsty they couldn’t cry out for help. Hot off the press yesterday, we learn that botched operations are now in the tens of thousands each year, post-operative infections are at an all time high and the death rate due to NHS care is ‘alarmingly high’.

Some elderly with means are even hiring private nurses and having them pose as friends and relatives to ensure they are bathed and fed while in hospital. It is so surreally absurd and obscene, it almost sounds like a comedy sketch, but sadly it is all too real and the tragic result of a human ‘rights’ culture. And it will be the fate of America if Obamacare is not repealed.

When left to the devises of man, a ‘right’ becomes a politicised tool to manipulate for purposes of greed, power or some other nefarious intent. When passed into law, personal responsibility is abrogated and it is left to the courts to fight out whether a right has been denied based on evidence gathered.

Take the simple concept of clean drinking water which the UN Human Rights Council says should be a ‘right’ recognised under international law. Now since we can’t live without it for more than a few days and we all support that everyone should have it, wouldn’t this be a reasonable law? No it would not. 

Just because we call something a ‘right’ does not make it so. The thinking gets muddled when we fail to distinguish the difference between a ‘right’ and a necessity. Water is necessary to human life, so our governments should ensure their citizens have access to it. Unfortunately some governments fail to do so as in developing nations where water access is unsafe or scarce. In 2003 Kerala, India suffered extreme water shortages when corrupt officials granted water rights to a foreign soft drinks manufacturer, allowing them to extract a million gallons a day. To combat this kind of poor government judgment, the UN resolution seeks to let the responsibility fall to the international community, which usually means taxing richer nations to supply that water in various programs. But much of that money will inevitably end up funding a new Mercedes or palatial residence for the local despot. The status quo remains as the tyranny of taxation hampers the ability of private sector initiatives to take action.

It’s the same with health care. In Europe, no politician will renounce social health care for fear of losing his votes. In fact, the best way to gain votes is to denounce its privatization. Money continues to be thrown at services no longer fit for purpose and when that’s gone, the inevitable ‘efficiency ‘ cuts come.

Billions have been spent here in the UK on commissions and reports by outside agencies producing endless reports on how to fix the NHS. Many point to competition being a key to improvement. Yet the country remains frozen into non-action over this sacred cow because of our deeply imbedded ‘rights’ culture. Even Socialist Sweden was able to lift itself from health care hell into market led reforms that have transformed their health service. In former communist Slovakia nearly half of health care is privately serviced.

The British clearly haven’t suffered enough yet, as they cling to the proposition that universal health care is a right and proper way to equalize resources and makes society ‘fair’ for everyone. In the process, free market principles are obliterated forcing people who want other non-government alternatives to fund them themselves while still paying tax to for a universal system. And the basic human interaction of one person helping another in need through the choice that a well developed conscience dictates, is replaced by the state and bureaucratic decisions based on statistics and budgets. Taxation and the appeal to our innate sense of fairness is the oxygen that feeds this system, and it inhibits the freedom for civil society to take action because money is squeezed from that sector. And when a ‘right’ is designated to another party to administer, the culture gets lazy about doing the decent thing. Need can only be truly addressed on an individual basis by people whose objectives are driven by personal charity and not personal greed or power.

‘Rights’ culture turns into tyranny when we fillet out moral virtue and conscience. When you leave the judgement of decent behaviour to another – a politician, a court or a human rights commission, you set up a value system that encourages self-centred thinking devoid of personal responsibility. 

Western civilization was built on Christian values and its attendant rule of law based on Mosaic Law or the Ten Commandants - the ultimate guideline for personal responsibility. Follow these and you have moral order which in turn leads to societal order. ”Honour your father and your mother”, takes care of our elders. If you can’t, then someone in your family will and if they can’t, then it falls to our neighbours, which is way the Christian moral ethic operates. If we swept out government intervention tomorrow, civil society would pick up the baton. Faith groups and others would set up homes for the elderly where volunteers, religious and others would band together supported by private fundraising to do what a culture powered by love does. 

We see this ethic in operation time after time, especially in America after natural disasters. People pitch in and help their neighbour.

America’s founding made this culture of love endemic and is the reason why so many want to flee to its shores, many of whom don’t even understand why this principle works, but they do get that the freedom it spawns does work. The founding fathers also knew the role of government must be to protect this freedom out of which personal responsibility flourishes. This was all placed under God in the Declaration of Independence which recognized the fundamental rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The culture of ‘rights’ claims to protect, but it can never succeed. Firstly, take God out of the equation and we will never agree on what a ‘right’ is. It becomes a euphemism for decency. Bloated on luxurious budgets at the expense of ordinary people, the EU unceasingly dreams up new goodies to throw into the ‘rights’ bag, as we saw this summer with one member putting forward a bill for the ‘right’ to a summer holiday.

Secondly, where one ‘right’ is enforced, another will be violated. Take airport scanners. In the UK we will soon be required to do a full body scan without a pat down option if a passenger is selected for screening. If we refuse, we lose our right to fly. Flying is not a right, but in a free society a bought service. We choose this service based on how safe they make it, the food, seat comfort, etc. 

The individual airlines in turn should be able to provide the necessary security as they see fit.

Decency dictates that appearing nude to a stranger while being bombarded with ionizing radiation would warrant another method more valid. But despite the unusual move by the EU to direct its member states not to use this type of scanner, the UK is going ahead because of the significant terror threats we face and our ‘rights’ be damned.

In a free society, airlines should be able to choose their methods of security and market them accordingly. Israeli airline EL AL would be the first port of call for consultation as they have cornered the market in determining who poses a threat by psychological profiling, suspect terrorist intelligence and good old fashioned common sense backed by gun wielding marshals on board. Now, that’s a service I would gladly pay for and relax on the flight.

And the rest who still feel violated? Since the majority of terrorists taking to the skies these days are Islamofacists, we could create flights based on Imam-defined rules of safety where Muslims might feel happier about not being profiled. The market would operate freely, we all have our dignity and ‘rights’ intact and we would see who did the better business. Similarly, a free market health care system weeds out the good hospitals from the bad and the impetus to decency of the individual would see to the needs of the truly destitute.

The REAL Palestine

Many of you folks have been lied to or not done your homework on the Palestinian situation! Let me give you a brief history and if you don't like this, I am hoping to get tickets for you on the next failed flotilla headed to Gaza. You are an idiot and I will be glad and maybe lucky if you won;t be around to vote anymore! It is long past the time we should cut off ALL funding to these muslim scum! obama, our usurper in chief has TRIPLED the money going there with YOUR money! Lets get to the facts:

In the spring of 1964, while the Vietnam War was underway, the space program had brought close up photos of the moon, and the Beatles were topping the charts; the Arab League convened to try and find a way to complete the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel. They had tried it once before in 1948, with incomplete results. Back then, the Arab forces had managed to capture and ethnically cleanse the eastern half of Jerusalem, as well as seizing and annexing the West Bank and Gaza. But for 16 years, Israel had managed to frustrate their designs by stubbornly continuing to exist.

What the Arab governments wanted was a terrorist organization that could cross the border and carry out attacks inside Israel. And they wanted plausible deniability so that Israel and the UN couldn’t hold them responsible for those attacks. And so cloaked in a lot of smoke and mirrors about “Palestinian Arab nationhood”, the Palestine Liberation Organization was born.

The PLO had three tasks, to harass Israel through terror, to cultivate a fifth column inside the country that would come into play in an invasion, and to make it seem as if the Arab world wasn’t a bunch of genocidal maniacs, but wanted to destroy Israel in the name of “Palestinian rights”.

The Arab League had never believed in an independent Palestinian state. Even while they were creating the PLO, Jordan had already annexed the West Bank. And Gaza was in Egyptian hands. The PLO’s purpose was not to liberate these areas, or even to govern them. Its own charter made that abundantly clear.

Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip or the Himmah area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

The PLO’s own founding charter had already conceded that the West Bank was not part of Palestine, and instead recognized Jordan’s annexation of the area. When the PLO talked about “liberating” Palestine, it only meant the parts of Israel that the Arab League members had not succeeded in seizing in 1948. When the PLO talked about liberating Palestine, up until 1967, it had nothing to do with the West Bank or Gaza, it simply meant destroying Israel.

It was not until 1967, when the latest Arab League attempt to “drive the Jews into the sea” failed, that the PLO began talking about their rights to Gaza and the West Bank. Previously they had staged terrorist attacks on Israel from bases in Gaza and the West Bank, under the sponsorship of Egypt and Jordan. After Israel reclaimed Gaza and the West Bank, and reversed the ethnic cleansing of Jews carried out in 1948, the PLO began focusing on the territories that their sponsors had lost in 1967, rather than just those they had lost in 1948.

From its founding, the PLO had always been a tool of larger movements in the Arab Muslim world

From its founding, the PLO had always been a tool of larger movements in the Arab Muslim world. It began as a tool of Arab Socialism, and Pan-Arabism, the dream of a single Arab state encompassing the entire Arab world. An Arab socialist Caliphate. Even while agitating for the Palestinian cause, Shukairy went on promoting Pan-Arabism, in which there would be no independent Palestine. But then again an independent Palestine had never been the point.

By the 70’s and 80’s, the PLO had become a poisoned knife that cut the hands of its wielders. This is the common enough fate of those who create terrorist groups and imagine that they can control them. The PLO had managed to commit a number of terrorist atrocities in Israel, and Arafat, the 3rd successor to Shukairy, had become a household name. But it had achieved nothing except headlines.

In the seventies, the PLO attempted to seize control of part of Jordan, which after all compromised the majority of the Palestine Mandate. But the PLO was brutally suppressed by the Jordanian regime of King Hussein, and was expelled from the country. It tried the same thing again in Beirut a few years later, trying to carve a “Second Palestine” out of Lebanon. It failed again, with horrifying results for the entire country.

By the late eighties, the PLO was done. Egypt had made a peace deal with Israel. Jordan had a tacit understanding with Israel under the table. Syria was the only Arab country bordering Israel that was still somewhat supportive of the PLO, but it had little use for the PLO as a terrorist organization inside Israel, because the PLO was Arab, and the Golan Heights which Syria hoped to conquer was Druze. Instead Syria was far more interested in using the PLO to spread chaos in Lebanon for its own purposes.

Had Israeli and American leaders not chosen to engage in act of breathtaking stupidity bordering on treason, the PLO would have faded away by now, much the same way that Habash’s PFLP has. Its Arab Socialism was already dated. It had been created to pave the way for another invasion of Israel by the Arab Powers that after 1973 seemed to be permanently on hold. After Jordan and Lebanon, no one in the Arab world trusted Arafat anymore. And with the Soviet Union in decline, the PLO was swiftly running out of backers. 

In a better world, by 2004, Arafat’s death would been a historical footnote putting an end to what had once been a serious terrorist threat.

But instead the PLO was rescued, given its own state and army, along with billions of dollars from the United States and Europe. A terrorist organization created in order to destroy Israel, that had been brutally expelled from two Arab countries, was given its own autonomous territory inside Israel. Words like madness and treason are almost too good and rational a description for this course of action. But corruption is the only one that properly suits.

In the late eighties, the PLO had become a weapon without a wielder. The PLO had gained its influence from its ability to cause chaos, but Israel’s intervention in Lebanon had robbed it of even that. While the foreign press couldn’t get enough photos of masked stone throwers onto their front pages, the reality is that the PLO’s influence existed mainly in the media. The PLO had come full circle, to become just as irrelevant as it had been in 1964. But then the United States decided that it could become the PLO’s wielder.

The Saudi infiltration of the American government meant there was still a small body of very influential people in the foreign policy establishment who kept repeating over and over again, that a “settlement” to the Israeli-Palestinian was vital to the stability of the region. The media helped keep this slogan in circulation with editorials and news stories. And successive administrations kept on pressuring Israel to reach a “settlement”.

In 1991, the US pressured a conservative Israeli government into participating in the Madrid Conference. The negotiations failed to achieve anything, but for the first time Israel was forced to negotiate with terrorists. Israel’s conservative government collapsed, and was replaced with a left wing coalition that conducted further illegal negotiations with the PLO. Those negotiations ratified under Clinton’s benevolent smirk in the Rose Garden, brought the PLO back with a vengeance.
 
Given territory and troops, Arafat reverted back to his old formula. He would cause chaos through terrorism in order to gain more power. The plan worked like a charm. Arafat recognized that Arab Socialism was done, and he Islamized the Palestinian Authority. The educational system under the authority of the PA taught a primal Islamic hatred for Jews and other infidels. The cult of the suicide bomber provided religious authority to support PLO terrorism. And what had been a mild terrorist problem before Arafat was given a state inside Israel, became a horrifying nightmare afterward.

Via Fatah, the PLO was treated as a political party. Through Fatah’s control over the Palestinian Authority, it was treated as a government. Terrorist attacks were attributed to various “extremist” or “militant” subgroups, whom naturally Arafat couldn’t control. Even though Arafat’s own militias were engaging in terrorism, the US pretended that it had nothing to do with Arafat or the PA or Fatah. Just more “extremists” and “militants” trying to disrupt the peace process. A process which involved Israel making concessions while under fire.

Clinton had taken ownership of the accords, and predictably refused to admit that anything was wrong, until the very end, when Arafat laughed at his dreams of a final status agreement. Only then did Clinton belatedly realize that Arafat was not interested in peace. But then why would Arafat have ever been interested in peace? The PLO was a terrorist organization. Its ideology called for the destruction of Israel. It gained nothing from peace, except the end of its legitimacy.

The new Bush Administration initially got it. It treated Arafat as a pariah, and avoided the constant drumbeat of criticism and demands for concessions from Israel that had been common under Clinton. Colin Powell as Secretary of State had little power and influence over Bush, and was in any case busy with the War on Terror. Once again the PLO seemed to have reached a dead end. Without American political influence protecting Arafat, Israel was able to respond to PLO terrorism by smashing into Arafat’s compound and seizing important documents that showed Arafat’s involvement in terrorism.

But in 2004 Arafat died. Colin Powell announced his resignation that same year. The old Bush Dream Team of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney lost their influence. And the new single most influential figure was the new Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Rice had been heavily influenced by James Baker, the architect of the Madrid disaster. She had been a board member of Chevron, a company that had been formerly known as the Arabian American Oil Company or ARAMCO. Like Baker, Rice was an eager tool of the Saudis, and the old foreign policy came back with a vengeance.

The PLO’s prospects were revived again under Rice. The death of Arafat had brought forward a seemingly more suitable replacement. Mahmoud Abbas, a KGB trained operative, had become a useful compromise candidate. Abbas wore a suit, spoke softly and was generally considered ineffectual and useless by potential rivals who allowed him to hold the top spot as a figurehead. 

Bush Jr liked Abbas a good deal more than he had liked Arafat. Once again weapons and money began flowing to the PLO. And once again Israel was pressured to make more concessions to the terrorists.

There was one problem. The PLO had become a hollow shell. The Palestinian Authority government that the US and the EU had spent billions on, was nothing more than a facade. The real money was going into the bank accounts of top officials and used to buy the loyalty of street militias. But money wasn’t enough anymore. And the tide was coming in.

Arafat had accurately foreseen that Islamic terrorism was the future, but he hadn’t hopped far enough or fast enough on the bandwagon. Hamas had gotten there before him. And Hamas had its own sources of financing and weapons, primarily from Iran. Like the PLO, Hamas was a weapon, but not of Pan-Arabism, but of Pan-Islamism. Hamas had been carved out of the Muslim Brotherhood, its ideal was that of the Caliphate, its mission was Jihad or religious war. Like the PLO, Hamas did not take the idea of Palestinian independence seriously. But unlike the PLO, its allegiance to a Global Caliphate was part of a rising tide of Islamic terrorism.

Hamas was a weapon with a purpose. The PLO no longer had a purpose anymore. As Fatah, it bought loyalty with American dollars and European euros. As the PA, it denounced Israel and demanded negotiations which it had no interest in participating in. Its only real backers anymore were in Washington D.C. and in Brussels, which meant that it had become the foreign element in the region. When Rice pushed for open elections, Hamas won, and Fatah lost. When Rice pushed Abbas to suppress Hamas, the militias that had been happy to take American dollars, ran as fast as they could. Hamas took Gaza. And Abbas has been left sitting in Ramallah, while pretending to run a state.

And so now we come to the latest turn of the wheel. The PLO is reaching the very end of its relevance. There is no chance whatsoever of Fatah retaking Gaza. The only reason Hamas hasn’t taken the West Bank, is because Israeli soldiers are in the way. But Israel’s blockade of Gaza, has allowed Hamas to build ties with Western anti-war groups. Regionally, Egypt is still backing Fatah, but Erdogan’s Turkey has thrown its weight behind Hamas. Syria and Iran are heavy Hamas supporters.

There are only so many ways this can play out. The likeliest of them is that some key Fatah leaders will broker a compromise with Hamas, and change sides. Iranian money will be used to buy the loyalty of key militias. There will be a few days of light fighting, followed by a few hundred executions. Maybe more. And then Hamas will rule in both Gaza and the West Bank. No amount of effort by American generals to train Palestinian Authority “police” will change that. And extracting concessions from Israel will only put more territory in the hands of Hamas.

But US foreign policy on Palestine has never been based on any kind of reality. In Washington D.C., they’re certain that Salam Fayyad’s reforms will fix everything. That all Abbas needs is a “modern” police force and the situation will reverse itself. Of course it will not. And any attempt at another election will quickly show why. Meanwhile the refusal to hold elections, exposes Abbas and Fayyad as a sham, a puppet regime without any legal authority.

So naturally in the face of all this, Abbas is declaring statehood. It’s an insane last gamble by a leader with a vanishing base of authority and no real future. Instead of stepping back though, Abbas and Fayyad are playing out their final gamble at the UN.

Abbas doesn’t represent anyone, except the militias and bureaucracy that he pays with US and EU money. His term has expired. He has no legal status for conducting any negotiations. But you won’t read that in the press, which takes great care to blame Netanyahu for delaying negotiations, when in fact it was Abbas who repeatedly rejected direct talks, primarily because they may well end up being his death warrant.

The media and the Obama Administration remain wired into a purely “Blame Israel” mode. One story after another insists that the main obstacle to peace is a few private Israeli homes going up in Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. It is as if Hamas’ control of Gaza doesn’t exist for them. The elephant in the room armed with rockets and suicide bombers, controlling all of Gaza, might as well be a non-issue, as far as they’re concerned. No one in the media asks when was the last time Abbas won an election. A minor issue that goes to the minor question of whether Abbas is even actually empowered to reach any binding agreements.

It might be 2011, but it might as well be 1996 or 2003 or any year in between. Except that the PLO’s power is about done. The negotiations don’t matter. Abbas will do his best to see that they fail, because it’s the only way he can survive his own people. And he needs to have the blame for the failure fall on Israel, because it’s the only way he can hang on to US and European support. As usual, nothing Israel can do will work, and whatever it does, it will get the blame. The media will go on chattering about settlements, as if that were the endgame here.

Statehood is a fiction that will move more money into the pockets of the Fatah elite, but it’s also a double-edged sword. Fatah’s only defense against a Hamas takeover is that it can extract territory through negotiations—something Hamas cannot do because it refuses to negotiate for anything but temporary truces. A unilateral statehood declaration, if taken seriously, would also mean the end of negotiations. That’s something Abbas can’t afford because then his usefulness to Hamas is at an end.

Abbas needs Israel to keep from being overrun by Hamas, but he needs Hamas to keep his image as the moderate alternative to those crazy guys in Gaza. The balancing act has drawn billions in foreign aid, but infuriated everyone. Now Abbas is playing an even more dangerous game, going for broke to shake down Israel and the world into giving him some breathing room. It’s a desperate move, but it may also work in the short term. In the long term though, the whole shebang is still doomed.

The Palestinian Authority is not a government, it’s a terrorist organization in suits and ties. It has shown that it is not self-supporting and not capable of running anything besides a rocket launcher. It existed only as long as it was useful to someone.

The PLO began life because it was useful to the Syrians and Egyptians. When they no longer wanted it, it was still useful to the USSR. When the USSR no longer wanted it, it became useful to America. But now it’s running out of sponsors.

The United States has been funding the Palestinian Authority since 1992 and it has gotten nothing for it

The United States has been funding the Palestinian Authority since 1992 and it has gotten nothing for it, and while the foreign policy establishment insists on blaming Israel for that, there’s only so long that game can go as well. The Bush Administration dumped Arafat and Abbas knows that sooner or later his turn will come. With no more options, no ability to reach a final status agreement and Western patrons whose foreign aid budgets will start tightening in the face of the bankruptcy, he is playing his only remaining card.

Either way the Palestinian myth is on the verge of flickering out. Hamas may talk about Palestinian rights, but it has even less interest in them than the PLO did. Hamas was spawned by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Its goal is an Islamic state in Egypt and Gaza, and then all of Israel. It has replaced the Pan-Arabism of a Shukairy with a Pan-Islamism, that it meant to lead to a Global Caliphate. The leaders of Hamas are no less corrupt than Arafat’s cronies were, but it will take longer for the average Israeli Arab to figure that out.

The Arab and Muslim world has made very effective use of Israeli Arabs as terrorists and bullies. From the Lebanese Civil War, to the streets of Iran, where Palestinian Arab terrorists are being used as snipers and gunmen to suppress protests against Ahmadinejad, they have always been weapons. Ideology has served to frame a mythical Palestinian identity for them in terms that make them all into mercenaries, terrorists and martyrs. Where Israel took in Jewish refugees, the Arab world deliberately perpetuated an Arab refugee problem in order to turn them into weapons. Once they were the weapons of Arab Socialism. Now they are the weapons of Islam. 

Who won, Our Freedom & Liberties or the Terrorists?

Ten Years Later...
We’re Still Paying the Price

What to say, on this tenth anniversary, about the horrible events that occurred on that beautiful, sunny autumn morning of September 11, 2001 - "9/11" as it is now universally known?

Listen to Edmund Burke, speaking in 1715: "No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear."

Our second President, John Adams, warned: “Fear is the foundation of governments.” 

Yes, of course - most rational human beings want to feel safe and be secure. But with bipartisan agreement among the politicians, our fears have been exploited, dumping hundreds of billions of tax dollars into the bureaucratic maw under the banner of “homeland security.”

What has 9/11 wrought?

Over the past decade a new and alarming system of government mass surveillance has been erected, and we know very little about it.

The massive Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an unnecessary conglomeration of 22 agencies and nearly 200,000 employees, together with an out of control FBI and CIA, engage in massive surveillance of all of us, not just suspected terrorists or criminals.

Our phone calls, our emails and website visits, our financial records, our travel itineraries, and our digital images captured on powerful surveillance cameras are adding to the mountains of data being mined for suspicious patterns and associations.

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead...
But in Too Many Ways He Died Victorious

When Osama bin Laden caused those airplanes to kill civilians 10 years ago, he took a lot more from the United States of America than the lives of more than 3,000 of our fellow citizens and residents.

Within a matter of days, if not hours, eager American politicians adopted fear as their continuing motif, justifying the sacrifice of our constitutional rights and liberties as the price of alleged safety.

The centerpiece of their opportunistic politics is the grotesquely named PATRIOT Act that has destroyed personal and financial privacy in America, rendering meaningless much of the hard won Bill of Rights we had honored for the last 220 years.

Yet most Americans have been all too willing to purchase that illusive security without regard for its cost in terms of lost personal freedom and liberties.

In an interview on the National Geographic Channel last week, George W. Bush says his most painful memory of that day was seeing the horror of people falling or jumping to their deaths from the Twin Towers and knowing there was nothing he could do to help them.

It would be useless for an interviewer to ask Mr. Bush what he thinks about what he and his successor in the White House, the constitutional law professor, Barack Obama, have done to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 

In pursuit of both terrorists and common criminals, Obama has perpetuated so many of the Bush administration’s wrongful policies that their policies are indistinguishable in the destruction of civil liberties.

The inimitable Oscar Wilde wrote:

"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes."

As we observe the 10th anniversary of 9/11 this Sunday, the people of the United States have every reason to question whether their "leaders" really have learned anything from those thousands of needless deaths and the events of ensuing years.

Yet our leaders have sacrificed the very principles that they claimed to be defending.

I was one of the millions of horrified Americans watching television when United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 9:02:59 a.m., on 9/11/2001. I remember calling my wife to turn on the TV because I thought a well done movie was being played on every channel! I so wish that was the case.

After my sensations of horror, disbelief, anger, sorrow for the victims,  U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, spoke for me in expressing my troubled thoughts:

"Times of tragedy and war naturally bring out strong emotions... Sometimes people are only too anxious to sacrifice their constitutional liberties during a crisis, hoping to gain some measure of security. Yet nothing would please terrorists more than if we willingly gave up our cherished liberties because of their actions."

Sad to say, Ron Paul's prediction has come to pass in too many ways. A short six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a panicked U.S. Congress adopted the so-called “USA PATRIOT Act.”

In my view, that “law” is the single most egregious example of an unconstitutional law ever enacted by Congress. I have spent 10 years chronicling the offenses that have been committed by U.S. government agents in its name. Tags in previous Blogs include "Big Brother, Obamastan and Obamination" among others!

So Who Is Winning - Freedom or Terrorism?

This raises the question... just how far are Americans willing to go on surrendering their liberty and their privacy? How much are we willing to pay for this promised, illusory defense? Are we willing to become Fortress America with Big Brother watching and listening to all that we say and do?

Americans had better put aside politically inspired fears, and start asking and answering that question - before we enjoy neither safety nor liberty.

More than one million Americans have died in all our wars. To observe that so many have sacrificed down through the centuries only accentuates the meaning and importance of the greater cause for which they died.

They died before their time, their promise unrealized, in the service of the country.

Ten years removed from 9/11, while thinking of the thousands of souls who died, we should consider President Abraham Lincoln’s advice in closing his Gettysburg Address: “... that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

9/11 truly was, and continues to be, America's moment of truth. Whether we pass or fail this crucial test is yet to be determined.

Failure is what we should truly fear.

This 10th anniversary of 9/11 is a good time to ask questions and demand answers. We need concrete proof that those in power, and those who aspire to power, realize what America has lost and whether they are willing to restore our constitutional rights and liberties.

NEW BILL IN HOLLAND TO END MULTICULTURALISM

Well I doubt this will send a strong message to the muslim scum, but its a start! Now if EVERY country did this, it would set the islamic scourge back a decade or two in their efforts to dominate our western political systems! The last sentence here say's it all! Congrats to Holland for taking the first courageous step and standing up to the plate while most other countries still turn a blind eye! Even after 911, the USA is in denial! 

A FOOL LEARNS FROM HIS OWN MISTAKES...A WISE-MAN LEARNS FROM SOMEBODY ELSES!

A new parliamentary bill has been presented to the Dutch government to end the multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel societyin Holland.

Under the new integration bill, which the Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on 16 June, immigrants would be required to learn the Dutch language, and a tougher approach would be taken against those who ignore Dutch values or break the law. Extra measures will also be introduced, if necessary, to remove residence permits from immigrants who fail their integration course.

Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner who presented the new bill to parliament

The bill reads:

The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The integration will not be tailored to different groups.

The government also plans to outlaw forced marriages and as of 1 January 2013 will impose a ban on face-coverings. There are also plans to stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants, because, according to Donner, "it is not the government's job to integrate immigrants."

The umbrella Muslim group Contactorgaan Moslims en Overheid (Muslims and Government Contact) says that although it agrees that immigrants should be better integrated into Dutch society, it is opposed to a ban on burqas.

Polls show that a majority of Dutch voters support the government's scepticism about multiculturalism. According to a Maurice de Hond poll published by the newspaper Trouw on 19 June, 74 per cent of Dutch voters say that immigrants should conform to Dutch values. And 83 per cent of those polled support a ban on burqas in public spaces.

Commentators say that the proper integration of the more than one million Muslims now living in Holland has been a major political issue ever since Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated in 2002 for his views on Muslim immigration and Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death in 2004 for producing a film that criticised Islam.

There are now an estimated 1.2 million Muslims in the Netherlands, which is equivalent to about 6 per cent of the country's overall population. Muslim immigrants have become increasingly assertive in carving out a role for Islam within Dutch society. For example, a documentary aired by the television programme Netwerk in June 2009 reported that Dutch law was being systematically undermined by the growth of sharia justice in the Netherlands.

In December 2004, the Dutch Ministry of the Interior published a 60-page report titled From Dawa to Jihad. Prepared by the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD, the report says that the Netherlands is home to up to 50,000 radical Muslims whose key ideological aim is to target the Western way of life and to confront Western political, economic, and cultural domination. It concludes that Dutch society is poorly equipped to resist the threat of radical Islam because of "a culture of permissiveness" that has become synonymous with "closing one's eyes" to multiple transgressions of the law.

Unions war with the Teaparty-Who stands for what?

On Thursday, union longshoremen closed a port in Longview, Washington, took security guards hostage, damaged rail cars, and dumped a shipment of grain — all because the owner of the terminal was using a contractor whose workers belonged to a rival union. Longview police chief Jim Duscha said, “A lot of the protesters were telling us this is only the start.”

Are these the tactics that Teamsters president James P. Hoffa had in mind on Labor Day when he called for a war? On Monday, Hoffa declared war on the Tea Party. Hoffa opened for President Obama by saying that the Tea Party has “got a war, they got a war with us and . . . we’re going to win that war.” He added, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.” [sic]

Hoffa’s declaration culminated weeks of attacks made by Democrats on Tea Party activists. On August 22, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told supporters in California (many dressed in purple SEIU t-shirts), “[As] far as I’m concerned, the ‘Tea Party’ can go straight to Hell.” Also in August, Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.) told the Congressional Black Caucus, “Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree.” Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to compare the Tea Party to terrorists, and at a Labor Day speech he told a union audience that they are “the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates.”

Neither Obama nor any major Democrat has denounced this rhetoric. On Fox News, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to condemn Hoffa’s statement.

This silence speaks volumes. How the unions and their allies fight their battles is indicative of whythey fight. Today, the political left and Big Labor constitute a coalition of takers. The unions’ war is financed by forced dues and the conscription of those who cannot say no for fear of losing their jobs. They want to take what is not theirs and redistribute it among themselves — in the case of unions, to an ever-shrinking number (11.9 percent of American workers, and only 6.9 percent in the private sector).

Government-sector unions want to confiscate more money from taxpayers to keep on paying for unsustainable pay and benefits. More government spending means more unionized government jobs. That translates into more forced dues for the unions to spend on electing politicians to vote for yet more spending, and the cycle goes on.

Labor bosses in the private sector want more members for more forced dues, never mind if workers want to join a union or not.

The Tea Party was born in reaction to this trend. Tea Party activists are motivated by the desire to keep what they have earned. They want to live their own lives and not be forced to pay dues just to keep their jobs. They know individuals can run their own lives better than bureaucrats in Washington. They do not consider their employers the enemy, and they seek to get ahead on merit, rather than on longevity because of collective-bargaining agreements. They want businesses to prosper thanks to lower taxes, less government, and less regulation.

The Tea Party has scored some major victories — most notably helping elect small-government freshmen to Congress and state legislatures around the country — so the shrill attacks from the left smack of desperation. Union bosses know they are losing. Their last hope was government unions, and now those too are under pressure as state and local governments across the nation face severe budget constraints — largely due to generous public-employee compensation under collective-bargaining agreements.

Interest groups that live off the government trough have a long history of organizing to ask for more. They offer politicians electoral victory in exchange for more taxpayer-funded kickbacks. Their biggest allies are elected officials who wish to control almost every aspect of other people’s lives, because it is in their best interest. So it’s no surprise that this takers’ coalition would be caught off guard by the rise of a countermovement asking for less government. That’s why their reaction has been intemperate, to put it mildly.

But it’s not just rhetoric, as the incident in Washington State demonstrates. It’s not an isolated incident. In Michigan, a business owner was shot simply because he owned a non-union electrical shop. In New York, vital emergency phone lines were sabotaged during a strike by unionized Verizon workers. What will happen when someone dies? Will Biden and Hoffa stand by their declaration of war?

Those who feel entitled to something — even when it’s the product of someone else’s labor — will fight tooth and nail to keep it, and that is what union bosses are now doing. To counter that, Tea Party activists and lawmakers committed to reining in the growth of government will need to stand firm by their principles.