Kevin Barrett

“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America,” a narrator intones. “A strategy to infiltrate and dominate America. … This is the war you don’t know about.” -NY Times report on anti-Muslim hate film used in NYPD training

Let’s try a little historical IQ test. Read these items and connect-the-dots.

* Zionist-made hate-Islam films are shown to American cops and soldiers as part of their training.

 
Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.
* Many Americans, asked what country the US should invade next, say “Iran” – but when asked to find it on the map, they point to places like Australia.


* In California, schools are required to “teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.”


* According to news reports, women kill their children so they can go out partying.


*“Abortion is here to stay; even Republicans know that banning it would be political poison.”

Actually, I lied. This isn’t an IQ test – it’s a Rorsach test. You’re welcome to interpret this data any way you want.

Here’s how I interpret it: The family unit, the basis of civilization, is falling apart in the West. The collapse of the family, education, public and private morality, aesthetic taste, literature and the arts, religion, grand narratives in general, the birth rate, marriage rate, etc. is symptomatic of steep cultural decline. The West is heading for the New Dark Ages, and there probably isn’t much anybody can do about it.*

Neoconservatives – cognizant of imperial collapse, panicked because Israel is the most vulnerable outpost of Western empire – are trying to save Israel, which in their view is synonymous with Western civilization, by uniting the West in hatred of Islam. To succeed in this, they have to tell gigantic lies 24/7/365.

Their central big lie: “Islam is a military threat to the West.”

Reality: The Islamic world is militarily feeble. While it is just barely possible that the combined military power of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims might pose a serious threat to the tiny and dubiously legitimate “nation” of Israel – actually a settler colony stolen from the Muslims – there is no “Islamic military threat” to the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The Mossad has had to bomb the World Trade Center twice, and launch false-flag attacks all over the globe, to create the appearance of such a threat.

Islam is being targeted not because it is a problem, but because it offers a solution. 

There is only one major bloc of seriously religious people left on earth: Practicing Muslims. These are people who stop whatever they are doing (including sleep) at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, dusk, and nightfall to practice salaat – a quasi-yogic ritual enactment of absolute submission to God. These are people who abstain from all food and drink, including water, throughout the daylight hours for a full month every year. These are people who do not touch alcohol – or any other drugs except maybe coffee or tea. These are people who abstain from sex outside of marriage.

Like Christians 500 years ago, practicing Muslims are as interested in the next life as in this one. (Unlike some extremist medieval Christians, they do not go so far as to denigrate this life or claim that it means nothing while the next life means everything; in this, as in all things, Islam offers balance.)

Among practicing Muslims, rates of crime, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, venereal disease, abortion, divorce, etc. are off-the-charts low. (Google “Islam most civilized Javed Jamil” for the data.)

The single strongest indicator of non-recidivism for prisoners is conversion to Islam.

The number of seriously practicing Muslims on earth is in the many hundreds of millions. Due to their relative success in forming and maintaining strong families, they are demographically outpacing less-religious folk, especially Westerners.

And Islam is a straightforward, sensible religion that “works.” Anybody who practices it sincerely gets the benefits – as reflected by the statistics showing that practicing Muslims are doing off-the-charts well in all important social indicators. (These, of course, are just material indicators of spiritual well-being, i.e. inner peace.)

That’s why Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, and in the world.

And THAT is the real “Islamic threat.”

* * *

* Required reading on the decline of Western civilization includes Spengler, Gibbon, Morris Berman, Neil Postman, Eric Larsen, Pat Buchanan, Joseph Tainter, Don Delillo…that should keep you busy for awhile. Note that Berman is brilliant but gets 9/11 wrong. (The 9/11 inside job, and its acceptance by the masses and alleged intelligentsia despite all the elephant-in-the-living-room evidence, is an even stronger symptom of cultural decline than all of other evidence that Americans can’t tell their collective ass from a hole in the ground put together.)

Jihad Watch

But deep down, they really, really want peace. To think otherwise would be “Islamophobic.”

“Top official says Hamas will never renounce jihad,” from AFP, January 23:

Keep your head out of the ass in front of you, a drone is circling        rag head.

GAZA CITY, Palestinian Territories — Senior Hamas official Mahmud Zahar said on Monday that the Palestinian Islamist movement will never give up its armed struggled against Israel.The statement comes as Gaza Strip officials openly attacked the movement’s leader-in-exile Khaled Meshaal, who has decided not to run again this summer for the leadership of Hamas, for prioritising “peaceful resistance.”

“We are fighting for our dignity and rights. Jihad is our path, our life, our pride and we will not renounce it no matter the sacrifices,” said Zahar, quoted on the website of the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing.

Hamas will “never give up its armed struggle against the Zionist enemy,” he said during a speech in Zeitun, a neighbourhood in east Gaza, in honour of the “martyrs” of Israel’s December 2008-January 2009 Cast Lead operation against the enclave….

Money Jihad

Yea let’s here it from you nice peaceful Muslims living in the United States, the way you launder your money is no longer a secret.  Vote for your Muslim brother Obama. When the Republicans win back America the boom will be lowered on the clueless followers.

Wahhabi-backed U.S. halal certifier pays top officers 6-figure salaries, gets $5 million in business income, claims public charity status

If a food manufacturer wants to call its products halal, and obtain a label that attests to its halal compliance, that manufacturer must submit an application for review by a halal certification organization.

In the U.S., halal certifiers are not government entities and, unlike organic food certifiers, are not accredited by the government.  The halal boards are privately run.

One of the largest halal groups is the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America (IFANCA), a Chicago-based multi-million dollar enterprise.  But as Family Security Matters has noted, “There are very few transparent news reports of the expansion” of the halal industry in North America.  The time has come for fuller scrutiny.

First, IFANCA proclaims on its own website that it is recognized and endorsed by the Saudi-based, Wahhabi hegemon Muslim World League.  The MWL has funded Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations throughout the world in an effort over several decades to export and ingrain Wahhabism across the planet.  But this doesn’t seem to bother IFANCA.

Second, IFANCA claimed tax-exempt status in its 2010 tax return even though the vast majority of its reported revenues comes from “inspection fees.”  These are fees that IFANCA charges to food producers for the “privilege” of sporting IFANCA’s halal food logo.  Such fees sound a lot more like ordinary business income that should be taxable rather than charitable or “public” contributions which would qualify the entity for tax-exempt status.  IFANCA’s Form 990 showed $5,519,829 in inspection fee revenue.  Its only other reported revenues were $14,466 in gifts.

To qualify for tax-exempt status, a charity needs to get over one-third of its income from donations or grants and no more than one-third of its income from business activity.  With 100 percent of its income from apparent business activity, IFANCA falls far short of federal standards for a nonprofit charity.  (IFANCA’s six-figure salaries to its president and vice-president documented in its tax returns may also raise a few eyebrows.)

IFANCA casts itself as an educational entity of sorts, promoting “knowledge” and “community development” with respect to halal foods.  But it does not base its claim for public charity status on its educational or religious mission, but rather by describing the inspection fees as public contributions.

IFANCA’s tax approach makes it relatively unique among food certification groups such as organic, vegan, and kosher certifying entities.  Several U.S. organic food certifiers are tax exempt on the bases of Section 501(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code because they have an agricultural mission—not on the basis of any professed public charity mission under 501(c)3.

The Vegan Awareness Foundation, which is a major certifying entity for vegan foods, maintains tax-exempt status on the basis that it receives a substantial portion of its revenues from donations or grants—not from site inspections.

Many kosher certifying entities are set up as regular businesses and pay taxes.

The IFANCA case illustrates a flawed federal system that accepts 99 percent of all claims for tax-exempt status.  The IRS can start making amends by revoking IFACNA’s tax-exempt status.

Moreover, due to its tax-dodging behavior and World Muslim League affiliation, consumers should avoid buying any IFACNA-certified foods, and grocers should refrain from stocking their shelves with such products.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret)

Comments by Jim Campbell

The comments by the Colonel may be correct, not just regarding Iraq but Afghanistan as well.  Were the lives lost, blood and limbs lost their worth the cost.  Not to many of the surviving loved ones.  Many stories have discussed wounded warriors going back to be with their units. The were not required to do so, they felt they were making a big difference in the lives of those they were protecting.

Now with the rapid preannounced departure of our troops by an inept guy who calls himself the “Commander-in -Chief so that he can pander to the whims of the anti-war movement in his morally bankrupt party, should this be a surprize?

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret) is a retired Marine infantry officer who served , the US invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will–Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields” and frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.

Winds of Jihad

Comment by Jim Campbell

Hold on a second, “Shaia law ensures personal freedom for all?”  Hum, that would mean freedom to be stoned to death, hung, become a child bride, be subjected to female genital mutilation at a very young name, be set on fire or hung if you are a homosexual and among many other freedoms the freedom to be killed and or tortured should you desire to leave the cult.

Islam is nothing but a totalitarian all-pervasive life style that a Seventh Century lunatic by the Name of MO, who could not read or write, hijacked the Muslim people living is some of the worst places on earth to be forced into submission.

Now folks that isn’t what comes to mind when I think about freedom.  How about you?

Muslim Brotherhood’s new motto, Change without Hope

In all probability the U.S. Ambassador, both a Obama and Muslim suck up, who bought this and anything else they were selling.

Islam is the perfect cult for Obama to follow. He can lie 24-7 and taqiyya has him covered.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

“Jiziya without conditions”

“Any aid must go through legitimate channels, with the knowledge of the Egyptian government, without any conditions.”

CAIRO: A statement issued by Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said that US Ambassador to Cairo Anne Patterson met with the group’s Supreme Guide Mohammed Badie on Wednesday, and reportedly told her that Sharia law, or Islamic law, “ensures personal freedoms for all.”

MB Chairman Badie

Seeing is believing:

“Kafirs have to make it up to the Arabs…”

“We want to see actions, not words, for the U.S. to recover its credibility with the Arab and Muslim peoples, in particular with regard to Palestine — the top issue for Arabs and Muslims,”  (source)

Austrian BZO Parliamentarian Ewald Stadler directly addresses the Turkish ambassador in Austria Ecvet Tezcan and exposes a few things, just little things mind you like the beheading of a Catholic Archbishop Luigi Padovese who was stabbed eight times into the heart in the city of Iskenderun on June 3rd, 2010, and asks for his immediate dismissal. 

At last, a man in Europe with the courage to say what we’d all like to say to these hypocritical Mohammedist Supremacists who seek to talk to us about tolerance and then have none themselves!

Bravo, I say.  Bravo!  Listen to what Ewald Stadler has to say and be warned, because there’s going to more of us saying the same thing to wake up all the dhimmis in all our governments in the West who want to kowtow to these mass-murderers with their appeasing and apologizing and outright dhimmitude for their horrific atrocities committed worldwide and on a daily basis against those of us in Western Civilization who respect life and the law, and live it.   

Listen and remember.  Because there are those of us who will take a stand against Mohammedist treachery and barbarism and who will defend until death what we value.  Which is life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Comment by Jim Campbell

Wow Muslims torturing other Muslims and their court system will not hear the case.  Guess you dudes out to get into that Golden Rule bit, you know; Do unto others as you would have then do un to you.  Of course since you have been trained to hate and kill as a child what are you crying about?

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has turned down a bid by three Arab-Muslim men to overturn a decision that allows the federal government to shield some national security information from use in a $180 million civil suit.

The trio were allegedly tortured in Syria and Egypt between 2001 and 2004, when they were under investigation in Canada for alleged terrorist ties. Almalki, a father of six, claims Canadian officials contributed to his ordeal by sending false, inflammatory information about him to foreign security services.

Among the documents protected is a top-secret communication between CSIS and the RCMP that had been accidentally sent to Almalki’s legal team.

The redactions had previously been ordered removed by Federal Court Judge Richard Mosely, who ruled that “public interest in holding government accountable for the alleged actions and omissions of its servants is an important issue in this case.” Two federal inquiries have established that the RCMP also sent questions for Almalki directly to the Syrians while he was in custody, even though warned about the possibility of torture.

In its statement of defence, the federal government has denied any wrongdoing and has blamed any mistreatment on the Syrians. The three men are seeking $60 million each; their families are seeking millions more in damages.

 (Gee, these three don’t look like any torture victims to me. What did they make them do – skip a meal?)

Comment by Jim Campbell

Attention future  Muslim shop owners.  You would not likely be successful in the U.S. 

An owner is allowed to refuse service, for aberrant behavior or a dress code but not discrimination of people because of their religion.  By now one would think as a woman  you would be very clear about discrimination.  After all, your stone age belief system treats women with less respect than animals. 

If you are capable of thought, rise up and say you ain’t playing MO NO MO he has been messing with you since the Seventh Century.

“Islamic entrepreneurs wanted,” says the sign in the window, offering space for offices, retail stores, restaurants, and catering. But only to Muslim entrepreneurs.

Below is the future home of this Islamic Shopping Center. Notice the black flag hanging in the window, – the flag of jihad (war).

A  Muslim business woman, is planning to open Hamburg’s first ‘Islamic Shopping Center’ in a vacant property.  She is already advertising for business partners who want to rent parts of the property, but only ‘Islamic’ companies need apply. (SEE MORE BELOW)

Islam vs Europe  The initiative is being promoted by Muslims who run a mail-order business selling burkas, but it’s part of a grande scheme to spread ‘dawa’ – getting people to accept the Islamic faith.

Comment by Jim Campbell

Tariq al Dhahab, the leader of the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would know this exactly how?  Perhaps he has been channeling MO the great deceiver and pedophile?

(Long War Journal) — The al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula commander who took control of a town in central Yemen late last week has released a short videotape urging Muslims “to unite and be patient” as “the Islamic Caliphate is coming.”

Tariq al Dhahab, the leader of the al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula forces that seized the town of Rada’a in Baydah province last weekend, made the statement in a 54-second-long video on YouTube that was released on Jan. 18.

 

“So, be patient, perseverant, and stationed,” Dhahab told the “Muslim Ummah,” or community. “The Islamic Caliphate is coming, with permission from Allah, and it will be established, even if we sacrifice our own skulls, money, children and homes.”

Dhabab’s forces seized control of Rada’a last weekend after more than 200 of his fighters stormed the city, took over government buildings and a historic fort, and freed more than 250 prisoners, including many al Qaeda fighters, from a jail. Dhahab’s fighters raised the black banner of jihad over the fort and swore allegiance to al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri.

Keep reading…

NRA-ILA

Comment by Jim Campbell

Just another case of social engineering gone wrong and who would have predicted that? Apparently the elite do gooder crowd is not a student of history.  Tyrants crush the people’s weapons and next they crush the people. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?  The current administration differs little from the experts below.

“… a social paradise concocted by politicians who believed that civilized society could only be made crime-free through the confiscation of all arms.“

  Want to see that celebrated British stiff upper lip begin to quiver? Just mention to Parliament or press that England is not the isle of tranquility envisioned more than a century ago, when the nation began the systematic disarmament of its citizens.After years of chipping away at private firearm ownership through passage of a rash of seemingly innocuous rules and regulations, with the adoption of a total handgun ban in 1997, the British achieved what was hailed as the “gold standard” of gun control. At the time, leading newspapers in England heralded this “restraint on personal liberty” as “essential to the happiness” of the country`s law-abiding. Not having a Second Amendment sucks my British Friends.

The credo was a simple but vacuous one: fewer guns mean fewer crimes. Essentially, it was the legal intention that “nobody, except a soldier, sailor or policeman” should ever have access to a handgun. Simultaneously, the courts took up the cause, prosecuting those who resisted violent attacks with any sort of armed reaction. Over time, it became evident that predators were apt to be judged less harshly than victims who used any type of device, even a stout stick, in an act of self-defense.

According to the utopian scheme of things, gun bans were supposed to evoke a kinder and gentler world-a social paradise concocted by politicians who believed that civilized society could only be made crime-free through the confiscation of all arms. At the same time, it seemed pertinent for the government to also divest British citizenry of all normal human reactions regarding self-preservation.

The results have been as tragic as they were predictable.

A litany of failures were apparent as early as the year 2000, when CBS News reported that law and order in Britain was deteriorating at a rapid rate, while the country was experiencing a crime surge much more severe than any recorded within the United States.

“Have a nice daydream,” was the retort fired back at CBS from editorialists with the London Mirror, the same daily newspaper fond of pointing out that the British crime rate was “nothing at all compared

to the Wild West culture on the other side of the Atlantic, where every other car is carrying a gun.”

However, in time, in stories sandwiched between inside pages, the newspaper conceded that CBS was right. “Britain has overtaken the U.S. for all major crimes,” the newspaper admitted. In fact, the motherland was indeed racing ahead by a substantial lead, sporting a crime rate in England and Wales that at times peaked at as much as 60 percent above crime statistics here in the States, with gun crimes especially prominent.

So how could a nation operating under an alleged discipline of total disarmament suddenly become victim to a spike of armed, violent crime? Especially a country that advanced the notion that individuals had a right to personal security more than 100 years before it became a fixture in America?

Consider that William Blackstone, an early British champion of working-class citizens, argued that the right of self-protection was one no government could take away. Another champion of individual rights, A.V. Dicey, cautioned that if the government discouraged self-help, then loyal subjects became the slaves of ruffians.

It`s no wonder that the U.S. Constitution would feature a Bill of Rights insisting on a Right to Keep and Bear Arms. For generations following the British insistence on equal rights for its citizens, including the right to self-defense, subjects of the Crown were among the safest and most law-abiding in the world, with a crime rate that truly was the envy of its neighbors.

Things began to disintegrate in the 20th century with the passage of laws that increasingly restricted private possession of firearms, along with edicts forbidding the right to carry arms for self-protection. Eventually, British law determined that even vigorous self-defense could only be “reasonable in the circumstances.” By 1969, British police officers were told by higher authorities “it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person.”

British wags were quick to point out that the justice system appeared to have its philosophical hat on backwards. One commentator said the courts seemed to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater consequence than the safety of the robber`s victim. Such comments soon were both numerous and scathing, and not without good reason.

Grumblings in the British press increasingly mirrored grassroots opinions about the plight of the law-abiding: “The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita, higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven`t had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.”

In 2002, the chances of being mugged in London were approximately six times greater than in New York City, cultural center of the “lawless Wild West” so often mocked by British snobbery.

Another accused Tony Blair of going “total: blame everyone, ban everything.”

Gang activity is certainly at the root of Britain`s climbing crime rate, and much of the lawlessness can be traced back to disaffected youth in England`s rust belt, where jobs are few and hope is diminishing.

Essentially, the firearm issue never has been about the guns themselves, but more about eroding social mores balanced against the rights of the individual. And while America has thus far managed to protect its Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-protection (borrowed for use in our Constitution from the 1689 English Bill of Rights), many of the English rank and file clamor to have theirs back as societal mayhem takes advantage of the vacuum created by disarmament.

Dismayed Brits point to their country`s egregious gun laws, the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy, and argue that they not only didn`t reduce violent crime but managed, as documented by the British press, to leave “law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals confident (their) victims have neither the means nor legal rights to resist them.” The BBC reported that gun bans “seem to have little impact on the criminal underworld,” while the use of handguns to commit crimes rose 40 percent during the two years following the total ban on them.

Simultaneously, the number of innocent citizens robbed at gunpoint rose some 53 percent. In 2002, the chances of being mugged in London were approximately six times greater than in New York City, cultural center of the “lawless Wild West” so often mocked by British snobbery. Overall, rates of assault, robbery and burglary shot past those recorded in America and, maybe most ominously, 53 percent of British burglaries were said to occur while the residents were still in their homes.

Even so, British lawmakers have stuck to the notion that people don`t need to protect themselves, because society can and will. And, in a defenseless populace besieged by a growing climate of violence, police urge individuals witnessing a crime to walk on by as if nothing had happened; to let the pros handle it . . . if only they could.

Contrast this to attitudes in the U.S., where law enforcement professionals are among the first to acknowledge that police can`t be everywhere and can`t protect everyone from criminal attack, and that in many instances individuals have not only a right but a responsibility to protect lives, family and property. At the same time, the majority of candid police officials in this country openly admit that it would be nearly impossible to rid the nation of firearms if guns were banned, or to keep illegal guns from entering the country.

British citizens have found this out the hard way. They found it out in a delivery truck allegedly loaded only with frozen pizzas, a truck with a Croatian driver carrying smuggled firearms in the midst of all that cheese and crust. They also found it in the post-war economy of the Balkans, a region accustomed to supplying guns to those willing to supply cash in return, no matter what laws may be on the books. They found it in the numbers of deactivated, collectible guns refitted to work on the street. And the English have found, to their dismay, that governmental decrees don`t necessarily receive consensus respect. There are and will continue to be firearms in Britain, even if Parliament demands the surrender of everything from fine double barrel skeet guns to the most common child`s air rifle. The proof, no matter the amount of bureaucratic gibberish to the contrary, continues to generate headlines that shock the nation.

British society remains outraged by stories like the one involving the murder of an 11-year-old boy, a bright and personable child walking home from football practice, gunned down for no apparent reason by another youth riding a bicycle. Brits have seen gunfire erupt in a courtroom when armed men sought to free two defendants in a nightclub shooting. They`ve listened to reports concerning two men killed by automatic gun fire in what had been a quiet residential neighborhood, and read headlines about the 19-year-old woman killed while walking along a main street in East London, murdered by thugs who sought to steal her cell phone.

According to the Manchester (England) Guardian, Manchester residents fear that the city is slipping into what they refer to as “Gunchester days” due to gang activity and shootings. And there`s little consolation to be found in the fact that Parliament promised it couldn`t happen, that the civilian population would be compensated for the loss of personal liberty by heightened law enforcement-a sad state of affairs from a country that gave the world the Magna Carta.

Maybe the most chilling scenarios generated by Britain`s attempt to legislate a disarmed society are the tribulations of those simply seeking to survive it. Take for instance the English homeowner who used a toy gun to detain burglars caught in his home. When police arrived, the homeowner himself was arrested for using a fake firearm to threaten or intimidate.

Or consider the plight of an elderly woman who fired a cap pistol in an attempt to frighten away a group of young rowdies who besieged her. She was arrested for placing someone in fear.

Or how about the businessman who, during a mugging, pulled an ornamental knife from his cane and used it to slash his way out of what he feared to be a deadly confrontation. Even though he thought he was on the verge of losing his life, the petroleum executive was convicted of carrying an “offensive weapon.”

Rather than face the fact that gun control has actually opened a Pandora`s box of violence rather than closed the lid more tightly, an arrogant Parliament and societal upper crust have instead chosen to punish those they can most easily-the remaining Brits with backbone enough to fight for their rights as law-abiding citizens. After all, gangs and street toughs shoot back-and have the firearms to do so in spite of propaganda to the contrary.

In 1962, Anthony Burgess wrote a book called A Clockwork Orange, a futuristic look at random violence as a way of life among disenfranchised and desensitized British youth. The book would become the 1971 classic film of the same name by Stanley Kubrick.

At the time, the subject matter horrified viewers around the world. Yet today, they can watch much the same thing on British TV news.

Perhaps the time has come for Britain to rethink its restrictions on the rights of good citizens, and focus on the mayhem routinely practiced by the bad ones. If Parliament would only do the right thing and take necessary steps to reinstate the most basic human right of self-preservation, then maybe those of us here in the United States would resist the urge to say, “I told you so,” and instead cheer the resurrection of liberty back in the land where it started.
]]> http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/internationalun-gun-control-issues-internationalun-gun-control-issues/feed/ 0 33.669465 -117.823111 33.669465 -117.823111 dancingczars gun_control_works2 http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/attacking-the-british-embassy-an-iranian-rite-of-passage/ http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/attacking-the-british-embassy-an-iranian-rite-of-passage/#comments Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:17:47 +0000 dancingczars http://actforamerica.wordpress.com/?p=8279 Continue reading →]]>  

January 20, 2012

Dr. Laina Farhat-Holzman

GlobalThink

Comment by Jim Campbell

The Brits screwed up big time when they outlawed personal ownership of weapons.  Can you imagine these punks trying to do this in the US?  If they choose to act stupidly perhaps  the game, Cowboys and Arabs needs to be taudht to them.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

On December 1, Iranian thugs attacked the British Embassy in Tehran in hours-long violence. This recalled the Iranian seizure of the American Embassy in 1979, holding American diplomats hostage for 444 days. When the 1979 assault happened, right after the Iranian Revolution, the Revolutionary Government initially denied complicity (which may have been true). However, in short order, the Ayatollah decided to take credit for this act.

Dr. Michael Ledeen

• The first was an academic with no apparent connection to the nuclear project.  He was a political activist who supported the Green Movement, the main group in opposition to the regime.  He attended international meetings, and was a member of a group that included Israelis.  He was blown up by a significant quantity of explosives, not a sticky bomb.  The explosives were planted in or on a motorcycle parked outside the victim’s house;

• The second was apolitical, was also a theoretical physicist, and belonged to the same international scientific organization (including Israelis) as the first.  He was killed by a sticky bomb;

• On the very same day, another physicist was attacked.  He was also a political activist, a regime supporter, and a member of the revolutionary guards.  Unlike the first two, he was certainly an active participant in the nuclear program, as shown by the fact that his name was on official sanctions lists.  The news stories spoke of a bomb, but the photographs of the crime scene don’t show evidence of an explosion (they do show some bullet holes in his car).  There’s another big difference:  he wasn’t killed.  Shortly after the event, he was promoted to head the nuclear program.  To which Potkin asks a good question: