Barack's terrorist-sympathizing fundraiser
Posted: April 11, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008
As Gen. David Petraeus testified under the glare of the klieg lights before Congress this week, we were treated to a close-up of the character of not just the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, but also those attempting to sit in judgment of him.

Gen. Petraeus presented the report on the outstanding progress being made by U.S. troops who defied last year's predictions of doom and disaster from liberal members of Congress who had labeled "the surge" a failure before it ever even began.

Among those who have attempted to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is that self-proclaimed champion of "hope," Sen. Barack Hussein Obama.

As he questioned Gen. Petraeus, it was clear that Obama seemed once again to be auditioning for "best actor" award. Obama sat there earnestly staring at Gen. Petraeus, attempting to conjure up the image of the dignified "uniter" he claims to be. Then he opened his mouth.

And again, we were reminded that the man who adored Rev. Jeremiah Wright – he of the "God damn America" school of uniting – is the same man who today calls for the surrender of U.S. troops to the forces of Islamic jihadists.

(Column continues below)

Repeating a lie that becomes no truer despite how many times it is recycled, Obama insisted that al-Qaida did not exist in Iraq until U.S. troops had liberated the nation from the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein.

Is Sen. Barack Obama that naïve? Or an accomplished liar?

As I have stated countless times in my columns, over the TV/radio airwaves and at pro-troop rallies, the man who would emerge as the leading figure of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, most certainly was in Iraq well before Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced.

In fact, not only was he in Iraq before the invasion, but he went to Iraq to escape the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan – where Zarqawi and his associates were previously operating.

Like the yellow-bellied coward he was, the al-Qaida leader lit out for Iraq, sending his human bomb squads out to murder and rampage against innocent Iraqis and American troops alike.

Remember the grainy video footage of American jets dropping a bomb and blowing up an al-Qaida compound? That was where Zarqawi was hiding, until his Satan's den was blown to pieces by American munitions.

And yet, Barack Obama and company continue to maintain to the rest of the world that the terrorists operating in Iraq are not involved with the Islamic terrorists' jihad against America.

That's about as believable as the fantasy Obama has advanced that he was always "absent" from the pews of the United Trinity Church when his "favorite Uncle," Rev. Wright, condemned the United States.

Someone who hasn't been absent from the pews of the church of Obama-mania is a woman named Jodie Evans, who happens to work for the anti-American group Code Pink.

Campaign documents released by the Federal Elections Commission reveal that the anti-military activist is involved in a bundling operation for the Obama for President campaign.

Bundling allows a designated individual or organization to bypass campaign finance limits by collecting the contributions of others and "bundling" them together.

Jodie Evans has already donated the legally allowable $2,300 to the Obama for President campaign, and so has her son, who lists his occupation as an "unemployed student." Unemployed students must be making out great during this economic slowdown, to be able to fork over $2,300 to presidential candidates.

Code Pink insists that they are merely a feminist peace group, which is akin to Adolf Hitler representing himself as merely a travel agent for Jews who wanted to see unknown parts of Germany and Poland.

Code Pink has been in the headlines recently for their campaign of "counter-recruitment" where military recruiting centers here in the United States have been violently attacked by "peace" thugs.

Code Pink's treasonous behavior on foreign soil has been equally disgusting.

The organization traveled to Iraq to give $600,000 in aid to what they called "the other side" so they could resist Coalition Forces. The "other side" is a euphemism for Islamic terrorists. But remember, according to the worldview of Barack Hussein Obama, these terrorists have nothing to do with the jihad that's been declared against America.

Kicked out of Pakistan after protesting the Pakistani governments efforts to combat the jihadists operating in that country, Code Pink's leaders have also been some of the strongest proponents of former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's regime. Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin even renounced the United States and moved to Cuba before being kicked out by the government there. Turns out, even tyrants have standards. Who knew?

But not Barack Obama, he's taking the bundled Code Pink money and proudly reporting the donations to the FEC.

Barack Obama spent weeks trying to brush off the spoken words of his 20-year mentor, and Obama insisted his pastor's values didn't represent his values.

Perhaps he can give an equally bravura performance by explaining away the photograph below. It shows the anti-American thug president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, with his arms around Barack Hussein Obama fundraising bundler Jodie Evans.

But don't worry, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that one of Barack's top fundraisers is hob-knobbing with anti-American dictators.

And Barack Hussein Obama will once again put on his best acting face as he insists to the American people that all his anti-American friends have such starkly different views than his own.

Let's hope Americans are wise enough to see through the act.

Welcome to 'Lawfare' - A New Type of Jihad

by Brooke Goldstein
Family Security Matters
April 14, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1884
Send
RSS

The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.

Islamists with financial means have launched a "legal Jihad," filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.

Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.

Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of "libel tourism." At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.

Libel Tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers, television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals and others targeted for censorship is long and merits brief mentioning here.

One of the earliest cases in the US dates back to 1937, where in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled "Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy him an American Girl for Harem." The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, "who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents. The lucky girl", the article continued, "will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women but she can't be seen by those who are not members of the household."

The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama court of appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where eventually the Plaintiff lost for his failure to state a cause of action.

Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France and elsewhere don't afford their citizens, or American citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because, naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.

I want to mention briefly a few cases that have occurred here within the last ten years against American anti-Islamist authors and activists. It is imperative that our judicial system continue to enforce the authors' and activists' rights to free speech and free assembly against all parties attempting to stifle them here and abroad.

In 1998, America Online (AOL) permitted chat rooms in which voluntary participants could post comments and talk to one another about issues involving the Koran and tenants of Islam. One Muslim visitor to the chat room named Saad Noah considered posts by other visitors blasphemous and defamatory against Islam. Noah then sued AOL for libel, attempting a class action on behalf of all Muslim chat room participants and claiming that AOL wrongfully refused to prevent participants from posting anti-Islamic comments. The court properly dismissed the case against AOL, for failure to state a cause of action.

In 2003 the Council on American Islamic Relations (i.e., CAIR) sued U.S. Congressman Cass Ballenger after an interview with the Congressman was published in the Charlotte Observer wherein Ballenger exclaimed how living in Washington across the street from CAIR headquarters no longer appealed to him because CAIR was, "a fundraising arm for Hezbollah," and that the Congressman had reported such to the FBI and the CIA. Fortunately, the judge ruled that Ballenger's statements were made in the scope of his public duties and were therefore protected speech in the interest of public concern.

The following year, CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead, an American activist and blogger, for $1.3 million for maintaining the website Anti-CAIR.net.org, on which Whitehead lists CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups. Ironically, after CAIR refused Whitehead's discovery requests, seemingly afraid of what internal documents the legal process it had initiated would reveal, CAIR withdrew its claims against Whitehead, the two parties came to a settlement – the terms of which have not been publicly disclosed – and the case was dismissed by the court with prejudice. Whitehead's Anti-CAIR website, however, is still up and running along with the articles that were at issue.

Last year, When Joe Kaufman, an American activist and chairman of Americans Against Hate, traveled to Texas to lead a peaceful ten-person protest against the Islamic Circle of North America outside an event the group was sponsoring at a Six Flags theme park, he was served with a temporary restraining order and sued for defamation and harassment. What is particularly troubling about Kaufman's case is that the suit was filed against him, not by ICNA, but by seven Dallas area plaintiffs who had never previously been mentioned by Kaufman, nor had they been present at the theme park. This suit currently is being litigated.

Another case that is ongoing is that of Bruce Tefft. Tefft is a former CIA official and worked as a counter-terrorism consultant for the NYPD. After sending out emails to a voluntary list of police officer recipients in which he cut and pasted articles about terrorism – complemented with Tefft's own commentary – Tefft, along with the NYPD, was sued by a Muslim John Doe Police Officer alleging workplace harassment.

Often the mere threat of suit is enough to intimidate publishers into silence, regardless of the merit of their author's works. In 2007, when wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, threatened to sue Cambridge University Press for publishing the book Alms for Jihad, by American authors Robert Collins and J Millard Burr, Cambridge Press immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, took the book out of print and ordered the destruction of all unsold copies and the removal of the book from the shelves of libraries – a directive certain libraries refused to follow.

Sometimes defendants targeted are able to take advantage of Anti-SLAPP statutes.

Anti-SLAPP statutes have been enacted in several, but not all, states and are aimed at preventing such lawsuits designed to hinder legitimate public participation.

In the book Hamas, author Matthew Levitt describes KinderUSA as a charitable front for terror financing. When Levitt, along with Yale Press who published his book, were sued by KinderUSA, he instituted a counter-claim against the plaintiff based on California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Shortly afterwards, KinderUSA dropped their lawsuit claiming it found the suit too costly to pursue.

Most disturbing, parties sued for reporting on U.S. government investigations into terrorist activities, or for formally appealing government authorities to conduct investigations, include The New York Times which, in 2001, reported on the US Government investigation of the Global Relief Foundation; The Wall Street Journal which, in 2002, reported on the monitoring of the Saudi bank accounts; and ADL which, in 2002, called for the investigation of a public school superintendent, Khadja Ghafur, based on indications that schools under his supervision were teaching religion.

Legal Jihad is gaining momentum with a ripple effect, and we must expect that Islamists will engage in future legal efforts along these lines. Indeed, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have both stated publicly that they are considering filing defamation lawsuits against their critics. The Muslim World League has called for the establishment of a commission to take legal action against those who abuse Islam and its prophet Mohammed. During the recent two-day summit in Dakar, taking legal action against those who defame Islam was a key issue debated at length by Muslim leaders.

For its part, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, in part to "defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam." One of its staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, has stated that lawsuits are increasingly an ‘instrument' for it to use." Moreover, CAIR's chairman, Parvez Ahmed, has stated that "People who make statements connecting CAIR to terrorism should understand the legal consequences of their attempted slander and defamation."

This is not a Left or Right issue.

The Islamist Lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Left unabated, this phenomenon has the potential to seriously hinder public debate on the threat of radical Islam. The United States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle that one should have the freedom to criticize religion.

Should the voices of concerned Americans be intimidated into silence, a real possibility exists that the criticism of radical Islam will be stifled, and Sharia law will begin to creep into our system as we are seeing it do in the financial markets with Sharia banking.

Daniel Pipes, who founded and heads the Middle East Forum, recognized the seriousness of this threat and last spring established the Legal Project (LP) to counter it. The LP has been working to recruit and establish a network of attorneys who are willing to work as pro bono counsel for the defendants in these cases; it has also embarked on fundraising efforts to assist with the cost of litigation and is working to raise public awareness of this phenomenon. Moreover, the LP is capable of positioning itself on the offensive and has recently succeeded in causing The Muslim Weekly publication, a UK-based lslamist magazine, to issue an apology and retraction of an article in which one Tariq Ramadan made false and defamatory statements about Dr. Pipes.

Those parties who recklessly and wrongfully defame our counter-terrorism researchers should beware.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Brooke Goldstein, a practicing attorney, is the Director of The Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, Director of the Children's Rights Institute, an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute and the 2007 recipient of the

Islam and the Evolution of Europe's Far Right

by R. John Matthies
Pajamas Media
April 10, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1883
Send
RSS

What is to account for the success of Europe's Far Right? The attention the news media have devoted to the story of Islam in Europe has never been greater. And displeasure over concessions granted to Europe's Muslims, fear and loathing of Shari‘a (Islamic) law — and fears that Europe, in the rush to embrace the Other, may lose herself — appear to be driving the continent's electoral agenda. These concerns have sprung from items as ridiculous as Fortis Bank's decision to do away with pig mascot Knorbert (for fear of offending Muslims) to the Archbishop of Canterbury's declaration that adoption of elements of Shari‘a law in the UK "seems unavoidable" — and would, in fact, be a great help to maintain social cohesion. In any case, it appears that a growing number are sufficiently discouraged by the imposition of the multicultural gag to take Europe's latest war of religion to the voting booth. It is also the case, for many, that the persons who best speak to the continent's concerns are not those moderate (or secular) Muslims who talk of assimilation, but the leading lights of Europe's Far Right — and the growing host of Muslim-baiters who sit in public office.

But the electoral success of the Far Right has been far from evenly distributed. And this, of course, has a great deal to do with perceptions of the Old Guard of Europe's Far Right, the most familiar branch of the movement. Geert Wilders, the Netherlands' puckish libertarian, for example, does not easily compare to France's Jean-Marie Le Pen, either with respect to personal history or electoral sway. But as difficult as it is to stack Wilders among the "blood and soil" conservatives of the Old Guard, Wilders and other members of the "progressive" nationalist faction nevertheless constitute an important, second branch of the confederation one casually describes as "Far Right." These are the Young Turks of the movement. And lastly, there is the success of right-wing populists, like those in Belgium and Switzerland, who clearly seek to transcend Old Guard allegiances and adapt their platforms to better respond to the continent's "Islam problem." These groups represent a third branch, and a slippery strength within the greater movement. All told, however, what describes the strength of Europe's Far Right is the fact that votes have begun to derive, in meaningful numbers, from across the political spectrum: from the "Godless" Left to the fascist Right, and all points in between.

To describe the Old Guard, then, is to include the likes of two men: Nick Griffin, national chairman of the British National Party (BNP), and Jean-Marie Le Pen of France's National Front (FN). Since their earliest days in politics, one has likened these men to public discourse as one likens hooligans to organized sports. What is now clear, however, is that these men have failed to unite the electorate behind their classic fear of European federalism, Turkish accession to the European Union, and more or less avowed anti-Semitism. Consider, in addition, that parties of the center-right have begun to appropriate the Old Guard's once signature xenophobia, and one will understand that little remains of the old fight. What remains to be seen is whether Griffin and Le Pen will acknowledge that Islam is the new game in town.

The BNP's Nick Griffin, for his part, has admitted to privileging anti-Islamism for electoral gain — and for the same reason, to discourage attacks against the Jews. In a branch meeting recorded in Burnley, Lancashire, in March 2006, for example, he said: "But we bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there, it's the thing they can understand. … If we were to attack some other ethnic group — some people say ‘We should attack the Jews' … — it wouldn't get us anywhere, other than stepping backwards. It would lock us in a little box, which the public would think ‘extremist-crank-lunatics, nothing-to-do-with-me,' and we wouldn't get power. Whereas by making Islam the issue, when every time someone turns on the television, every time they pick up a newspaper … they get a drip, drip, drip. Something else, which tells them, ‘Yeah, Islam is a real serious problem; I'm really worried about it; what kind of future are my children and grandchildren, my nephews and nieces, gonna have, in a Britain which is on the way to becoming the Islamic Republic? That's what I want to stop. The British National Party are the only people talking about it. Yeah, I think they're the ones for me.' That's the reason for the tactic."

But France's National Front (FN), often cited as the vanguard of the continent's Far Right, has drawn very different lessons from the past decade's electoral chill. The FN has, since its inception, brandished a "blood and soil" anti-Semitism. This fact, and electoral debates within the party, prompted Michel Gurfinkiel, a French political scientist, to suggest that Le Pen was "poised to strike an alliance" with France's Muslims. If this has not since come to pass, it remains that Gurfinkiel's deduction stands to reason: "The National Front is surprisingly popular among Muslim immigrants or second-generation Muslim citizens," he writes. "For all its campaigning about immigration, Mr. Le Pen's party has always extended support to Arab and Islamic causes abroad, from Saddam's Iraq to Arafat's or Hamas Palestine, and from Al Qaeda to Iran. And it is as firmly anti-American and anti-Jewish as the Muslim community itself tends to be." Members of Le Pen's fold are now drawn to patently anti-Islamist groups, which has only encouraged the splintering of France's Far Right — and empowered Nicolas Sarkozy.

Consider now the Young Turks of Europe's Far Right. This group represents a new breed of politician, who, although tarred with the extremist brush for their attacks on Islam, speak most loudly to themes dear to libertarians and social democrats. And now is their magic moment. In the past decade, the "progressive" nationalism of these politicians has come to enjoy support the moribund Old Guard has only imagined; for these represent a new generation of politician: libertarian and socially democratic personalities who feel that to legislate Islamic space is to assault core "progressive" European values.

This is a portion of the movement that came to prominence under the openly gay and socially libertarian Pim Fortuyn, who abandoned mainstream politics to found his Pim Fortuyn List (LPF). Most remarkable is the fact that the Dutch were quick to adopt his message: Assassinated shortly before the 2002 vote, Fortuyn's party still went on to claim 26 of 150 seats and become the second party in parliament. His most natural successors, both in matter of abrasive charisma and fire-breathing anti-Islamism, are Geert Wilders of the Netherlands' Party for Freedom (PVV) and Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People's Party (DF). Like Fortuyn, both abandoned establishment parties to form groups prompt to defend "national values" against the multiculturalisme mou (milquetoast multiculturalism) of the new Europe.

Wilders' transformation to become Despiser of the Faith came as something of a shock to the Dutch public. He is now best known for his short file Fitna (strife), which seeks to expose the "fascist" program of the Koran. The Guardian profiled Wilders in February, making the point that he views himself as a "libertarian provocateur like the late Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh. It mentions also that he "[rails] against ‘Islamisation' as a threat to what used to be the easy-going Dutch model of tolerance." "My allies are not Le Pen or [Jörg] Haider," he wishes to make clear. "We'll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I'm very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups." Instead, as reported by the daily, "Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him."

Danish politician Pia Kjærsgaard speaks a similar language, remarking last year to the Associated Press: "The most important thing for the Danish People's Party (DF) is to maintain the Danish identity." And like Wilders, she is quick to reject comparisons to Europe's Old Guard, saying: "There is nothing racist about what I have said, I know that. … My driving force is the love for my home country. … I want Denmark to be a safe and good and cozy nation that has a good relationship to the rest of the world." Her party today is the parliament's third largest, having garnered 14% of the legislative vote in November 2007. This was also a moment for the party to affirm its anti-Islamist credentials: a campaign poster depicted a cartoon illustration of Mohammed, underscored by text that read: "Freedom of speech is Danish, censorship is not."

Add to the Old Guard and the Young Turks of resurgent nationalism a third group, comprised of right-wing populists often associated with the likes of Britain's Griffin and the Frenchman Le Pen. These are the nationalist (and regionalist) parties of Austria, Switzerland, and Belgium. Like the Old Guard, these groups are often socially conservative and subject to accusations of anti-Semitism (and, perhaps, too fond memories of Hitler's Reich). These groups have packaged themselves under nationalist-populist wrap to play on perceptions that establishment parties are deaf to the cause of the people; and they are interesting for having reoriented their politics and policies in calculation of popular support. Like the Young Turks, however, this populist Right has learned to exploit fears of insurgent Islam to great electoral success.

First to Belgium, where Vlaams Belang (the former Vlaams Blok) occupies 12% of the Chamber of Representatives. Party chief Filip Dewinter appears more than eager to transcend the politics of the Old Guard and declaim Europe's debt to Judeo-Christian tradition. Active support for Israel is a fine way to begin, he imagines. For example, in a 2006 interview with the American New Republic, Dewinter stated: "It's disgusting, it's infamous, it's treacherous, but … many Socialist and Green politicians … hope they can win over the Islamic vote bank by bashing Israel and the United States, and by turning a blind eye on the virulent anti-Semitic rhetoric in Islamic publications and Islamic websites. These facts mirror a remarkable switch of alliances in many European countries: … The right-wingers defend Israel and warn against Islam. The left-wingers are bashing Israel and the United States, and kowtow for Islam."

In Switzerland, the Swiss People's Party (SVP) defied electoral expectations to walk away with 29% of the legislative vote in October. This was accomplished with no small help from the party's outspoken (and hotly controversial) position on the expulsion of law-breaking immigrants — as well with the announcement, in May 2007, of the party's motion to ban minarets. Austria's Far Right has clearly sought to capitalize on the group's "Swiss Quality." In August 2007, Jörg Haider's Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) introduced an initiative to ban construction of "unusual" structures in the federal state of Carinthia. The reason? Minister of urban planning Uwe Scheuch explains: "With the help of this law, it will be de facto impossible to construct mosques or minarets."

These state- and nation-wide initiatives to ban mosque and minaret have also borne continental fruit. A grand multi-party rally erupted in Antwerp in February, under the banner "Cities Against Islamisation." The organization, which boasts an online platform in six languages, speaks to the rise of Far Right populism across the continent. Event coordinator Filip Dewinter (who insists his politics are merely "right-wing") explained: "We already have more than 6,000 mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a symbol of radicalization. … These kinds of symbols have to stop."

The Young Turks have profited from this language, of course; and that is quite the point. Denmark's Kjærsgaard sums up the mood among Europe's right-wing elites: "I am convinced that the Islamists want to sneak Shari‘a (Islamic law) in through the back door, that they want to combat Western society and they want Islam to become the main religion." And when asked by the Associated Press whether she believed Islam had anything to contribute to Danish society, she replied: "I don't think so at all." Ditto for Wilders, who told the Washington Post in an interview: "Islam and democracy are fully incompatible. They will never be compatible — not today, and not in a million years."

One might prefer to dismiss Wilders and Kjærsgaard as hotheads, or merely out of touch. But a report just now released by the World Economic Forum (in partnership with Georgetown University) on the subject of West-Islamic world dialogue, suggests that the Far Right's anti-Islam turn is far more representative of Europe's fears than one has wished to believe. According to the results of surveys gathered by the Gallup Institute, 60% of Europeans surveyed see the growing interaction between the Muslim world and the West as a menace to freedom. What's more, the study claims that the citizens of Wilders' Netherlands and Kjærsgaard's Denmark are most fearful, with 67% of Dutch and 80% of Danes surveyed in agreement with this statement. What's more, like Kjærsgaard, fully half of Danes consider Islam incompatible with democracy. (Sadly, Gallup failed to collect opinions in France, Germany, or Great Britain.)

In the end, the phenomenon of right-wing populism (or left-wing reaction) is as good a marker as any to insist upon the new ground being broken among these figures and parties of the "Far Right." And it is clear that perceptions of Islam as an intolerant faith are driving the agenda — for Left and for Right, and across the political spectrum. For this reason, one can no longer easily dismiss the hodgepodge of characters, all platforms considered, who "bang on about Islam." And if Britain's Nick Griffin is correct in his estimation that Islam is soon to dominate political discussion, we can expect to hear noises like his own from the continent's mainstream political elite. It is unlikely that Old Guard formations like the British National Party will ever enjoy the support of the Swiss and Danish Far Right — both for reasons of their history and the promise of fresh libertarian faces like Wilders'. But in the meantime, Britain's flagging passion for "diversity" presents sure opportunity for the party — as it does for anyone interested in the popular vote.

Originally published at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/islam-and-the-evolution-of-europe's-far-right/

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/5516

Europe or Eurabia?
by Daniel Pipes
The Australian
April 15, 2008

The future of Europe is in play. Will it turn into "Eurabia," a part of the Muslim world? Will it remain the distinct cultural unit it has been over the last millennium? Or might there be some creative synthesis of the two civilizations?

The answer has vast importance. Europe may constitute a mere 7 percent of the world's landmass but for five hundred years, 1450-1950, for good and ill, it was the global engine of change. How it develops in the future will affect all humanity, and especially daughter countries such as Australia which still retain close and important ties to the old continent.

I foresee potentially one of three paths for Europe: Muslims dominating, Muslims rejected, or harmonious integration.

(1) Muslim domination strikes some analysts as inevitable. Oriana Fallaci found that "Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam." Mark Steyn argues that much of the Western world "will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries." Such authors point to three factors leading to Europe's Islamization: faith, demography, and a sense of heritage.

The secularism that predominates in Europe, especially among its elites, leads to alienation about the Judeo-Christian tradition, empty church pews, and a fascination with Islam. In complete contrast, Muslims display a religious fervor that translates into jihadi sensibility, a supremacism toward non-Muslims, and an expectation that Europe is waiting for conversion to Islam.

The contrast in faith also has demographic implications, with Christians having on average 1.4 children per woman, or about one third less than the number needed to maintain their population, and Muslims enjoying a dramatically higher, if falling, fertility rate. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are expected to be in about 2015 the first large majority-Muslim cities. Russia could become a Muslim-majority country in 2050. To employ enough workers to fund existing pension plans, Europe needs millions of immigrants and these tend to be disproportionately Muslim due to reasons of proximity, colonial ties, and the turmoil in majority-Muslim countries.

In addition, many Europeans no longer cherish their history, mores, and customs. Guilt about fascism, racism, and imperialism leave many with a sense that their own culture has less value than that of immigrants. Such self-disdain has direct implications for Muslim immigrants, for if Europeans shun their own ways, why should immigrants adopt them? When added to the already-existing Muslim hesitations over much that is Western, and especially what concerns sexuality, the result are Muslim populations that strongly resist assimilation.

The logic of this first path leads to Europe ultimately becoming an extension of North Africa.

(2) But the first path is not inevitable. Indigenous Europeans could resist it and as they make up 95 percent of the continent's population, they can at any time reassert control, should they see Muslims posing a threat to a valued way of life.

This impulse can already be seen at work in the French anti-hijab legislation or in Geert Wilders' film, Fitna. Anti-immigrant parties gain in strength; a potential nativist movement is taking shape across Europe, as political parties opposed to immigration focus increasingly on Islam and Muslims. These parties include the British National Party, Belgium's Vlaamse Belang, France's Front National, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Danish People's Party, and the Swedish Democrats.

They will likely continue to grow as immigration surges ever higher, with mainstream parties paying and expropriating their anti-Islamic message. Should nationalist parties gain power, they will likely seek to reject multiculturalism, cut back on immigration, encourage repatriation of immigrants, support Christian institutions, increase indigenous European birthrates, and broadly attempt to re-establish traditional ways.

Muslim alarm will likely follow. American author Ralph Peters sketches a scenario in which "U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims." Peters concludes that because of European's "ineradicable viciousness," its Muslims "are living on borrowed time" As Europeans have "perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing," Muslims, he predicts, "will be lucky just to be deported," rather than killed. Indeed, Muslims worry about just such a fate; since the 1980s, they have spoken overtly about Muslims being sent to gas chambers.

Violence by indigenous Europeans cannot be precluded but nationalist efforts will more likely take place less violently; if any one is likely to initiate violence, it is the Muslims. They have already engaged in many acts of violence and seem to be spoiling for more. Surveys indicate, for instance, that about 5 percent of British Muslims endorse the 7/7 transport bombings. In brief, a European reassertion will likely lead to on-going civil strife, perhaps a more lethal version of the fall 2005 riots in France.

(3) The ideal outcome has indigenous Europeans and immigrant Muslims finding a way to live together harmoniously and create a new synthesis. A 1991 study, La France, une chance pour l'Islam (France, an Opportunity for Islam) by Jeanne-Hélène Kaltenbach and Pierre Patrick Kaltenbach promoted this idealistic approach. Despite all, this optimism remains the conventional wisdom, as suggested by an Economist leader of 2006 that concluded that dismissed for the moment at least, the prospect of Eurabia as "scaremongering."

This is the view of most politicians, journalists, and academics but it has little basis in. Yes indigenous Europeans could yet rediscover their Christian faith, make more babies, and again cherish their heritage. Yes, they could encourage non-Muslim immigration and acculturate Muslims already living in Europe. Yes, Muslim could accept historic Europe. But not only are such developments not now underway, their prospects are dim. In particular, young Muslims are cultivating grievances and nursing ambitions at odds with their neighbors.

One can virtually dismiss from consideration the prospect of Muslims accepting historic Europe and integrating within it. U.S. columnist Dennis Prager agrees: "It is difficult to imagine any other future scenario for Western Europe than its becoming Islamicized or having a civil war."

But which of those two remaining paths will the continent take? Forecasting is difficult because crisis has not yet struck. But it may not be far off. Within a decade perhaps, the continent's evolution will become clear as the Europe-Muslim relationship takes shape.

The unprecedented nature of Europe's situation also renders a forecast exceedingly difficult. Never in history has a major civilization peaceably dissolved, nor has a people ever risen to reclaim its patrimony. Europe's unique circumstances make them difficult to comprehend, tempting to overlook, and virtually impossible to predict. With Europe, we all enter into terra incognita.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He is in Australia for the Intelligence Squared debate to take place this evening in Sydney. This article derives from a talk he delivered yesterday to the Quadrant.

From www.danielpipes.org | Original article available at: www.danielpipes.org/article/5516

Please join us as the San Diego World Affairs Council hosts

Ambassador Dr. Naser M.Y. Al Belooshi
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain
 

Bahrain: Long-term Goals of a Cosmopolitan Kingdom in the Heart of the Arab World

The Kingdom of Bahrain is an excellent example of a fledgling democracy with an open society in the Middle East and has helped lay the foundation for substantive progress in political reform in the Arab world. When Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa succeeded the throne in March 1999, he championed such a program and has turned the kingdom into a thriving democracy.  Bahrain has successfully combined tradition with modernity and has become an important financial center in the Gulf region. So well-regarded is the Bahraini business environment that the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal ranked it the “most free” economy in all the Middle East. Since it is expected to run out of oil reserves in the next 10 to 15 years, Bahrain has diversified and transformed its petro-economy into a leading Islamic finance center. Bahrain’s strategic partnership with the United States intensified since 1991 during the Gulf War when the country was used as a base for military operations. The U.S. designated Bahrain as a major Non-NATO ally in October 2001 and it is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Bahrain’s small size and central location among Persian Gulf countries have required it to play a delicate balancing act in foreign affairs among its larger neighbors and partners throughout the world.

In August 2005, Dr. Naser M. Y. Al Belooshi was appointed Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to the United States by his Majesty, Shaikh Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Ambassador Al Belooshi received his Ph.D. in Economics with honors and Masters Degree in Economics from the University of Paris in addition to a diploma in Economic Planning from the International Institute of Public Administration. His career has included positions as Executive Director at the Central Bank of the Kingdom of Bahrain and also serving as an Executive Director of the Arab Monetary Fund. The Ambassador has written various articles and research work related to economic development.

Where: Sheraton La Jolla

(3299 Holiday Court, La Jolla CA 92037)

When: Thursday, April 17, 2008

Time: 11:30 a.m.

For reservations, please contact our office at
(619) 325-8200 or reserve online at https://host25.webserver1010.com/sdwac/reservation.htm