Thursday, May 31, 2012

Who Will Dominate the Middle East?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Middle Eastern blocs vying for power. This follows this post about the nation of Turkey.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Who Will Dominate the Middle East?






article by Rod Hall





As America pulls out of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, other powers are rushing in to fill the vacuum. Domestic, regional and global forces are all vying for influence. Where are events in the ever-volatile Middle East headed?







Massive crowds protested in Tahrir Square, Cairo, in early 2011 to demand change - and they got it.



Source: WikimediaWith the shifting sands of the Middle East and North Africa, the United States appears to be losing its ability to shape events in the region. Things are certainly looking bad for the state of Israel. In fact, with so many contending over this region, things are looking bleaker and more dangerous for everyone.



Last year's so-called "Arab Spring" saw dissident groups of vastly different overall aims coming together to remove dictatorial regimes. But that temporary unity based on sharing a common enemy is already beginning to unravel.



Where are the geopolitical changes in the region headed? Let's consider five factors underlying the major power shifts underway.



Islamists dominate newly elected parliaments

Post-uprising elections have swept political Islamists into office. These have garnered the vast majority of seats in parliaments in Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Kuwait.



The same will likely occur in the up-coming Libyan elections, where Islamist strains run through almost all parties. And Yemen's new Muslim president will likely be joined by Islamists coming to power in parliamentary elections.



Egypt's presidential elections scheduled for May 23 and 24 may see the Islamists' newfound political power in parliament at work as kingmakers push for their selected candidate. Furthermore, Islamists in parliament are determined to curtail the president's powers in the next constitution, giving more say in the running of the country to the legislature they now dominate.



(The interim caretaker prime minister and cabinet the military rulers installed are expected to relinquish power this summer. But the diminishing of the military's power in dominating the government is expected to be a gradual process.)



In Egypt and elsewhere Islamists are winning because they have the most organized networks to mobilize voters, are the most trusted public or political groups, and have a track record of challenging oppressive or autocratic regimes.



Muslim Brotherhood offshoots in Libya and Syria, where they have suffered persecution from the government for decades, recently established political parties in anticipation of future elections.



Cairo-based journalist John Bradley, authorof After the Arab Spring: How Islamists Hijacked the Middle East Revolutions (2012), argues that the Islamist groups that have taken power in the Middle East are here to stay—with dire prospects for liberal democracy anywhere in the region. Asked in Zócalo Public Square online magazine whether some Islamist groups have already peaked, giving room for secular agendas to grow in the future, he responded:



"The opposite is true. It's secularism and liberalism that have peaked in the Arab world. Remember, [Iraq's] Saddam Hussein was a secularist, as was [Yemen's] Ali Abdullah Saleh, [Egypt's] Hosni Mubarak, [Libya's] Colonel Gaddafi, and [Tunisia's] Ben Ali. It's therefore not difficult to understand why most Arabs now associate secularism and liberalism with corruption, torture, tyranny, poverty, and a lack of dignity . . . That's the vacuum now being filled by political Islam. What will happen in the long-term nobody can predict. But the medium-term belongs to the Islamists" ("What Moderate Islamism?" March 4, 2012).



This does not bode well for the West in general and Israel in particular. Islamists in general are more hostile than secularists to peace with Israel and are supportive of Hamas, the terror organization now governing the Gaza Strip.



Sunni Crescent vs. Shiite Crescent

Regional geopolitics pit the powerful "Sunni Crescent" led by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates against the beleaguered "Shiite Crescent" states—Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.



Barry Rubin, director of global research in the International Affairs Center in Israel, sizes up the strategic battle for influence in The Jerusalem Post: "The new Middle East strategic battle is heating up, and this is only the start. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with two more serious lines of battle: Arabs versus Persians [of Iran] and Sunni versus Shia Muslims . . .



"The real struggle is over who will control each Muslim majority country and who is going to lead the Middle East . . . The Sunni Arab position was stated very clearly by Amr Moussa, a veteran Arab nationalist and candidate for Egypt's presidency: '(The) Arab Middle East will not be run by Iran or Turkey'" ("The Region: The New Middle East's Internal Divisions," March 4, 2012).



Rubin later clarifies what is emerging: "What we are seeing again, for the first time in three decades . . . is an Egyptian bid to lead the Arabic-speaking world and even the whole region. On this point, Egyptian leftists, nationalists and Islamists are united.



"And in the first round, the battle over control of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip, Egypt won and Iran lost." (See "Hamas' Shifting Allegiance Reflects New Mideast Dynamics")



Egypt is the largest Arab country, with a population of 83 million, and has long had a major influence on the region. Now that Islamists have won 72 percent of the seats in the lower house and nearly as many in the upper, this fundamentalist orientation will likely be a major influence on the growing number of Islamic governments in the region.



Regional geopolitical jockeying

As Hamas and Egypt push for regional influence, other regional players are doing the same. In its annual forecast, the global intelligence service Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting) pointed out that Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are involved in a dance for dominance in the shifting political sands of the region:



"Iran's efforts to expand its influence will be the primary issue for the Middle East in 2012. The U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has rendered Iran the pre-eminent military power in the Persian Gulf . . . Turkey, Iran's natural regional counterweight, is rising steadily, albeit slowly" ("Annual Forecast 2012," Jan. 20, 2012).



Turkey, the report states, will continue to face significant challenges to its regional ascendency due to instability near its borders. It continues its efforts to mold an opposition in Syria, counterbalance Iranian sway in Iraq and influence the rise of political Islamists, particularly in Egypt and Syria. But analysts don't see it making much headway.



Stratfor also explains how Iran affects Saudi Arabia's push for regional dominance: "Iran's regional expansion will be felt most deeply by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi royals now doubt that the United States has the ability or the willingness to fully guarantee Riyadh's interests. Adding to Saudi Arabia's vulnerabilities, the Gulf Cooperation Council states fear that if Iran is not contained within Iraq, it will exploit continued Shiite unrest in Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia's Shia-concentrated, oil-rich Eastern Province."



Saudi Arabia is leading efforts to shore up and consolidate the defenses of Gulf Cooperation Council members to try to ward off the threat posed by Iran. But those efforts will not be a sufficient replacement for America's role as a security guarantor.



Stratfor goes on to examine the tug-of-war underway in Iraq and Syria: "The effects of Iran's expansion efforts will be most visible in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, Iran's main challenge is to consolidate Shiite power among several competing groups.



"As Iraq's fractured Shiite leadership tries to solidify its influence with Iranian support, Iraq's Sunni and Kurdish factions increasingly will be put on the defensive. This ethno-sectarian struggle and the security vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal will degrade Iraq's overall security conditions.



"Meanwhile, Turkey will attempt to contain the spread of Iranian influence in northern Iraq by building up political, economic, military and intelligence assets."



The fight in Syria is really two contests in one. It's a struggle between Syrians over the nature of their government and society, but it's also a regional rivalry between Iran and its adversaries, as Stratfor explains:



"In Syria, the ultimate goal of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States will be to disrupt Iran's Shiite arc of influence by trying to crack Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime. However, without direct foreign military intervention, the Syrian regime is unlikely to collapse."



Even the normally feeble 22 nations of the Arab League took unprecedented actions in calling for the Assad regime to leave and hosted a "Friends of Syria" meeting to try to gain support for boycotts and possible military assistance.



The League pushed hard for a resolution from the United Nations Security Council calling on Assad to step aside, but even a watered-down version calling for a cease-fire and talks was blocked by Russia and China.



Also, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are all calling on Assad to go. But as of this writing they remain ambivalent about direct military action, although Saudi Arabia is providing some arms to the rebels.



Syria's ties to Iran complicate its status in the Middle East's power balance. The two countries are commercial partners, have signed a mutual defense agreement and in the past have supported the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas, which act against Israel. As pointed to above, the tie to Iran is undoubtedly a major factor in the Arab states calling for Assad's departure.



Unlike the other Arab Spring uprisings, Syria's rebels do not reflect a sweeping cross-culture movement. There is still a large segment of the populace remaining loyal to Assad, so the fighting is likely to be protracted.



Writing in Foreign Policy, journalist Nir Rosen explains the Islamic base of the revolt in Syria: "Syria's uprising is not a secular one. Most participants are devout Muslims inspired by Islam. By virtue of Syria's demography most of the opposition is Sunni Muslim and often come from conservative areas. The death of the Arab left means religion has assumed a greater role in daily life throughout the Middle East" ("Islamism and the Syrian Uprising," March 8, 2012).



Big stakes for the big powers

In addition to the regional forces vying for dominance in the Middle East, the Arab Spring has sparked a global tussle as well. It has become a springboard for big-power geopolitics among the world's greatest military powers—America, Russia and China.



Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West has yet to adjust to the post-Soviet reality, and Russia has not settled on its relationship with the rest of the world. And China's growing economic and military prowess means it has a greater need for vital Middle East oil but also the means to secure what it needs.



Syria has emerged as a key battleground for a Cold War–style tug-of-war between these powers. Russia sent warships to discourage foreign intervention in Syria. China has sent emissaries to Syria to try to broker a cease-fire deal and is being drawn more deeply into Iran's confrontation with the West. And America has less and less influence in the region.



Syria is often called Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East. The relationship between them goes back four decades. It formed the centerpiece of the Soviet position in the region during the Cold War, the Soviets then equipping and training the Syrian military.



Moscow today continues to arm and politically shield the Assad regime. The Russians are intent on keeping their only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus. In addition, Russia is thought to have major economic interests in Syria, including arms contracts and plans for nuclear energy cooperation.



But America seems equally determined to see a pro-Western regime in Damascus. This has created diplomatic tensions with Russia and China who oppose measures that could lead to military intervention or forced regime change in Syria.



Russia sent at least three guided missile frigates—reportedly loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles—to Syria. Russia's main interest in blocking UN sanctions against the Assad regime is to prevent NATO intervention in Syria and to keep the country in its sphere of influence.



The threat of nuclear attack and proliferation

Just as Russia's approach to the Middle East is at a turning point, Iran seems as determined as ever to move ahead with its nuclear program in defiance of America, Israel and the rest of the West—and the broader world. Even Russia and China oppose Iran getting a nuclear weapon.



Iranian society 33 years ago was steeped in revolutionary fervor. Today it suffers from revolutionary fatigue. This is one reason Iran's 2009 uprising did not have the same durability as the popular uprisings that have unsettled and unseated numerous Arab dictatorships. People may aspire for revolutionary ends, but there's no romanticism about it and a limited appetite for it.



Iran has been a quasi-theocracy since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It has been at odds with America and the West for much of that time.



Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for its annihilation as an existential threat. Israeli leaders maintain that a decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities will have to occur by the time Iran is on the verge of shielding these facilities from attack—what they call the "zone of immunity."



Some experts oppose an attack because they claim that even a successful strike would, at best, delay Iran's nuclear program for only a few years.



Many experts believe the greatest threat associated with the Iranian nuclear program is that it might trigger a regional nuclear arms race that would be deeply destabilizing and would dramatically increase the risk of a weapon falling into irresponsible or fanatical hands.



The president of the United States, Barack Obama, has said that nothing is off the table when it comes to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.



But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after meeting with Obama, acknowledged that differences still exist in the Israeli and American timetables for contending with the Iranian nuclear program, as reported by The New York Times:



"Mr. Netanyahu reiterated the point he had sought to make forcefully in Washington: that if Iran did not change course, Israel, which considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence, would not allow itself to be in a position where its fate was left in others' hands" ("Netanyahu Says U.S. and Israeli 'Clocks' Differ on Iran's Threat," March 9, 2012).



Negotiation efforts are underway to try to come to a diplomatic solution. The six-power talks with Iran include the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. Obama was hoping talks would help quiet the "drums of war." But others think the Iranians' agreement to these talks is just a false show of cooperation while their nuclear development still goes on.



Reuters news agency reports on the U.S. stance: "'Military action is the last alternative when all else fails,' [U.S. Defense Secretary Leon] Panetta told the annual policy conference of the biggest U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group, AIPAC. 'But make no mistake, when all else fails, we will act'" ("Obama Says New Iran Talks Should Calm 'Drums of War,'" March 6, 2012).



Regional transformation will lead to what is foretold

What all this adds up to is that these multilayered shifting sands of domestic, regional and global forces blowing through the Middle East and North Africa are changing the region more dramatically than at any time in the last half century.



The factors underlying the major power shifts carry long-term effects, creating a dramatically different Middle East than what this generation has known.



And there's another source to help us see what's happening. Bible prophecy reveals how all these shifting forces will eventually play out.



The Arab Spring uprisings, in the short term, have focused the Arab world's attention on the changes swirling around them and away from their longtime nemesis—Israel. But, as prophecy lays out, the persistent hatred of Israel will in the long run grow exponentially as Islamic influence grows. Prophecies indicate that a more united group of Arab nations, perhaps sparked by religious zeal, will focus their rekindled hostility toward Israel.



This hostility will grow to a major crescendo leading to all-out war as we approach the end of this age. Psalm 83 contains an intriguing prophecy that shows a number of Middle Eastern countries forming a confederation of nations determined to cut off Israel from being a nation (verses 3-8).



Out of this region will arise a strong end-time leader Daniel the prophet calls "the king of the South"—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Egypt (Daniel 11:40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.



See All...). This ruler, probably backed by other Islamic nations joined in confederacy with him, will start the cascade of terrifying events leading to a massive war with the power and ruler the Bible refers to as "the king of the North"—successor to the ancient Greek rulers of Syria.



This power is synonymous with the final revival of the Roman Empire referred to in Scripture as the Beast—which will consist of a brief union of 10 nations (Revelation 17:12-14 [12] And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

[13] These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

[14] These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.





See All...).



The forces of the North, Europe at this time, will sweep down through the Middle East in a major military counterattack that will overthrow the southern power and occupy key portions of the Middle East (Daniel 11:40-41 [40] And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

[41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.





See All...). (See also "The Middle East: Focus of End-Time Bible Prophecy")



Ultimately, however, this European power and other eastern forces arrayed against it will resist the return of Jesus Christ as coming King and will suffer utter defeat (Revelation 16:12-14 [12] And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

[13] And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

[14] For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.





See All...; 17:14; 19:11-21). (Our free Bible study aid booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy gives more details.)



In the meantime, Jesus tells all of us to stay on the alert to events heralding His coming (Matthew 24:42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.



See All...; Luke 21:36Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.



See All...). One major indicator we should be watching for is the rise of a unifying force and leader in the Middle East. Keep your eyes and interests fastened on significant developments in this critically important region.

.

Do These George Zimmerman Comments & Actions Sound “Racist” to You?

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ about the George Zimmerman case. This follows this previous post about it. This follows this post about the Knoxville Horror case and this post about a white person who was burned by a black gang from http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/ and this post about the Congressional Black Caucus that you can contact and you can read a very interesting book shown HERE!

Do These George Zimmerman Comments & Actions Sound “Racist” to You?


By Debbie Schlussel



While the FBI continues to focus several agents’ attention on finding a way to charge George Zimmerman with a hate crime in his shooting of Trayvon Martin, more and more evidence is emerging that he is anything but a racist.  The Miami Herald found records of a meeting which Zimmerman attended and in which he was critical of what he saw as a cover-up after the White son of a Sanford, Florida police officer beat a Black man. Associated Press obtained recordings of the meeting.

George Zimmerman accused the Sanford police department of corruption more than a year before he shot Trayvon Martin, saying at a public forum the agency covered up the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white officer.



“I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white,” Zimmerman said during a 90-second statement to city commissioners at a community forum. “It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those who are in the thin blue line.”



The forum took place on Jan. 8, 2011, days after a video of the beating went viral on the Internet and then-Sanford Police Chief Brian Tooley was forced to retire. Tooley’s department faced criticism for dragging its feet in arresting Justin Collison, the son of a police lieutenant.



“I’d like to know what action the commission is taking in order to repeal Mr. Tooley’s pension,” Zimmerman said to the commission. “I’m not asking you to repeal his pension; I believe he’s already forfeited his pension by his illegal cover-up in corruption in what happened in his department.”



Attending the meeting and making those statements aren’t exactly the hallmarks of a racist.



The case is falling apart more and more every single day, with four key witnesses changing their stories and, now, this. But no matter. Prosecutors will go on with the case. They’ve started down a road of no return in their minds, and they won’t turn away from the forces of political correctness and race merchantry now. Plus, they just don’t want to pass up the opportunities of media stardom when the trial commences.



Massachusetts - Illegal immigrant legislation targets unlicensed drivers, employers

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.US about immigration enforcement in Massachusetts. This follows this post about U.S. tech workers. This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Illegal immigrant legislation targets unlicensed drivers, employers - ALIPAC

Heads up illegal immigration fighting ALIPACers in Massachusetts! You should have seen enough of our activism alerts to know what you need to to do to support this bill right away on your own accord in Massachusetts. Please engage on your own using the details found at this link (fighters in surrounding states please assist Massachusetts)


http://www.facebook.com/l/VAQHLfhBz/www.alipac.us/content/illegal-immigrant-legislation-targets-unlicensed-drivers-employers-566/

Will CAIR defend the civil rights of Ex-Muslims????

A very interesting post from www.Jihadwatch.org about a CAIR rally for "Civil Rights." This follows this post about Mosques in America. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE!

Be there: AFDI/SIOA countering Hamas-linked CAIR's bogus "Summer Night for Civil Rights" with "Summer Night for Human Rights" featuring Muslim apostates -- will CAIR defend their civil rights?















Our Summer Night for Human Rights will feature apostates from around the world. It will be held in Manhattan Beach, California, on June 23 from 6 to 9PM, while Hamas-linked CAIR will be holding its "Summer Night for Civil Rights" pushing its phony victimhood narrative just blocks away. Join us in challenging the Hamas-linked CAIR hypocrites and Islamic supremacists to stand up for the human rights of those who live under Islam's death sentence for those who dare to leave Islam. Register to attend the AFDI/SIOA/FMU Summer Night for Human Rights by writing afdisioa@aol.com .






From Yahoo News:






NEW YORK, May 17, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The prominent human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) program, along with Former Muslims United (FMU) will be hosting the first-ever "Summer Night for Human Rights" Town Hall dedicated to defending the freedom of conscience. Dedicated to Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who has been sentenced to death in Iran for leaving Islam, the Summer Night for Human Rights will feature Muslim apostates from around the world, and call upon Muslims in the U.S. and the world human rights community to defend their right to change their religion or have no religion at all, and to denounce the Sharia that mandates such punishment.


The AFDI/SIOA Summer Night for Human Rights Town Hall will be held at the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan Beach, California. AFDI/SIOA Executive Director Pamela Geller chose that location because of its proximity to the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations' "Summer Night for Civil Rights" event being held at the same time down the block in Redondo Beach. The Summer Night for Human Rights will call upon the CAIR spokesmen to renounce Islam's death penalty for apostasy and defend the human rights of those who choose to leave Islam. It will ask CAIR leaders to stop creating roadblocks to Sharia prohibitions in the U.S., pointing up CAIR's hypocrisy in sponsoring a "civil rights" night while supporting a system of governance that denies the freedom of conscience, as well as the freedom of speech and equality of rights of all before the law.






Hamas-linked CAIR is selling tickets for its "Summer Night for Civil Rights" for as much as $100; admission to the AFDI/SIOA Summer Night for Human Rights is free. Register to attend by writing afdisioa@aol.com .






Geller said in a statement: "All the schools of Islamic law, without exception, mandate death for those who leave Islam. We've dedicated the Town Hall to Pastor Youcef because he is in imminent danger of being murdered for his beliefs, and we've invited numerous apostates from Islam to speak about the death sentence they must live under every moment because they have dared to leave Islam. We're calling upon Hamas-tied CAIR to stand up for Pastor Youcef and other victims of Islam's apostasy law at their so-called 'Civil Rights' conference so-called 'Civil Rights' conference and to stand for human rights for all. Under the guise of 'civil rights,' these subversive groups seek to undermine the unalienable rights guaranteed to every individual under the Constitution. Their ruse must be exposed, their Sharia agenda renounced. What Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S. speak for Pastor Youcef?"






Geller added: "Apostates from Islam have rights, too. The freedom of conscience is specifically protected in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet apostates are completely forgotten in our politically correct culture, in which speech that is offensive to Islam is increasingly forbidden. We're standing for the human rights of people like Youcef Nadarkhani. While CAIR officials Zead Ramadan and Cyrus McGoldrick are appearing on Iranian government TV complaining about resistance to Sharia in America, Youcef is languishing in an Iranian prison for exercising his freedom of conscience. Who speaks for him? They should be on Iranian television calling for the release of the pastor, not denouncing America. Our Human Rights Town Hall calls out Islamic supremacist groups in America to cease and desist their subversive activity under the guise of 'civil rights' or 'Shariaphobia.'"






Hosting the Summer Night for Human Rights Town Hall are Pamela Geller, publisher of the acclaimed AtlasShrugs.com blog, executive director of AFDI and SIOA, and author of Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books); and AFDI/SIOA associate director Robert Spencer, the bestselling author and director of Jihad Watch, whose most recent book is Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins.






The confirmed list of speakers also includes some of the nation's most prominent ex-Muslims: the human rights activist Nonie Darwish of Former Muslims United, author of Now They Call Me Infidel; the psychologist and freedom fighter Wafa Sultan, author of A God Who Hates; and the Islamic scholar Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not A Muslim; former Palestinian terrorist Walid Shoebat; and Moroccan ex-Muslim Ismail Zarouali.






AFDI/SIOA is one of America's foremost organizations defending human rights, religious liberty, and the freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to bring elements of Sharia to the United States.






Posted by Robert

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

World News and Trends: Turkey: Independent regional powerhouse?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/  about the nation of Turkey. This follows this previous post about it.  For a free magazine subscription or to get this book for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

World News and Trends: Turkey: Independent regional powerhouse?






article by Jerold Aust, John Ross Schroeder





Modern Turkey's claim to a unique global role is partially based on its development out of the Ottoman Empire



British Labour Party Member of Parliament Denis MacShane recently summed up Turkey's current circumstances: "In the Cold War years Turkey was unquestionably accepted as the West's most important frontier nation. Now it seems to prefer coddling Iran over backing the U.N. Security Council's harder line against Tehran. Disputes with Israel, once a key friend of Turkey, have become so bad, there is almost a rupture between the only two democracies in the region" ("Stop the Blame Game," Newsweek, July 23, 2010).



Turkey has even voted against United Nations–sponsored sanctions intended to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions.



Time magazine selected "Turning to the East" as the title for a feature article about Turkey. The teaser for the article stated, "Feeling betrayed by Israel and snubbed by Europe, Turkey is forging a new identity as an independent regional power" (Pelin Turgut, July 5, 2010).



Modern Turkey's claim to a unique global role is partially based on its development out of the Ottoman Empire (roughly 1345 to 1918)—stretching from just outside Vienna, Austria, to the Persian Gulf. Ankara, Turkey's capital, also remains centrally located between East and West— theoretically interfacing between these two different worlds.



Newsweek's feature piece placed "Ankara in the Middle." The article stated: "Once an unquestioning U.S. ally, and [today] at odds with most of its neighbors, Turkey is now forging a new foreign policy, with itself at the very center" (Owen Matthews, Newsweek, July 26, 2010).



U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed that "if there is anything to the notion that Turkey is, if you will, moving eastward, it is, in my view, in no small part because it was pushed, and pushed by some in Europe refusing to give Turkey the kind of organic link to the West that Turkey sought" (as quoted by Marc Champion and Peter Spiegel, "Gates Says EU Pushed Turkey Away," The Wall Street Journal, June 10, 2010). Clearly America's political leadership has become very concerned about this new direction in Ankara's thinking. (Sources: Time, Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal. )

.

Geopolitical Journey: Romania

A very interesting post from http://www.stratfor.com/ about the key nation of Romania, which could be a useful ally of the United States in the event of a Eurasian or European military threat. This follows this post analyzing Australia and its relationship with the United States. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!


Geopolitical Journey: Romania

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Editor's note: This is the third installment in a series of special reports that Dr. Friedman will write over the next few weeks as he travels to Turkey, Moldova, Romania, Ukraine and Poland. In this series, he will share his observations of the geopolitical imperatives in each country and conclude with reflections on his journey as a whole and options for the United States.

By George Friedman



In school, many of us learned the poem Invictus. It concludes with the line, "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." This is a line that a Victorian gentleman might bequeath to an American businessman. It is not a line that resonates in Romania. Nothing in their history tells Romanians that they rule their fate or dominate their soul. Everything in their history is a lesson in how fate masters them or how their very soul is a captive of history. As a nation, Romanians have modest hopes and expectations tempered by their past.



This sensibility is not alien to me. My parents survived the Nazi death camps, returned to Hungary to try to rebuild their lives and then found themselves fleeing the communists. When they arrived in America, their wishes were extraordinarily modest, as I look back on it. They wanted to be safe, to get up in the morning, to go to work, to get paid -- to live. They were never under the impression that they were the masters of their fate.



The problem that Romania has is that the world cares about it. More precisely, empires collide where Romania is. The last iteration was the Cold War. Today, at the moment, things seem easier, or at least less desperate, than before. Still, as I discussed in "Borderlands," the great powers are sorting themselves out again and therefore Romania is becoming more important to others. It is not clear to me that the Romanians fully appreciate the shift in the geopolitical winds. They think they can hide in Europe, and perhaps they can. But I suspect that history is reaching for Romania again.



Geopolitics and Self-Mutilation




Begin with geography. The Carpathian Mountains define Romania , but in an odd way. Rather than serving as the border of the country, protecting it, the Carpathians are an arc that divides the country into three parts. To the south of the mountains is the Wallachian Plain, the heart of contemporary Romania, where its capital, Bucharest, and its old oil center, Ploesti, are located. In the east of the Carpathians is the Moldavian Plain. To the northwest of the Carpathians is Transylvania, more rugged, hilly country.


And this is the geopolitical tragedy of Romania. Romania is one nation divided by its geography. None of the three parts is easy to defend. Transylvania came under Hungarian rule in the 11th century, and Hungary came under Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian rule. Wallachia came under Ottoman rule, and Moldavia came under Ottoman and Russian rule. About the only time before the late 19th century that Romania was united was when it was completely conquered. And the only time it was completely conquered was when some empire wanted to secure the Carpathians to defend itself.



Some of us experience geopolitics as an opportunity. Most of humanity experiences it as a catastrophe. Romania has been a nation for a long time, but rarely has it been a united nation-state. After becoming a nation-state in the late 19th century, it had a precarious existence, balanced between Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Russia, with Germany a more distant but powerful reality. Romania spent the inter-war years trying to find its balance with monarchism, authoritarianism and fascism, and it never quite found it. It sought safety in an alliance with Hitler and found itself on the front lines in the German invasion of Russia. To understand Romania as an ally one must bear this in mind: When the Soviets began their great counterattack at Stalingrad, they launched it over Romanian (and Hungarian) troops. Romanians maneuvered themselves into the position of fighting and dying for the Germans, and then got their revenge on the Germans by being slaughtered by the Soviets.



All of this led to Romania's occupation by the Soviets, toward whom the Romanians developed a unique strategy. The Hungarians rose up against the Soviets and were crushed, and the Czechoslovaks tried to create a liberal communist regime that was still loyal to the Soviets and were crushed. The Romanians actually achieved a degree of autonomy from the Soviets in foreign affairs. The way the Romanians got the Soviets to tolerate this was by building a regime more rigid and oppressive than even that of the Soviet Union at the time. The Soviets knew NATO wasn't going to invade, let alone invade through Romania. So long as the Romanian regime kept the people in line, the Russians could tolerate their maneuvers. Romania retained its national identity and an independent foreign policy but at a stunning price in personal freedom and economic well-being.



Contemporary Romania cannot be understood without understanding Nicolae Ceausescu. He called himself the "Genius of the Carpathians." He may well have been, but if so, the Carpathian definition of genius is idiosyncratic. The Romanian communist government was built around communists who had remained in Romania during World War II, in prison or in hiding. This was unique among the Soviet Union's Eastern European satellites. Stalin didn't trust communists who stayed home and resisted. He preferred communists who had fled to Moscow in the 1930s and had proved themselves loyal to Stalin by their betrayal of others. He sent Moscow communists to rule the rest of the newly occupied countries that buffered Russia from the West. Not so in Romania, where native communists ruled. After the death of the founder of communist Romania, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, another Romanian communist who stayed in Romania ultimately took over: Ceausescu. This was a peculiarity of Romanian communism that made it more like Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslavia in foreign policy, and more like a bad dream in domestic policy.



Ceausescu decided to pay off the national debt. His reason seemed to flow from his foreign policy -- he didn't want Romania to be trapped by any country because of its debt -- and he repaid it by selling to other countries nearly everything that was produced in Romania. This left Romania in staggering poverty; electricity and heat were occasional things, and even food was scarce in a country that had a lot of it. The Securitate, a domestic secret police whose efficiency and brutality were impressive, suppressed unrest. Nothing in Romania worked as well as the Securitate.



Herta Muller is a Romanian author who writes in German (she is part of Romania's ethnic German community) and who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2009. One of her books, The Appointment, takes place in Romania under the communists. It gives an extraordinary sense of a place ruled by the Securitate. It is about a woman who is living her life, working at her job and dealing with an alcoholic husband while constantly preparing for and living in dread of appointments with the secret police. As in Kafka, what they are looking for and what she is hiding are unclear. But the danger is unrelenting and permeates her entire consciousness. When one reads this book, as I did in preparing for this trip, one understands the way in which the Securitate tore apart a citizen's soul -- and remembers that it was not a distant relic of the 1930s but was still in place and sustaining the Romanian regime in 1989.



It was as if the price that Romania had to pay for autonomy was to punch itself in the face continually. Even the fall of communism took a Romanian path. There was no Velvet Revolution here but a bloody one, where the Securitate resisted the anti-communist rising under circumstances and details that are still hotly debated and unclear. In the end, the Ceausescus (Nicolae's wife Elena was also a piece of work, requiring a psychological genius to unravel) were executed and the Securitate blended into civil society as part of the organized-crime network that was mistaken for liberalization in the former Soviet empire by Western academics and reporters at the time.



Romania emerged from the previous 70 years of ongoing catastrophe by dreaming of simple things and having no illusions that these things were easy to come by or things Romanians could control. As with much of Eastern Europe but perhaps with a greater intensity, Romanians believed their redemption lay with the West's multilateral organizations. If they were permitted to join NATO and especially the European Union, their national security needs would be taken care of along with their economic needs. Romanians yearned to become European simply because being Romanian was too dangerous.



The Redemption of Being European

In thinking of Romania, the phrase "institutionalized prisoner" comes to mind. In the United States it is said that if someone stays in prison long enough, he becomes "institutionalized," someone who can no longer imagine functioning outside a world where someone else always tells him what to do. For Romania, national sovereignty has always been experienced as the process of accommodating itself to more powerful nations and empires. So after 1991, Romania searched for the "someone else" to which it could subordinate itself. More to the point, Romania imbued these entities with extraordinary redemptive powers. Once in NATO and the European Union, all would be well.



And until recently, all has been well, or well in terms of the modest needs of a historical victim. The problem Romania has is that these sanctuaries are in many ways illusions. It looks to NATO for defense, but NATO is a hollowed-out entity. There is a new and ambitious NATO strategy, which sets a global agenda for the organization. Long discussed, it is an exercise in meaninglessness. Countries like Germany have no military with which to fulfill the strategy, assuming that any agreement to act could be reached. NATO is a consensual organization, and a single member can block any mission. The divergent interests of an expanded NATO guarantee that someone will block everything. NATO is an illusion that comforts the Romanians, but only if they don't look carefully. The Romanians seem to prefer the comforting illusion.



As for the European Union, there is a deep structural tension in the system. The main European economic power is Germany. It is also the world's second-largest exporter. Its economy is built around exporting. For a country like Romania, economic development requires that it take advantage of its wage advantage. Lower wages allow developing countries to develop their economy through exports. But Europe is dominated by an export superpower. Unlike the postwar world, where the United States absorbed the imports of Germany and Japan without needing to compete with them, Germany remains an exporting country exporting into Romania and leaving precious little room for Romania to develop its economy.



At this stage of its development, Romania should be running a trade surplus, particularly with Germany, but it is not. In 2007, it exported about $40 billion worth of goods and imported about $70 billion. In 2009, it exported the same $40 billion but cut imports to only $54 billion (still a negative). Forty percent of its trade is with Germany, France and Italy, its major EU partners. But it is Germany where the major problem is. And this problem is compounded by the fact that a good part of Romania's exports to Germany are from German-owned firms operating in Romania.



During the period of relative prosperity in Europe from 1991 to 2008, the structural reality of the EU was hidden under a rising tide. In 2008 the tide went out, revealing the structural reality. It is not clear when the tide of prosperity will come rolling back in. In the meantime, while the German economy is growing again, Romania's is not. Because it exists in a system where the main engine is an exporter, and the exporter dominates the process of setting rules, it is difficult to see how Romania can take advantage of its greatest asset -- a skilled workforce prepared to work for lower wages.



Add to this the regulatory question. Romania is a developing country. Europe's regulations are drawn with a focus on the highly developed countries. The laws on employment guarantees mean that Europeans don't hire workers, they adopt them. That means that entrepreneurship is difficult. Being an entrepreneur, as I well know, means making mistakes and recovering from them fast. Given the guarantees that every worker has in Europe, an entrepreneur cannot quickly recover from his mistakes. In Romania, the agility needed for risk-taking is not readily available under EU rules drawn up for a mature economy.



Romania should be a country of small entrepreneurs, and it is, but there is extensive evasion of Brussels' -- and Bucharest's -- regulations. It is a gray market that creates legal jeopardy and therefore corruption in the sector that Romania needs the most. Imagine if Germany had the regulations it champions today in 1955. Could it possibly have developed into what it is in 2010? There may be a time for these regulations (and that is debatable), but for Romania it is not now.



I met a Romanian entrepreneur who marketed industrial products. In talking to him, I raised the question of the various regulations governing his industry and how he handled them. There was no clear answer or, more precisely, I didn't realize the answer he had given me until later. There are regulations and there are relationships. The latter mitigate the former. In Germany this might be called corruption. In Romania it is survival. A Romanian entrepreneur rigorously following EU regulations would rapidly go out of business. It may be that Romania is corrupt, but the regulatory structure of the EU imposed on a developing economy makes evasion the only rational strategy. And yet the entrepreneur I talked to was a champion of the European Union. He too hoped for the time when he could be a normal European. As Rousseau said, "I have seen these contradictions and they have not rebuffed me."



It is difficult to for an outsider to see the specific benefits of NATO and EU membership for Romania. But for the Romanians, membership goes beyond the specifics.



Romania's Choice

August and September are bad months in Europe. It is when wars and crises strike. August and September 2008 were bad months. That August, Russia struck Georgia. In September, the financial crisis burst wide open. In the first, Russia delivered a message to the region: This is what American guarantees are worth. In the European handling of the financial crisis in Eastern Europe, the Germans delivered a message on the limits of German responsibility. Both NATO and the European Union went from being guarantors of Romanian interests to being enormous question marks.



In my conversations with Romanians, at all levels and almost universally, I have found the same answer. First, there is no doubt that NATO and the European Union did not work in Romania's favor at the moment. Second, there is no question of rethinking Romania's commitment to either. There are those Romanians, particularly on the far right, who dislike the European Union in particular, but Romania has no strategic alternative.



As for the vast majority, they cannot and will not conceive of a Romania outside the confines of NATO and the European Union. The mere fact that neither is working well for Romania does not mean that they do not do something important: NATO and the European Union keep the anti-democratic demons of the Romanian soul at bay. Being part of Europe is not simply a matter of strategic or economic benefits. It represents a transitional point in Romanian history. With membership in the European Union and NATO, Romania has affirmed its modernity and its democratic institutions. These twin amulets have redeemed Romania's soul. Given this, I suppose, an unfavorable trade balance and the absence of genuine security guarantees is a small price to pay. I am not Romanian, so I can't feel their ineffable belief in Brussels.



Romanians do acknowledge, again almost universally, the return of Russia to the historical stage, and it worries them. Of particular concern is Moldova, a region to the east that was historically Romanian, taken by the Soviets in a treaty with Hitler and the rest of which was seized after World War II. Moldova became an independent country in 1991 (a country I will be visiting next). For much of the post-Cold War period it had a communist government that fell a few years ago. An election will be held on Nov. 28, and it appears that the communists might return. The feeling is that if the communists return this time, the Russians will return with them and, in the coming years, Russian troops will be on Romania's borders.



Romanian officials are actively engaged in discussions with NATO officials about the Russians, but the Germans want a more active involvement of Russia in NATO and not tension between NATO and Russia. The Western Europeans are not about to be drawn into Eastern European paranoia fed by nostalgic American strategists wanting to relive the Cold War, as they think of it.



I raised two strategic alternatives with Romanian officials and the media. One was the Intermarium -- an alliance, perhaps in NATO, perhaps not -- of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. (To readers who asked why I did not go to Bulgaria on this trip, it was simply a matter of time. I will go there as soon as I can.) Very interestingly, one official pointed out substantial levels of cooperation on military planning between Hungary and Romania and discussions between Romania and Poland. How serious this is and whether it will go beyond the NATO context is unclear to me. Perhaps I can get a better sense in Warsaw.



But military planning is one thing; the wherewithal to execute military plans is quite another. The Romanians are now caught in a crisis over buying fighter planes. There are three choices: the Swedish Gripen, the Eurofighter and used American F-16s. The problem is that the Romanians don't have the money for any of these aircraft, nor does it seem to me that these are the defense measures they really need. The Americans can provide air cover in a number of ways, and while 24 F-16s would have value, they would not solve Romania's most pressing military problem. From where I sit, creating an effective mobile force to secure their eastern frontier is what is needed. The alternative I've heard was buying naval vessels to block a very real Russian naval buildup in the Black Sea. But if Romania has trouble buying 24 fighters, naval vessels are out of the question.



The Romanians are approaching defense planning from a NATO perspective -- one used for planning, not implementation, and one that always leads to sophisticated systems while leaving the basics uncovered. This may seem like an unnecessary level of detail for this essay, but the Romanians are deep in this discussion, and questions like this are the critical details of strategies growing out of geopolitics. It is the difference between planning papers drawn up by think tanks and the ability to defend a nation.



The Black Sea is a critical part of Romania's reality, and the rise of Turkey makes the system of relationships interesting. Turkey is Romania's fourth-largest export target, and one of the few major trading partners that imports more from Romania than it exports. I pointed out to Romanians that it is the great good fortune of Turkey that it was not admitted to the European Union. Turkey's economy grew by an annualized rate of 12 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and has been surging for years.



Turkey is becoming a regional economic engine and, unlike Germany, France and Italy, it offers compatibilities and synergies for Romania. In addition, Turkey is a serious military force and, while not seeking confrontation with Russia, it is not subservient to it. Turkey has adopted a "360 degree" strategy of engagement with all countries. And since Turkey is a NATO member, as are Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, there is no incompatibility with a dual strategy of the Intermarium and the Black Sea. For now, they fit. And the irony of Romania reaching out to the heir to the Ottomans is simply that and no more. This is the neighborhood that Romania inhabits. These are the options it has.



What doesn't fit for Romania is the NATO/EU system alone. Perhaps this is part of a rational mix, but it cannot be all of it. For Romania, the problem is to move beyond the psychological comfort of Europe to a strategic and economic understanding that accepts that the post-Cold War world is over. More important, it would be a move toward accepting that Romania is free, responsible for its future and capable of managing it.



It is this last step that is the hardest for Romania and many of the former Soviet satellites -- which were also bound up with World War I and Hitler's disaster -- to come to terms with. There is a connection between buying more expensive German cars than you can afford, and more of them than you need, and the novels of Herta Muller. The appointment can be permanently canceled, but the fear of the interrogation is always with you. In this region, the fear of the past dominates and oppresses while the confident, American-style military planning and economic restructuring I suggested is alien and frightening.



The Romanians emerged from a world of horror, some of it of their own making. They fear themselves perhaps more than they fear others. For them, becoming European is both a form of therapy and something that will restrain the demons within and without. When you live with bad memories, you live with the shadows of reality. For the Romanians, illusory solutions to haunting memories make a great deal of sense.



It makes sense until war comes, and in this part of the world, the coming of war has been the one certainty since before the Romans. It is only a question of when, with whom and what your own fate will be when it arrives. The Romanians believe with religious fervor that these things will be left behind if they become part of Europe. I am more skeptical. I had thought that Romania's problem was that it was part of Europe, a weak power surrounded by stronger ones. They seem to believe that their solution is to be part of Europe, a weak power surrounded by stronger ones.



I leave Romania confused. The Romanians hear things that I am deaf to. It is even at a pitch my Hungarian part can't hear. I leave now for another nation, Moldova, which has been even more exposed to history, one even stranger and more brutal than Romania's.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.



Read more: Geopolitical Journey, Part 3: Romania
Stratfor

Want a Mosque Next Door to Your House? What if it Produced 2-3 Islamic Terrorists?

A very interesting post from www.DebbieSchlussel.com about Mosques in America. This follows this post about an ex-Muslim in Greece. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read a very interesting book HERE!




Want a Mosque Next Door to Your House? What if it Produced 2-3 Islamic Terrorists?

By Debbie Schlussel



Would you want a mosque that bred 2-3 Islamic terrorists–including one that massacred several college students and two others that plotted to mass murder many other innocent civilians–in your neighborhood? How ’bout right next door in a bigfoot mosque where a small house used to be?



Mohammed Labadi in Front of the Mosque He Wants to Expand in the Middle of a Chicago-area Neighborhood



Now that Memorial Day is over, USA Today has moved on to the important business of whining for the religion that murdered thousands of the most recent soldiers we mourned yesterday. Today’s McPaper has a large story on the inside front page of the print edition, entitled, “Mosque Projects Face Resistance: Extent of Bias Debated as Foes Cite Worries Such as Traffic, Parking.” The headline already takes an editiorial opinion that there is bias against mosques and that it’s just a question of the “extent.” But look at the photo, above, which appears atop the story.



The picture shows Mohammad Labadi, a board member for the Islamic Society of Northern Illinois University standing in front of a DeKalb house that is currently a mosque. He and the mosque members want to expand this house into a giant mosque. Note that there is a house next door and that it’s in the middle of a neighborhood. Would you want that in your neighborhood? Think the presence of a giant mosque smack dab in the middle of your street will enhance property values? Wanna hear the call to prayer at 4:30 in the morning or 11:30 at night?



These people trying to expand have utter chutzpah. But they have it because we let them. Because we are too wimpy to say no, and when we do, the few brave ones who fight the good fight are persecuted and excluded by everyone else.



And that’s not to mention Steven Kazmierczak, who in February 2008 committed a murderous massacre against Northern Illinois University students, killing five and injuring 21 before he committed suicide. As I reported on this site, this terrorist, Kazmierczak, apparently converted to Islam at NIU and was reportedly converted by and prayed at this same mosque. Kazmierczak learned Arabic and was doing a college paper in favor of HAMAS, which he supported. Where do you think he learned all of this? At the mosque.



Then, there’s Derrick Shareef, an Islamic terrorist who plotted to blow up an Illinois shopping mall and shoot up Jews at a synagogue. Guess where he prayed? Same mosque in DeKalb. Shareef’s roommate , Hassan Abujihaad, plotted to murder American military personnel while he served aboard a US Navy ship. So now it’s possibly three Islamic terrorists influenced by this mosque. Praise allah. Authorities, by the way, called each of three of these terrorists, a “lone wolf,” but apparently they weren’t so lonely or alone. It appears they had the commonality of this mosque. The mosque is a Muslim Student Union outfit–yup, the US branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Want that in your neighborhood?



Want ‘em converting your kids as a gateway to Islamic terrorism? That’s what happens when mosques invade neighborhoods and plop their prayer mats and hateful sermons in the middle of Middle American subdivisions and neighborhoods. It’s a legitimate concern. But it’s dismissed as “bias” by USA Today’s sob story. And, in fact, neither Kazmierczak nor Shareef is even mentioned in the story. Shocker. We can’t let the little people hear the truth. They can’t handle it, and it might make ‘em think Muslims don’t exactly have American interests–let alone the interests of the neighborhood–in mind.



Given all this, it’s laughable that Labadi, whose mosque has apparently bred two Islamic terrorists–one who murdered several innocent Americans and another who tried to–wants us to think of him not as a Muslim, but as an American. If only his mosque told congregants to behave that way, rather than the exact opposite. Of course, the usual moronic suspects are bending over and assuming the dhimmi position, including some annoying far-left lesbionic ministatrix, Rev. Stacy Walker-Frontjes, of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church (a church which does Lewinskys for Islam but also attacks and boycotts Israel because it’s Jewish). But those in the neighborhood won’t be fooled. They know that there is something strange about a house of worship that does not want to be on a main street in a business district like every other house of worship, but rather wants to pop up and expand like a mushroom in the middle of the neighborhood. Yes, there are some exceptions (like some Jewish campus synagogues), but they do not expand into the neighborhood . . . and don’t breed 2-3 terrorists who plot to blow up Americans.



The thing is, if they succeed in keeping the mosque from its absurd plan of expansion, will the Obama Justice Department step in and take them to court or threaten to? That’s what the Bush Administration did for eight years and the Obama administration did for the last three-plus. And that’s the real problem here. The Muslims know that they have a politically correct Department of Injustice on their side. And they take full advantage of it. Along with taking full advantage of USA Today “reporter” Judy Keen.



I wonder how she’d react if they want to build a giant mosque next door to her . . . a mosque that has already created two bona fide Islamic terrorists.



Of course, we know how she’d react. Liberals are always for this stuff until NIMBY–Not In My Backyard–comes into play for themselves.



More:



Mohammed Labadi has a lot at stake when the DeKalb City Council votes Tuesday on a request from the Islamic Society of Northern Illinois University to build a two-story mosque.



Labadi, a businessman and Islamic Society board member, wants a bigger mosque to replace the small house where local Muslims now worship. He also hopes for affirmation that his neighbors and city officials have no fear of the Muslim community.



Hey, two Islamic terrorists coming out of there already. What’s to fear?



“Don’t look at me just as a Muslim, look at me as an American,” Labadi says. It’s time, he says, “to take the unfortunate stereotypes about Muslims out of the picture.” The zoning commission unanimously approved the plan.



Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which were carried out by hijackers from Arab countries, animosity toward Muslims sometimes has taken the form of opposition to construction of mosques and other Islamic facilities.



“Animosity?” Talk about a loaded word. Um, these are legitimate concerns, NOT “animosity.” But leave it to this dhimmi idiot reporter, Judy Keen.



Mosque opponents often raise concerns about traffic and parking, but Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s freedom of religion program, says they can be “sham arguments” that mask anti-Muslim sentiment.



“I hope that eventually there will be greater acceptance for all faiths, including Islam,” Mach says.



Hilarious. The ACLU is suddenly concerned about “all faiths.” Problem is, it constantly works against every faith EXCEPT its target for butt-snorkeling, Islam. Um, what about the civil liberty to enjoy your home and property without a gazillion HAMAS supporters crowding your street and waking you up at all hours all of the time?



Some people who object to mosque projects say religion is not a factor. The DuPage County home where Jacqueline Sitkiewicz has lived since 1978 is adjacent to a house the Islamic Center of Western Suburbs (ICWS) hoped to use as a mosque. The county board voted against the plan this month.



Sitkiewicz says her concerns were traffic, drainage and the effect on property values. “I don’t care what their religion is,” she says. “This is a residential area, that’s all of it.” ICWS lawyer Mark Daniel says the group is considering legal action. . . .



Lawyer Marc Grenier represents condo associations that object to plans for a Norwalk, Conn. mosque. The size of the project, parking and the impact on neighboring properties are their chief concerns, he says. “Our opposition … has nothing to do with anyone’s right to worship.”



And here is my favorite part:



Says Othman Atta, the Islamic Society’s executive director, some opponents said the mosque would teach violence and impose Islamic law. “The level of knowledge about Muslims is pretty abysmal,” he says. “People, if they don’t understand something, they tend to fear it.”



Ask Mr. Atta to condemn Hezbollah and HAMAS, and you’ll have a tough time getting a straight answer. And that’s because our level of knowledge about Islam is quite extensive. Um, Mr. Atta, we know a lot about Muslims and Islam. That’s your problem. We understand it quite well. And we have every reason to fear it. 3,000 reasons on 9/11. 12 reasons at Fort Hood. 300 reasons at the U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks in Beirut.



And many more reasons in videos of Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and so many thousands of others who were murdered in the name of a religion we understand so very well.



Saudis Demand Punishment for McDonald's Toy that 'Insults Muhammad'

A very interesting post from http://www.jihadwatch.org/ about McDonald's in Saudi Arabia. This follows this post about a child being punished in Saudi Arabia. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Saudis Demand Punishment for McDonald's Toy that 'Insults Muhammad'


Over at Gatestone Institute (via RaymondIbrahim.com) I discuss the latest toy that is angering Muslims:



Saudi Arabians are angry at a McDonald's toy which they say mocks their prophet Muhammad. According to a report appearing today (5/27/12) on the Arabic news website, Kermalkom.com, the McDonald's fast food restaurant "abused the Prophet Muhammad by placing his name at the base of a toy that is being distributed as part of the Happy Meal, a toy which steps on the name 'Muhammad.'"



The toy consists of a blue superhero figurine (apparently a Power Ranger Samurai). It stands on one leg, and, when the lever is pressed, it pounds on the base with the other leg. According to the Saudis, the designs that appear all around the base, where the figurine stomps its foot, is really the name "Muhammad" written several times in circles (click here for pictures).



The toy had been distributed a few days before Saudi children and their parents began to take note of the name. Soon thereafter, Saudi Muslims launched several campaigns against McDonald's in "response to the savage attacks on the noble Prophet," under banners like "Help your Prophet!" and "Together in support of the Prophet."



Saudis, "demanding the strongest possible punishment for the restaurant" and insisting that "they will not be silent until this is realized," further complained how such an obvious insult could pass the supervision of the management at McDonalds.



In response, "Saudi McDonald's" has withdrawn the toy from all its restaurants, "in order to safeguard against any accusations or misunderstandings."



Posted by Raymond

Weigh In: Dallas Morning News says Americans aren't filling U.S. tech needs‏

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about U.S. tech workers. This follows this previous post about importing more STEM workers.This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Weigh In: Dallas Morning News says Americans aren't filling U.S. tech needs‏


We have another comment opportunity for you and some other Texans in the IT fields. The editorial board at the Dallas Morning News is backing proposals to import or retain foreign graduates in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. The editorial board is siding with the "billionaire's club" of Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch (see NumbersUSA.TV).




There are already some great comments from effected Americans across the country.  Please share your storyand personal knowledge with readers.



Please Remember To:



*Be courteous and civil -- angry and combative language does not help our cause;



*Encourage debate;



*Discourage personal attacks;



*Support positive comments from our side;



*Limit your focus; and



*Educate; don't aggravate.



Thank you.



Should Oaxaca Seceed from Mexico?

A very interesting post from http://www.vdare.com/ about the problems Oaxaca has from the rest of Mexico. This follows this post about U.S. intervention in Mexico.  This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and read this very interesting book HERE!

Mexifornication Update: Oaxacan Slurs Banned in Oxnard Schools


http://www.vdare.com/posts/mexifornication-update-oaxacan-slurs-banned-in-oxnard



By Brenda Walker
Newbie Mexicans have a habit of enforcing the primacy of their home culture among Hispanics who reside in this country. In the dear homeland, for example, Spanish speakers look down on indigenous Mexicans who speak Triqui, Nahuatl and other tribal languages, and they bring that ethnic discrimination with them when they hop the border to the United States.





In addition, Mexicans disrespect other Hispanic nationalities as well. One example is how Salvadorans in Los Angeles sometimes pretend to be Mexicans in order to get along at their jobs and not get beaten up.

In the New York City area, Hispanic Indian language diversity is extreme, and many of those groups go to night school to learn Spanish rather than English. Apparently cultural coziness with other non-Americans is more important to them than economic success in this country, even though the knowledge of English has a real dollar payoff.

In Washington state, Mixteco speakers want to learn Spanish, and then maybe English later if they have time.

The upshot is that indigenous persons, Central Americans and other Hispanics often assimilate to Mexican culture in areas where it dominates ( i.e. places where there are large communities of Mexican s). The American assimilation engine is broken and is getting worse.

Today’s diverse example is from southern California, where school authorities are concerned that Oaxacan Indian kiddies are being insulted by Spanish-speaking Mexicans.

The following story contains no mention of assimilation to American values and language, which has never been a big priority of la Times. But a Spanish anti-bullying campaign fits perfectly into currently stylish values of self-esteem and diversity.



Epithet that divides Mexicans is banned by Oxnard school district, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2012

‘Oaxaquita’ (little Oaxacan) is used by other Mexicans to demean their indigenous compatriots — who are estimated to make up 30% of California’s farmworkers.

Rolando Zaragoza, 21, was 15 years old when he came to the United States, enrolled in an Oxnard school and first heard the term “Oaxaquita.” Little Oaxacan, it means — and it was not used kindly.

“Sometimes I didn’t want to go to school,” he said. “Sometimes I stayed to fight.”

“It kind of seemed that being from Oaxaca was something bad,” said Israel Vasquez, 23, who shared the same mocking, “just the way people use ‘Oaxaquita’ to refer to anyone who is short and has dark skin.”

Years later, indigenous leaders are fighting back against an epithet that lingers among immigrants from Mexico, directed at their own compatriots. Earlier this month the Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing Project in Oxnard launched the “No me llames Oaxaquita” campaign. “Don’t call me little Oaxacan” aims to persuade local school districts to prohibit the words “Oaxaquita” and “indito” (little Indian) from being used on school property, to form committees to combat bullying and to encourage lessons about indigenous Mexican culture and history.

Indigenous Mexicans have come to the U.S. in increasing numbers in the last two decades. Some estimates now put them at 30% of California’s farmworkers. In Ventura County, there are about 20,000 indigenous Mexicans, most of whom are Mixtec from the states of Oaxaca and Guerrero who work in the strawberry industry, according to local organizers.

Many speak little or no Spanish and are frequently subjected to derision and ridicule from other Mexicans. The treatment follows a legacy of discrimination toward indigenous people in Mexico, said William Perez, a professor of education at Claremont Graduate University who has interviewed and surveyed numerous indigenous Mexican students.

“One of the main themes is the discrimination, bullying, teasing and verbal abuse that they receive from other Mexican immigrant classmates who are not indigenous,” he said. The abuse, which often goes unnoticed or is minimized by teachers and administrators, has left some of the indigenous students too embarrassed to speak their native languages, he said.

Educators and others in the U.S. often don’t recognize diversity within the Mexican community, said Gaspar Rivera-Salgado, a researcher at the UCLA Labor Center who has written extensively about indigenous Mexican migration.

“We forget that it’s a multilingual, multiethnic community,” he said. “We forget about the fact that 62 indigenous languages are spoken in Mexico.”

The organizing project’s campaign, Rivera-Salgado said, “is a really interesting way to confront, very directly, something that the Mexican nation and the Mexican immigrant community sometimes sweeps under the rug, and that’s the prevalence of racism and discrimination that indigenous people have to endure in Mexico and that is reproduced here in the United States.”

Elvia Pacheco, a Mixtec mother who lives in Oxnard, said her U.S.-born son’s middle school teacher poked fun at him for his Oaxacan heritage. Pacheco is from Oaxaca; the boy’s father is from the central state of Guanajuato.

One day her son came home and threatened to kill himself if she made him go to school again.

When she asked what was wrong, “He said, ‘You embarrass me.’”

“It’s the worst thing a mother can hear from her son — to be renounced because of who you are,” she said.

Since then, they have taken classes about Mixtec history and culture and participated in the project’s organizing efforts. It has made a world of difference, she said.

Denis O’Leary, a member of the Oxnard School District’s Board of Trustees, was at an event to launch the campaign.

“I’m very proud of the students and the parents that stood up on this issue,” he said. “We need to now learn from this and do better.”

On Wednesday the school district unanimously passed the resolution originally proposed by the organizing project prohibiting the derogatory terms and creating an anti-bullying committee, O’Leary said.

Though the district had existing policies prohibiting bullying and taunting, “This resolution is going to let teachers know, and administrators know, that this group, that nobody really thought of, has suffered. And we need to pay attention,” he said.