Month: September 2008

* Exactly what Sheik Yer’mami has been saying all along:

Jihad Resistance. More on this story. “Does U.S. need legal protection from Jihad?” by Chad Groening for OneNewsNow, 

A Colorado Congressman has introduced legislation that would deny U.S. visas to advocates of so-called Sharia law, as well as expel Islamists already in the country. 

Republican Tom Tancredo calls his bill the Jihad Protection Act. He has introduced the measure amid disturbing revelations that the verdicts of Islamic Sharia courts are now legally binding in the United Kingdom. 

The legislation, according to Tancredo, is designed to protect the United States from a similar fate.

“There are situations where we really have to look at whether or not our system can accommodate everybody, including people who are determined to overthrow us. There is no way that the Constitution of the United States and Sharia law can co-exist,” Tancredo contends. “You cannot have one class of citizens — in this case, women, for instance — being able to be abused, battered, killed, because someone has written that that’s the right way to do it in their particular religious system, and then expect the Constitution of the United States to protect everyone else’s civil rights. It just simply doesn’t work.”

Tancredo says Great Britain and much of Western Europe has succumbed to the pressure for multi-culturalism, which the United States must avoid.

Continue reading US Congressman Tancredo: "There is no way that the Constitution of the United States and Sharia law can co-exist"

 

Brno, South Moravia, Sept 22 (CTK) – Supporters of the Czech far right National Party will stage a protest against Islamism outside the Brno mosque on Wednesday, the party has informed on its website.

The Libertas Independent Agency associating Brno Muslims and friends of Muslim nations has expressed its protest against the planned event in a statement CTK has obtained.

Continue reading Czech Nationalists to stage protest against Islam

By Daniel Pipes

After Hitler, the policy of appeasing dictators – ridiculed by Winston Churchill as feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat one last – appeared to be permanently discredited. Yet the policy has enjoyed some successes and remains a live temptation today in dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Academics have long challenged the facile vilification of appeasement. Already in 1961, A.J.P. Taylor of Oxford justified Neville Chamberlain’s efforts, while Christopher Layne of Texas A&M currently argues that Chamberlain “did the best that he could with the cards he was dealt.” Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at UCLA, finds the common presumption against appeasement to be “far too strong,” while his University of Florida colleague Ralph B.A. Dimuccio calls it “simplistic.”

* This website  does not promote appeasement. A closer look at who the appeasers are  is quite revealing: a host of corrupt, deluded or corrupt ex-government stooges who team up with Islamic propagandists like Ingrid Mattson. Their activities are nothing short of treason./ed 

Neville Chamberlain mistakenly declared “peace in our time” on September 30, 1938.

In perhaps the most convincing treatment of the pro-appeasement thesis, Paul M. Kennedy, a British historian teaching at Yale University, established that appeasement has a long and credible history. In his 1976 article, “The Tradition of Appeasement in British Foreign  Policy, 1865-1939,” Kennedy defined appeasement as a method of settling quarrels “by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise,” thereby avoiding the horrors of warfare. It is, he noted, an optimistic approach, presuming humans to be reasonable and peaceful.

 

From the prime ministry of William Gladstone until its discrediting in the late 1930s, appeasement was, in Kennedy’s description, a “perfectly respectable” term and even “a particularly British form of diplomacy” well suited to the country’s character and circumstances. Kennedy found the policy had four quasi-permanent bases, all of which apply especially well to the United States today:

Continue reading "Peace In Our time" Means Appease Iran?