Category: General

By Patrick O’Flynn / The Daily Express

* Peaceful Buddhists, Methodists & Jews demonstrating in London on behalf of oppressed Muslims. Not!

Following the heated exchanges on my blog about the proposed mega-Mosque in London, I have been struck by another aspect of the debate about Muslims in Britain.

People on the radical Left have been accusing commentators like me of suffering from “Islamophobia”.

Lefties like Ken Livingstone use the term all the time. It is meant to carry the meaning that anyone worried about the impact of Islamic values upon our society is a senseless bigot and should shut up.

A phobia is a fear of something. According to the dictionary the term does carry overtones of irrationality. But basically it means you are scared of a particular phenomenon.

So I hold my hands up and say that yes, I am certainly deeply concerned and worried by forced marriages, honour killings, book-burning, fatwas, electoral fraud, veil-wearing and all kinds of other alien customs associated with Muslim ghettos in Britain.

I am fearful about the fundamentalists who wish to establish an Islamic caliphate across the United Kingdom and truly scared of the lunatic fringe who are prepared to engage in murderous acts of terrorism to pursue that end.

But what I do reject is the implication that any of these opinions are irrational. Following the attacks of 7/7 and the many attempted attacks since, it is quite logical to be worried about the separate Islamic communities in our midst which do not share mainstream British values.

By using the term “Islamophobic” Mr Livingstone and his supporters are unfairly smearing the majority of the British public. They are also giving Britain’s Muslim communities carte blanche to avoid changing their ways. They are giving them the impression that, somehow, the rest of us are being unreasonable for wanting to stand up for our democratic, modern society.

This is doing a grave disservice to everyone, Muslims most of all. The truth is that our so-called multicultural society is breaking down. There is no popular consensus in favour of British Islam developing along the lines it currently is heading.

If core common values do not soon reassert themselves then we are heading for civil strife on a major scale in our big cities. Communities are living cheek by jowel with nothing in common and with increasingly contradictory values and aspirations.

In my book trying to dismiss this all and shut down debate by flinging around the term “Islamophobia” is both misconceived and dangerous.

What do you all think?

* ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone is not ‘unfair’– he is an Islamofascist commie rat bag with an agenda, just like the despicable ‘gorgeous’ George Gallowswine, who is deep in the Arab pocket. In a sane world these people would have been tarred and feathered and run out of town long ago. Ask yourself, why must we tolerate the presence of these traitors among us ?

Just in from the Daily Mail:

* Of course, they should never have been hired in the first place, but the UK (like the US) was anxious to have a “diverse” force, and of course no one would have dared to try to determine whether or not the prospective cops had any sympathies with the global jihad. And the fact that instead of being fired, as well as jailed and deported, they are kept on the force, is just another example of the suicidal lunacy that prevails in the West in our age.

“Al Qaeda fanatics working in police (but they don’t dare sack them),” by Stephen Wright in the Daily Mail (thanks to Hot Air):

Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda.
Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Their names feature on a secret list of alleged radicals said to be working in the Metropolitan and other forces.

The dossier was drawn up with the help of MI5 amid fears that individuals linked to Islamic extremism are taking advantage of police attempts to increase the proportion of ethnic staff.

Astonishingly, many of the alleged jihadists have not been sacked because – it is claimed – police do not have the “legal power” to dismiss them.

We can also reveal that one suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating Internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq.

He is said to have argued that he was trying to “enhance” debate about the war.

Classified intelligence reports raising concerns about police staff’s background cannot be used to justify their dismissal, sources said.

Instead, the staff who are under suspicion are unofficially barred from working in sensitive posts and are closely monitored. Political correctness is blamed for the decision not to sack them.

It is widely feared that “long-term” Al Qaeda sleepers are trying to infiltrate other public sector organisations in the UK.

Read it all.

Glasgow Airport; New Arrest Footage.

* The comical efforts to deny the Islamic threat by Western governments, especially in Britain,- are hair-raising. Gordon Brown’s ludicrous refusal to speak the truth about Britain’s enemies is a direct result of the European Union’s craven policy of preemptive appeasement: Terror-spooked EU: ‘Don’t say Muslims’.

Diana West: ‘Call it like it is’

Q: Who is winning the really important war of ideas — the one between the West and itself?

A: Not the side that understands jihad as a foundational Islamic institution.

This is nothing new. From September 11 onward, the yeoman effort of elites has been to wrench “Islam” away from all acts of jihad. But now, particularly after the London and Glasgow attacks, their efforts have achieved a deeper level of denial, and, worse, broader consensus.

The new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, has directed ministers to omit “Muslim” when discussing (Muslim) terrorism. And forget the generic “war on terror”; even that pathetic phrase is off limits. (This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Brown’s unctuously stated goal to make Britain “the gateway for Islamic finance.”) The new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith (love that “i” ending) refers to British Muslims as “communities” — maybe a prelude to not mentioning them at all. Both have done the “perversion of a great faith”
dance to enlightened applause, taking cues from the unpublished “EU Lexicon,” which reportedly nixes such “offensive” phrases as “Islamic terrorism.”
British literary lions couldn’t agree more. Philosopher John Gray and historian Eric Hobsbawm recently said on British television that even the word “Islamist” was “unfair” because “it implied a strong link to Islam.” Never mind the link is doctrinally accurate. Better to accommodate mortal threat without identifying its Islamic roots. Instead of defending their nations — for starters, stopping Islamic immigration and, with it, the progression of Islamic law into Western societies — our elites have decided to pretend Islam isn’t there at all.

Madness. Read it all…

The Islamofascists are winning the public relations war because of Civilization’s defensive thinking. Conflicts, whether military or political, are won by offense and not defense.

Helmuth Karl Bernhard, Graf von Moltke, wrote (Hughes, 1993),

The advantages of the offense are clear and permanent. He who acts on his own decision lays down the law to which the waiting party must conform his countermeasures.
…In doubtful cases and in unclear conditions (which occur so often in war), it will generally be more advisable to proceed actively and keep the initiative than to await the law of the opponent.

Moltke adds that the offensive is the basic form of the Prussian conduct of war and that even the defensive, when it is necessary, is always active and never passive.
The problem is that our side almost uniformly “awaits the law of the opponent” by reacting to the Islamofascist propaganda organs. We dance to the enemy’s music instead of forcing the enemy to dance to ours.

From Israpundit. Read it all…

The Lunatics are running the asylum:

‘Watch out for people doing things’

London – British public safety officials today increased the national alert level to “Quite Elevated Indeed” — the highest category possible — and appealed to UK citizens to “keep a sharp lookout for diverse people engaged in activities.”

“We ask the public to report any behaviors by various people that may or may not be of a suspicious nature,” said Lt. Clive Jameson of the Metropolitan Police Service. “We further ask the public to be especially vigilant for activities of broad stratas of people who may be from countries of some sort, especially those within the eastern and/or western hemisphere.”

The elevated alert levels come on the heels of a week when London and Glasgow narrowly escaped potential events that intelligence experts say may have been related to diverse groups of people doing things. Initially police had specifically asked the public for information relating to doctors driving automobiles, but that initial warning brought angry denunciations from the British Medical Association and the UK Automobile Association.

“This directive unfairly singles out and targets British medical professionals, a great many of whom are loyal and patriotic citizens,” complained Dr. Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA. “The fact that some of the people involved in the recent unfortunate events may have been doctors is totally coincidental, just as if they had been accountants, plumbers, or random members of a deranged apocalyptic religious cult.”

Sir Trevor Chinn, Chairman of the UKAA, warned that the earlier directive would “spark a backlash against the British motoring community and promote a climate of fear and carophobia.”

On Tuesday, new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown met with representatives of the medical and car communities and announced that the government would henceforth prohibit occupational and transportational profiling by public officials. Brown said further government communications would prohibit the use of certain prejudicial words like “doctor,” “Vauxhall,” “podiatrist,” “propane,” “Asia,” “drive,” “ticking noises,” “panic,” and “the.” Brown also announced the formation of a blue ribbon multicultural community advisory board chaired by Dr. Mohammed Ibn-Yasin of the UK Islamic Podiatric and Car Bombing Club.

* ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ is one of the favorite taqiyya-lines, or escape hatches that Muslims use when confronted with the prosecution and physical threats to unbelievers in Islamic countries, where ‘no compulsion’ obviously means ‘you can have any religion as long as its Islamic’

Islamic Tolerance Report from AP

HAH ALAM, Malaysia—A Muslim-born woman who was forced to spend six months in an Islamic rehabilitation center because she wants to live as a Hindu said Friday after her release that she will never return to her original faith.
Revathi Masoosai, 29, said officials at the center tried to make her pray as a Muslim, wear a head scarf and eat beef, a practice sacrilege to Hindus.

“Because of their behavior, I loathe Islam even more now,” she told reporters. “They say it’s a school, but it’s actually a prison.”

Her case is one of a growing number of conflicts in Malaysia between religious freedom and state policies that favor Islam, the official faith of this southeast Asian nation. The battles have strained ethnic relations in the multicultural nation.

* Irene ‘Gulag’ Khan, resident Islamic agit-prop from Amnesia Intentional. was not available for comment…

Don’t know his name, but this deluded, genocidal spin-doctor is a stark raving mad prototype of the ‘Religion of Peace’ and blames everything except Islam for his fanatical delusions:

Whoever he is, he deserves the Asshole of the Month award, don’t you think?

 “Lets dream on about a European Islam”

Europe is run by wankers and flakes

Gordon Brown has avoided labelling the terrorism since the attacks in Glasgow and London

Gordon Brown’s ban on the word “Muslim” in relation to terrorism can be blamed on the EU.

The prime minister has told Cabinet members not to mention “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same breath.

It comes after the European Commission issued a guide for government spokesmen to avoid offence by ruling out the words such as “jihad”, “Islamic” or “fundamentalist” in statements about terrorist attacks.

It has been working with governments to make sure “non-offensive” phrases are used when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Frattini: Master-flake of appeasement and doublespeak. Doing the best he can to turn Eurabia into Censoristan…

It is not the first time the EU has tackled the issue of language – last year its guidelines suggested that the phrase “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam” should be used rather than “Islamic terrorism”.

The prime minister avoided labelling the terrorism in his statement to the nation following the Glasglow Airport attack on Saturday.

And Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has followed the same, strict line.

The EU is determined to take front-line action in the fight against terrorism. Yesterday it announced plans to set up a network of bomb disposal units to share intelligence.

* How can you take action if you don’t identify the enemy?

EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini wants to create ‘a European Islam’
Other proposals – which will be presented in October – include sharing air passenger data within Europe and tracking stolen or lost explosives.

* Pipe-dreams and illusions…

It also plans to make it a criminal offence to spread bomb-making instructions via the Internet.

* Why not ban the internet altogether, Frattini?

EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini is also going to canvass the 27 member states on how they handle religious education in a bid to prevent Islamist radicalisation.

“The idea under discussion is to have a European Islam,” he said.

“We have to co-operate even more closely on fighting terrorism, on prevention, or radicalisation,” Frattini said.

“There is a network across Europe of people who are directly or indirectly linked.”

* Hmm. Really? And why is that?

Update: 

Gordon Brown in action…

By Jean-Baptiste Piggin, dpa

* The government says it is seeking a trade-off, where Germany changes some laws to accommodate Muslims while the Islamic community commits itself to German democracy.

Fat chance.

Berlin (dpa) – German government talks with the Islamic community reflect growing concern in Berlin that the angry children of immigrants may turn to terrorism because they are excluded from German prosperity.

* Ever heard of the global jihad?

A government briefing document released Wednesday in Berlin spoke of the “growing difficulties that second and third generation immigrants have finding a place in school and the jobs market.”

Germany has already been slammed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) over the low educational performance of immigrant children in schools. Many leave school without any qualifications.

* Immigrant children enjoy the same access to education as everybody else. If Muslims leave school without qualifications, could it be that it has something to do with Islam?

Recent news reports have highlighted the low success rate for young people with Turkish or Middle Eastern names when they apply by letter for jobs or scarce apprenticeships.

The German Islam Conference was set up seven months ago by Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, who is not only responsible for religious issues but also Germany’s fight against terrorism.

German officials have been shocked by the emergence of terrorism among young British Muslims with roots in Pakistan and India, and worry that Germany faces a similar risk.

Government figures show there are up to 3.4 million people of Islamic heritage among Germany’s 82-million population.

More than half, or 1.8 million, are Turkish nationals. Aliens data show other large groups include 160,000 Bosnians, 70,000 Moroccans, 60,000 Iranians and 55,000 Afghans. About 1 million German nationals are Muslim.

Muslims settled in Germany in large numbers in the 1960s, when Germany recruited factory labour from Turkey. The Interior Ministry says 90 per cent of German Muslims are of non-Arab origin.

Sunni Muslims predominate, numbering about 2.5 million, while more than 500,000 are Alawites. Some Muslims do not accept Alawites as part of Islam. Only about 200,000 of Muslims in Germany are Shiite.

Mosques are generally run by associations, which can be freely established under German law and own property.

However, the interior ministry says only 10 to 15 per cent of Muslims are formally members of such associations or of secular groups representing their ethnicities.

The principal Muslim groups are the Ditib Turkish Islamic Religious Foundation, the Islamic Council of Germany, the Central Council of Muslims, the Federation of Islamic Culture Centres VIKZ and the Alawite Community.

The first four formed a coordination committee in March to speak with a single voice.

State estimates indicate there are 2,500 mosques in Germany, many of them little more than large rented rooms in office buildings or former factories.

Most of the estimated 2,250 imams employed in Germany have been seconded to Germany from Turkey or Arab nations and the Islamic Conference is expected to discuss asking a German university to train home-grown imams.

*Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch takes on the latest attempt by the soldiers of Allah to pull the wool over the ears and eyes of unsuspecting, naive Westerners:

We have seen this before. The Fiqh Council of North America condemned attacks on innocent civilians, without specifying what constitutes an innocent civilian — a key issue when Islamic authorities including the “moderate” Sheikh Qaradawi are saying that there are no civilians in Israel, and thus all Israelis can be killed lawfully according to Islamic law. 

Quaradwi quotes PDF here 

That is the same justification other jihadists have used for 9/11. That means that for any Muslim condemnation of terrorism to have real teeth, it has to be very specific: saying that American and Israeli civilians are innocent, and thus entitled to respect for their lives and property according to the traditional canons of Islamic law. Short of that, the condemnation is hollow.

United They Are; against US

Now a slew of British Muslim organizations have issued a similar document (thanks to Leon), and I’m sure it will raise the same excitement and high hopes among non-Muslims that the Fiqh Council’s did — and will serve ever after as a useful tool for deceivers and self-deceived alike. The BBC (thanks again, Leon) is already breathlessly reporting that “British Muslims are leading a new campaign condemning the recent attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.” But in reality, this one is not as clever as the Fiqh Council’s document: its weasel wording is relatively obvious.

MUSLIMS UNITED !

..Whoever kills an innocent soul.. it is as if he killed the whole of mankind, And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind” [The Quran, 5:32]

“An innocent soul.” But reading beyond the quoted passage (you know how important context is, after all), we learn what awaits those who not deemed innocent: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter” (Qur’an 5:33).

The Muslim communities across Britain are united in condemning the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow.
We are united with the rest of the country at this critical time and are determined to work together to avert any such attacks targeting our fellow citizens, property and country.

Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.

* Here we go again: Doublespeak and deception

But Anjem Chaudry tells the truth
“Innocent people.” How, then, does this declaration do anything to refute the views of the British jihadist Anjem Choudary, who has said forthrightly on British TV that no non-Muslims are innocent? Anjem Choudary would have no trouble agreeing to this statement. And there’s your problem.

Then it gets even worse: “We reject any heinous attempts to link such abhorrent acts to the teachings of Islam.” That sounds as if they’re declaring that the jihadists are not acting according to the teachings of Islam, and that’s all to the good, if they can actually fight the jihadist interpretation of Islam and present an alternative that is viable in terms of the Qur’an and Islamic law. But this statement can also be taken to mean that any attempt to explore the elements of Islam that give rise to violence and terror, and to formulate effective reforms, is also “heinous” and must be opposed. After all, British Muslim groups have been vocal in demanding that the media not refer to jihad terrorists as Islamic at all — and Gordon Brown is happy to oblige. But this cuts off the legs of sincere Islamic reformers: you can’t reform what you won’t admit needs reforming. And when you label any exploration of the topic itself as “heinous,” you’re miles away from any real confrontation or refutation of the use jihadists make of Islamic theology.

• British Muslims should not be held responsible for the acts of criminals.

* But isn’t Islam itself a criminal organization? A cult based on conquest, assault, booty, intimidation, extortion, blackmail, slavery and the subjugation of conquered peoples? And then there is the behavior of Muhammad, Islam’s ‘prophet’ who raped captured women the same day he killed their whole tribe, and who married at the age of 54 a child of 6, Aisha.

Here again, where is a statement that “British Muslims must redouble their efforts to fight the spread of the jihad ideology in their communities.” Instead, the focus is on what non-Muslims must do — so as to head off that ever-present but evanescent “backlash.”

• We commend the government for its efforts to respond to this crisis calmly and proportionately, and welcome both the Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s and the Home Secretary’s emphasis on the need to distinguish between the overwhelming majority of British Muslims who are law-abiding (? Obviously to mean obeying sharia) citizens and a few criminals who seek to inflict harm and terror on our country.

‘Our country?’

Lovely. But why not say that you’re going to do everything you can to make it easier for the British government to distinguish between peaceful Muslims and jihadists, by instituting mandatory nationwide anti-jihadism programs in mosques and acting energetically against Islamic supremacism in other ways?

• We express support for the emergency services who are working tirelessly and courageously to avert these attacks and ensure the safety of our country. • We urge the media and all politicians to continue to maintain the values of our open society, free from prejudice and discrimination, sustained by tolerance and mutual respect for all.
Here again, calls on non-Muslims to act. Nothing about what Muslims can and should do.

• We call on our government to work towards a just and lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world and to take the lead in helping eliminate the injustices and grievances that foment division and nurture violence.

In other words, “This is your fault. You non-Muslim British brought this on yourselves, by your policies. Change them now…or else.”

The unity of our society must be maintained and we must not allow divisions to emerge between us. We must remain friends, neighbours and colleagues, and take Britain forward as one nation – towards a Greater Britain.

A Greater Britain, eh? A clear renunciation of any intention to impose Sharia in Britain in the future might have been nice here, instead of vaguely ominous platitudes.

Here is the link to Robert Spencer on Cavuto’s FOX show

Extreme Islamists operating in Australia: Ed Husain

Reformed Islamic radical Ed Husain says Australia is home to one of the most extreme Islamist organisations in the world – Hizb ut-Tahrir.

ISLAM UBER ALLES: Revealing Muslim Doctors’ Oath

By Debbie Schlussel

It’s the doctors, stupid!

I’m not sure why everyone is so shocked that all eight suspects in the attempted British terrorist attacks of last week are Medical Doctors (and that ALL eight suspects are tied to the British national healthcare system, the NHS). Readers of this site aren’t surprised by the doctor terrorists.

As you’ll recall, in my mid-May column, “When Your Doctor is a Muslim: Medical Terrorism Comes to America,” I wrote about many of the doctors who’ve been top-ranking terrorists and involved in terrorist plots. Also, of note, I’ve complained about the special visas available for foreign alien MDs and other medical personnel to practice in America in small towns and at universities. I’ve written about how this makes it easy for Islamic doctor terrorists to get in and stay in, without much of a background check. (Like America doesn’t already have enough medical doctors.)

I did not mention something else I know about, which is a past FBI investigation into Syrian and other Arab Muslim Medical Doctors in the Detroit area who were holding fundraisers for HAMAS. The investigation was mostly conducted by counterterrorism agents in Chicago, as it was tied to a bigger scheme. But nothing ever happened to the doctors because, hey, post-9/11, we must be nice to the Muslims, no matter how extremist they are or how nefarious their activities are.

READ IT ALL:

*

45 Muslim doctors planned US terror attacks

By John Steel, Crime Correspondent

Cyber-terrorists: Tariq Daour, Younis Tsouli and Waseem Mughal

Not your average Jihad Apes

A group of 45 Muslim doctors threatened to use car bombs and rocket grenades in terrorist attacks in the United States during discussions on an extremist internet chat site.

Police found details of the discussions on a site run by one of a three-strong “cyber-terrorist” gang.

They were discovered at the home of Younis Tsouli, 23, Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London heard.

One message read: “We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.

“The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy.” This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.

The message discussed targets at the base, adding: “These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units.”

It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.

Investigators have found no link between the Tsouli chat room and the group of doctors and medics currently in custody over attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

However, sources said it was “definitely spooky” that the use of doctors for terrorist purposes was being discussed in jihadi terrorist circles up to three years ago.

Part of the inquiry into the London and Glasgow incidents will focus on whether al-Qa’eda has recruited doctors or other medical professionals because they are less likely to attract suspicion and can move easily around the western world.

The three “cyber terrorists” – a British national and two who had been given the right to live in Britain – are facing lengthy jail sentences after admitting using the internet to spread al-Qa’eda propaganda inciting Muslims to a violent holy war and to murder non-believers.

They had close links with al-Qa’eda in Iraq and believed they had to fight jihad against a global conspiracy by kuffars, or non-believers, to wipe out Islam.

The three are the first defendants in Britain to be convicted of inciting terrorist murder on the internet. They waged cyber-jihad on websites run from their bedrooms.

Tsouli promoted the ideology of Osama bin Laden via email and radical websites. He said in one message he was “very happy” about the July 7 bombings in London in 2005.

Tsouli, along with Tariq Daour, a biochemistry student, and Waseem Mughal, a law student, were intelligent, computer-literate men who promoted violent propaganda.

They created chat forums to direct willing fighters to Iraq and discuss murderous bomb attacks around the world. Films of hostages and beheadings were found by police.

Daour, 21, of Bayswater, west London, who was born in the United Arab Emirates, yesterday admitted inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside Britain. Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, of Shepherd’s Bush, west London, and British-born Mughal, 24, of Chatham, Kent, admitted the same charge on Monday.

They are due to be sentenced today. They also admitted conspiring together and with others to defraud banks, credit card companies and charge card companies. Daour had instructions for making explosives and poisons, the court was told. Police found instructions on causing an explosion with “rocket propellant” and constructing a car bomb.

In one on-line conversation, Daour, asked what he would do with £1 million, replied: “Sponsor terrorist attacks, become the new Osama.”

The three men outwardly appeared to be leading normal lives, studying and living with their parents. Tsouli had come to the UK with his family from Morocco in 2001.

Mughal had a degree in biochemistry from Leicester University and was studying for his masters.

Daour, who was granted British citizenship in May 2005, had applied to start a law degree.

Exposing Islam

* And that doesn’t mean ‘Islamic Law’ or Sharia.

Check yourselves in to check out, you Muahmmedan infil-traitors: 

July 4, 2007 — AMNESTY is dead. Now, let’s talk about the other “A” word. It’s the word and the concept completely abandoned during the immigration debate: assimilation.
Over the last year, hundreds of thousands of illegal-alien demonstrators took to the streets lobbying for amnesty. Marchers waved “Amnestia Ahora!” placards in one hand, the flags of their native countries in the other. Open-borders strategists quickly replaced the foreign flags with Old Glory after militant activists caused a public backlash last year. National newspapers played dutiful propagandists and splashed patriotic photo-ops of the “undocumented” masses wrapped in red, white and blue to drum up sympathy.

But now that they’ve lost their amnesty fight, will they still embrace American symbols and traditions? Or was it all for show? And what of all that talk of illegal aliens being willing to study citizenship and civics? And take English classes? Why must they be bribed with the promise of a temporary guest-worker visa and mass governmental pardon in order to adapt to our way of life? When did assimilation become the means and not an end in itself?

The inflection point can perhaps be traced to the moment when politicians were permitted to invoke the “America-is-a-nation-of-immigrants” platitude as a mindless justification for open borders.

The fact is: We are not a “nation of immigrants.” This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. Sure, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a “nation of immigrants.”

(Isn’t it funny, by the way, how the politically correct multiculturalists who claim we are a “nation of immigrants” are so insensitive toward Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves who did not “immigrate” here in any common sense of the word?)

Even if we were a “nation of immigrants,” it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. And if the open-borders advocates would actually read American history instead of revising it, they would see that the Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom:

* George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

* In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

* In 1802, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

* Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.

“The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

* The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

We are not a nation of immigrants. We are first and foremost a nation of laws. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the paramount duty of government is to “celebrate diversity” or to “embrace multiculturalism” or to give “every willing worker” in the world a job. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says the Constitution was established “to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.”

As our Founding Fathers recognized, fulfilling these fundamental duties is impossible without an orderly immigration and entrance system that discriminates in favor of those willing, as George Washington put it, to “get assimilated to our customs, measures [and] laws.”

Lest there be any doubt this Independence Day about the perils of ignoring the Founding Fathers’ advice, I invite you to contemplate the abyss at Ground Zero. “The safety of the republic” is indeed at stake.

malkinblog@gmail.com