Dear Robert FulfordLet me send you my
congratulations on exposing a horrific truism. Your column in The National Post, Dec. 31, 05, "Do not Disturb" was, in fact, very disturbing. I have played Cassandra many times about the gathering threat of Islamo-fascism. After a while, one begins to feel like a paranoid, or as the Left would refer to me, a xenophobe. However, I continue trying to show Canadians the imminent danger that awaits them. In the Iran of the early 1970's, a multitude in Isfahan chanted hysterically, "Shah-in-Shah"; then, we watched six years later, the cries turn to the praise of Khomeini.
When Spanish police raided the house of one of the masterminds of the Madrid train bombings, they found a detailed map of the Montreal subway system--along with photos of various stations -- a potential target for Ressam as well, should his operation in L.A. go well. Yet our populous has bought into the myth that we are the world's poster child for tolerance and inclusivity, hence exempt from terrorism. Attack the meek and mild? Unthinkable!
To al-Qaeda we are infidels of the worst kind--gay marriage, legalized swinger sex, and women's rights--all are anathema to the fundamentalist mindset. Ironically, the very Left that supports their "insurgencies" will be the first to go to the firing squad. Did the barbaric slaughters in Beslan, Iraq and London not ring some bells with these people? The polls of British-Muslims that came out of the aftermath of those bombings were chilling. They exposed their true feeling about their new country. Frankly, the majority despised the democratic values of Britain. A large number admitted that they condoned the attacks, or with a minority, might even have participated in them. I seem to be the only person who keeps reminding people of this revealing poll. My exposure to Muslims suggests that sentiment might be the same in Canada. The Liberals wisely do not discuss these polls. Nor does the opposition, because they would be subject to 'racism' charges.
We can give in to this dream of equal tolerance, or we can follow the maxim of Johan Goethe, who said,
Let us not dream that reason can be popular. Passions, emotions, may be made popular, but reason remains ever the property of the few.
Never has there been a time when the citizenry must be more alert; especially in a time of chemical and biological threats of the most dire kind. That people are so blindly ignorant of the threat is terrifying. Or perhaps this is our Roman moment, where a former-day Neil Postman, would tell the populous that they were "amusing thermselves to death". Keep up the fine reasoning.
You are fighting, not only for Canada, but for civilization itself.
As for your
analysis of the Iraq war, I couldn't concur more. Iraq had a monster, Saddam Insane, who wantonly--and unsuccessfully--waged two wars against his neighbours. The cost in Iraqi lives was nearly a million human beings. Besides the combined Western intelligence believing that Saddam had WMDs, he was obviously capable of any treachery towards the West. He was so evil that humanitarian concerns alone meant he had to be removed. As with Ressam, if the jihadis were not engaged in blowing up other targets--Iraqi children and policemen--who would they prefer to blow up? Us, of course. I can never remember the wording, but to paraphrase, "The sleep of reason produces monsters". Oh, and Happy New Year!
© Bud Talkinghorn -- About this topic, you wouldn't happen to be my mental doppelganger, would you?
Friends described Warrayat as deeply religious Where have we heard that one before?
Muslim in 'personal attack' on Home Depot -- Crashes through store with Quran, Palestinian flag in trunk Dec. 31, 05
With a copy of the Quran and a Palestinian flag in his trunk, a Jordanian-turned-U.S. citizen crashed his car into a Home Depot in Arizona where he formerly worked, igniting an explosive blaze in the stores' paint section and causing $1 million in damage.
The Dec. 18 attack in Chandler, Ariz., by 24-year-old Ali R. Warrayat was a carefully planned "personal statement," the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz., reported. [. . . . ]
He also said he was mad at the United States for proposing a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border and wanted to make the country "more free." [. . . . ]
What makes these fellows so crazed? Is it their
holy book? I think so. The
restrictions on normal relationships with half the world adds to it. You don't have to have a sexual relationship with a woman to enjoy a friendly relationship, but these men are taught the most strange attitudes toward women, about which they seem to obsess.
Houri heaven seems to be their greatest desire -- well perhaps taking a few infidels along for the journey comes first -- but
the rewards. Ah ... It's to die for. NJC
Betrayal & Deceit: The Politics of Canadian ImmigrationBook reviewThe author,
Charles M. Campbell, was an immigration and refugee board (IRB) member for ten years. Through his extensive connections to current board members and for the next 18 years, Campbell continued to follow IRB trends. What he found could only be labelled treason. As one of his confidantes told him, "You wouldn't believe how the system is abused. If the public knew, there would be riots in the street." Even former LIberal Minister for the Environment, Davis Anderson--no right-wing crank he--has mused about his former job at the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) as an eye opener. He was quoted as saying: "The system is corrupt and the immigration board has become a wretched monster that's out of control." Several IRB members told Campbell that they are forced to just automatically accept the bogus claims from economic refugees on the first query. Twenty-five countries were to receive this preferential treatment--many of them from terrorist supporting countries. The comment from another IRB source put this way:
"We no longer protect refugees. We just let in any liar that comes along."Campbell pinpoints two periods when the Immigration Act was changed detrimentally. In
1978, the Act gave peeference to
"family class" immigrants. The theory was that the family would guarantee that the relative would not become an economic burden on Canada.
A few years ago, the government was forced to admit that the taxpayer was funding these 'sponsored" people to the tune of $800 million a year, because the sponsors were reneging on that commitment. No sponsors were fined, as that scandal would reveal the tremdenous cost of the Liberals' reunification program. They may be deadbeats, but they vote Liberal. The second change came in
1998, "when the IRB started accepting refugees at a rate five times that of other refugee-accepting countries." We now accept over four times that of the United States, and the vast majority of immigrants come from undemocratic, impoverished, and corrupt nations. The results of that miscalculation can be seen by
Campbell's story of the influx in 1983 of Iranian "refugees", who had extensive connections with the Asian heroin trade. Within five years of their arrival, Montreal police linked them to 300 drug rings in the city. Over 100 of these "desperate" refugees had been convicted of drug smuggling and the addicted population had tripled. Not one of these individuals was deported. The reason goes back to
Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems that one of these freedoms was for criminal refugees or immigrants not to be sent home.
They might be tortured, you see, so they get to remain in Canada and torture us with violent crime, heroin trafficking and frauds too numerous to name.Mr. Campbell goes on to expose the main immigration myths. The abridged versions of these are as follows:Myth #1: Canada's immigration rate has traditionally been 1%. This is not true. From 1960 to 1993 the average rate was 0.63% "It was only 1% in the year 1975. For twenty-four of those years it averaged 0.51%.
This lie was concocted so that the Liberals could justify a million new immigrants every three years.Myth #2: This one goes straight to the heart of our materialist society. Because of our low native birth rate we need many more citizens to keep those pension schemes afloat. Actually, Campbell shows that between 1991-95 there was an
increase of citizens. For those five years with zero immigration factored in, there were 138,500 more citizens. Also what the immigration lobby never wants to talk about is that, while some of those immigrants will be an economic blessing, others will be a burden. Let your minds roam to
a future of declining health care professionals; yet hundreds of thousands of aged "family class" claimants will also be demanding care. The government never wants to let you see the flip-side of the coin.
Myth #3: Canada needs a larger population. Various Canadian and American demographic studies have found no correlation between larger population size and economic advantages. If large size were so beneficial, then Mexico, Bangladesh and Nigeria would be economic giants--rather than the basket cases they are. (Why is Mexico included? A poll revealed that 46% of Mexicans would move to the US if they could and the Mexico - US border incursions tell the tale.)
Myth #4: Immigrants earn more and contribute more to Canada than do native-born citizens. Here Campbell employs charts to show the truth, charts showing that,
since the introduction of "family class" immigration, the average immigrant has fallen below the Canadian average economic level.Throughout Campbell's book (published by Jasmine Books, West Vancouver, 2000), he documents the unreal immigration scenarios that have been played out by the Liberals. The
entrepreneur investment plan that allowed (mainly Chinese) investors to enter Canada was
largely a failure. Campbell uses statistics to show that many of these merely wanted to
park their illegal assets here, while escaping to a lenient country that would not deport them. The "Ice Queen",
Lee Chau-Ping, who was on the run from her massive
crystal meth smuggling between China and Hong Kong, was a classic example. Nobody in the IRB checked out the story of her assets--which Campbell insists was the common practice. I am old enough to remember the Hong Kong cop, who really did have millions when he landed here. How somebody who make less than $10,000 a year amassed this fortune was never seriously investigated. Personally, I know of two of these entrepeneur-class cases, where no native Canadian was hired for their "business". In the case of the restaurant, it soon was sub-divided into tiny immigrant stores. As the restaurant shrunk, the number of wait staff seemed to increase. Locals came to the conclusion that it was nothing but a way station for illegal Chinese. In some cases, the migrant put up only $90,000, with Canadian banks loaning the rest. Many of those "businesses" failed, but the extended family got permanent resident status. But I digress.
The Australian model of immigration is the one which Campbell favours. It has not--unlike ours--become captive to special interests, the immigration lobbyists, or the activist courts. The criteria to enter that country is stringent. The economic gain to Australia, along with the candidates' ability to integrate are what count. Family integration is severely restricted. Refugee acceptance is far, far below ours.Meanwhile, our dysfunctional IRB merrily goes on with its feckless policies of allowing illegal immigrants and refugees to enter our country. We haven't yet seen the worst of Europe's problems, with ill-educated, unable to assimilate immigrants bombing their fellow citizens or committing massive arson attacks--10,000 cars and 200 public buildings in France during a two week rampage--but the lawlessness and social breakdown exhibited in the Caribbean areas of Toronto, makes visible the tip of the iceberg. Beneath that tip are the extremist Muslim sleeper cells--the Khadrs, Jabarahs and Ressams--and other like-minded people. We must drain the swamp that allows 36,000 deportees to flee into our ghettos and produce more problems for society. The immigration voter jolt that the Liberals have enjoyed in every election must not be allowed to continue, to absurdity.
The Liberal gain is your pain. Canada cannot afford it. Enough!
© Bud TalkinghornTruth, Self-censorship, Courage & Political Correctness This Dane has spine! -- Flemming Rose, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, kulturredaktør Posted by Dave on 10:39:52 2006/01/02, In Reply to: Re: What an opportunity!
[Re: ] Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This is the paper that published provocative cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
Rose forwarded me an article from the International Herald Tribune, reprinted below. He and his newspaper are to be commended for his courage in standing up to Muslim pressures and threats.
There is a reprint of the article: "
Cartoons ignite cultural combat in Denmark", by Dan Bilefsky International Herald Tribune, Jan. 1, 05
COPENHAGEN When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad - including one in which he is shown wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse - it expected a strong reaction in this country of 5.4 million people.
But the paper was unprepared for the global furor inspired by the cartoons, which provoked demonstrations in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir, death threats against the artists, condemnation from 11 Muslim countries and a rebuke from the United Nations.
"The cartoons did nothing that transcends the cultural norms of secular Denmark, and this was not a provocation to insult Muslims," said Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest newspaper, which has refused to apologize for publishing the drawings.
"But if we talk of freedom of speech, even if it was a provocation, that does not make our right to do it any less legitimate before the law," he added in an interview [. . . . ]
Rose, of Jyllands-Posten, who has worked as a journalist in Iran, said he decided to commission the cartoons when he heard that Danish cartoonists were too scared of Muslim fundamentalists to illustrate a new children's biography of Muhammad.
Annoyed at the self-censorship he said had overtaken Europe since the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered last year by a Muslim radical for criticizing Islam's treatment of women, he said he had decided to test Denmark's free speech norms. [. . . . ]
"Muslims who come here reject our culture," Krarup said. "Muslim immigration is a way for Muslims to conquer us, just as they have done for the past 1,400 years."
Multiculturalism & the highest form of toleranceIt’s the demography, stupid -- "The design flaw of the secular social-democratic state is that it requires a religious-society birth rate to sustain it. Post-Christian hyper-rationalism is, in the objective sense, a lot less rational than Catholicism or Mormonism." --
Mark Steyn This article originally appeared in The New Criterion, Volume 24, January 2006, on page 10
Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the western world will survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands— probably—just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. [. . . . ]
Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. [. . . . ]
This is lengthy and Mark Steyn is his usual brilliant self -- always a delight to read. As well, there is a
Khadr tour.
Globe and Mail Five-Part Series on Israeli Security Barrier It began Jan. 2, 06
The first installment, entitled
"The WALL: Vital protection or land grab?" may be viewed online at
www.globeandmail.com -- or you may need to be subscribed. You could buy the G & M.
In its
January 2 edition, the newspaper introduced the series as follows:
In the first of a five-part series, The Globe and Mail's Middle East correspondent, Mark MacKinnon, examines Israel's controversial security barrier, its impact on the lives of Israelis and Palestinians and implications for the peace process.
Today: Enhanced security or land grab? Or both?
Tomorrow: After the bombs, barrier brings peace to Afula
Wednesday: The wall's cruel twists and turns
Thursday: On the outside looking in: Jewish settlers ponder their fate
Friday: United in opposition: Israelis and Palestinians battle the wall
You may
comment by writing to letters@globeandmail.ca or calling 416-585-5000.
Forward a copy of your communications to
action@honestreporting.ca .
