The Sounds Of Capitulation

In 1984, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov explains how Marxist ideology is deconstructing America's values, destabilizing the economy, and provoking crises in order to sovietize the free world.

Yep, what a difference a few decades make. Nobody wants to be an American anymore. Instead, everybody that comes here wants to take a piece of America back to the Old Country, or ummah, as the case may be. The people who need to watch this video are those decent, hard-working and compassionate Obama voters, who voted for every plank of the Communist Agenda. Sweetie, that's the "change" you voted for.

Make no mistake about it. Leftists have taken over our schools, colleges, media, movies, music, pop culture, et cetera, and we have now elected a self-styled communist President. America needs to wake up. Western Marxism and Islam must be stopped. We must reject the sounds of capitulation.

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

—Robin Williams

"I understand what Tolstoy meant when he said that the 'good' cannot seek power nor retain it'."

—Icarus Tull

Another Test For Great Britain


SO HERE COMES THE ACID TEST: is Jacqui Smith, as she proclaims, an able enemy of extremism in all its forms, or a cowardly hypocrite?

In October, the Home Secretary announced 'tough new measures' to deny entry to Britain to anybody 'engaged in fostering, encouraging or spreading extremism and hatred.' In recent weeks she has put them to use by banning a Dutch MP with hugely controversial views on Islam, and a notorious anti-gay US preacher. But will she be prepared to apply the same new standards to Islamic extremists who preach a hatred of Jews?

Ibrahim Moussawi, a known hardliner with links to Hezbollah, has been invited to speak at a London university, the School of Oriental and African Studies. His track-record speaks for itself.

He allegedly described Jews as 'a lesion on the forehead of history', and is an editor for the newspaper of Lebanon-based terrorist organisation Hezbollah. He is also former political editor of the Iranian-backed group's TV station, which is banned in many countries including France, Spain and the US, as its output is seen as anti-Semitic.

In short, it is a no-brainer for Miss Smith. He should, as the Centre for Social Cohesion and the Conservatives argue today, be banned from setting foot in the UK, let alone speaking here. Failure to do so must represent double-standards of the very worst kind.

The Far-Right Dutch MP Geert Wilders was banned from travelling to Britain to show his shocking 17-minute film called Fitna at the House of Lords because his views were considered wildly extreme.

His film, which links mainstream Islamic texts with the terrorist attacks on New York in September 2001, was indeed crude and provocative. It begins with the hugely controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb as a turban, and the suggestion that the Koran is ‘a fascist book’ is patently offensive to millions of people. But so are the odious ramblings of Moussawi.

Iiss Smith also banned the Reverend Fred Phelps, founder of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, from entering the UK earlier this month. The 'Reverend', who campaigns under the slogan ‘God Hates Fags’ is fanatical and hateful in equal measure. He had wanted to visit Britain to picket a performance of a play which dramatises the real-life murder of a gay man in 1998. Miss Smith said he had ‘engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a 'number of communities’. So has Moussawi.

Yet Labour has, in the past, been happy to display double standards when the beneficiaries were Islamic extremists. The cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi was not just granted a visa to visit the UK in 2005, despite being publicly praised by the then London Mayor Ken Livingstone at City Hall. Al-Qaradawi had been criticized for condoning suicide bombings and for having anti-Semitic and homophobic views.

Will Miss Smith now repeat the past mistakes of a left-wing establishment inexplicably tolerant of Islamic franatics who pass themselves off as scholars or academics? The omens do not look good. During her time as Home Secretary, Moussawi has already been allowed in at least twice—in December 2007 and February 2008.

This is her third—and surely final—chance to show some courage.

Wilders Gives Speech In NYC

Geert Threat
Threat from Indonesia
"Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the Left."

Those penetrating words crown the marvelous Geert Wilders' speech given at the Four Seasons in New York City on February 23. Wilders is the the stalwart Dutch parliamentarian who was recently turned back from entering Great Britain due to pressures from a leading Islamic leader in that country. Here is the entire speech:

Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me. And—to the immigration authorities—thank you for letting me into this country. It is always a pleasure to cross a border without being sent back on the first plane.

Today, the dearest of our many freedoms is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to battle for.

As you might know, I will be prosecuted, because of my film Fitna, my remarks regarding Islam, and my view concerning what some call a ‘religion of peace’. A few years from now, I might be a criminal.

Whether or not I end up in jail is not the most pressing issue; I gave up my freedom four years ago. I am under full-time police protection ever since. The real question is: will free speech be put behind bars? And the larger question for the West is: will we leave Europe’s children the values of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem, or the values of Mecca, Teheran and Gaza?

This is what video blogger Pat Condell said in one of his latest you tube appearances. He says: “If I talked about Muslims the way their holy book talks about me, I’d be arrested for hate speech.” Now, Mr. Condell is a stand-up comedian, but in the video he is dead serious and the joke is on us. Hate speech will always be used against the people defending the West—in order to please and appease Muslims. They can say whatever they want: throw gays from apartment buildings, kill the Jews, slaughter the infidel, destroy Israel, jihad against the West. Whatever their book tells them.

Today, I come before you to warn of a great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, slavery of women, the end of democracy. It is NOT a religion, it is an political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is built on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never alter. First, there is the Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect. Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. It’s fact.

This is Europe 2009. Muslim settlers calling for our destruction, and free speech on trial. All this is the outcome of a sick and evil ideology, the ideology that is weakening us, the surrender ideology of cultural relativism. It believes that all cultures are equal, and therefore Islam deserves an equal place in the West. It is their duty, the left thinks, to facilitate Islam. This way the cultural relativists paradise comes within reach and we will all be happy, and sing kumbaya.

The forces of Islam couldn’t agree more. Islam being facilitated by government is their agenda too. But they see it as jizya, the money dhimmis pay in order not to be killed or raped by their Muslim masters. Therefore, they happily accept the welfare cheque or the subsidies for their mosque or the money governments donate to their organizations.

Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this.
This is just one example of cultural relativists and Muslim settlers having the same agenda. There is another. Islam considers itself a religion and therefore we are not permitted to criticize it. The left agrees. Although it has hated Christianity for decades, now that Islam appears on the scene, they suddenly change course and demand ‘respect’ for something they call a religion.

Again we see the left and Islam having the same agenda: it is a religion, so shut up.

This all culminates in a third coming-together: nor the left nor Islam is in favor of criticism. In fact, given the opportunity, they would simply outlaw it. Multiculturalism is the left’s pet project. It is actually their religion. Their love of it is so great, if you oppose it, it must be hate. And if you say it, it is labeled hate speech. Now here is something the Islam can agree on.

This is the essence of my short introduction today: where the left and Islam come together, freedom will suffer.

My friends, make no mistake, my prosecution is a full-fledged attack by the left on freedom of speech in order to please Muslims. It was started by a member of the Dutch Labour party, and the entire legal proceeding is done by well-to-do liberals, the radical chic of Dutch society, the snobbish left. Too much money, too much time, too little love of liberty. If you read what the court of Amsterdam has written about me, you read the same texts that cultural relativists produce.

How low can we go in the Netherlands? About my prosecution, The Wall Street Journal noted: “this is no small victory for Islamic regimes seeking to export their censorship laws to wherever Muslims reside”. The Journal concluded that by The Netherlands accepting the free speech standards of, “Saudi-Arabia”, I stand correct in my observation that—I quote—“Muslim immigration is eroding traditional Dutch liberties”.

Now, if the Wall Street Journal has the moral clarity to see that my prosecution is the logical outcome of our disastrous, self-hating, multiculturalists immigration policies, then why can’t the European liberal establishment see the same thing? Why aren’t they getting at least a little bit scared by the latest news out of, for example, the UK. News that tells that the Muslim population in Britain is growing ten times as fast as the rest of society. Why don’t they care?

The answer is: they don’t care because they are blinded by their cultural relativism. Their disdain of the West is so much greater than the appreciation of our many liberties. And therefore, they are willing to sacrifice everything. The left once stood for women rights, gay rights, equality, democracy. Now, they favour immigration policies that will end all this. Many even lost their decency. Elite politicians have no problem to participate in or finance demonstrations where settlers shout “Death to the Jews”. Seventy years after Auschwitz they know of no shame.

Two weeks ago, I tried to get into Britain, a fellow EU country. I was invited to give a speech in Parliament. However, upon arrival at London airport, I was refused entry into the UK, and sent back on the first plane to Holland. I would have loved to have reminded the audience of a great man who once spoke in the House of Commons.

In 1982 President [Ronald] Reagan gave a speech there very few people liked. Reagan called upon the West to reject communism and defend freedom. He introduced a phrase: ‘evil empire’. Reagan’s speech stands out as a clarion call to preserve our liberties. I quote: If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. What Reagan meant is that you cannot run away from history, you cannot escape the dangers of ideologies that are out to destroy you. Denial is no option.

So, what should we do? Is this a good moment for freedom-loving people to give in or to change course? To all-of-a-sudden start singing praise of Islam, or proclaiming there is such a thing as a moderate Islam? Will we now accept the continuation of Muslim mass immigration to the West? Will we appease sharia and jihad? Should we sacrifice gay rights and women rights? Or democracy? Should we sell out Israel, our dearest ally, and a frontline state of Islam?

Well, my humble opinion is: No way, Jose!

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.
I suggest to defend freedom in general and freedom of speech in particular. I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe. I propose a European First Amendment. In Europe we should defend freedom of speech like you Americans do. In Europe freedom of speech should be extended, instead of restricted. Of course, calling for violence or unjustly yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre have to be punished, but the right to criticize ideologies or religions are necessary conditions for a vital democracry. As George Orwell once said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.

Let us defend freedom of speech and let us gain strength and work hard to become even stronger. Millions think just like you and me. Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than sharia. And after all, why should we be afraid? Our many freedoms and our prosperity are the result of centuries of endeavour. Centuries of hard work and sacrifice. We do not stand alone, and we stand on the shoulders of giants.

Late December 1944 the American army was suddenly faced with a last-ditch effort by the Germans. In the Ardennes, in the Battle of the Bulge, Hitler and his national-socialists fought for their last chance. And they were very successful. Americans faced defeat, and death.

In the darkest of winter, in the freezing cold, in a lonely forest with snow and ice as even fiercer enemies than the Nazi war machine itself, the American army was told to surrender. That might be their only chance to survive. But General [Anthony] McAuliffe thought otherwise. He gave the Germans a short message. This message contained just four letters. Four letters only, but never in the history of freedom was a desire for liberty and perseverance in the face of evil expressed more eloquently than in that message. It spelled N – U – T – S. “Nuts”.

My friends, the national-socialists got the message. Because it left no room for interpretation!

I suggest we walk in the tradition of giants like General McAuliffe and the American soldiers who fought and died for the freedom of my country and for a secular and democratic Europe, and we tell the enemies of freedom just that. NUTS! Because that’s all there is to it. No explanations. No beating around the bush. No caveats.

Our enemies should know: we will never apologize for being free men, we will never bow for the combined forces of Mecca and the left. And we will never surrender. We stand on the shoulders of giants. There is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty. Because freedom is the birthright of all man.


Chuck Dixon writing on Facebook, timestamped April 4, 2014, noted: "I remember, on the TV news, seeing an African American jarhead seated up on a Bradley after Mogadishu. He said, 'All the lives in this whole damn country aren't worth the life of one Marine.' That should be our foreign policy in one sentence."

I agree. Something needs to tighten this operation up. America has become mush, the world observes it, and now is picking us apart like a picky eater gobbling up this nation and its people by pieces...

Call me a fascist, call me an idiot. I know that's what liberals do. But I am quite clear on what I mean when I write those words, I agree. It's up to you to parse them correctly. I speak only of a strong healthy focused America military, not to lord over a slave population, not to play tiddly winks with cultures held together by brutal archaic laws that snuff the liberty of everyone under their sway from birth. A free people who exert a proper patriotism deserve better than nation-building under these conditions. Stay out of it or win the war with all we've got in order to earn an unconditional surrender. Compassion is for those who warrant compassion, a defeated foe who recognizes the error of its ways (like most of the Japanese empire after their WWII), who seek to answer the call to freedom. No compromises. No excuses.

We have tried the liberal war plan. It does not work. It never has. There are winners and there are losers. There are those who fight to a point where compromise is kept for a short time until hostilities break out again. History is full of half-measure failures. Cultural winners are those who dish it out with all strength they can muster. Islam knows this. Islam plays differently than the West at this point in time, but they play to win.

It's time we understand this about our enemy and quit the quisling affair...

Alan Keyes On Barack Obama

Alan Keyes

THREE-TIME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ALAN KEYES, a former Republican, has a few choice words for the current occupier of the Oval Office and the eligibility concerns surrounding him, the Obama policies in tending the current financial crisis, and the future of the United States as a nation. Keyes is very clear and forthright in this interview.

[My apologies. This video was removed from YouTube for unknown reasons.]

Those Still Puffing On Racism

Susan Rice
A Different Susan Rice

SO, IT'S TRUE. FINALLY. After all these years the word is out—everyone is a little bit racist, image-conscious, fearful of the other, susceptible to the herd, shall we say under the sway of genetics and natural intelligence. Somebody needs to tell the Obama administration that it owns a chunk of nasty racism itself, all by its lonesome. The firestorm over Eric Holder's astonishing remark is an apt response to his patronizing notions. But I'll stop here, and put on my NATIONAL COWARD cap I grabbed off the air, and give a nod to Suzy Rice whose assessment of Holder, Clyburn, and Pelosi are nothing short of barbed wire retributions. No coward is Rice.

More Constitutional Murmurings

The Constitution of the United States of America

SOME POSTINGS NEAR THE TOP of the thread seemed to convey the notion that the U. S. Constitution is antiquated and should therefore be ignored. Are we so adverse to a Constitutional crisis that we are willing to simply ignore the document altogether? Quite a common viewpoint these days, particularly within the three branches of the Federal Government.

The Constitution is nowadays comparable to the British Crown. Theoretically all-powerful, but in reality the monarch is trotted out and curtsied to at the opening of Parliament, then otherwise ignored in matters of substance. We may still follow the Ps and Qs of the details, but the meat and potatoes of the federal system devised by the Founders has been quashed by an ever more powerful imperial government.

There have been bills introduced at the beginning of each Congress for the last decade or so that would require all legislation brought before the Congress to cite the specific Constitutional authorization for the purpose and contents of each new bill. Not surprisingly, this effort has never gained any traction. Those in control are not amused by any such check on their power and arrogance.

What the Founding Fathers envisioned as a useful tool for the common prosperity and security of the states has morphed from the organ grinder's monkey to an 800-pound gorilla that jerks the states around at will. The Federal government forgets that it was created by the states and that it (theoretically) exercises only delegated powers. The resolutions introduced in the various state legislatures are merely attempts to point out that fact and that Congress has greatly exceeded its authority in many areas. The states are not appendages of the Federal government and may not be coerced or dictated to.

Interesting comments by a poster named Mark. We are particularly inspired by the third rather telling paragraph.

State Sovereignty Movement Rediscovers Document Where Liberty Smiles

James Madison, 4th American President

YOU MAY NOT HAVE HEARD much about it, but there's a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty in America and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

In the version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they appeal to the authority of James Madison in The Federalist who wrote:

"The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."

The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it's time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying "enough" to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

There's a lot of excitement about these bills, but there are also a lot of misconceptions, with people claiming that some states have already declared sovereignty and that the movement is much farther along than it really is. Contrary to popular rumor, none of the states has actually enacted a sovereignty law yet. Some have come close. Oklahoma's bill passed their lower house overwhelmingly but stalled in the Senate last fall and is being held over for consideration in the new year.

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

Read it all. And don't neglect the long scroll of comments. Quite an educational foray...

And if any doubt the seriousness of this peculiar cause celebre now stirring the minds and hearts laboring inside the legislatures of many states, click HERE for the complete "no holds barred" bill now before the New Hampshire State Assembly. Yes, Virginia, there is a rising tide of resentment among the people jealous for liberty who yet unapologetically cling to the exact words wriiten by our forefathers within the original United States Constitution and its ratified amendments. Strides by the US Congress, the Presidential offices, and the US Supreme Court of late in chipping away at the guaranteed rights of its citizens are not catching everyone flatfooted.

This is really happening, folks. Where do you stand?

Do you even consider yourself neglibibly knowledgeable on these important issues? And so, does mere constitutional scholarship qualify one to assess the amassing questions that exist before us in these interesting times where banks and multinational corporations are failing with the wind, our nation's security shipped along with decent jobs overseas, gone forever we are told, our borders as porous as a rock star's mating habits, and individual rights disappearing faster than the climate is warming. I ask you.

Addendum (snatched off an unnamed BC poster):

1. The Declaration of Independence IS codified law of the USA. It's preeminence as a Free People's final bulwark, requires the Republic's citizenry to cast off such despotic, tyrannical abuses of state, if need be. The 2nd Amendment secures the means to exercise that God-given right, lo duty. Various elements (1st, 4th, 9th, 10th) of the Bill of Rights illuminates less drastic measures to secure such inalienable rights.

2. At all societal levels, creeping socialism has infected this country for over 100 years. Socialism/communism CANNOT exist in tandem with a Constitutional Republic.

3. The US-Marxist time is nigh. Search Cloward-Piven Strategy. The current state of economic crisis was manufactured in order to bring this to pass. Why do liberal policies never work? These policies are not designed to work, only fail. This is why Porkulus will not work. It will only subvert rights further.

4. All branches of military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the president, not the congress, nor the federal bureaucracy. It is their right and duty to ignore unconstitutional orders.

Unlike the first two justifiable concepts, and more so than the third which is either a very frightening fact, or simply a falsehood, this fourth statement is highly debatable, and not a path to be taken lightly when confronting the scions of military jurisprudence. Liberty can be such an ugly, yet rewarding, pursuit.