2 posts tagged “national defense”

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/defeat_political_islam.pdf
http://www.actforamerica.org/
http://www.actforamerica.org/news/
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam
This newsletter is one of a series on the subject-Newsletter #10
Strategy--A Way to Defeat Political Islam

Moral Purpose
Before we discuss strategy, we must declare our moral purpose. Our moral purpose is to defend the very existence of the culture of the Golden Rule, an ethical civilization, from the 1400-year assault by the dualistic ethics of political Islam. We must stop the continued killing of kafirs, the enslavement of humanity and the spread of terror by Islam.

The Situation
Islam represents 20% of the world's population and is growing. Islam is united, has a vision, a strategy and successful tactics.  Political correctness and multi-culturalism rule our world. Our government will not help in this war and instead gives aid and comfort to the "minority" Muslims. Our government is staffed by multiculturalists who will give every edge to Muslims. Our schools have been occupied by the Muslim Brotherhood and the dhimmi leftist professors.  Kafirs are divided into Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, conservative and liberal.  Each of the divisions has further divisions. The relations between the groups is marked by historical rivalries and hatreds. No group comprehends the suffering of others at the hands of Islam.So not only do none of the victims know their own story, they do not know the story of the others.  The Muslims have a great momentum. They are taking over by birth and immigration.  We have fewer children while Muslims have huge families. Osama bin Laden has 53 children. Demographic statistics show that France will become Islamic in the year 2020.  Run the population numbers.  Islam knows us well. Islam knows our history, secret shame, rivalries and hatreds, weaknesses and divisions. Kafirs don't know anything about Islam. We may fear and dislike it but that is just "feelings", not knowledge. Our so-called experts (none of whom know the actual doctrine of political Islam) make apologies and tell us that all of Islam's problems are caused by our poor governmental policies.

We are filled with cultural self-loathing, demoralized, fatalistic, nihilistic, too fat and too rich. (Wealthy people are weak at war, they have too much to protect.) We have lost the mind of war and feel that "peace" is the moral high ground. We are pacifists in the face of jihad. Our artists extol the virtues of peace with no knowledge about what happens
when peaceful people are vanquished.

A Strategy for the Weak
At this stage of our intellectual and emotional development, our strategies are limited.  We are too weak to attack Islam and need an opening strategy for now.  First, we must learn the doctrine of political Islam. We must know the enemy. We must also know who our allies are and who are the allies of Islam. We have two sets of enemies-the far enemy, Islam, and the near enemy-those who apologize for Islam, the dhimmis.  The thought of actually attacking Islam is too frightening at this stage of the game.  However, we can make flanking attacks on our enemy's allies, the apologists. Even dhimmis can think about attacking or pressuring the near enemy.  We can make a flanking attack on our enemy by attacking his strategies. We must expose Islam through its doctrine from the Koran, the Sunna (the Hadith and the Sira).  According to Sun Tsu in The Art of War, attacking your enemy's strategy is the highest
level strategy. And Islam's strategy is laid out in the Trilogy. We now have the weapons, the books exposing their strategy.

Another principle of Sun Tsu is to shape the enemy. Islam always poses as a religion to cloak their politics . It is useless to attack a religion, so Islamic politics are under the radar. We must shape Islam as a political doctrine. We must attack the far enemy political Islam. This means that we attack Mohammed, not Allah.  So we have a slogan for our opening strategy:
Build community [this is the mission of ACT! for America]
Expose the far enemy [this is the mission of American Congress for Truth and part of the mission of ACT! for America]
Attack the near enemy [organize and mobilize through the local chapters]
Community [The objective of ACT! for America is an informed, organized and mobilized community]

We must form ourselves into a community.
The term kafir civilization has been used in this work, but this is not an historic fact, it is just a concept. However, we must make ourselves conscious of who we are or we will lose.  When the Orthodox church in Bethlehem was destroyed by the Palestinian jihadists in 2002, no one protested. The American Christians did not protest, the Hindus did not protest, nor did the Jews protest, the TV/print media did not protest. But when a mosque in Iraq got hit by American fire, everyone knew it. All of Islam protested, along with their apologist allies. Moral: the Muslims are organized. Kafirs do not even know they who they are.  This must change. There are many ways for this to change, but one that we need is a Web network community-call it kafir Web community.  The kafir Web community must carry out the functions:

Web site community
We have hundreds of Web sites that speak out against Islam. Each stands alone. There is an informal group of people who may visit different sites and carry information from one site to the other, but each site is an island unto itself.  Imagine that all of the anti-Islamic sites were members of a community site list-serve. In this way, Web site owners could communicate among themselves. This could serve two functions. One, we could mobilize, focus and coordinate tactics during special times such as the Mohammed cartoon attacks. Two, there are materials that it would be good
for many to publish at the same time. For instance, if this pamphlet were to be spread by the site network to all the sites, then it could be read simultaneously across the globe.  You get a much better strategic impact from speed and a broad front.  And who knows what else can happen as site owners communicate with each other?

Personal Community [ACT! for America chapter leaders and chapter activists]
At this time most people personally know only a few people from church or another social group who are working in some way against Islam. Even if you wanted to meet someone else from your town how would you do it? This is a geographic grouping.  Another grouping could be writers, scholars, translators or jihad history buffs. We need a
way to form special communities (actually the Web site community is a special case).

We need to use the Web to form local communities.
The Swarm Community [ACT! for America members and our outreaches to other like-minded organizations]  We Kafirs usually act as individuals, but we must have ways to unite and attack as a pack or swarm. Islam does this with great effect. When they need e-mails or phone calls, they use the Islamic community, not individuals.  Swarm software would link a community of intellectual warriors with projects. As an example, a project could be to protest the way an event was portrayed in a newspaper.  Let's further assume that the event came from a news-wire and so is in many papers.  We need a way for one writer to send a letter to all of those who need it.  Local Politics [ACT! for America chapters and their members engaging on a local and community level]  You live in a small town and wake up one day to find that Muslims, who moved here a few years ago, are pressuring and making demands to use the school for prayer during Ramadan. The ACLU howls if the Bible is taught in schools, but makes no protest about
the Islamic school usage during Ramadan.  Or: you live in a city and when reading the paper, watching TV or talking to a friend find out that Muslims are making demands that we change to accommodate Islam. You feel helpless and afraid. Everything about these events seem wrong, but no one in the media or government will even give guidance on how to protect our very civilization.  Multi-culturalism says that even wanting to preserve your culture is biased thinking.  Political correctness says that any talk about Islam that is negative or judgmental is
hate speech or racist.We really don't even know exactly what it is we are losing, but we're losing. We are losing a war that is not allowed to be spoken of.

We must form a political community.
We must have organizations that works at the pure grass-roots.First and foremost, we need ways to teach people what is going on. Islam will make demands on every area of our lives. Education, politics, customs, medicine,
art, law, funding will all have demands and pressure to change to be more Islamic.  National Politics [ACT! for America having a congressional lobbyist backed by the national grassroots organization, which will effect change]  Saudia Arabia and other Islamic nations spend billions of dollars each year to spread Islam in the US. And what do we have to oppose this multi-billion dollar political organization with a 40-year head start? A few volunteers with no budget and no support.  Who is going to win?

We must have national organizations that can support local politics.
We must lobby about national issues such as immigration and the massive Federal welfare programs for Muslims.This means money. We must move from amateur status to professional status.  We must also have state and local organizations that can deal with lobbying at the state and local level.  Friends and Allies [ACT! for America’s membership is religiously and politically diverse]  We are divided with many historical rivalries. Hindus dislike Christians who try to convert them. The rift between Jews and Christians is an old one. The Left is plagued by cultural self-loathing and disdain of Christians. Such is the nature of humanity. This is no problem, except for one thing, these rivalries prevent us from working together against our enemy, political Islam.  We must see the difference between a friend and an ally. We don't have to be friends.  We don't even have to like each other. America and Russia were allies during World War II, but were never friends. We worked together for a common cause.  Let's take a real life example from the viewpoint of a Hindu. The Dalai Lama went to see the Pope at the Vatican in 2006 to talk about Islam. This was after the Pope had quoted a Byzantine priest who criticized Islam as being violent. Islam responded by rioting and
killing.  Now the Dalai Lama is viewed as a friend by Hindus and the Pope is one of the hated Christians. But the Dalai Lama told the Pope that he should not stir up the Muslims and those "mischievous" jihadists. Mischievous? That is what you call a child who deliberately does something wrong. But for the Dalai Lama, killing and raping a nun is
called mischievous. The Dalai Lama is a dhimmi and the near enemy. So, in actual fact, the Dalai Lama is a friend to the Hindus and an ally of Islam. The Pope is not a friend of the Hindus, but he is an ally against Islam.  We need to stop acting like hurt children and realize that Islam will destroy the Dalai Lama, the Pope, and the rest of us. We must start being allies or the kafir civilization will be annihilated like the Hindu civilization in Pakistan or the Christian civilization in Turkey.

The Ambassadors [ACT! for America national and local chapter leadership building successful coalitions]
To the end of healing our rivalries, we need to develop ambassadors. There are already people who attend multicultural events, but an Ambassador is very different.  Those multicultural events, frequently religious dialogs, are about making and being friends. (A dialog is a politically correct term that means no issues which actually divide people will be freely discussed.) An Ambassador is armed with the truth about the doctrine of political Islam and its history of annihilation. They also know every groups' secret shame. An Ambassador represents one group to another for the purpose of
making alliances between rival groups of Kafirs.  Ambassadors set up frank discussions, not dialogs, between groups to strengthen alliances. If friendships are established, fine, but making allies is the point.

The Doctrine Project--Knowing the Far Enemy [The mission of American Congress for Truth, to provide education and resources on all aspects of the threat we face]
The doctrine of political Islam is not common knowledge. How can we come to common solutions if we don't have common knowledge? 

There are only two sources of knowledge about Islam-history and doctrine. The history is complicated in two ways. There are the separate histories of each religious and cultural group and most of the history has been deliberately forgotten-cultural amnesia.  The problem with the Islamic doctrine is that until the 21st century, it has been far too complicated for anyone except an imam, an Islamic religious and political leader, to understand. We are fortunate that the complete doctrine of political Islam is now available and can be easily understood.  The doctrine is the key to understanding Islam. And unlike the history, it is pure and uncorrupted as Islam has proudly kept every single word preserved for us to use for our own aims.Every action and thought of Islam is based upon the Islamic Trilogy, Koran, Sira and Hadith. To know the Trilogy is to know the heart and mind of Islam.  One of the best ways of knowing the far enemy is to know the political doctrine and educate others about the essence of Islam. The doctrine has one overwhelming characteristic-it is intellectually, emotionally, and ethically repulsive. We must master the
doctrine ourselves. It gives great power in thinking strategically and tactically. In debates you can easily prevail over any apologist for Islam.

We need to sponsor training sessions for ourselves. Some people can learn from reading alone, but others need a group to assist them. The trainings must also include how to use argument and persuasion to defend our civilization.
Spreading the Doctrine [As we are prone to say, education is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Education must be followed by action.]  We must do is to put the Islamic political doctrine in service to our own strategy: attack the near enemy and expose the far enemy. We must put the doctrine in front of:
Political leaders

Opinion makers in the media and universities
Military, law enforcement and intelligence officers
Bloggers and others active on the Web
Other opinion makers

This list divides itself into those we need to see in person and those we can reach by email or phone. Political leaders fall into the category of personal visitation. Committees must contact and educate officials about the doctrine of political Islam. We should set a goal of a meeting with every Congressman, Senator, and every governor. At the meeting we should express our fear of political Islam and our fear of officials ignorance of Islam.
The ignorance can be eliminated by reading the books detailing the doctrine.Others should be contacted by e-mail or letter and given a chance to receive the gift of books detailing the doctrine of political Islam and its history.
We must let Mohammad speak for himself to the leaders, officials and others.

The Curriculum Project--Knowing the Far Enemy
Our public officials, diplomats, military and the media are all advised and trained by the Middle East experts that are in our universities. The ideology of the universities is totally driven by explaining everything about Islam by its reaction to us. The political doctrine of Islam is never used to explain what is happening or predict what will happen.
A computer search of a dozen universities that have Middle East degree programs showed that not one degree program teaches the political doctrine of Islam. Their graduates study Arabic language, Arabic literature, architecture, and history. This is bigoted and illogical. Every act and word by Islam starts with the Koran and the Sunna. It
is impossible to every understand Islam without knowing its view and motivation. So it follows that the doctrine of political Islam must be added to the knowledge base that every graduate has to learn.  A graduate of these programs can advise officials and never have the slightest clue as to what actually motivates Islam.  But one of the things that motivates our university elites is race and money. It goes like this: about 30 years ago Saudi Arabia started pouring money into our top universities.  They funded chairs, gave donations to the departments, built buildings. But then came demands. Islamic departments must not be headed by white, kafir scholars. So Muslim scholars became the ideological drivers in the university system. And the white-boy professors deferred in all ideological demands. They serve Islam as self-loathing dhimmis.  So whatever, Islam wants, Islam gets at Harvard and other universities. We are
betrayed.

Many of the universities are the near enemy.
We must create and implement curricula at courageous schools that will teach a program based upon the actual doctrine of Islam. We must turn out students who can debate and write based upon the Islamic Trilogy. We must dominate the market place of ideas and produce young minds that are not dhimmi-zed.  This would be a rigorous academic curriculum. Graduates could read Arabic, know the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The history of the Islamic conquest of the universal ethical civilization would be studied. They would know the suffering of the dhimmi. Since they
must be warriors, they must also study writing, speaking, logic and persuasion.

Curricula at Public Schools
Every public school textbook that mentions Islamic history has been vetted by CAIR (aHamas "civil rights" organization). To counter this we must lobby to have the history of the victims of jihad and dhimmitude be added to textbooks. We must let the pain of our ancestors be known.

Slavery and Curriculum
Every slave sold in America was wholesaled out of a Islamic slave system that had been in existence a thousand years before they started selling Africans to the Europeans. And Islam enslaved a million Europeans. All of this history must be added to the public curriculum. Islam must bear the historical burden that it deserves.

Women's Studies
Islam has a large body of doctrine about how to subjugate women. However, feminist studies never give a critical look at the doctrine. We must find ways to see Islam's doctrine about women is taught.

Bill Warner

The greatest sin of the second Bush administration is poor communication with the people of the United States.  I understand why they have done such a poor job of it, but it is the greatest failing of George Bush's presidency.  The Main Stream press have continually worked to discredit him and have joined the Democratic party in undermining his credibility and have thought nothing of the damage to national security or the morale of our military in a war time effort.  In publishing military and national secrets during war, in seeking only the worst stories for the front page and spinning every event to make the US look as bad as possible in an international light, by burying positive news deep in the mid to back pages of the papers they are complicit in harming the reputation of the US and encouraging the enemies of freedom and Democracy.  David Horowitz is a great communicator and should be the Republican Party's spokesman on the war against Radical Islam.  He was giving a speech introducing his new book, "Party of Defeat" when he spoke these words:

The opposition party has full access to our secrets and our intelligence.  They conducted a campaign beginning in July 2003 to attack the United States and its commander in chief.  That is the position of the Democratic party.  That is a national disgrace.  We went into Iraq in March 2003, we liberated Baghdad in April 2003 with 139 casualties.  It was July (that's three months or so) after we liberated Baghdad.  We were winning the war.  But when the resistance was starting from the al Quaeda terrorists and the Baathist Fascists in Iraq and our young men and women were in harm's way that the Democratic party ran a national TV ad.  And the TV ad said "Read his lips, President Bush deceives the American people."  President Bush is a war criminal, that's what that was saying.  What change was there in American policy between April and July?  There was none.  The Democratic party, you'll remember, had a presidential primary at this time.  I can't think of anything lower than selling your country out.  Selling your young men and women who are on the battlefield out.  Selling the security of 300 million Americans out, because you wanted to win the Democratic presidential primary.  Now, let's look at a couple of these lies that the Democratic party has based their campaign against America, against the American people, against the Iraqi people, and against the war on terror.  The first is that Iraq is no threat, or was no threat.  Was Afghanistan a threat?  Afghanistan is a much poorer nation than Iraq.  Afghanistan has no oil.  Its got half the population.  Its virtually all tribal.  Baghdad was a pretty modern city.  Of course, that's the whole point of the Bush doctrine and of the war that we are fighting in Iraq.  That 9/11 told us that a weak and fragile and unstable nation, a very poor nation, if it supports terrorists, can strike the American mainland.  Something the Nazis never did, the Germans could not do.  Something the Japanese could never do.  Something no enemy in the last 150 years could do.  And that's why Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Because Saddam Hussein had put... after the Gulf war had put Alahu Ackbar into the flag as a calculated effort to join the forces of the Islamo-fascist crusade because they shared a common enemy.  America, the great Satan.  He had tried to assassinate the president of the United States, he had held international conferences for terrorists, he had hosted abu Habbas and abu Nedal, and Musab al Zachari, and Ansar al Islam.  All of this Saddam Hussein had done.  And so, if you look out at the world, with any modicum of responsibility on 9/11, you would see that Iraq was the next big threat to the United States.  I tried to lay out here, why Iraq should have been considered a threat, but you don't have to take my word for it.  You can go to Al Gore.  On February 2, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech.  Now this speech followed a speech... the state of the union that year by George Bush.  And that was the axis of evil speech.  And many Democrats were in a rage over the use of the term evil to describe Iraq even though the regime had murdered 300,000 Iraqis and put them in mass graves, even though it had dropped poison gas, a wmd, on an ethnic population (the Kurds) even though it had invaded two countries within recent memory, even though Saddam Hussein was in violation of the terms of the Gulf war truce, Al Gore gave a statesmen like speech and he defended Bush's use of the term evil because it was an accurate description of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.  And this is what he said about whether Iraq posed a threat.  Instead of saying it posed no threat and would cause us to be judged harshly by history, what he said was, and this is an exact quote, "Iraq is a virulent threat in a class by itself."  "a virulent threat in a class by itself, and the United States would be justified in going to the limit to take Saddam Hussein down."  That's what Al Gore said.  So this book I've written, "The Party of Defeat" is about a party that betrayed its own war.  that betrayed its own country, and that betrayed its men and women in the field.  Don't let anybody tell you that you can support the troops but not the war.  If you support the troops, you support their mission, because when you do what John Kerry did, and say, "Its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" you send a demoralizing message to our troops and an encouraging message to our enemies.  On the WMD's, Saddam Hussein lost the Gulf war.  When he invaded Kuwait, the first George Bush organized an international coalition to stop him.  But actually, that coalition was a little too multi-lateral, because it included the Arabs and the Arabs said you cannot remove Saddam Hussein.   What ended the Gulf war was a truce.   It said Saddam Hussein can stay in power but these are the conditions.   And the conditions were UN resolution 687,  and UN resolution 689.  The Gulf war truce UN resolution 687 and 689 said "You will not build, you will not plan to build, you will not have programs to build weapons of mass destruction.  and you will allow UN inspectors onto Iraqi territory and freedom to go anywhere they want so they can determine that you're not doing it, because nobody in his right mind can trust you."  Those two UN resolutions which were followed by fourteen others, were there to keep Saddam from doing what he wanted to do, and what we know he wanted to do, which was to build weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam Hussein systematically violated these resolutions until a day came in 1998 when he actually threw the UN inspectors out.  Iraq was always on the U.S. government's mind.  Hillary Clinton in one of her statements said that she... not only did she vote for the war when she was defending her support for the war, not only did she support the war because of the intelligence that Bush gave her, but the intelligence she got from the Clinton administration.  Saddam Hussein was a threat.  Now, this is what George Bush did, he gave a speech identifying Iraq as a national threat, part of an axis of evil.  And then George Bush in September went to the United Nations and spoke to the general assembly and said, "There are 16 outstanding resolutions which are arms control agreements which are part of the UN truce with Saddam Hussein that kept him in power.  Either you will enforce your word, or you will be seen to be irrelevant."  Which the UN is.  "And we will do it for you."  That's what George Bush said.  And then he went to Congress and he got the authorization for the use of force.  So the very opposite of what the Democrats claim is the truth.  George Bush did not violate international law, he tried to enforce it and the Democrats didn't support him.  The Bush administration made a diplomatic mistake, which was to go back to the UN.  Once they had the resolution, they should have acted on it.  And Tony Blair begged the Bush administration to go to the UN again and get another resolution.  And unfortunately, the Bush administration listened to Colin Powell and did so.  And Colin Powell got what he deserved for this.  Because, what he did, go to the UN to sell the war.   And the way he sold it was to imply that Saddam had more weapons capability than he had.  And that's why people say its about WMD's.  No it isn't!!  It wasn't at all about the weapons of mass destruction.  It was about his potential to build those weapons and his programs to do so, and his intentions to do so.

Now, if there is any doubt left that the Bush administration lied to the American public, to the Congress or to the UN or that we were justified in invading Iraq, or that we could afford to allow that tyrant to continue in his plans to help work destruction on the innocent people of America, please, tell me what it is.  More, if there is any doubt that the actions of the Democratic leadership is not traitorous in their actions against our national security and against our men and women in the field at war, please, inform me.  If there is any doubt that these actions expose the complicity of the American main stream press, please, tell me what doubts you can dredge up.  This is not patriotism to act this way, careless of the effects on our security or that of the troops, or their morale.  If the Democrats win this election with this for credibility, I am without hope for our nation and its future.  John McCain is a moderate.  He has worked across the aisle enough times to anger most Republicans and only got the nomination because the more conservative Republicans were split between the two more conservative candidates.  Barack Obama is a radical leftist and his voting record proves it.  He is unvetted and has zero accomplishments to point to, much less working with the opposition, so how can he fulfill his promises to be the agent of change and hope?  Hillary Clinton is running on her husband's experience.  She voted for the war before she promised to abandon the war.  This isn't flip flop, this is pandering to the base merely for the seat of power.  The Democrats are proven traitors and deserve nothing less than a trial for treasonous act against national security in a time of war.  We cannot afford to put into office any member of the party of defeat, and of enmity with the nation that grants that power voluntarily.  We have to have a Chief that isn't moved by every wisp of breeze of political winds.  We have to have a leader with the vision and the steadfast resolve to meet every challenge with the grace and assurance of having practiced what's right and good.  No promise of benefits is greater than the value of assured security to continue in our existence as a nation of freedom and democracy.  The only issue on the ticket this election has to be the security and continuance of our great culture.  Everything else pales in comparison.  Without that security, there are no human rights protection, no freedom of speech, no opportunity to succeed in business, no opportunity to live in peace and security, no opportunity to participate or not participate in the religion of your choice.  Do not reward the party of defeat this election year.  Don't even encourage them to speak until they get this one issue right.  National security is tantamount in politics.  Everything else is secondary.