What the thirties tell us about today.

To view popup window put your cursor on the blue words

Perplexity

“…upon the earth distress•Strongs 4928: sunoche, soon-okh-ay´; from 4912; restraint, i.e. (figuratively) anxiety: — anguish, distress. of nations, with perplexity•Strongs 640: aporia, ap-or-ee´-a; from the same as 639; a (state of) quandary:—perplexity.
•Strongs 639: aporeo, ap-or-eh´-o; from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4198; to have no way out, i.e. be at a loss (mentally):— (stand in) doubt, be perplexed….”
—Luke 21:25

On December 13, 1931, there was a traffic accident in New York City. A man exited a cab on the Upper East Side and was crossing Fifth Avenue when he was hit by a car traveling around 35 miles an hour. The force of the impact threw the man to the pavement. He struck his head. Two of his ribs were cracked. A crowd formed around him; one of the witnesses hailed a taxi to take the man to the hospital. When he was admitted to Lenox Hill the doctors noted that he was bruised and battered but would make a full recovery. He had cheated death

The patient remained in the doctors’ care for eight days. While he was there the driver who had struck him visited. The patient made it clear that the accident had been his own fault; the driver, an unemployed mechanic, had nothing to fear. The incident had occurred because the patient, an Englishman, had looked left as he crossed the street when he should have looked right. The grateful driver left the hospital carrying an autographed copy of the patient’s latest book. The New York Times wrote about the meeting the next day. The headline read, “Churchill Greets Driver Who Hit Him.”

I’ve spent the last several weeks reading all sorts of newspaper and magazine articles from December 1931. But I keep coming back to the reports of Winston Churchill’s near-fatal mishap. The contingency of the episode is what’s striking: After all, if the car had been traveling just a little bit faster, the history of the twentieth century would have been irrevocably altered. Churchill himself was shocked that he had survived the ordeal. “I do not understand,” he wrote in an article for the Daily Mail dictated from his hospital bed, “why I was not broken like an egg-shell or squashed like a gooseberry.”

The story also brings to life the granularity of history. It’s easy to think of historical epochs as smooth units with a few overarching characteristics. In the popular imagination the Great Depression began with the crash of ’29 and persisted, without interruption, until America entered World War II in 1941. The Great Depression calls to mind Hoover’s supposed passivity, Roosevelt’s New Deal, the Dust Bowl, and Father Coughlin. We limit the story to America. We don’t think of the figures in one historical context as active in another.

But of course things are more complicated than the CliffsNotes versions of history we carry around in our heads. Rather than one big crisis that unfurled over time, the 1930s was a series of rolling crises that coincided with and were shaped by one another. There was not only one thunderclap. There were several. There were moments during the Great Depression, for instance, when the economy improved​—​only to have the floor fall out from underneath it. There were false springs that quickly turned into harsh winters.

I went looking through the sources from December 1931 because I wanted to see if there were parallels between then and now. Why that particular month? Because it was two years into the Great Depression, just as we are two years into the Great Recession. Needless to say, historical analogies are imperfect. No two eras are alike. But it’s nonetheless true that certain themes connect our time with Churchill’s. In both eras the crises were global in scope. In both eras the world’s financial and political order came under vicious attack. In both eras the question facing elites was whether they could prevent the threatening storm from making landfall. The political class of the 1930s was unable to meet that challenge. And the political class of today?

We’ll see.

At first blush, there are several affinities between the domestic political situation in December 2010 and that of December 1931. In both months the president’s party had just lost control of the House of Representatives while retaining a slim majority in the Senate. Both Decembers saw fights over taxes, with tax rates rising in the 1930s but staying the same today or in some cases being lowered. Both months witnessed debates over the repeal of controversial social legislation​—​prohibition in the 1930s, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in our time.

What’s more, the presidents in both Decembers shared a couple of qualities. Obviously, Barack Obama is not Herbert Hoover. But both men were criticized for being detached, overly logical, aloof. Both men, moreover, were celebrities when they took office. Hoover, the great engineer, was known for his feats as director of aid to Europe after World War I and as secretary of commerce under presidents Harding and Coolidge. Obama was known for being Obama.

Both Hoover and Obama were activist presidents who believed in a progressive social philosophy. This is not to say that Hoover would have been comfortable blogging for an early-’30s version of the Huffington Post. Throughout his presidency, he opposed direct relief to the poor and unemployed. He was a reluctant economic interventionist. But the idea that Hoover was a lazy bystander is false. He was in the news all the time. The scope of his initiatives grew as the Depression went on. In his message to Congress in December 1931, for example, he called for a tax increase and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to spur lending.

On December 27, the New York Times reported that Hoover also wanted to “increase the capitalization of the Federal Land Bank System, enlarge the discount facilities of the Federal Reserve System, revise the banking laws to afford greater security to depositors, and increase taxation which he regards as necessary in the existing financial emergency.” The reaction to Hoover’s plan revealed that snark is not unique to postmodernity. “The president says that we must cushion the shock for our credit institutions (with government cush) so that industry can start moving again,” Howard Brubaker quipped in the New Yorker. “He is a great believer in federal aid for the unemployers.”

While the president haggled with Congress over the details of his revenue package, he was also wrestling with the problem of European war debts. Throughout December 1931, European statesmen were trying to resolve the issue of German reparations in light of the Great Depression. Early in the month, Hoover called for reinstatement of the Versailles-era War Debt Board. A headline in the December 29 Times read, “Hoover Ready to Act if Debt Conference Links Our Interests.” In the headlines of the time, international politics regularly commingled with domestic news​—​just as it does in 2010.

And yet it would be wrong to overstate the commonalities between the Great Depression and the Great Recession. The differences are just as significant​—​if not more so. Most important of all is the difference in magnitude. There really is no comparison between the Depression and other modern financial panics. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the initial contraction lasted a whopping 43 months, from August 1929 to March 1933. During that time American output fell by close to 30 percent. The Great Recession, by comparison, lasted 18 months from December 2007 to June 2009. During that period U.S. gross domestic product contracted by about 4 percent.

In 1931, moreover, the U.S. unemployment rate was 15.9 percent. It would peak in 1933 at 25 percent. During the Great Recession, unemployment rose to 10.1 percent in October 2009 and stood at 9.8 percent in November 2010. What these percentages don’t convey, however, is the qualitative difference in unemployment then and unemployment now. There were no “automatic stabilizers” in the early 1930s. There was no unemployment insurance or deposit insurance or Social Security or Medicare or welfare or federal home lending. The millions of unemployed could not depend on federal aid. The poverty was real and omnipresent and debilitating. “Many old businesses are going to the wall,” Youngstown lawyer Benjamin Roth wrote in his diary on December 10, 1931, “and many of them lived thru 5 previous panics but never saw anything like this.”

The paradox is that, while Americans in the Depression were worse off than Americans today, they were nonetheless more optimistic. Jodie T. Allen of the Pew Research Center recently looked at public opinion during the Depression years and found that “despite their far higher and longer-lasting record of unemployment, Depression-era Americans remained hopeful for the future.” The Gallup organization began conducting regular surveys in 1935, so we have no polling data showing how people felt in December 1931. But if survey findings from later in the Depression are any indication, the country was filled with cockeyed optimists. Half of Depression-era Americans, Allen writes, expected the economy to improve in the next six months. Close to two-thirds told pollsters that their economic opportunities were at least as good or better than their fathers’.

The sunniness shows up in other sources as well. “Magazines and newspapers are full of articles telling people to buy stocks, real estate etc. at present bargain prices,” Benjamin Roth wrote in his diary on July 30, 1931. “They say that times are sure to get better and that many fortunes have been built this way.” On December 19, 1931, the Times gleefully reported: “A wave of buying enthusiasm swept over the security markets yesterday, producing the broadest recovery in more than two months.”

Even Hoover was in on the act. He was ridiculed for his glass-is-half-full pronouncements, but that doesn’t mean his mentality was unrepresentative. In March 1930, for instance, he assured the country that the crisis would end within two months. “So earnestly did Hoover believe in the importance of confidence,” writes Richard Hofstadter in The American Political Tradition, “that he journeyed from Washington to Philadelphia in the gloomy fall of 1931 in part because he felt that his attendance at a World Series game would be a public demonstration of his own serenity.”

Where did all these positive thinkers go? Today’s America is a pessimistic country. Turn on the news and you can’t help thinking that the world is going to pot. Our media continually remind us that we are stupid, lazy, fat, and materialistic. Somebody needs to hand President Obama a Zoloft, because he always seems disappointed and unhappy. Jodie Allen reports that in October 2010 only 35 percent of the public expected the economy to be better within a year. Large majorities believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the December 2010 Gallup poll, Congress’s approval rating reached a record low. The specter of American decline is pervasive. America is a far richer, more stable, and more powerful country in 2010 than it was in 1931. But it is less confident. It is more uncertain.

The final difference between the Depression era and the recession era is political. The America of the 1930s was more open to government intervention in the economy than the America of 2010. Government functions we take for granted now were radical innovations then. Study the numbers from 1936 and 1937 and you find that large majorities supported free health care for the poor, subsidies for childbirth and postnatal care, public health programs to combat diseases like syphilis, and easy money for farmers. Large majorities wanted the government to regulate the food and drug industries, ban child labor, limit wartime business profits, and even take over the electric and munitions industries. A plurality wanted to see more power concentrated at the federal level.

Perhaps the public was willing to entrust more authority to the federal government because Washington was still so small. Perhaps the economic straits were so dire that the public would try anything that might work. Whatever the reason, it’s worth noting that the big march on Washington in December 1931 wasn’t a Tea Party. It was a march for workers’ rights sponsored by the American Communist party.

According to the New York Times of December 7, 1931, “Herbert Benjamin, of New York, a leader in the march, brought more than 3,000 persons to their feet at a mass meeting at the Washington Auditorium when he asserted the Communist party was the only group left to organize and run the affairs of the United States.” Not long after, in the spring of 1932, the Bonus Army, some 43,000 strong, marched on Washington demanding a government payout of veterans’ benefits in advance of the promised date.

The Great Depression was a profound challenge to the legitimacy of democratic capitalism. The idea that the system had failed was widespread. Other ideologies were seductive. Walter Duranty reported on the successes of the Soviet “experiment” on the front pages of the Times. In December 1931 Mussolini’s Fascists had ruled Italy for almost a decade. Today, Times columnist Tom Friedman may laud the virtues of Chinese authoritarianism. But Hu’s Beijing is much less threatening than Stalin’s Moscow, and Friedman is no true believer. The most energetic ideological enemy of democratic capitalism today, Islamic jihadism, has no broad constituency. The advanced economies all agree on a modified form of capitalism that contains a degree of support for the weakest members of society. In recent months, moreover, politics has shifted rightward throughout the free world. In Europe and the United States the emphasis is on restraining the state, not expanding it.

We are, in other words, generally better off than our counterparts in the 1930s. We are also more secure​—​the democracies, after all, had disarmed after the First World War. It’s therefore tempting to let out a collective sigh and stop fretting. It’s appealing to remember how much worse things were in the 1930s, and then get on with our lives.

But not so fast. For when you step back and take in the big picture, it becomes apparent that the world is facing dilemmas similar to those it faced in the 1930s. The international order may be once again on the brink of profound crisis. The challenges may not be as apparent or seem as dire. But they are there nevertheless. And they are dangerous.

The 1930s witnessed the unraveling of the institutional arrangements that had organized global business and international relations since November 11, 1918. One of the consequences of the Depression was that the global monetary system, the gold standard, fell apart. At the same time, the ideal of collective security, embodied in the League of Nations and the disarmament movement, was shattered in the Manchurian plain and in the deserts of Ethiopia.

The same currents are at work right now. You don’t have to be an expert to notice that the “Bretton Woods II” system of fiat currencies anchored by the American dollar and accompanied by the euro is under severe strain. So is the post-World War II alliance structure of the United Nations and NATO. The former institution has proven irrelevant, while the latter is divided over Russia, Afghanistan, the admission of new members, and the organization’s future. No country, meanwhile, has figured out how to deal with the problem of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

The breakup of the euro or the end of the dollar’s status as international reserve currency would wreak havoc on the global economy. A war on the Korean peninsula that involved China, Japan, and the United States, or the first successful test of an Iranian bomb, would have a similar effect on global security. If both things happened simultaneously, there would be a sea change in world politics. It’s hard to see how any incumbent president could survive the turbulence. After all, as Hofstadter wrote of our thirty-first president, “What ruined Hoover’s public career was not a sudden failure of personal capacity but the collapse of the world that had produced him and shaped his philosophy.” It would be folly to think that such a collapse is impossible in the twenty-first century. Which is why it’s worth looking more closely at the two aspects of the current crisis that bring to mind Auden’s “low dishonest” decade.

MONEY. The post-World War I gold standard was never that strong. Nevertheless, it didn’t begin to unravel until the spring of 1931, when several large European banks declared insolvency as a result of the crushing burden of war debt. On May 11, more than a year after the U.S. stock market crash, Austria’s Creditanstalt announced that it was bankrupt. The result was a continental banking panic. Austrian and German banks simply couldn’t find capital. Soon after Credit-anstalt, the Danat bank of Germany went under. From there the contagion spread. It wasn’t long before speculators set their sights on the pound sterling. “Faced with the heavy demands of speculators for gold and a widespread loss of confidence in the pound,” Ben Bernanke noted in a 2004 speech, “the Bank of England quickly depleted its gold reserves.”

On September 21, 1931, Britain and its empire went off the gold standard, thereby devaluing its currency. Other nations quickly followed. Japan announced it was abandoning gold on December 13. “This makes a total of 15 countries that have gone off the gold standard,” Benjamin Roth wrote that week in his diary. “France and U.S. are the only 2 large countries remaining on the gold standard. .  .  . There is very little danger that U.S. will follow suit.”

Roth was incorrect. FDR took the United States off the gold standard in 1933; France abandoned it in 1936. The arrangement of floating currencies lasted until the Bretton Woods conference in July 1944, when a new monetary regime was adopted involving fixed exchange rates pegged to gold. But Bretton Woods could not withstand the pressures of American deficit spending. Richard Nixon closed the gold window on August 15, 1971, nullifying Bretton Woods and inaugurating another era of floating exchange rates that persists to this day.

How long this era will continue is open to question. We seem to have entered another period of monetary instability, the outcome of which is far from certain. Once again, European sovereign debt is threatening financial institutions and the global economy. But that debt doesn’t stem from defense spending. It’s the result of overly generous welfare states and giant government bailouts. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium​—​the markets are pulling at the seams of all these nations. Try as they might, the EU and European Central Bank have been unable to stop the bleeding. And the austerity measures imposed by governments seeking to satisfy creditors have sparked domestic upheaval.

America’s position isn’t much better. Over the last 30 years the government has been able to take on a lot of debt because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency. But the dollar’s status is not a Mosaic commandment. The Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing​—​i.e., money creation​—​has undermined its institutional credibility, occasioned heated protests from foreign governments, and introduced uncertainty in international trade and capital flows. Competitive devaluation is the result. And all for what? The policy has already failed to achieve its stated goal of keeping yields low, and the economy seems to be slowly recovering anyway. All the money Ben Bernanke is creating has to go somewhere​—​which sets us up for another bubble.

It’s comforting to think that circumstances will persist forever. But they don’t. For decades, America has been able to have its economic cake and eat it too. What the ’30s show, however, is that global monetary arrangements cannot continue indefinitely in the absence of consensus and confidence. And these are precisely the qualities that we lack today.

BOMBS. It’s become a cliché to view the diplomatic history of the 1930s through the lens of Munich. But Nazi Germany’s annexation of Czechoslovakia was only one of many instances during the ’30s when democracies failed to act in the face of belligerence. In September 1931, the same month that Britain left the gold standard, the Japanese annexed Manchuria in northern China. No one stopped them.

A newspaper reader in December 1931 couldn’t have helped noticing the Japanese advance. “Big Japanese Force Reaches Manchuria As New Drive Opens,” read the headline in the December 28 New York Times. “Japanese Capture Four Towns in Drive Toward Chinchow,” the paper reported the next day. The articles dutifully recorded Secretary of State Henry Stimson’s protests. The League of Nations passed condemnations. But the Japanese did not leave Manchuria. They did not give up their dreams of a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” They marched on​—​until finally they were met with force.

Nor was Japan the only enemy gaining strength. Read through the periodical literature of 1931, and you may be surprised at how famous Adolf Hitler already was. The Nazi movement and its leader were internationally recognized. His ideology and dreams were understood. Hitler did not simply spring onto the scene in 1933. In December 1931, one of the last Weimar chancellors, Heinrich Brüning, tried to expel Hitler from Prussia. But the Austrian was undaunted. On December 7 he gave a front-page interview to the New York Times. “Herr Hitler declined to reveal to his interviewer the National Socialists’ economic program,” the correspondent wrote, “but intimated that there would be many changes in the laws of Germany if his party were swept into power.”

Japanese imperialism, German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Soviet communism​—​all these actors were on the stage in December 1931, behaving badly and paying no price. The democracies, meanwhile, were busy arguing with one another over armament quotas. They persisted in the delusion that war was an anachronism. They were determined never to repeat Verdun and the Somme. They could not conceive that others might disagree.

Are things so very different today? Iran’s megalomaniacal dictatorship marches toward nuclear weaponry. North Korea shells its neighbor with impunity. Jihadists execute terrorist attacks throughout the world. China expands its reach. We know who the troublemakers are and where the challenges to American primacy and global stability come from. But we have our own distractions. We have the fantasy of abolishing nuclear weapons, of “resetting” relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, of reconciling the irreconcilable in the Middle East, of achieving rapprochement with “the Muslim world.”

A few people in December 1931 recognized the growing danger. The patient at Lenox Hill Hospital was one. Another was the New Yorker correspondent Mary Heaton Vorse, who wrote from Germany, “No one knows what is going to happen. No one knows​—​but everyone knows that cataclysm is at hand.” Vorse was somehow able to divine the next 14 years of world history by sitting in a nightclub. “The next act will be starker,” she concluded. “It will be steel instead of rococo marble.”

The lesson of the 1930s is not only that aggression ought not to be appeased. It’s that aggressors keep pushing until they encounter resistance. And by the time that happens, it may be too late to prevent the deluge.

What unites our two eras, in the end, is their unpredictability. This, and the fact that people in one time had no better idea of what might happen than people in the other.

Picture Churchill as he lay stricken on Fifth Avenue. “Perhaps it is the end,” he recalled thinking. He did not have the luxury of knowing, as we do, what would happen next. He did not know how well he would recover​—​or if he would recover at all. He was ignorant of the challenges that awaited him. For people alive in the 1930s, each day brought a tangle of developments that were difficult to interpret and impossible to analyze from the detached perspective of historical study. There was no guide for the perplexed. There was no cheat sheet that told them what to do. There was no way of knowing when the crisis was “over” because there was no way of knowing what tomorrow would bring.

Our leaders don’t have to worry about mass unemployment on the scale of the 1930s. But they do have to worry about structural deficits of perilous magnitude, debt burdens, sovereign default, and currency wars. Our leaders don’t have to worry about Japanese expansion or the rise of Adolf Hitler. But they do have to worry about nuclear weaponry falling into the hands of apocalyptic theocrats, and a nuclear-armed Hermit Kingdom that may choose war over dissolution. The stakes during one era may have been greater than the other. Time will tell. But that doesn’t mean the challenges are dissimilar. To the contrary: A difference in degree is not a difference in kind.

Of course, we have one thing that Americans in the ’30s did not. We have their history. We have their words. We’d do well to heed them. “Nature is merciful and does not try her children, man or beast, beyond their compass,” Churchill wrote from his hospital bed in December 1931. “It is only where the cruelty of man intervenes that hellish torments appear. For the rest​—​live dangerously; take things as they come; dread naught, all will be well.”

Matthew Continetti is opinion editor of The Weekly Standard and author, most recently, of The Persecution of Sarah Palin (Sentinel).

If the trouble starts — and it remains an “if” — the trigger may well be obscure to the concerns of most Americans: a missed budget projection by the Spanish government, the failure of Greece to hit a deficit-reduction target, a drop in Ireland’s economic output.

To view dictionary popup window put your cursor on the blue words

Perplexity

“…upon the earth distress•Strongs 4928: sunoche, soon-okh-ay´; from 4912; restraint, i.e. (figuratively) anxiety: — anguish, distress. of nations, with perplexity•Strongs 640: aporia, ap-or-ee´-a; from the same as 639; a (state of) quandary:—perplexity.
•Strongs 639: aporeo, ap-or-eh´-o; from a compound of 1 (as a negative particle) and the base of 4198; to have no way out, i.e. be at a loss (mentally):— (stand in) doubt, be perplexed….”
—Luke 21:25

But the knife-edge psychology currently governing global markets has put the future of the U.S. economic recovery in the hands of politicians in an assortment of European capitals. If one or more fail to make the expected progress on cutting budgets, restructuring economies or boosting growth, it could drain confidence in a broad and unsettling way. Credit markets worldwide could lock up and throw the global economy back into recession.

For the average American, that seemingly distant sequence of events could translate into another hit on the 401(k) plan, a lost factory shift if exports to Europe decline and another shock to the banking system that might make it harder to borrow.

“If what happened in Greece were to happen in a large country, it could fundamentally mark our times,” Angelos Pangratis, head of the European Union delegation to the United States, said Friday after a panel discussion on the crisis in Greece sponsored by the Greater Washington Board of Trade.

That local economic development boards are sponsoring panels on government debt in Greece is perhaps proof enough that Europe’s problems are the world’s. That the dominoes can tumble fast was shown Thursday when a new and narrowly drawn stock-trading policy in Germany helped trigger a sell-off on Wall Street.

It marks a change, Barclays Capital chief European economist Julian Callow wrote in a Friday analysis, from a situation in which the bonds of European countries were considered to carry virtually zero risk to a “brave new world” where sovereign default in one of the world’s core economic areas is a tangible threat. Bank holdings of European debt are now being studied with the same focus given to holdings of U.S. mortgage-backed securities as the global financial crisis unfolded in 2008 — and with the same suspicion that problems in one part of the world could wreck others.

The most vulnerable European countries — Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland — may represent only about 4 percent of world economic activity, but “the debt crisis and its ripple effects are bad news for all corners of the world,” said Cornell University economist Eswar Prasad.

The risk of a worst-case scenario is still considered remote. European countries have pledged hundreds of billions of dollars to aid indebted neighbors that run into trouble, and they say they are committed to fixing the continent’s larger economic problems. The euro and U.S. markets were both higher Friday after the German Parliament approved a key piece of that support program. A renewed effort by the U.S. Federal Reserve to ensure that European banks have adequate access to dollars has generated little demand — a sign that a feared shortage of cash is not in the offing.

U.S. banks are not heavily exposed to the weaker European countries, Fed governor Daniel K. Tarullo said in testimony on Capitol Hill last week. Banks are in better shape overall, after fresh infusions of capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. economic recovery has been strengthening through the year, with jobs added in five of the last six months, and recent consumer spending and industrial output stronger than most forecasts.

But the fallout from Europe could still be widely felt. U.S. trade officials, hoping the country can dramatically boost its exports, are dismayed at the steep drop in the value of the euro — which is around $1.25, down from more than $1.50 in November. The decline makes American goods more expensive compared with those produced in Europe. The slide in the common European currency could also change the way China and a host of Asian countries approach their currency policies, possibly making them less likely to agree with U.S. demands to raise the value of their money. If they raised it, Asian goods would become more expensive in world markets, making it easier for U.S. products to compete.

The connections are being closely watched. Analysts are studying how the involvement of Greek financial institutions in Eastern Europe, or Spanish banks in Latin America, could affect those economies. The International Monetary Fund and E.U. officials are doing biweekly checks on Greece’s progress to ensure its economic reform program stays on track, according to Vassilis Kaskarelis, Greece’s ambassador to the United States.

Inside the euro zone, banks are intimately linked, with a web of investments and cross-country bond holdings that could be a main vector for financial “contagion,” with a default in one country weakening banks elsewhere.

There are some positive impacts in all this for the United States.

For one, uncertainty about European government debt has driven global investors toward U.S. government bonds, which in turn is pushing down long-term interest rates. The 10-year Treasury bond had a rate of 3.2 percent Friday compared with nearly 4 percent last month. Those lower rates should flow through to private borrowing, helping Americans getting mortgages or businesses looking to grow.

The European panic is also lowering the price of oil and other commodities on global markets, potentially making it cheaper for Americans to fuel their cars and heat their homes. A barrel of oil went for about $70 on Friday, down from almost $87 on April 6.

A final positive for the U.S. economy is that the stronger dollar will help keep inflation in check by reducing the cost of imports. That, combined with renewed worry about the strength of the recovery, is likely to give the Fed some leeway to delay raising interest rates above their current extremely low levels longer than it would have otherwise.

The most precise comparison is to the East Asian financial crisis that enveloped Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and other nations in 1997 and 1998. There were widespread fears that the crisis would damage the U.S. economy, including through a financial contagion effect. The Fed even cut interest rates in the fall of 1998 to try to forestall a weakening in U.S. growth.

But there was little obvious impact on the U.S. economy, which grew 4.5 percent in 1997, 4.4 percent in 1998, and 4.8 percent in 1999.

False Prophets

“And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”
—Rev 13:12

New World Order

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”
—Daniel 7:7

The Vatican Bank’s tax exempt status in Italy has made it possible for her to manipulate many of the largest multi-national corporations This influence is however as nothing when compared with her power in Europe and in the world of politics and religion. A Jesuit priest writing in ‘Inside the Vatican’ stated, “Despite the importance of the papacy for the Catholic church and its prominent role in international affairs, its internal workings are little known to Catholics, to world leaders, or to the world at large.”*

This lack of knowledge is particularly evident when it comes to the role the Vatican is playing in the making of the EU. If the Protestant nations of Europe are to remain free, true believers on both sides of the Atlantic must address the issue of Rome and the EU and take it to our God in prayer. The alternative may well prove to be the return of the Inquisition.

It is the authors’ desire that this study of one of the most powerful institutions in the world today be carefully examined. Our purpose is to sound the alarm and to stimulate others to do so too.

Kindly study and comment on the article. Please forward the article to others, and place on your WebPage. The paper has already published by Christian Watch in the UK. John Robbins of Trinity Foundation is about to publish it in his Trinity Foundation newsletter (www. trinityfoundation.org).

Yours with deep concern for the New Europe as it is being formed,
Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen

* Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church, by Thomas J. Reese, Harvard University Press, 1996, 4

Papal Rome and the European Union

Papal Rome is widely respected and admired by the world. She is seen as well organised, successful and influential, as well as dignified and authoritative. The aura of uncritical acclaim around the person of successive popes is unique to the Church of Rome. No other global institution has it. Her pronouncements on moral issues carry great weight. So well regarded is the Papacy today that the acceptance of her extends even to Evangelicals, most of whom have ceased to question her doctrine.

Why then should we take a position contrary to this avalanche of present-day approval? We do so because we are commanded by the Lord God to proclaim His truth and His warnings. For all is not at all as it seems. We believe that the late great British preacher Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct when he proclaimed that “the Roman Catholic Church is a counterfeit and a sham; it represents prostitution of the worst and most diabolical kind…It binds the souls of its people absolutely, just as Communism and Nazism did, and it is itself a totalitarian system.”[1]

Papal Pronouncements on Europe

On August 31st 2003, Pope John Paul II entrusted the future of the new Europe to the Virgin Mary. In the words of the Catholic news agency Zenit,

“He placed Europe in Mary’s hands, so that it would ‘become a symphony of nations committed to building together the civilization of love and peace.’ Last Sunday, the Holy Father urged that the final draft of the European Constitution should recognize explicitly the Christian roots of the continent, as they constitute a ‘guarantee of a future.’”[2]

The official teaching of Rome makes clear that this statement concerning “the Christian roots of the continent” is a facade. When the Pope or his Church use the term “Christian” they mean “Roman Catholic”. A recent official decree of Rome condemns “the tendency to read and to interpret Sacred Scripture outside the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church.”[3] Rome officially proclaims that the Christian Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. In her decree she states,

“Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.”[4]

Just as the Nazis declared non-Aryans to be non-humans, so now the Church of Rome declares other churches to be non-churches. Her official words are,

“the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense.…”[5]

In the same document, Dominus Iesus (September 5th 2000), footnote 51 refers to a decree which states,

“We declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[6]

The mind of Rome is thus expressed in her official decrees. Once the Protestant nations are committed to the emerging European superstate and its Constitution, the Vatican’s plan to once again “Christianize” the European Union will be implemented. As described by the London Sunday Telegraph, “The Pope is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right – that of new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.”[7]

The Vatican as a “Unique Contribution” to the EU

The EU already has most of the attributes needed for nationhood. It has a passport, a flag, a single currency and an anthem. It is also drawing up in its constitution the further characteristics of nationhood such as a president, international ambassadors and a foreign secretary. The Vatican carefully gives soul to all of this by claiming that this is “a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”. The Pope in his Ecclesia in Europa states,

“One and universal, yet present in the multiplicity of the Particular Churches, the Catholic Church can offer a unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world. The Catholic Church in fact provides a model of essential unity in a diversity of cultural expressions, a consciousness of membership in a universal community which is rooted in but not confined to local communities, and a sense of what unites beyond all that divides.”[8]

“The Particular Churches in Europe are not simple agencies or private organizations. Rather, they carry out their work with a specific institutional dimension that merits legal recognition, in full respect for just systems of civil legislation.”[9]

“Particular Churches in Europe” is simply a pretense. The Vatican views itself as the Particular Church, and officially states,

“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church.”[10]

From the decrees published it is clear that, apart from the Church of Rome establishing herself as the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”, she claims for herself “legal recognition” in accord with her own “civil legislation”. This has been the basis of the Vatican’s political manipulation over the centuries. While Rome carefully prepares her own legal place, she will tolerate no rivals – “the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate are not Churches in the proper sense.”[11] Most certainly they are not to be included as part of the “unique contribution to the building up of a Europe open to the world”!

As author Adrian Hilton has warned in a recent article in The Spectator,

“the issue of European religious union is one that has been concealed even deeper than the plans for political union, but the ratchet towards a Catholic Europe is just as real. The Pope’s recent demand that ‘God’ be featured in the emerging European constitution has been echoed by many leading Catholic politicians and bishops. While on the surface such a reference may offend only Europe’s atheist and humanist contingent, it must be observed that when the Vatican refers to God, she sees herself as God’s infallible vice-regent upon earth, the leading organ of divine expression; indeed, according to its publication Dominus Iesus [5 September 2000], as the only mediator in the salvation of God’s elect, insisting that all other Churches, including the Church of England, ‘are not Churches in the proper sense’.”[12]

The Real Meaning of the Pope’s message to Europe

The Ecclesia in Europa pronouncement is one of the cleverest produced by Pope John Paul II. It is a masterpiece that purportedly proclaims the Christian message, while in fact it teaches the rites and rituals of the Papacy. For example the concept of the “Gospel of hope” is mentioned forty times in the dissertation. The message however is not one of hope; rather it is an adept counterfeit. For example Paragraph 74 begins by stating, “A prominent place needs to be given to the celebration of the sacraments, as actions of Christ and of the Church ordered to the worship of God, to the sanctification of people and to the building up of the ecclesial community.” The Pope thus presents his physical, symbolic sacraments as the efficacious cause of salvation. In place of the direct obedience to Christ Jesus demanded in the Gospel of faith, the sacraments are purported to be “actions of Christ”. This is where the Vatican’s pretense of “hope” lies. Such sacraments are declared necessary for salvation in the official teaching of Rome,

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ‘Sacramental grace’ is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.”[13]

By setting aside the direct work of God in Christ Jesus, the sacraments of Rome are an attempt to steal from Christ His Priesthood and an attempt to rob Him of His power as Mediator. The Roman Church attempts to rob God the Holy Spirit of His peculiar work as the Sanctifier, by attributing His power of giving grace to its own rituals. Thus it attempts to rob God the Father of His prerogatives of justifying and forgiving sinners. This is the reality behind the concept of the “Gospel of hope” that permeates the Pope’s message to Europe. Throughout the centuries, Rome has substituted her sacraments for the Gospel in a consistently degrading insult to the grace of God. Shameful to God and damning to men is the Pope’s memorandum to Europe.

We are at a seminal moment in history, as the Holy Roman Empire re-emerges as a European Superstate. Throughout her history the Papacy has remained self-governing and invincible to every restraining force other than that of the power of God in the Gospel. Bible believers need to be aware of the times in which we live, we need to study the history of the EU in order to see the outworking of the guile of Rome.

A Short History of the EU

After the destruction, ruin and enormous human cost of the Second World War, statesmen and politicians resolved to ensure that it would never happen again. In 1946 Sir Winston Churchill suggested in a famous speech at Zurich in Switzerland that, “we must build a kind of United States of Europe”. This was not, as Euro-enthusiasts have often insisted, a commitment for Britain to participate in the European project. Churchill envisaged a Western Europe of free independent sovereign nations, not an undemocratic federal Superstate. Together the nations would reach for a destiny of unprecedented co-operation and harmony.

In 1950 the Schuman Plan proposed the supra-national pooling of the German and French coal and steel industries in order to lay the basis of European economic unity. The partial merger of the economies of the two traditional enemies would ensure continuing peace between them. French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the agreement, The Treaty of Paris, as co-founders of the Franco-German Coal and Steel Confederation. Like their colleagues Jean Monnet and Paul Henri Spaak, they were both devout Roman Catholics who shared the vision of successive post-war Popes for a re-Catholicized and united Europe. Adenauer and Schuman, along with Alcide de Gasperi, all three “founding fathers”, are in the process of being made into “Saints” by the Vatican as a reward for founding the new Europe “on Roman Catholic principles”.

The European Economic Community (The EEC), established in 1957 by The Treaty of Rome brought in Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg to join France and Germany, removing trade barriers between member states and unifying their economic policies. It made clear to those with sufficient stamina to read the Treaty’s lengthy and turgid document that the aim of the project was always to achieve political unity in economic disguise, “an ever closer union”.[14]

In 1962 the Common Agricultural policy was introduced with a single European market and price fixing, which has consistently favored French farmers. The Northwest Technocrat commented on the developing design of the European project at that time, “Fascism in Europe is about to be reborn in respectable business attire, and the Treaty of Rome will be finally implemented to its fullest extent. The dream of a Holy Roman Empire returning to power to dominate and direct the so-called forces of Christian mankind of the Western world is not dead, but still stalks through the antechambers of every national capital of continental Western Europe, in the determination of the leaders in the Common Market to restore the Holy Roman Empire with all that that means!”[15]

Nearly thirty years later, the London-based Sunday Telegraph was to express the same concern in a major article headed “Now, a Holy European Empire?” It stated,

“The Vatican notoriously thinks in centuries. In Pope John Paul II we have the most political pope of modern times. It is in the movement towards federalism of the Common Market, with the coming membership of Eastern European countries, as well as in the turmoil of the Soviet Union, that the Pope may see the greatest possibility for an increase in Catholic political power since the fall of Napoleon or since the Counter-Reformation. The Common Market itself started under the inspiration of Catholic politicians – such as Adenauer of Germany, Paul Henri Spaak, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman….The EC Social Charter and the socialism of Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission) are imbued with Catholic social doctrine. If European federalism triumphs, the EC will indeed be an empire. It will lack an emperor: but it will have the Pope. It is difficult not to think that Wojtyla realises this.”[16]
In 1967 Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced that Britain would apply to join the European Community (the Common Market). The British people voted to do so in a referendum in the belief that they were joining a closer trading relationship, a kind of club, rather than being bound into an evolving Superstate. Unfortunately no more people had read The Treaty of Rome in the 1960s than had read Mein Kampf in the 1930s. Politicians and opinion formers, who should have known better, accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC.

In 1973, Prime Minister Edward Heath, who definitely did know better, committed Britain into membership of the EEC. Ireland and Denmark joined the same year. In 1979, the European Parliament was established in Strasbourg with its first direct elections. The word “economic” was carefully dropped from the name of the project that was now to be described as the European Community (EC). Greece joined the EC in 1981, which was the year of the Single European Act – enacting the gradual transfer of executive, legislative and judicial powers from member States to EC “instrumentalities”. Spain and Portugal signed up to the EC in 1986, making a total of twelve member states. In 1990, East Germany joined as part of a united Germany.

In February 1992, The Maastricht Treaty, or Treaty of European Union, was signed at Maastricht in Holland by the foreign and finance ministers of the member states. Its objective was to bind the twelve nations into cooperation or “ever closer union” on a range of issues other than economic and trading. To this end the EC was renamed The European Union. The Maastricht Treaty established economic and monetary union, which would lead ultimately to all member states sharing a single currency. The religious dimension, although not apparent, was the key to what was being formed. Among European leaders who were most influential in furthering the Maastricht agenda were Jacques Delors and Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (both Jesuit educated) as well as devout Catholics German Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales of Spain. These four leaders were all products of the Roman Catholic Social Movement, which believes that “there is no nobler task than the unifying of our continent” and views the idea of a united Europe as essentially a Catholic concept.

The Amsterdam Treaty followed and was signed in 1997 as a further notch of the ratchet of “ever-closer union”, meaning in fact, ever diminishing sovereignty, following the principle of acquis communautaire (which asserts “that what has been acquired cannot be taken away”). The Amsterdam Treaty gave more powers to the unelected Commission and particularly to its unelected President as the initiator, administrator, mediator, negotiator and guardian of the Treaties. The Treaty of Nice, signed by Prime Minister Tony Blair in December 2000, was the last in the series of treaties, which have progressively drained the UK of its sovereignty. At Nice there was finally and irrevocably established the EU as a sovereign federal state. A new European criminal code, Corpus Juris, will replace the classic, longstanding British criminal code. Vital elements such as Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus are missing from this new code.[17]

EU Supreme Power

Even before the Treaty of Nice came into force, the EU Constitutional Convention, presided over by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, produced its first draft of a constitution for Europe in October 2002. On 13 June 2003 a final version of the draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, was produced. Quoting from the London Daily Telegraph,

“To the strains of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy, the Convention on the Future of Europe proclaimed agreement yesterday on a written constitution for a vast European Union of 450 million citizens bringing together East and West. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the chair of the 105-strong body, held up a text…‘We have sown a seed and I am sure that seed will grow and bring fruit. Europe’s voice will be heard and respected on the international stage. Instead of a half-formed Europe, we have a Europe with a legal identity, with a single currency, common justice, a Europe which is about to have its own defence.’ There was no vote. M Giscard, famed for his autocratic style during 16 months of stormy debates, simply discerned consensus among the MPs, MEPs, and national envoys. Few were willing to spoil the party by crying foul….The Constitution gives the EU full ‘legal personality’ and determines that EU law will have primacy over the law of member states. It prohibits Westminster from legislating in most areas of national life – agriculture, justice, energy, social policy, economic cohesion, transport, the environment, and aspects of public health – unless Brussels chooses to waive its power.”[18]

“If the new constitution is accepted, the EU will no longer be a treaty organization in which member states agree to lend power to Brussels, for certain purposes, on the understanding that they can take it back again. Rather, the EU will itself have become the fount of power, with the ability to sign international treaties in its own right. It will have its own President, foreign minister and foreign policy; its own parliament, supreme court, flag, anthem and currency. It will have become a sovereign state, in fact a federal superstate. The member states whose constitutions will be subject to this higher constitution, will cease to be sovereign. The new order will be irreversible. M Giscard made clear that the national veto is to be abolished in 50 new areas, including immigration and asylum.”[19]

Under the new Constitution’s rules, no nation is to be allowed to secede from the EU except by a two-thirds majority vote of member states in agreement with the secession.

The Same Spirit – of Domination

The EU will acquire competence in “all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy”; though major decisions must be unanimous. The European Court, which acquires vast powers, will ensure that member states “actively and unreservedly support the EU’s common foreign and security policy”. Article 8 of the draft Constitution, which also imposes “an obligation of loyal cooperation vis-à-vis the Union” of member states, reinforces the supremacy of EU law over the laws of member states.[20] An EU attorney-general will be able to prosecute “cross-border crime”, a catch-all term that will allow Brussels the supreme jurisdiction throughout the EU. The Constitution lacks any serious democratic dimension and is clearly designed to strengthen the EU power structure for the benefit of the European elite. Doubtless the intention is to force it through with the minimum of real democratic scrutiny.

This spirit of absolute autocracy that is to govern the EU is frighteningly akin to the spirit that rules in the Vatican, “The First See is judged by no one.”[21] Rome’s stamp upon the pages of history has ever been “no accountability”. Its laws also state, “It is solely the right of the Roman Pontiff himself to judge, in cases mentioned in can. 1401: 1. those who hold the highest civil office in a state.”[22] The same spirit of despotism in both systems loudly proclaims supreme caution.

“The Abandoning of a Thousand years of History”

The Treaty that establishes the new Constitution, due to be agreed by the Intergovernmental conference in 2004 is far more extensive than any previous treaty. Derek Heathcote-Amory, the Conservative Party representative at the Constitutional Convention, rightly described it as “bigger than the treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice rolled together.” The implications of such huge changes, “the abandoning of a thousand years of history”, have not been really understood by the majority of the British people. Little by little, treaty by treaty, first the EEC, then the EC, then the EU; people have become used to Europe and bored with it; and with so many scare stories about Brussels, so-called dangers threatening their independence and sovereignty, so many eurosceptics “crying wolf”. It has all being going on as long as they can remember – and, after all, Britain does have the fourth largest economy in the world, and in the main they have prospered. The problem is that the wolf is now at the door!

Many of those who cherish Britain’s independence and who do not want to give away that for which two world wars were fought to retain, realize this. If the move to establish the Constitution for Europe is ratified by the UK parliament, it would be the first time that the United Kingdom has adopted or acceded to a wholly written constitution. How can the UK adopt such a constitution, having never had one before? The answer would seem to be straightforward. The people must give their consent. However if the Labour government has its way there will be no referendum. Tony Blair, who is said to have set his sights on the top job as President of the “United States of Europe”, has made clear that there will be no referendum. He does not want it because he knows he cannot win it. Also a referendum campaign would educate the people in both what is proposed and what has already happened. The Prime Minister agreed to hold a referendum on the Single Currency before he came into office in 1997, but to date he has hesitated to do so, as “the conditions have not been right” – again, meaning that he would have lost it.

The EU’s Power Symbols

The EU Parliament’s main base is Strasbourg in France. The city symbolizes the dream of Franco-German integration that was at the heart of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. In December 2000, the European Union opened its new Parliament building there. It is patterned after Dutch artist Pieter Breugel’s famous painting of the Tower of Babel. Breugel’s painting portrays the Tower unfinished, as does the new EU building, which is built to appear unfinished in close resemblance to the painting. Outside the Parliament building is a statue of the goddess, Europa, riding a Bull. Inside, the dome displays a colossal painting of the Woman riding the Beast. The woman riding the beast symbol also appears on some of the “two euro” coins that have been minted.[23]

The same imagery has appeared on EU postage stamps, including the British one issued in 1984 to commemorate the second elections for the European Parliament. The EU’s conscious use of such symbolism creates the impression that it wishes to bring to mind Europe’s desire to rule using all the power it has at its disposal. In Scripture, the Woman riding the Beast is revealed in Revelation 17. The identification with the Church of Rome has long been apparent to Bible believers. This interpretation of Bible prophecy did much to empower the Reformation. Only Papal Rome is a city which is sited on seven hills, a religious system, whose Prelates “are arrayed in purple and scarlet color”, a civil state “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication”, historically, with hands that are crimson with the blood of Bible believers, “that has been drunken with the blood of the saints and with the martyrs of Jesus.” Papal Rome is the only worldwide religious system that calls itself and its virgin goddess “Mother”.

History also Unveils what is Now Happening

A brief review of European history helps with this identification of the Papacy with Scripture. After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, the Papacy continually sought to establish the same dominance as had the Caesars (in fact successive Popes used the same name – Pontifex Maximus). They did so by weaving together both temporal and spiritual jurisdictions and blasphemously assumed to themselves the office of “the Vicar of Christ”. In that spurious role, in the course of a few centuries, they were able to subjugate the kings of Europe who became their vice regents.[24] Thus century-by-century the “Mother Church” succeeded in extending her power, usurping that of civil governments. Under the guise of religion she planted her own hierarchical system of government, with its exhaustive financial requirements, in each of Europe’s kingdoms. The blending of things civil and sacred was the Vatican’s hard to resist method of operation in those dark ages. Unhappily this is still so today, and will be so again, once power and control have been consolidated in the new “United States of Europe”. “Semper eadem”, Rome never changes.

The duplicity of the Papacy’s perpetual mixing of political and spiritual powers could surely not be better portrayed than in God’s Word in Revelation 17. The Apostle John beheld the ten-horned beast, representing the Roman Empire, carrying a woman dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold, precious stones and pearls. She is a harlot, and the mother of harlots and abominations, the paramour of kings, the pitiless persecutor intoxicated with the blood of the saints and of the martyrs of Christ Jesus. The angel told John, “The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sitteth.” To explain this singular fact and to avoid guesswork, he adds, “the woman which thou sawest is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (v 7) The city is indisputably Rome. The name upon the harlot’s brow is “mystery”. The city cannot be pagan Rome, about which there was no mystery. In contrast, Papal Rome was mysterious and continues to be elusive. Babylon, in the book of Revelation, is a city and an harlot. Jerusalem, in the same book, is a city and a bride. Babylon is the deceptive lover of earthly kings; Jerusalem the chaste bride of the King of Kings. The contrast is between Church and Church, the faithful Church and the Apostate Church.

The Flag – Another EU Spiritual Symbol

The flag of the European Union, blue with a design of twelve stars in a circle derives from the twelve stars that in Catholic tradition are the halo around the head of the Virgin Mary.[25] The stars stem from the belief that twelve is the symbol of perfection and of what is unchangeable. The political purposes behind all of these symbols are much debated; the Biblical significance, however, is revealing.[26] According to the European Union publication Europe’s Star Choice: “The flag has its roots in Romanism, takes its symbolism from Romanism, and represents the Roman Catholic ideal.” The design with its halo of stars was inspired by many pictures of the Virgin Mary, the most prominent of which is on the Council of Europe stained glass window in Strasbourg Cathedral.

The EU’s “single market”, “social chapter” and “subsidiarity” are concepts of Roman Catholic social teaching, originating with Pope Pius XI in the 1930s, and adopted by Hitler’s Vatican-backed Third Reich. Nazi Finance Minister Walther Funk, styled as the architect of Hitler’s “New Europe”, issued a compendium of papers in 1942 which contained detailed plans for a Europe bearing close resemblance to the Europe now emerging. Funk’s papers described:-”The European Economic Community”, “The Common European Currency”, “Harmonisation of European Rates of Exchange”, A Common Labour Policy and a European Regional Principle. The last has now become known as the Europe of Regions Policy – England is to be replaced by seven regions, which with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will total ten regions in all. Together they are to replace the United Kingdom!

TheThird Reich to be followed by the Fourth

The Third Reich, like the EU, was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire. The higher strategy of the Vatican and the acquiescence of the Catholic Central Party had brought Hitler to power. Instrumental in this strategy were Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen and Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Von Papen goes down in history as the man who obtained Hitler his two-thirds majority, signed the law which made him Head of State and was also responsible for the enormously important Concordat with the Church of Rome in 1933. He declared, “the Third Reich is the first power in the world to put into practice the lofty principles of the Papacy.”[27] Incredibly, given his responsibility for Nazi atrocities, he was acquitted at Nuremberg and later became Papal Chamberlain to Pope John XXIII. Pacelli, as Pope Pius XII, became notorious for his silence with regard to the Holocaust and the other appalling crimes committed by the Fascists in Europe. The Vatican’s attempts to canonise him have proved highly controversial.

The Nazi leadership was mainly Roman Catholic. Hitler and Himmler were greatly influenced by the Jesuits, as was Mussolini whose Father Confessor was a Jesuit. Hitler said of Himmler, “in Himmler I see our Ignatius de Loyola.”[28] Joseph Goebbels was also Jesuit-educated, as was Walter Schellenberg who led the SD or Sicherheitsdienst, the Security Service of the SS, and before being sentenced to death at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, stated that, “the SS organisation has been constituted by Himmler according to the principles of the Jesuit Order. Their regulations and the spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius of Loyola were the model Himmler tried to copy exactly”.[29]

The lesson and warning of history is that undemocratic regimes whose leaders owe allegiance to the Pope or practise “the lofty principles of the Papacy” pose a threat to individual liberty, and carry out religious persecution. For example, the inquisition was alive and well in the Balkans in the 1940s. “Convert or die” was the choice on offer to 900,000 Orthodox Serbs in the new state of Croatia, run by Nazi puppet Anton Pavelich and Roman Catholic Primate, Archbishop Alois Stepinac. 200,000 were “converted”; 700,000 who preferred to die, were tortured, shot, burned or buried alive. This appalling persecution, carried out mainly by Ustashi priests and friars “for the triumph of Christ and Croatia”, included many of the worst atrocities of the War; certainly the mutilations were horrific, the savagery terrible. [30]

Few people know what took place in Croatia during the Second World War: news of it has been simply suppressed. Nor do they understand what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. The re-establishing of Croatia as an independent state, during the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, is instructive. The European Union, led by Germany ignored the protest of Britain and many other nations in pressing for this to happen. The Vatican was the first to recognise the reborn Croatia. Writing in September 1991 in the Sunday Telegraph historian Andrew Roberts expressed surprise that

“almost the entire Western media have chosen to champion the Croats. … how are the Serbs expected to react to the decision to adopt the Ustashi’s chequered symbol as the Croatian national flag? In Krajina it takes longer than the attention span of today’s CNN broadcaster to forget the way Franciscan friars participated in the slaughter of Serbs in Croatian Bosnia. Orthodox Serbs were promised protection if they converted to Catholicism and were then killed, after they entered the churches, as the priests looked on.”[31]

None of this is surprising if we know the history of Roman Catholicism. “From the birth of Popery in 600, to the present time, it has been estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than FIFTY MILLIONS of the human family have been slaughtered for ‘the crime’ of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of Popery.”[32] The Scripture speaks propetically of her lust for power and blood; history has recorded many of the gruesome details.

The Papacy has been predominant throughout the whole history of Europe. It has left its mark and record on most of the major nations. In times past it has proven itself to be totally dominant in its control of Kings and Princes. The whole history of the Western world over fourteen centuries has been plagued by the intrigues and machinations of the Church of Rome in unceasing pursuit of her global designs. In the words of the historian J.A. Wylie,

“….as regards the influence of Popery on government, it were easy to demonstrate, that the Papacy delayed the advent of representative and constitutional government for thirteen centuries. Superstition is the mother of despotism; Christianity is the parent of liberty. There is no truth which the past history of the world more abundantly establishes than this. It was through Christianity that the democratic element first came into the world.…The papal government is the very antipodes of constitutional government: it centres all power in one man: it does so on the ground of divine right; and is therefore essentially and eternally antagonistic to the constitutional element. Its long dominancy in Europe formed the grand barrier to the progress of the popular element in society, and to the erection of constitutional government in the world.”[33]

Our Hope and Prayer for Europe

Once again we have come to a defining moment in history. Once more the Vatican is engaged in placing its hallmark and its rituals on the face of Europe to further its familiar agenda. It does so in a number of different ways directed from the highest levels of command in the Vatican. Firstly, it operates directly through its civil ambassadors in each European nation. According to the Catholic Almanac “Papal representatives ‘receive from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way in the various nations or regions of the world.’”[34] Secondly, the Roman Church also deals directly and legally with individual nations through its many legal concordats. Less directly it operates through its representation and influence in most of the governmental agencies of Europe. This involvement, especially in the area of finance and business, is documented in her Almanac under the heading of “Governmental Organisations”. These include the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the Organisation of American States, the International Organisation for the Unification of Private Law and the International Council on Grain, among others. Rome has her observers and delegates in all of these many listed organisations.[35] Finally, she operates through her own people in Europe whose allegiance is first and foremost to the Roman Catholic Church. Many of her people have access to positions in the ruling structure of their nation. As Roman Catholics, they are enjoined by the Vatican to use both influence and position to bring that nation into line with papal policy on any particular issue.

We need to pray that Europe will not be taken back to the state that it was in, spiritually and politically, during the Middle Ages. Roman Catholicism though outwardly and politically strong is inwardly and spiritually feeble. By her laws and ceremonies, her Bishops, Priests and laity are obliged to accept the system that recognizes the Pope as the universal “Sovereign Father” while denying the true Father and the Son. From its traditions, history, and crises, it is evident that it is an institution lacking the Gospel of grace in Christ, one that walks in darkness and in the shadow of death.

In contrast, the true Christian faith may outwardly look small and weak; but inwardly, and in essence, it is the strongest power on earth. That same power liberated most of Europe at the time of the Reformation. It is the power that is in Christ Jesus the Lord, and inseparable from Him. In the words of the Apostle Peter, “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”[36] The reason for our confidence is our relationship to the risen Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord, the universal King and Sovereign, the Priest and Saviour. Christ Jesus our Lord is a Prophet, anointed with the Spirit and furnished with all gifts necessary for the instruction, guidance, and salvation of His people through His written Word, the Holy Scriptures. He and His Gospel of grace are our hope for the future of Europe. Our inheritance is reserved in heaven, on earth however we “are kept by the power of God through faith…”[37]

We remember that the greatest power of God has often been experienced in times of the greatest declension, such as the time of the 18th century Revival and that of the Reformation itself. “The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.”[38] God in His sovereignty and in His divine timing can bring a people to the Bible, to His truth of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. When He pleases He is able with one word of His grace, to renew Europe by an act of His power, and make His enemies the footstool of Christ. We pray that He will give us the faith of the Reformers and of all those in the history of Europe who have given their lives for Biblical Truth. For the European Union we pray the words of the prophet of the Lord, ‘”Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.”[39] God can send forth His Spirit when He pleases. He did so at the time of the Reformation; we pray that He will do so again now! We remember the words of John Owen at another tuning point of history. He spoke of his own nation, England, at a time of social disintegration yet looking for revival. We now need that same faith and confidence for Britain and for the future of all the EU,

“When God will do this I know not: but I believe God can do this: He is able to do it – able to renew all his churches, by sending out supplies of the Spirit, whose fullness is with Him, to recover them in the due and appointed time. And more; I believe truly, that when God hath accomplished some ends upon us, and hath stained the glory of all flesh, He will renew the power and glory of religion among us again, even in this nation.”[40]

Watch and Pray; Sound an Alarm in Zion

The Church of Rome is one of the major players in the “creeping totalitarianism” of the New World Order. Her designs on the EU are a major part of the unfolding global strategy. We need to watch and pray as the “Fourth Reich” emerges out of its embryo. A watchman of old was expected to guard against robbers and disturbers of the peace. We are all commanded to be watchmen, “to watch and pray”. There has been a dreadful apathy that has afflicted the household of God, an indifference to the clear threat to our ancient liberties and Protestant identity from both the EU and the Church of Rome. As watchmen of the Lord today we are to guard against false teachers and false religion. We are to watch and discern the actions and words of the one who would seek to supplant the Gospel with apostasy and tyranny. Our task under God is to sound an alarm, “blow ye the trumpet in Zion…let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.”[41] Now even more than in the days of old the commands of the Lord are to be obeyed, “son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.”[42] As we make our stand, so also we pray expecting to see the power of God at work in Europe, “they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.”[43] We owe the liberty that we yet enjoy to Jesus Christ the Lord. By His faithfulness and perfect sacrifice He has satisfied the demands of the broken law of the All Holy God. It is He, the Son of God, who has made us free. “If the Son of God shall set you free you will be free indeed.”

There is genuine unity of all true believers throughout the world. There is but one faith. All true believers are converted by the same Holy Spirit, and receive the same work of grace, which places them in the Beloved. In Christ Jesus we are spiritually one and called to stand fast in this liberty, and stand firm in His truth. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be ye not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”[44]

Permission is given by the authors to copy this article if it is done in its entirety without any changes.

Permission is also given post this article in its entirety on Internet WebPages.

Our WebPages are: www.bereanbeacon.org

www.spiritof88.com/

Endnotes

[1] Bible League Quarterly (20 Thistlebarrow Road, Salisbury SP1 3RT, England) Oct-Dec 1981
[2] Date: 2003-08-31 Code: ZE03083104 http://www.zenit.org/english/ 9/3/03
[3] DOMINUS IESUS September 5th 2000 Para 4 www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
[4] Ibid., Para. 17
[5] Ibid., Para. 17
[6] Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Tr. by Roy J Deferrari from Enchiridion Symbolorum, 13th ed (B. Herder Book Co., 1957), #469.
[7] Sunday Telegraph, July 21st 1991
[8] Eccelsia in Europa, Para. 116 www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20030628_ecclesia-in-europa_en.html 9/23/03
[9] Ibid., Para. 20, 7/15/03 Bolding in any quotation indicates emphasis added in this paper unless otherwise noted.
[10] DOMINUS IESUS, Para. 16
[11] Ibid., Para 17
[12] Adrian Hilton, “Render unto the Pope”, The Spectator, 30 August, 2003, http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-11-15&id=3450&searchText= 11/17/2003
[13] Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori, MO: Liguori Publications, 1994) Para. 1129
[14] Vid Treaty of Rome, Articles 164-188
[15] The Northwest Technocrat, 1962
[16] Sunday Telegraph, 25 August 1991
[17] See Frederick Forsyth “The Abolition of Habeas Corpus” and Lord Stoddart on Corpus Juris, www.bullen.demon.co.uk 11/18/03
[18] Ambrose Evans-Prtichard, “Few willing to spoil the party for Giscard” in www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/14/weu14.xml 6/17/03
[19] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard worldwatchdaily.org/index.cfm/ fuseaction/home.sa/a/9699 7/7/03 See also Noel Malcolm Daily Telegraph 28/7/03 ‘A Federal Constitution with the Heart of a Manifesto’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F07%2F28%2Fdo2801.xml 11/17/03
[20] www.euroscep.dircon.co.uk/corpus4.htm 11/18/03
[21] Code of Canon Law, Latin-English ed., New English Tr. (Wash. DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983) Can. 1404 All canons are taken from this source unless otherwise stated.
[22] Canon 1405, Sec.1 Can. 1401:1 states, “By proper and exclusive right the Church adjudicates: 1. cases which regard spiritual matters or those connected to spiritual matters.”
[23] These EU figure-symbols can wee see on the Internet: www.pointsoftruth.com/beastarises.html 7/7/03; http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/europe.htm 7/7/03; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PatriotSaints/message/270 7/7/03; www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=eu4 7/7/03

[24] For fuller treatment, see J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (Rapidan, VA 22733: Hartland Publications, 2002) Orig. publ. 1878. Four vols, particularly Vol. I, Ch. 3 “Development of the Papacy from the Time of Constantine to Hildebrand”.
[25] For further detail, see Adrian Hilton, The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the emerging Holy European Empire (Box 67, Ricksmanworth, Herts WD3 5SJ, U.K.: Dorchester House, 2000) p. 55.
[26] Documentation on these EU symbols are found on the following WebPages: www.pointsoftruth.com/beastarises.html 7/7/03;
http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/europe.htm 7/7/03; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PatriotSaints/message/270 7/7/03;

www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=eu4 7/7/03

[27] Robert d’Harcourt, “Franz von Papen l’homme a` tout faire…” (L’Aube, 3 Oct. 1946) in The Vatican Against Europe by Edmond Paris, Tr. from French by A. Robson, First English Ed 1961 (184 Fleet Street, London, EC4: The Wickliffe Press, 1961) p. 271.
[28] Libres Propos, Flammarion, Paris 1952
[29] Edmond Paris, The Vatican Against Europe (London: Wycliffe Press, 1961)
[30] The Vatican’s Holocaust (Springfield, MO: Ozark Books, 1986)
[31] Sunday Telegraph, 15 September 1991
[32] “No computation can reach the numbers who have been put to death, in different ways, on account of their maintaining the profession of the Gospel, and opposing the corruptions of the Church of Rome. A MILLION poor Waldenses perished in France; NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND orthodox Christians were slain in less than thirty years after the institution of the order of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted of having put to death in the Netherlands, THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND by the hand of the common executioner during the space of a few years. The Inquisition destroyed, by various tortures, ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND within thirty years. These are a few specimens, and but a few, of those which history has recorded; but the total amount will never be known till the earth shall disclose her blood, and no more cover her slain” John Dowling, History of Rome in Scott’s Church History, Book 8
[33] J.A. Wylie, The Papacy, Book III. Chapter III, “Influence of Popery on Government”
www.wayoflife.org/papacy/03-03.htm 9/25/03

[34] Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Almanac 1998 (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1997) p.168
[35] The Catholic Almanac 1998, p171
[36] I Peter 1:3
[37] I Peter 1:5
[38] Isaiah 9:2
[39] Lamentations 5:21
[40] John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-53; Reprinted by The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh EH12 6EL, 1976) Vol. 9, p 514
[41] Joel 2:1
[42] Ezekiel 3:17
[43] Isaiah 40:31
[44] Galatians 5:1

“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;”
—Luk 21:25

“But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.”
—Luke11:17

307 Muslims who are American citizens participated in the survey at the Muslims For A Safe America booth at ISNA.

The purpose of the survey was to better understand the views of American Muslims on issues relating to Islam, Muslims, and American national security. It is important to let Muslims articulate their varied opinions on these issues in order to encourage dialogue within the Muslim community and with the rest of American society.

However, this was NOT a scientific survey, because ISNA Convention attendees who visited the Muslims For A Safe America booth are not necessarily representative of the American Muslim community as a whole.

The responses are as follows:

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 307
NO 0

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 214
AMERICAN FIRST 4
BOTH EQUALLY 86
UNDECIDED 3

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208
NO 79
UNDECIDED 20

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 292
NO 11
UNDECIDED 4

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139
UNDECIDED 51

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
UNDECIDED 37

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151
UNDECIDED 50

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129
UNDECIDED 52

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104
UNDECIDED 63

10. The Canadian government says it stopped a plot by Canadian Muslims in June 2006 to attack targets in Canada. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 61
NO 202
UNDECIDED 44

11. The British government says it stopped a plot by British Muslims in August 2006 to bomb planes flying to America. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 66
NO 191
UNDECIDED 50

12. Is Al Qaeda a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America?
YES 149
NO 109
UNDECIDED 49

13. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American freedoms?
YES 17
NO 269
UNDECIDED 21

14. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world?
YES 228
NO 54
UNDECIDED 25

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37
NO 258
UNDECIDED 12

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255
UNDECIDED 9

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64
NO 232
UNDECIDED 11

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35
NO 258
UNDECIDED 14

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242
UNDECIDED 13

f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?
YES 29
NO 263
UNDECIDED 15

g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?
YES 21
NO 277
UNDECIDED 9

h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?
YES 14
NO 278
UNDECIDED 15

16. Do you believe that your local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants?
YES 227
NO 59
UNDECIDED 21

17. Do you believe that your personal phone calls are being listened to, or that your personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government?
YES 205
NO 78
UNDECIDED 24

18. Do you believe that your home is bugged by the U.S. government?
YES 97
NO 189
UNDECIDED 21

19. Do you believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched your home?
YES 43
NO 245
UNDECIDED 19

20. If you, or a member of your family, have been questioned by the federal government at any time after 9/11, how were you treated during the interview?
TREATED WELL 65
TREATED BADLY 25
NOT APPLICABLE 217

21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
YES 161
NO 123
UNDECIDED 23

22. Should America attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
YES 10
NO 292
UNDECIDED 5

23. Was America justified in invading Iraq in 2003?
YES 8
NO 294
UNDECIDED 5

24. Should American troops leave Iraq immediately, or stay there until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger?
LEAVE NOW 199
LEAVE LATER 86
UNDECIDED 22

25. Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?
YES 51
NO 248
UNDECIDED 8

26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 23
NO 274
UNDECIDED 10

27. Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 134
NO 154
UNDECIDED 19

28. Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 73
NO 211
UNDECIDED 23

29. Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 51
NO 231
UNDECIDED 25

30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
YES 234
NO 39
UNDECIDED 34

These survey results are based on 307 responses from American Muslims (Muslims who are U.S. citizens) who visited the booth of Muslims for A Safe America during 2006 ISNA Annual Convention.

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 9th, 2006 at 2:42 am and is filed under Surveys. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

54 Responses to “Survey Conducted At 2006 ISNA Convention”
matt wade Says:
September 18th, 2006 at 10:30 am
this was informative, i hope it’s not fake data created either by the american govt. or by muslims trying to create disinformation… just kidding… i think this is authentic but i guess i’ll have to do some further research

Abu Noor al-Irlandee Says:
September 19th, 2006 at 3:19 am
Mr. Wade,

I don’t think these results were skewed to fulfill any purpose.

At the same time, this was not a random sample so the results reflect a certain segment of the Muslim community…those that might attend the ISNA convention and volunteer to fill out such a survey.

As a Muslim, I think many of the results are fairly remarkable, but I have my own biases and I am not shocked by any of the results since I am familiar with discussion in the community.

I would think (but I could be wrong) that many non-Muslims would be shocked by some of the results, and would love to hear reactions of non-Muslims, both those familiar and not so familiar with the Muslim community.

May God reward Kamran and everyone else who assisted with this project. Honest discussion of these issues is quite difficult for many Muslims right now, and I think allowing open honest discussion is in the best interests of everyone so I hope that Muslims for a Safe America continues to promote such discussion.

steve Says:
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Why wasnt this question asked?

‘Is the religion of Islam at war with the American government and it’s people ?’

Abu Noor al-Irlandee Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Steve,

I can’t answer for why it wasn’t asked, but I can tell you what the answer would be. (most likely).

I don’t think any Muslim would say the religion of Islam is at war with the American people. Some might say it is at war with the government of U.S., but all of those would say that the war was started by the U.S. government. Most would probably answer your question no.

Although this might seem illogical to you at first, it actually does make sense.

A few individuals (or even a few hundred or thousand individuals) doing something cannot fairly be attributed to the “religion of Islam.” Actually, even if every single Muslim did something one can not fairly attribute it to the “religion of Islam.”

On the other hand, if a few individuals who have authority in the government of the U.S. decide they wish to wage war against the religion of Islam, they can direct all the forces of the U.S. government to do so.

Peace.

Abu Noor al-Irlandee Says:
September 27th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
So, just to be clear Steve, if you want to say that there are some Muslims who are at war with the American government, undoubtedly you are correct. Even if you want to say that some Muslims are at war with the American people, that is also true.

I know that most Americans think that those Muslims started this war. If you look at the history this is not true. And it is also not true that this war was started because Muslims cannot accept Americans being ‘free’ or having a ‘democracy.’

The grievances started due to American foreign policy, primarily the U.S. government for support of tyrannies in the Muslim world and the U.S. government support of Israel.

The spark that lit the fire was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia — Gulf War I.

There are many books those who wish to understand what happened can read to understand this.

This is not to say whether those Muslims at war with the American people are correct or justified and it is certainly not to agree with their tactics, some of which are against the teachings of Islam.

God the Most High knows best.

Robert Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 4:02 am
The results of this survey are chilling – especially considering that these views are held by American citizens. How can there be any hope for the Muslim world when so many refuse to face these unpleasant facts about Islam’s extremist elements? There was a time, long ago, when the spread of Islam heralded learning, tolerance and enlightenment. Now all it seems to offer is a new dark age, along with an ocean of blood, ignorance and severed heads. I can only pray that the God our peoples share will not permit it.

Sarah Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 8:25 am
As an American Muslim, I find these results terrifying. Why do so many Muslims present themselves as paranoid, ill-informed individuals? While it is certainly true that the community has endured many injustices since September 11th, it is also unequivocally true that men with a grossly misinformed interpretation of Islam carried out this attack. The only way to prevent further injustices, both by and against the Muslim community, is to face up to past wrongs and educate ourselves so that we can shape a better future.

Azam Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 8:27 am
>30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets >inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
>YES 234
>NO 39

39 persons said NO. Now that’s scary…!

Nadja Says:
October 1st, 2006 at 11:55 am
As-Salaamu-Aleikum, Sarah:

I’m with you 100%. What is even scarier is how many non-Muslim Americans are paranoid and scared.

I think that to put this survey in the proper context, it should be conducted in other countries as well. I wonder what the reaction would be if Muslims in other countries were asked if they considered themselves to be Muslims first or members of the following nationalities, Muslims, or both: UK, Pakistan, Saudi, Germany, France, Turkey, etc. I think the results of such a survey would come as a major revelation to we Muslims, and to Americans as well and put some of these results in their proper context. Equally useful would be asking Christians and Jews what their priorities are – because without context this survey question is simply alarmist.

I think it is well past the time that we knock off the denial and recognize that Muslim extremists, like any other extremists, do pose a threat to human beings. We need to remember and be aware that as long as we are silent about the extremists and their murders, our silence is taken as assent or agreement with their actions. Many people say we shouldn’t “wash our dirty laundry in public” – the reality is our dirty laundry is now spread all over the world and stinking to high heaven.

What bothers me as an American Muslim is the number of people who expect the US and the American people to cater them while refusing to recognize that extremists kill; don’t these people realize that the extremists don’t care whom they kill? Would they be so much in denial if it were their relatives in Jordan, the WTC, or elsewhere who had been murdered?

Lee Stevens Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
My next door neighbor has a very large dog. I have visited my neighbor many times and his dog comes up to me and with a weary eye sniffs me up and down and then watches me very carefully until I leave. Now my neighbor and I get along well and have eaten at each others house many times but no matter how many times I visit him the dog goes thru the same routine. His dog has never shown agresstion toward me, but I have seen him go mad toward other people. Now the real problem is this; when anyone ask my neighbor if his dog is mean or dangerous he always says no, but anyone that has seen his dog has a hard time beliveing that the dog is not dangerous and I too know that given the chance the dog would rip you to shreds. All it would take is for you to make a suden movement toward the dogs owner. Because my neighbor loves his dog he cannot see that his dog could be a real danger.
The world is like that, people cannot see something is dangerous if it is part of their life. Muslims, americans, or any group of people, cannot see any danger in things that they have a personal tie to.
Until we all can stand back, and look thru the eyes of another man, we will never get along, and we will only hide behind our little circle of living, never really finding peace.

Prashanth Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Hi,
I am a Hindu. There are 150 million muslims in India where 800 people are Hindus. The majority of muslims are peace loving and abide by the law. If there is a virus in a persons body, we attack the virus with medication. It is the same with any group of people. There is a virus in the muslim community. Attack the virus not the body of Islam.

NoParty Says:
October 24th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
All the ‘peaceful’ talk from Muslims would be fine, if it weren’t for the Koran being a manual for terrorism. Even going as far as to tell it’s followers it is perfectly acceptable to lie to infiltrate the infidels. In the end, it’s either convert to Islam, die by the sword, or pay a tax.

None of our ‘choices’ appeal to me. If I want the truth about how things ‘really’ are, all I have to do is look at Europe and Great Britain, to see what your ‘normal’ Islam does to a country and a society. As much as I hate to admit it, I don’t think Islam allows itself to ‘play well with others’. I didn’t think that a mindset such as that was possible for such a large group of people, but they have come to ‘prove’ it.

The way the Muslim community in the US rallied to support the good that we are trying to do for their relatives in the middle east is a good sign that they are no different here than in Europe.

If Islam is so great, and ‘peaceful’, then why did all these Muslims come here? Go back and help your brothers become something good, rather than the ignorant cave dwellers they been for centuries, rather than trying to change the US into what it isn’t.

jack Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 2:04 am
If there is a virus in a persons body, we attack the virus with medication.

Sure … but the carrier of this virus is “Islam” itself!

My Own Thoughts » American Muslims Think WHAT!? Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 8:38 am
[…] Muslims for America has a survey of 317 American Muslims. […]

Saddened Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:38 am
After looking through this survey, I am even more depressed at the views held by american muslims. I cannot fathom how any sensible muslim can look at the destruction muslims are causing around the world and still not believe that their fellow muslims carried out the 9/11 terrorist acts. It’s not as if 9/11 was an isolated incident. There were terrorist attacks before 9/11 and there were/are terrorist attacks after 9/11. I don’t get why they’re not seeing the pattern here.

Thousands of muslims showed up for a rally against Israel, but only a small handful showed up for a rally against islamic terrorism.

As an american, I am saddened that people like me who have been very patient with our muslim population are slowly being dragged to the point where we are forced to lump all Muslims into one group and dismiss them as a hopeless cause.

We desperately need a miracle here.

Right Voices » Blog Archive » National Security Opinion Survey of American Muslims Conducted at the 2006 ISNA Convention Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
[…] Muslims For A Safe America conducted a survey at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention in Chicago from September 1, 2006 to September 4, 2006. […]

Steve Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
This is very disappointing. Somewhere between 10% and 30% of the respondents justify violence; therein lies the problem.

Minion Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
To build on the analogy Lee Stevens presented.

The potentially vicious dog is the radical element of Islam. The owner is the overall Muslim community. They don’t want to warn their neighbors that their dog has vicious tendencies because he’s a part of the family and they’d hate to have to have him put down. When the dog does bite the neighbor they act shocked and claim he’s never behaved like that before and go so far as to wonder what the neighbor did to provoke the dog.

When Muslim Americans openly denounce terror, suicide bombing, and beheadings in the name of Islam WITHOUT stopping to ponder just why their dog was provoked into the attack, then we can move forward. Until then, don’t wonder too long why it is that I cross the street to walk on the other side when I see you and your dog walking towards me.

Jack Moore Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Judging from these responses, it is obvious that Islam is a religion comprised of conspiracy theorists. The very name “American Muslim” is an oxymoron. The two can not coexist. This survey is yet another confirmation as to why there is never an outcry by the Muslim community over autrocities committed in the name of Allah. Quite a nice peaceful religion you got there. I will not submit.

An American Infidel

chris Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
The simple and plain fact is that muslims represent a threat to non-muslims worldwide.

We are reminded by this survey that high percentages of muslims subscribe to conspiracy theories, and blame America for their own status and condition.

There is nothing to be gained from being “saddened” by this.

What we as Americans must do is wake up our sleeping media and left wing apologists to a religous cult that threatens us all. Just as the Nazis did.

For “Abu Noor” to write…

“I know that most Americans think that those Muslims started this war. If you look at the history this is not true. And it is also not true that this war was started because Muslims cannot accept Americans being ‘free’ or having a ‘democracy.’

The grievances started due to American foreign policy, primarily the U.S. government for support of tyrannies in the Muslim world and the U.S. government support of Israel.”

… we must understand that we are subject to being attacked by him and his cult simply for existing, and for stopping them from wiping Israel off the map.

This guy walks among us.

Bill K Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Lee Stevens:

I too had an issue with a neighbor that bought a Rottweiler and refused to confine it in a kennel or to a chain. At the time, my son was about 4 and loved to play in the yard. And, of course, my neighbor’s Rottweiler had equal access to my yard as well. My primary responsibility of protecting my son not the feelings of my neighbor. I offered him two choices, either confine his Rottweiler or I would kill it. He chose to sell the animal instead.

My point is this, our first obligation as a nation, is to provide for the security and well being of our citizens. If this steps of a few toes or hurts a few feelings, I could care less. Islam is a religion in crisis – and surveys like this do little to show that members of that religion feel the same.

We will be over the hump and “equal” with Muslims when:

The Koran can be soaked in a jar of urine without the “artist” being murdered.

When the Muslim world stands shoulder to shoulder with Israelis declaring Israel’s sovereignty and defending them from all enemies.

When Christian, Muslim, Hindu – all the world’s religions – are welcomed to Saudi Arabia with open arms.

But, for Islam to continue down it’s current road of radicalization will bring the clash of civilizations countries like Iran seem to crave.

There is a dog in our neighborhood – both Christian and Muslim – that needs to be reigned in or killed.

Jake Baker Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
If these results are accurate, they are quite disturbing. I hope they don’t represent the North American Muslim population.

Spork Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Many thanks to Muslims For A Safe America and the Islamic Society of North America for publishing these results. It was very brave to show that the Muslim population poses a serious danger to us all.
Thank you, keep up the good work.

Nals Rawna Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Let’s see…white Christians in the last half century have:

*Killed 8 million Gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals for the crime of being born;
*Invented the most efficient means of death and destruction known to man;
*Begun numerous wars of choice, including Iraq, which has killed at least half a million Iraqi civilians…

…and yet it is Muslims who are somehow a threat to the world. What a curious worldview to have.

martin h Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
If 10% of muslims in the US are supportive of terrorism against US civilians, and almost half support violence against the US military overseas, and a quarter supporting it in the US, then we have a problem.

For normal people planning a crime, getting away with it is the hard part, certainly the hardest part to plan, and often leads to misdeeds being undone. As Islamic terrorists don’t really care about that part, it makes our free society very open to bloodshed.

With these high numbers, we must either pretty much eliminate our freedoms and have a police state (unacceptable), or we must stop muslims from coming to the US and seriously weed out the ones here.

Seriously, Imagine standing at customs at the airport, counting off the muslims coming here. “1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, we just let in one probable suicide bombing supporter, and one or two others willing to kill servicemen here, 2 or 3 more who wouldn’t mind seeing our troops abroad get killed.”

Tell me please, what makes the 6 “normal” muslims we let in worth it?

We can discriminate against muslims not yet citizens now in self defence, or we can all lose our freedoms. Or face civil war, and trust me, start killing Christians in rural areas, and the game of “Cowboys and Indians” will happen again, and us cowboys will win, even with our gov’t effectivly on the side of the muslims.

martin h Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Nals,

Muslims would kill more people and more brutally, if only your nations weren’t so backwards and illiterate. Besides, mulsim armies/mobs seem to prefer brutality to efficiency.

But regarding wars of choice, how about Muslim agression in Somolia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Spain, Iraq vs Kuwait, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Lebanon (civil war), etc?

If muslims want peace, they need to shut guys like nals up, and replace him with sane people

Miles Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
[quote=Naws Rawlna]Let’s see…white Christians in the last half century have:

*Killed 8 million Gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals for the crime of being born;
*Invented the most efficient means of death and destruction known to man;
*Begun numerous wars of choice, including Iraq, which has killed at least half a million Iraqi civilians…

…and yet it is Muslims who are somehow a threat to the world. What a curious worldview to have. [/quote]

Nice strawman there, but you forgot to include President Bush’s mad plan for global domination.

When the elderly blue-haired ladies begin gathering together to knit bomb vests after church, I might reconsider my allegiance.

Jason Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
These results are disturbing to say the least and only give reason to continue to look at Muslims with suspicion.

The current situation the world and our nation is dealing with is a direct result of the Muslim population living in a state of denial and never holding those who use their faith as a banner for violence accountable. Until that day happens Muslims will continued to be profiled and continue to be discriminated against, and quite honestly I don’t have a problem with that.

desertdink Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
In response to Nals Rawna regarding Christians:

“*Killed 8 million Gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals for the crime of being born;”

So Christian = Nazi? Uhh….it is widely known Nazis were utterly pagan to anyone without an agenda to so such lies. If anything, Christians were an unknowing tool of fascism (for a limited time), not a willing accomplice, since by FAR the largest segment of those who sheltered those who would be exterminated were devout Christians. Anyway, since when do Muslims care a hill of beans about Jews anyway? Here I thought Muslims didn’t believe the Holocaust even happened? Go figure…you learn something every day.

“*Invented the most efficient means of death and destruction known to man;”

If we both consider our temporal life and death as but a fleeting moment in what will either be an eternity of life or death, perhaps you should focus on which God is a false God, as they are NOT the same. Moreover, I would say those who sow falsehood about the true nature of God do more damage to souls than a world full of nuclear weapons. Besides…who is more apt to use them indiscriminately in near future…America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Iran against Israel?

“*Begun numerous wars of choice, including Iraq, which has killed at least half a million Iraqi civilians…”

Nice. Keep defending the throat-cutting Taliban, and the murderer of 100s of thousands of Kurds and Shia Muslims by Saddam Hussein, and denounce the sacrificial work of the American military to gain Afghani and Iraqi freedom paid for with the blood of our soldiers. Keep defending the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan who justify the murder far more Iraqis and Afghanis than members of our own military.

“…and yet it is Muslims who are somehow a threat to the world. What a curious worldview to have.”

Americans didn’t fly airplanes into symbols of Islam in the Middle East, killing thousands of innocent people. Then again, you are probably with the majority of Muslims who think Mohammed Atta was an Irish boy from Boston, with a fair complexion and wavy red hair.

So….how is the boat ride down your river of denial?

Gussie Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Frightening but not surprising. I’m a Jew but am AMERICAN FIRST. Unless one is willing to call themselves AMERICAN FIRST they have no business being in this country. The same goes for Muslims from France, Holland, Italt etc. Anyone who believes that the US Government was behind 9-11 is stupid. FACT.

Richard W Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 12:05 am
The somewhat contradictory statistics in the answers to questions 12 and 14, as well as a few of the other questions left me pondering whether or not a large number of the Muslims questioned hold to a belief that I have heard expressed in conversations with both American-Muslims and non-citizen Muslims: That the those who committed the 9-11 attacks are not ‘real’ Muslims, thus using the term ‘Muslim’ to refer to them is a misnomer and makes a question like ‘Did Muslims highjack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11′ much easier to answer in the negative. I say this not to excuse them (I don’t) but to point out that what appears to be a flat endorsement for conspiracy theories may actually be a matter of using semantics to avoid acknowledging that those who committed the 9/11 atrocity were of the same religion as them. This refusal to recognize a very real problem for the religion of Islam is still extremely worrying, but I guess I’m to much of an optimist to believe that more than half of American-Muslims are completely divorced from reality.

Bill H Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Nals Rawna Says:
Let’s see…white Christians in the last half century have:

*Killed 8 million Gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals for the crime of being born;

…and yet it is Muslims who are somehow a threat to the world. What a curious worldview to have.

Nals, you aren’t talking about Hitler are you? If so, you need to do some homework before you post something like this again for the world to see. In fact he aligned himself with the Mufti of Egypt and had mass support from Muslims who actually wore the nazi uniform.

All religions have had blood on their hands, but it should be obvious to most that today’s threat comes from radical Islam. They’ll kill you for simply rejecting Islam to become a Christian.

A quote from Hitler below:

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.”

Adolph Hitler
Oct 14th, 1941

desertdink Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 12:49 am
I, for one, wish people would quit floating the word “peace” between Christians and Muslims, and even by atheists or secular humanists, as if it even remotely means the same thing. As for the argument over whether Islam means “peace” or “submission”, it is easily answered…it means BOTH to Muslims.

Since, by Allah’s own definition, there is no peace in Islam without submission to Allah, there will never be true “peace” (i.e. non-violence) by Islam until the entire world is Islamified. Therefore Muslims can say they are an advocate of “peace”, just as much as they are an advocate of the entire world submitting to Allah. Moreover, and as you have clearly seen, non-violence has nothing to do whatsoever with winning peace in Islam.

“Peace” to Christians, on the other hand, means assurance of salvation in Christ through faith, the aptly named, “peace that passes all undestanding” in being an heir to the kingdom. Christians are also to commit to personal non-violence, in modelling Christ, and to personally show sacrificial love of both friend and enemy alike as Christ did. Wars are to be left to the decision of governments and principalities as an arm of God’s judgment for defensive purposes only, and to be participated in by Christians with the aim of future peace and mercy, not conquest and forced submission. Yet Christ was quite direct in His words about our world NEVER being peaceful so long as sin against God exists, and how having a faith in Him would bring upon the sword against those who follow Him (and how right He was). However, submitting to God was to be done by free will, as the TRUE God desires us come to Him willingly, and on our own accord.

Peace to the secular humanists and atheists simply means non-violence or a lack of war, which I would add, has no moral basis whatsoever in their religion of “enlightenment” or a natural selection of evolution.

Clearly, all three are talking about something completely different, and moreover, Islam is clearly incongruent with the highest of virtues in America…that of our right to a free will to exercise the worship the God of our choice as endowed by God Himself…and not for any man, or government, or even RELIGION to say or force us to submit otherwise, or be subject to the jizya tax.

Alex Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 1:12 am
Abu Noor,

You say that:

A few individuals (or even a few hundred or thousand individuals) doing something cannot fairly be attributed to the “religion of Islam.” Actually, even if every single Muslim did something one can not fairly attribute it to the “religion of Islam.”

What CAN be attributed to the “religion” of Islam, if not the actions of the “ummah”?
If there are 400 million muslims who support violent jihad, that cannot be attributed to the “religion” of Islam?
Why?

Fact: Islam is at war with the “other”.
Fact: Islam is a cancer.
Fact: Radiation therapy has a good chance of stumping out cancer.

James Guerami Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 1:21 am
39 out of 307 Muslims in this country would not report a plot to authorities of an imminent attack. This is almost 13% of the population, assuming the respondents were truthful enough. My experience with Muslims tells me that even this number is too short; Muslims generally try to save face and hence are not as truthful as Westerners think they are. But assuming it is, how should the rest of us look at the general Muslims population? How should we go about weeding out the plotters and those 39 people who corroborate with them before another disaster is upon us? How could the Muslim population claim to be peaceful?
American people in general, and Democrats in particular, should wake up and take these numbers seriously. This group who are bound together thru this ideology have a major character flaw that, if allowed, will destroy this country.

In the Bullpen » We Live in a Glass House Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 1:27 am
[…] And that brings me to a survey conducted at the Islamic Society of North America’s 43rd Annual Convention in Chicago of 307 of the attendees, all U.S. citizens. It is important to note the Islamic Society of North America is an Islamist organization, therefore it is more than reasonable to assume most attendees ride the Islamist bandwagon which will skew the results quite considerably. […]

Abu Noor al-Irlandee Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Alex,

What can be attributed to the religion of Islam are things that are in the Qur’an and Sunnah — the textual sources which Muslims believe to be revealed by God and which define what the religion of Islaam stands for.

Muslims are human beings and they can do anything. Many people who are considered Muslims do not pray five times a day — could you say Islam does not teach prayer five times a day? This is an obvious distinction.

If you want to look at the actions of Muslims and draw conclusions, then just say “some Muslims do such and such…”

I hope that helps.

Interesting Survery regarding select Muslims – VolNation Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 2:35 am
[…] 30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities? YES 234 NO 39 UNDECIDED 34 Muslims For A Safe America � Blog Archive � Survey Conducted At 2006 ISNA Convention Oh, before I forget, all of these responses came from Muslims who volunteerily stopped by the “Muslims for a safe America” booth during the 2006 ISNA Convention. […]

Chuck Martel Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 3:04 am
“The spark that lit the fire was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia — Gulf War I. ”

Actually, the spark was burning long before 1989/1990. I distinctly remember 1979 when Iranian Shites were protesting against the Great Satan in the streets of Tehran. Khomeini’s devotees claimed they weren’t protesting against the people of Amerikkka — only its government and President Jimmy Carter.

The followers of Mohammad have been waging an imperialistic war of aggression against Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews for the past 1300 years. This current war is nothing new.

JR Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Islam is at war with the non-Muslim world. It is a central tenet of their faith.

The Qura’n instructs Muslims that:

Polytheists (Hindus) and idolaters (buddhists) are worthy of death if they don’t convert to Islam.

Jew and Christians are subject to death unless they convert to Islam or accept secondary status as a dhimmi and pay the jizya.

Muslims are obligated to wage jihad in an effort to establish Islam as a global religion to the exclusion of all others.

Muslims are forbidden from entering into alliances with non-Muslims against other Muslims.

Women and children are religiously-sanctioned war booty.

Apostasy is punishable by death.

Adultery is punishable by death by stoning.

Muslims are permitted to lie (taqiyya) in order to advance the cause of Islam.

The Islamic world’s belief system and culture is fundamentally incompatible with Western notions of free speech, individuality, religious freedom and gender equality. Stop kidding yourselves.

LB Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 4:05 am
Every privious group of immigrants to America has found it’s new nation at war with the place from which they came, and earned its citizenship by fighting and dying for their new nation against their old–even in the face of suspicion, discrimination, and in the case of the Japanese, internment–until now. From this group of new “citizens” we see anti-american conspiracy theories and betrayel. The only prominent military volunteer they give us is a deserter and traitor.

American Muslims are not, as group, earning their citizenship in America and many, if naturalized, are showing their oaths of alliegience to have been a fraud. Muslims want to be accepted as full citizens in the US, but that will require more than paper or a birth certificate. It will require, as it has with all new groups in America, that the nations military cemetaries show a fair share of Muslims who have paid the ultimate price for American freedom. Until then, their place here is frankly provisional.

Mr. Andy Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 4:32 am
A question to those on here who seem to believe that the 9/11 attacks and similar terrorist activities were not religiously-motivated or somehow not directly related to the Qu’ran and Sunnah:

If Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are not true Muslims, if they are, as you believe, distorting a beautiful religion of peace, then why in the world do they quote Islamic texts to justify their actions? Why does OBL feel the need to consult with a Muslim Cleric before carrying out further attacks on America? Why are these attacks done in the name and defense of all Muslims everywhere, for the glory of Allah and to shouts of “Allah hu’akbar”? Why have no prominent Muslim religious leaders dissected the “radical interpretation” of Islam and shown it to be false (if that is indeed possible)?

The sad and sobering fact, as I see it, is that the MAINSTREAM interpretation of Islam, according to the Quran, the Sunnah, the ahahdith, hundreds of years of interpretation and the example of Muhammad himself, justify and encourage acts of barbarity both towards fellow Muslims (honor killings, stonings, etc.) and especially towards the infidel dogs. The stated goal of Islam is to subdue and conquer the entire world, through force.

For those who want to try to draw some sort of equivalency to Christian or Jewish violence, ask yourselves this: How many acts of violence by Christians are accompanied by cries of “Allah is NOT the greatest!” or “Jesus is the best!”? How many acts of terrorism are justified by excerpts from the Torah or Bible? How many priests or rabbis issue public statements in support of killing civilians?

Islam is a religion of war. Look at the example of those who knew Mohammed best and carried on in his footsteps, and there you will find years and years of war, slavery, deceit and conquest. Not so with the (immediate) followers of Jesus and Moses. Early Christians were pacifists, excused from service in the pagan Roman war machine. The Jews conquered a tiny sliver of land and stopped there. The only thing that stopped the Muslim hordes of Mohammed from overrunning the entire civilized world was the military might of Christian Europe and the Crusades. Yes, yes, I know. The Crusades this, the Crusades that, blah blah blah Christians are no better than Osama. Keep in mind that the Crusades were a DEFENSIVE RESPONSE to Muslim empire-building. The brutality and violence of the Crusades is an example of what can happen when soldiers have to throw away their Judeo-Christian ethics of war (notice that nobody ever talks about Judeo-Christian-Muslim ethics) and fight the Jihadi hordes on their own level.

I plead with all concerned American muslims reading my words to recognize the violent element of their religion and to become a voice of true moderation and reform by working to eliminate these undesirable elements. Without reform from within, Islam will recieve a rebuke from without, and all followers of Muhammad will be painted with the same bloody brush. The only question is when.

Abu Noor al-Irlandee Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Mr. Martel,

You’re right Mr. Martel — how dare the Iranians be upset at the US government for supporting a tyrant king in their country!

That proves that there’s been a 1300 year war going on, right? Are you for real or are you guys all just a parody of ignorant LGF bozos?

Also, while you’re perhaps reading a book or two about history, maybe you’ll pick up the English language. When someone uses the expression the spark that lit the fire it refers to the fact that there were many prior grievances which created a dangerous situation (the kindling or fuel for the fire was already laid out) but that no actual fire had started (there hadn’t been attacks) until the next action (which is the spark) then started the fire.

The analysis I presented is nothing to be angry about nor is it even controversial nor is it even pro-Muslim. This is the analysis of those who know the facts, regardless of where their sympathies lie (read Michael Scheuer, Olivier Roy, Gilles Kepel, Lawrence Wright, Peter Bergen) anyone with a cogent thought and research. It does no one any good to spread ignorant myths about how we got to where we are now. (well, maybe it helps the U.S. to get war support since no intelligent person who knew the history and had U.S. interests at heart would support something like the Iraq invasion.

God knows best.

Alex Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 4:51 am
Abu Noor,

So if one were to find verses in the Qu’ran that would incite believers to violence against unbelievers (9:73, 9:111 for starters) then would you say these verses represent true Islam?

If one were to find verses in the Qu’ran that would value a woman as that of half a man (2:282, 4:11 for starters) then would you say these verses represent true Islam?

And what if one were to find verses in the Qu’ran that would guide muslims not to befriend unbelievers but rather slay them (4:89) then would you say these verses represent true Islam?

Awaiting your reply,
Alex B.

thegrandmufti Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 7:09 am
You put down a rabid dog. You don’t create a paranoid fantasy that the “Jews” and the CIA are to blame for infecting the dog with rabies in the first place.

Hank Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 7:40 am
The Nazis were left-wing humanists. Don’t lay their crimes against humanity at the feet of Christendom. I think that point was adequately explained by a previous poster, thank you. R.J. Rummel’s death by government documents the nearly 200 million innocent civilians who perished under hyper-secular, atheistic governments in less than a century. So let’s not go down that road of bashing Christendom, or more precisely the Roman Catholic Church.

Now the way I see this as average American Joe, I see Muslim fundamentalists murdering Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, pagans, and garden variety seculars explicitly in the name of the Koran, Allah, Islam and/or Mohammed. Heck, Muslims even murder each other in the name of their religion despite the fact the Koran explicitly denounces such fratricides. But its made all the easier by one side or the other declaring it apostate.

Now tell me, in the last 100 years where are there armed conflicts involving Christians and Buddhists expressly in the name of their religion? Jews and Hindus? Atheists and pagans? Nay, most of the other conflicts in the world are grounded either in political civil war, secular nationalism, geo-political squabbles, etc. We don’t see any religious movement other than Islam engaged in expanding its reach through violence. That doesn’t mean Christians or Jews haven’t killed anyone of a different faith during war, what it does mean is that we aren’t killing anyone in the name of Jesus, the Bible or Jehovah. There is a difference here.

What makes Islam so dangerous is that the mosque is the state. Islam is essentially a political movement which evolved into a “religion”, a way of life. Mohammed was a man of violence throughout the latter part of his life and I find it very difficult to believe that such a man can originate a “religion of peace.” At its very core Islam is political and tribal and thus in regions where it is practiced by the majority of its adherents the governments are invariably Islamic. There is no such thing as separation of church and state under Islam.

Andrea Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Hi there,

desertdink wrote the following:

“Peace to the secular humanists and atheists simply means non-violence or a lack of war, which I would add, has no moral basis whatsoever in their religion of “enlightenment” or a natural selection of evolution.”

you couldn’t be more wrong about this, you ignorant fool. have you ever met an atheist or a person who calls himself a humanist? you should be ashamed of yourself!

this is enraging! i can’t believe that human beings are capable of passing judgement about something they don’t know…

why do you feel the urge to voice an uninformed opinion about something you have absolutely no clue of whatsoever?!

why, oh why do i have to live in a world full of ignorant Christians who spoil the term ‘Christian’ for the good Christians?

it is outrageous!

Andrea

» A Modest Proposal: End All Further Muslim Immigration Into This Country And Deport All Muslim Non-Citizens Release the Hounds!: Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the Hounds of W.A.R. Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 11:27 am
[…] The following are some of the results of a poll of 307 American citizens who also happen to be Muslim: […]

Blogger News Network » A Modest Proposal: End All Further Muslim Immigration Into This Country And Deport All Muslim Non-Citizens Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 11:34 am
[…] October 25, 2006 The following are some of the results of a poll of 307 American citizens who also happen to be Muslim: […]

ric ottaiano Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 11:42 am
anyone who believes as the majority do in this survey have no business living in this country or being American citizens…please do us all a favor and leave for someplace else where you can live out the rest of your misplaced lives among others who feel and think similarly…why are you here?

World Reader Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
“We don’t see any religious movement other than Islam engaged in expanding its reach through violence.”

FYI: Zionists founded Israel at least in part through violence and yes, ever terrorism against British civillians. Although this is routinely denied by neo-cons and American jewery, you can read about this on the Israeli government website under “History of Israel.”

To some extent this is nitpicking, however, as the Zionists just wanted Israel and not the world.

Regarding spreading Islam by the sword, however, I think you would find that although there may be a great many Muslims who are in favor of this, they still remain in the minority.

Over the years I have had dozens of Muslim coworkers, and I’ve never had any serious compliants. I also used to live a block from a mosque without any troubles.

If I may offer my opion, the problem is:
(1) There is a longing for the days when the islamic Ottoman empire was one of the foremost powers in the world. Many people in Middle East forget that their ancestors were not so much part of this great empire as conquered subjects longing for freedom from the Turkish Ottomans.

(2) The pan-arabists (secular Baathists and religious Islamists) play on this longing for past greatness by proposing a new empire. With each pan-arabist leader picturing HIMSELF as king over the other pan-arabists, of course.

(3) The pan-arabists need to invent a reason for why the Islamic empire crumbled, and the blame it on the West, on Zionism, on whatever. The truth is the thing crumbled from within and the European powers just picked apart the bones like crows on carrion. This truth is embarassing for anyone longing for past greatness, hence the emphasis on a scapegoat.

(4) The dictators running most of the Middle East need an excuse for why their people are impoverished, despite this rich history. Again, the European powers trampled through the Middle East 100 years ago and made a great mess. Jockeying for position by the Soviets and the West during the cold war made another great mess 50 to 30 years ago. And general meddling by America in the last decade hasn’t helped any.

Given all these REAL grievences, it is EASY for a dictator to come up with enough IMAGINED grievences to convince his people that all their troubles come at the hands of the West.

(We’ll ignore for the moment that the Ottomans made a huge bloody mess building their empire in the first place. The only crimes that matter are ones against the Islamic state, not the one BY the Islamic state. )

(5) The intrusion of western media and western clothing and western products and western ideas creates a real fear of losing the local culture. This is a common fear all over the world, and is hardly unique to the Middle East.

(6) The stereotype of Middle eastern culture has much in common with the sterotype of “hot-headed Itallians” or “hot blodded Latinos” or other macho ideals. The only bad experiences I have have *personally* had with Muslims were actually bad experiences with self-important, chauvinistic , hot-headed ethnic ARABs who could NOT be told they were wrong. Apparently, being wrong = being weak. That they were probably Muslim most likely had nothing to do with this.

To sum up:
There is a longing for an idealized vision of past greatness.
There are real historic and recent grievences against the West.
There is a real fear of cultural extinction.
The real grievences are used to create imagined ones.
Muslim leaders of all stripes gain by blaming the current situation on the West.
A machismo culture helps feed this cycle of induced rage.

And in general, it is always preferable to believe you are being held down than to put in the effort to get up.

Chuck Martel Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
“ignorant LGF bozos”

When you can’t win the battle w/ ideas, you instantly resort to name calling. Coming from you, I consider being called an ignorant bozo to be a great compliment.

Face it, you and your so-called “spiritual ancestors” have been trying to impose the caliphate upon the rest of the world for the past 1300 years. Your spiritual ancestors crushed Jewish and Christian cultures in the Middle East, North Africa, Iberia, Anatolia, Sicily, and Central Asia. They crushed Buddhist and Hindu cultures in Asia and on the Indian Subcontinent. You and yours today continue this drive of theocratic imperialist aggression. You and yours continue to attempt, by terroristic means, to impose the caliphate upon the rest of us.

I’m sure you will understand if we don’t accede to your terroristic attempts to run our lives.

Job Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
This study only shows most muslims are delusional, and are not concerned with the truth. Quite sad really, but not unexpected.

Art A. Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Funny how Muslims are so quick to forget America saving their asses in Bosnia in the late 90’s.

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”
—Mat 24:6

“For nation (e¶qnoß ethnos) shall rise against nation (e¶qnoß ethnos), and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.”
—Matt 24:7

Ryan Mauro: Much has been written about the “American Hiroshima” report. How did you first learn about the plot?

Paul Williams: I have a unique background. I hold a Ph.D. in philosophy from Drew University and I am a seasoned and award-winning journalist. I came upon the story of bin Laden’s acquisition of tactical nuclear weapons while working as the editor/publisher of The Metro and a consultant on organized crime for the FBI. Several members of the Chechen Mafia, who had emigrated to Little Odessa, muscled into the operations of the Bufalino Crime Family in Northeast Pennsylvania by selling choice No. Four heroin, guns of every description, and stolen high-end cars from New York and New Jersey .

I learned that they came to the U.S. after Makhmud and his associates sold tactical nukes and nuclear materials to Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. I began to search for evidence of this sale and came upon stories in The Jerusalem Report and The London Times and Arab stories in Muslim magazines, Al-Watan al-Arabi and al-Majallah This led me to other sources and reports of further sales of nukes from the former Soviet Union to al-Qaida not only by the Chechens but also the Russian Mafia and black-marker arms-dealers, including Semion Mogilevic from the Ukraine . Such information can be obtained by any journalist with a telephone, a computer, and a library card.

I further learned that the sales to al-Qaida have been verified by a host of intelligence officials and weapons inspectors, including Hans Blix, former director general of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency. The sales were even verified by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in their pronouncements that they have obtained a small arsenal of nuclear weapons from black-market sources. My research took me farther into dealings between bin Laden and Dr. A. Q. Khan and the fact that over 20 nuclear scientists and technicians from Khan’s research laboratories in Pakistan worked with al-Qaida on a regular basis to maintain and modify the weapons that had been purchased and to develop other weapons from the highly enriched uranium and plutonium that bin Laden hade purchased from Uzbekistan and other countries.

Dr. Mahmood and Dr. Majeed, two of the leading officials at the Khan facility, confessed to CIA and ISI interrogators that they participated in al-Qaida’s nuclear projects. The fact that the Chechens possessed the nukes should be no surprise to any reporter or investigator. In 1995, the Chechens under Com. Shamail Basayev planted a radiological bomb in Izmailovsky Park near Moscow . The bomb was made of cesium-137, and, if detonated, would have killed thousands of Russians. This incident represented the first case of a nuke to be deployed as a weapon of terror. Later that same year, Dzokhar Dudayev, the leader of the Chechen Mafia, offered to sell his collection of nuclear weapons to the United States in exchange for U. S. recognition of Chechnya ‘s independence. The Clinton Administration declined and so the weapons were sold to al-Qaida.

More importantly, there is empirical proof that al-Qaida possesses nukes. In 2000, British agents posed as recruits from a London mosque to infiltrate al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan . In Herat , they saw nuclear weapons being manufactured. Similarly, an al-Qaeda operative was arrested at the checkpoint at Ramallah with a weapon strapped to his back. At first, Israeli intelligence thought that the weapon was a radiological bomb but later confirmed, as reported by Richard Sales of UPI and other reputable journalists, that it was a tactical nuke. There are more examples, including the canister of uranium 238 that U.S. military officials discovered in a lead canister in Kandahar at the outset of Operation Enduring Freedom.

RM: How come other terrorism experts, Steven Emerson for example, haven’t warned us about the plot? In other words, why does it seem so out of the mainstream?

PW: Few military and intelligence officials question bin Laden’s ability to launch his plan for the American Hiroshima. Gen. Eugene Habiger, former Executive Chief of Strategic Weapons at the Pentagon, said that an event of nuclear mega-terrorism on U. S. soil is “not a matter of if, but when.” During the 2004 presidential debates, President Bush and Sen. Kerry said that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists represent the greatest danger facing the American people, while Vice President Cheney, on the campaign trail, warned that a nuclear attack by al-Qaida appears imminent. Before leaving office, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge both voiced that belief that al-Qaida’s plan to nuke cities throughout the country soon might come to fruition.

From the private sector, Warren Buffet, who establishes odds against cataclysmic events for major insurance companies, concluded that an imminent nuclear nightmare within the United States is “virtually a certainty.” From the academic community, Dr. Graham Allison, director of Harvard University ‘s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said: “Is nuclear mega-terrorism inevitable? Harvard professors are known for being subtle or ambiguous, but I’ll try to the clear. ‘Is the worst yet to come?’ My answer: Bet on it. Yes.” Finally, from the mainstream media, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, concluded that the only reason for thinking a nuclear attack won’t happen is because “it hasn’t happened yet,” adding that such reasoning represents “terrible logic.” And so, Ryan, the message has been delivered but few are listening.

Emerson’s importance as an analyst pales in comparison to that of Michael Scheuer, of the CIA and author of “Imperial Hubris,” who was in charge on “the Alec file,” the CIA’s file on bin Laden. On Nov. 14, 2004 , Scheuer appeared on “60 Minutes” to alert the American people that a nuclear attack by al-Qaida “is pretty close to being inevitable.”

RM: In your upcoming book, “The Al-Qaeda Connection,” you write that former Russian KGB and Spetsnaz operatives maintain bin Laden’s nuclear arsenal. When were they hired and how do we know they are capable of such a monumental task?

PW: Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri began recruiting former Spetsnaz technicians circa 1997. By 1999, a host of such technicians (along with nuclear scientists from China ) were working at al-Qaida laboratories in Afghanistan and Pakistan . By 2000, al-Qaida also secured the help of scientists and technicians from the A. Q. Khan Research Facility in Pakistan , including the assistance of Khan himself.

On Sept. 11, 2001 , when the attack was taking place in America , bin Laden and company were meeting with Dr. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, former Chairman of Pakistan’s Atomic Energy Commission, and Dr. Chaudry Abdul Majid, chief technician for the A. Q. Khan Facility, to discuss the maintenance and deployment of al-Qaida’s nuclear arsenal. When the CIA confiscated records from Ummah Tameer E-Nau (“Islamic Reconstruction”), Dr. Mahmood’s bogus charity in Kabul , they discovered evidence from Mahmood’s computer that at least one al-Qaida nuke had been forward deployed to the U.S. from Karachi in a cargo container. After interrogating Mahood and Majid, CIA officials discovered that more than a score of scientists and technicians from the A. Q. Khan Facility worked on a daily basis to develop, upgrade, and maintain the al-Qaida nuclear arsenal. Almost all of these scientists have escaped from Pakistan to avoid arrest.

U.S. officials have been denied permission to interrogate Dr. Khan, even though we know that he provided nuclear technology and designs for atomic bombs not only to Libya , Iran and North Korea, but also Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, Nigeria, Brazil, Egypt, Malaysia, Indonesia, Algeria, Abu Dhabi and Myanmar. In Myanmar , for example, Dr. Sulieman Asad and Dr. Mohammad Ali Mukhtar are building a 10-megawatt nuclear reactor while still providing help and expertise to the al-Qaida network. It’s a hellava situation and the press is not reporting it.

RM: Do you have any information on what the U.S. and its friends are doing to try to stop the plot?

PW: On Oct. 11, 2001 , George Tenet, former CIA director, met with President Bush to inform him that at least two tactical nukes have reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. This news was substantiated by Pakistan ‘s ISI, the CIA and the FBI.

In accordance with this discovery, the Bush administration deployed hundreds of new and sophisticated Gamma Ray Neutron Flux Detector sensors to U.S. borders, overseas facilities and “choke points” around Washington, D.C. The administration further assigned Delta Force, the elite special operations detachment unit of the U.S. Army, the task of killing or disabling any or all suspects. Such measures have proved to be ineffective. Richard L. Wagner, senior staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, testified before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack that the currently installed radiation detection systems are highly limited in their capabilities and, in general, insufficient to the task. To add to the problem of insecurity, the borders remain almost completely porous and less than 10 percent of the freight that arrives at major ports (including New York/New Jersey) is inspected.

RM: Where is the WMD arsenal now that Afghanistan is occupied?

PW: The nuclear weapons were not contained solely in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida laboratories were established in the Balkans, Sudan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even places like Myanmar. A number of these weapons have been forward deployed to Mexico and the U.S.

My educated guess would be that arsenals have been established in several of the following countries: Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Abu Dubai, Iran, Syria and Lebanon . The last three in light of the al-Qaida truce and bonding with Hezbollah. Myanmar looms large since very sinister events are taking place there. These events, including the construction of large reactors, have been made possible by fugitive scientists and technicians from the Khan Research Facility .But don’t lose sight of the fact that nukes have been forward deployed to al-Qaida cells in Canada, Mexico and the U.S.

RM: Why haven’t the weapons been used already? One can’t help but think that the best time to use the weapons would have been during the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq .

PW: The worst time for al-Qaida to use its nuclear weapons would have been during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq when the U.S. remained on high alert. A defining characteristic of bin Laden is patience. His favorite Islamic verse is as follows: “I will be patient until Patience is outworn by patience.” He started plotting the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania when he was in the Sudan in 1993; the attack of the USS Cole was more than two years in the making and eight years passed between the first attack on the World Trade Center and the second. The planned American Hiroshima is enormous in scope. It requires not only development and (in some cases) rebuilding of the weapons along with codification for detonation but also forward deployment, site preparation and precise strategic coordination with scattered cells.

Bin Laden will not allow the attack to take place unless there is certainty of success. His entire resources (including the gains from the poppy fields) have been spent on this operation. After scrutinizing the situation and analyzing the data, Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times , said that the “best reason” for thinking that the nuclear attack by al-Qaida will NOT happen is because “it hasn’t happened yet,” adding this conclusion represents “terrible logic.” I agree with him.

RM: Is there any indication of when Bin Laden intends to use the arsenal?

PW: Bin Laden can’t sit on these weapons for years. They require constant maintenance. At any given time, a tactical nuke exudes a temperature in excess of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This means that they are prone to oxidation and rust. Moreover, the triggers that emit large quantities of neutrons at high speeds decay rapidly and have short half-lives – most would become useless without maintenance in less than four months. The nuclear cores also are subject to decay and over the course of several years would fall below the critical mass threshold. Though the shells that encase the cores are the most durable parts of the weapons, they, too, are subject to contamination. The tritium used to compensate for the required amount of conventional explosives to compress the fissile core within the compact devices is less of an issue since it has a half-life of 12.3 years. Taking all things into consideration, the attack should occur within the very near future. The bombs which bin Laden began building in 1992 are for the American Hiroshima.

RM: Given the heat and radiation given off by the nuke, couldn’t it be detected?

PW: Richard L. Wagner, senior staff member at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the founders of the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Search Team, recently told Congress that major breakthroughs in the ability of the U.S. government to locate rogue nukes may be five years away. Wagner, a Ph.D. whose specialty is radiation detection, testified that better technology and more radiation detention devices are needed to stop the nuclear terrorist threat. “Currently installed radiation detection systems, or systems which could be procured in quantity in the next year or two, are quite limited in their capabilities and, in general, are insufficient for the task,” he testified. “Substantial research and development is needed to improve detection capabilities.”

A nuclear gun bomb that could be fired from a 155 millimeter recoilless rifle could be packed in the small container, stuffed into the truck of a car or van and transported into any major metropolitan city within the U.S. without detection.

That’s the fact of the matter. Other weapons could be transported by private plane to any major airport. Less than 25 percent of the freight on private planes is inspected let alone subjected to radiation detection. To complicate matters, the ports of entry (such as the airports) are now controlled by the Albanian Mafia. The Albanians have taken over the operations of the Italian-American crime families and have become, according to the FBI, the leading criminal organization in the U.S. The Albanians, as you know, are Muslims with ties to radical Islam and, through the KLO, al-Qaida.

RM: I have trouble believing that teams required to maintain a nuclear weapon wouldn’t be detected here in the U.S.

PW: There isn’t just one team but, at least, seven. They are working within mosques and Islamic centers. In the U.S., a federal judge will not provide any FBI or law enforcement agent with a warrant to search a mosque of an Islam center for any reason since such places are listed as “houses of worship.”

RM: Seven teams?

PW: At least seven teams, according to information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaida operatives, in at least seven metropolitan areas. These areas have been identified as New York, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, D.C. The attack will occur simultaneously at the seven sites.

RM: How do you know you can trust what Khalid Sheikh Mohammad said? In the past, he’s given us bogus information, some of which led to orange alerts. Some say he and other al-Qaida operatives are waging a disinformation campaign meant to dull our senses.

PW: No, you can’t trust Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, but you can trust the information that was obtained from his laptop when he was arrested on March 1, 2003 .

RM: Will Bin Laden use them on the American homeland or also forces overseas and countries that have joined the war on terrorism?

PW: They are not for use in the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Iraq or Afghanistan . The declaration of war was issued against the United States and al-Qaida insists that over 4 million Americans must die for the sake of parity. They are intent upon realizing this objective and the doomsday clock by all reckoning is very near midnight .

Ryan Mauro is the author of the upcoming book “Death to America: The Unreported Battle of Iraq” and owner of WorldThreats.com.