Diana West

Cameron's Shortcut through Turkey to "Eurabia"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:56:00 GMT

This week's column:

The battle over whether to admit Turkey into the European Union seems eternal, at least among the EU's rulers. Among the peoples of Europe, when granted the rare chance to go to the ballot box -- increasingly window-dressing as far as the EU's soft totalitarians are concerned -- there is little argument. In fact, there is bona fide consensus: NO to Turkey becoming a part of Europe. Why? Because, culturally and historically, it is not.

Tell that to British Prime Minister David Cameron, who just visited Ankara to present himself as Europe's leading booster for Turkish EU membership (a move the United States has meddlesomely supported), pandering so low a prayer rug could give him cover.

Dubbing himself Turkey's "strongest possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy," Cameron gave a speech that also attacked "those who willfully misunderstand Islam" and who "see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists."

Of course, such a description likely irked Cameron's host, Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan has repeatedly criticized those who make the distinction between "moderate" and "extremist" Islam. "These descriptions are very ugly," Erdogan said in 2007. "It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it." Further, Erdogan in 2009 specifically rejected descriptions of Turkey as being an example of "moderate Islam." Enlarging on a theme, Erdogan in 2008 told Turks living in Europe that assimilation is "a crime against humanity."

But Cameron aimed to please. And no doubt he did, especially with his stunning denunciation of Israel for its blockade of Gaza, a defensive measure that Israel devised after Hamas terrorists were elected to govern Israel-ceded Gaza in 2005 and -- no surprise to any student of jihad -- decided to continue their charter-commanded war on Israel, raining down nearly 10,000 rockets onto Israeli civilians. Dubbing Gaza a "prison camp," Cameron also attacked Israel for the May shipboard battle to defend its blockage that pitted Israeli commandos, lightly armed with paintball guns and emergency sidearms, against trained fighters with ties to the Turkish government, specifically to Erdogan's ruling AKP party.

Little wonder that before the day was over -- at some point after Britain hired itself out, as Cameron put it, for the job of "paving the road from Ankara to Brussels" -- Erdogan had hailed a "golden age" of Turkish-British relations.

Of course, giving EU membership to Turkey would be a political move with more than political consequences. Demographically alone, it would accelerate those finishing touches on the Islamization of Europe as Turkey's tens of millions of Muslims entered a largely post-Christian, secular European society, bringing a weighty Islamic influence on European law. Could the total transformation to "Eurabia" be far behind?

This is the salient question that is never asked. Instead, the debate is deceptively framed as a civil rights issue, as though the EU were a pointlessly exclusive Neanderthal society, or supposedly obsolete men's club.

"We know what it's like to be shut out of a club," Cameron said, referring to Charles de Gaulle's efforts to block British entry into the European organization. "Europe can either decide to become a global actor or it can fence itself off as a Christian club," Erdogan has said.

Never mind the EU's deliberate omission of "God" or "Christianity" in its 439-page constitution. And never mind Turkey's having "fenced itself off" into the most exclusive "club" of all: the supremacist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Turkey is also a signatory to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, a distinctly Islamic version of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is informed by Sharia (Islamic law) rather than what the West recognizes as universal human rights. The Cairo Declaration declares that the Muslim community's role is to "guide" humanity, a point that isn't "clubby" but is downright imperialist.

But there is another implication to the debate: that Western identity is merely an atavistic expression of petty insularity. Free will, free conscience -- the evolution of individual liberty -- is the fruit of Judeo-Christian civilization, one that Islamic doctrine is unable to produce.

Tragically, it is also one that Westerners are throwing away.

"I've Taken Full Responsibility. Jeez"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:11:00 GMT

The Colorado GOP's Scott McInnis: Giving new meaning to responsibility

---

I don't pretend to have mastered the ins and outs of a hot and hotly contested race for the governor's mansion in Colorado where US borders angel, former presidential candidate and former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo is now making good on his threat to enter the primary race as a third-party candidate if lame-o GOP candidates didn't drop out and the state party didn't put up credible candidates.

One of the non-credibles staying in the race is the ethically challenged Republican Scott McInnis, who, as Coloradoan.com puts it, is plagued by "the controversy surrounding the plagiarized water writings he produced as part of a two-year, $300,000 agreement with the Hasan Family Foundation after he left Congress in 2005."

What's up with that? McInnis seems to bristle at the question. At a recent appearance, the Coloradoan reports:

McInnis did not discuss the controversy surrounding the plagiarized water writings he produced as part of a two-year, $300,000 agreement with the Hasan Family Foundation after he left Congress in 2005, even though at least one member of the audience asked him before his speech to better explain what he had done.

"I said, this $300,000, what was it for, I mean, what was it really for?" said Kareen Davison, who describes herself as an active Republican.

"He said it was for a number of things that I did over several years. And I said OK, then why don't you e-mail me that information? I'll be glad to try to help you get it out," she said in an interview.

McInnis grew visibly annoyed when reporters for the Denver Post and Coloradoan asked him about Davison's concerns after his speech.

He repeated several times that he had taken full responsibility for the plagiarism revealed by the Denver Post and KMGH TV.

But when asked about Davison's broader question of what he did for the $300,000 over two years from the Hasan Family Foundation, McInnis snapped: "I'm not getting into it. We're done. I've taken full responsibility. Jeez."

He briefly walked away from reporters, then stopped and said he would answer questions on other issues.

Unless "I've Taken Full Responsibility. Jeez" replaces The Buck Stops Here in the annals of leadership, I don't think McInnis will be Colorado's next governor.

Go Tancredo.

Yale on The Vineyard

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:24:00 GMT

Some people just know how to live. Take those Yalies lucky enough to summer on "the Vineyard" -- Martha's natch. They all look forward to:

Yale Day in the Sun!

From Yale Vineyard Alumni:

Please join the Yale family for our “Yale Day in the Sun on Martha’s Vineyard.”

GnT's? Boating? Croquet maybe? Not exactly.

Enjoy an afternoon of intellectual stimulation, reconnecting with old friends and meeting new ones.

Yeah?

The afternoon begins with lectures from two of our esteemed Yale colleagues, Master Jonathan Holloway, Professor of History, African American Studies and American Studies presenting, “The Right Kind of People: The Silences in a Civil Rights Narrative.” And Omer Bajwa, Coordinator of Muslim Life at Yale presenting, “Muslim Life at Yale and Beyond: Engaging the Sacred & the Secular.”

Then have fun in the sun with a cocktail reception.

I don't know Master Holloway, but what could be more fun -- in or out of the sun -- than a lecture on "silences in a civil rights narrative"? As for Omer Bajwa, Yale's "Muslim victory" chaplain? A regular laugh riot as regular readers of this blog already know. Bajwa reportedly told an Islamabad audience "Muslims will win the final victory in the West if they conform to their beliefs and disseminate the message of Islam with wisdom and politeness"

Whatever will he say next?

Cheers.

German "Conservative" Ultimatum: Disinvite Geert Wilders or Be Expelled from Post

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:03:00 GMT

Photo: German CDU politician Rene Stadtkewitz faces a political purge for inviting Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders to Berlin

From Spiegel Online:

A local Berlin politician ... is under fire for inviting Dutch populist Geert Wilders to a meeting on Islam on October 2. Rene Stadtkewitz, who is known for his anti-Islamic views, has refused to cancel the invitation, and now faces eviction from his party's parliamentary group in the city assembly ....

Rene Stadtkewitz, 45, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), looks set to be excluded from the CDU's parliamentary group in the Berlin city assembly after inviting Wilders to Berlin on October 2 to discuss integration and Islam. He had also discussed founding a branch of Wilders' Freedom Party in Germany.

Frank Henkel, the CDU's regional parliamentary group leader, gave Stadtkewitz an ultimatum: Withdraw the invitation by July 26 or face the consequences.

Stadtkewitz refused in an open letter in which he also suggested that the CDU should be doing more to combat Islam politically. Up until now, public debate about the Islamic faith had been "too timid" in Germany, Stadtkewitz wrote. He added that the debate should focus on the defense of freedom and of Christian values, including concerns about "countless young women, who are forced into arranged marriages, enslaved and who sometimes become victims of so-called honor killings."

'No Place in Our Party'

Henkel responded Monday by saying that he would propose a motion to exclude Stadtkewitz from the parliamentary group because he had distanced himself from "the goals of the conservatives."

Heil, the Great German Caliphate!

Henkel said Berlin set a positive example of integration and immigration for the whole of Germany. "There is no place in our party for people who demonize Islam and pass judgment on believers in other religions," Henkel explained.

For more on the glories of intergration and immigration, particularly in Berlin, read Bundesbank director Thilo Sarrazin's views here. Sarrazin's blunt take on Germany's Islamic immigration woes includes the proposition that Berlin never recovered intellectually or artistically from having murdered its Jewish population during the Nazi regime, with the resulting vaccuum having been filled by left-wing activists, drop-outs and a Turkish-Arab underclass.

Back to the Spiegel story on the Stadtkewitz Purge:

The party looks likely to back the motion to exclude Stadtkewitz from the parliamentary group in a vote on September 7. This is not the first time Stadtkewitz has been in trouble for his anti-Islamic views. In 2006, he organized an unsuccessful protest against the building of a mosque in Berlin's Pankow district.

"In trouble" for his "views": Spiegel doesn't elaborate more than to note merely that " Germany's far-right National Democratic Party was also involved in the protest" against the mosque, which was the first to be built in East Berlin. It is on the site of a former sauerkraut factory (no kidding), and if that's not cultural conquest, I don't know what is. One notable complaint against the mosque was the fact that it was not going up in response to local need; there were no members in the neighborhood, so the 500 worshippers would be coming in from somewhere else. Failing to go numb and silent in the face of such glaring culture clash, however, lands you "in trouble" for your "views."

If the October 2 meeting in Berlin goes ahead, it would be Wilders' first official appointment in Germany....

And, given the rate of the German Islamization, maybe the last.

PM Cameron: Paving the Road from Ankara to London

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:21:00 GMT

Cameron-Erdogan: The start of a beautiful friendship

Things are moving faster than it appeared, the rails greased by the unctuous British PM Cameron. Indeed, Turkish PM Erdogan is already declaring a "golden age" of Turkey-UK relations.

You've heard of the Full Monty? Behold the Full Dhimmi.

From the BBC:

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the blockade of the Gaza Strip, describing the territory as a "prison camp."

He also criticised Israel for launching an attack on a convoy transporting Turkish activists and aid to Gaza. Nine Turkish citizens died in the raid.

He was speaking to an audience of businessmen during a visit to Ankara.

The Israeli embassy in London said Gazans were prisoners of Palestinian militant Islamist group Hamas.

Prisoners? They're voters!

Israel and Egypt enforce a blockade on Gaza which restricts goods and people from coming in or out freely.

"Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp," Mr Cameron said.

"People in Gaza are living under constant attacks and pressure in an open-air prison," he said.

'Piracy'

In May, Israeli commandoes stormed the Mavi Marmara and in fighting that followed, nine Turkish activists were killed and four soldiers wounded.

Mr Cameron called the Israeli raid an act of "piracy".

"Israel must apologise as soon as possible, pay compensation and lift the blockade," he said.

Translation: Israel must submit to islam ASAP, pay the jizya, and accept Islamic domination. Why not? The British PM has done it.

The British government's policy has been to call for an end to the blockade, but never before has a British prime minister been so blunt, says the BBC's Jonny Dymond in Ankara.

A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said Hamas, which won elections in Gaza in 2006, was responsible for the situation in Gaza.

"The people of Gaza are the prisoners of the terrorist organisation Hamas. The situation in Gaza is the direct result of Hamas' rule and priorities," the spokesman said.

Hopeless infidel.

PM Cameron: Paving the Road from Ankara to Brussels (Updated)

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:17:00 GMT

Reuters photo: Recep Tayyip "Islam is Islam and that's it" Erdogan and David "There is `real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists' " Cameron, together, in Ankara

----

The argument over whether to admit Turkey to the European Union seems eternal, at least among EU elites. Among the peoples of of Europe, when give the rare chance to make their will known at the ballot box -- increasingly window-dressing as far as the soft totalitarians of the EU are concerned -- there is little argument. There is bona fide consensus: NO to Turkey becoming a part of Europe. Why? For one thing, because it is not.

Tell that to British Prime Minister David Cameron, currently in Ankara selling the inclusiveness-for-Turkey-line (something the US has quite meddlesomely clamored for), pushing Tukish membership in the EU as an antidote to -- updated -- as the Telegraph put it, "anti-Muslim prejudice." Such prejudice is typically portrayed as being based in a senseless bias rather than in a historically grounded, contemporarily confirmed fear for the obliteration of bedrock Western values and principles.

As I noted back in 2005, the inclusion of Turkey is a political move with more than political consequences: Demographically alone, it promises to apply, or, rather, accelerate the finishing touches on the Islamization of Europe:

If approved, Turkey, second in EU population only to Germany, would bring its tens of millions of Muslims into largely post-Christian, secular European society; with them comes a weighty Islamic influence on European affairs that would boost the transition, as [then London mayor Ken] Livingstone might say, of Europe to a multicultural, multiracial and — more pertinent — Islamized continent of Eurabia.

Not that this salient point is ever raised. "Europe can either decide to become a global actor or it can fence itself off as a Christian club," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, flipping the issue on its head before the EU voted to open membership talks with Turkey. In light of the EU's deliberate omission of "God" or "Christianity" in its 439-page constitution, this was a fairly obnoxious comment. Besides, Turkey has long "fenced itself off" into such Islamic "clubs" as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The latter is an Islamic version of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it elevates sharia (Islamic law) over universal human rights, and declares the Muslim community's role is to "guide" humanity. Which is more than just clubby.

But there was another implication to the Turkish leader's words: that Western identity is merely a tribal expression of petty insularity. Free will, free conscience — the evolution of individual liberty — is the gift of Judeo-Christian civilization, and it is one that Islam has never accepted. Tragically, it is one that Westerners may be throwing away. Britain's [then-]foreign minister, Jack Straw, was equally dismissive of Europe's "so-called Christian heritage," while Britain's Lord Patten, a former EU official, pegged opposition to Turkish membership to "relics of Christianity,"a rather nasty way to belittle natural concern over a proposed event one European minister has compared to the fall of the Berlin Wall. "To define Europe today as though it were an introverted, cohesive, medieval Christian community is, I think, terrible," said Lord Patten. Maybe he means that to define Europe as European is terrible.

The trend continues.

From a report on Cameron's speech in today's Telegraph:

Addressing the EU membership which Britain has supported for years along with nations including Italy and Spain, but which has stalled amid opposition from Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he [Cameron] will tell the Turks: "I will remain your strongest possible advocate for EU membership and for greater influence at the top table of European diplomacy.

"Together, I want us to pave the road from Ankara to Brussels."

Mr Cameron will attack: "those who wilfully misunderstand Islam" and who "see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists."

How impolitic if not downright rude of British PM Cameron! Doesn't he realize that his host Turkish PM Erdogan has specifically and repeatedly expressed his furor over those who would dare make distinctions between "moderate" and "extremist" Islam? To wit: "These descriptions are very ugly," Erdogan said in 2007. "It is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that's it." Erdogan has also bluntly rejected descriptions of Turkey itself as an example of "moderate Islam," saying in April 2009: "It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not."

Blunder on. Back to today's Telegraph:

[Cameron] will also criticise those who view international relations as "polarised" or a clash between eastern and western civilisations. Nations who want to keep Turkey out of the EU for protectionist reasons will also come under attack.

Mr Cameron will say it makes him "angry that your progress towards EU membership can be frustrated in the way it has been."

"I believe it's just wrong to say Turkey can guard the camp but not be allowed to sit inside the tent," he will add, criticising those who suggest that the country should pick between the east and the west, saying Turkey was stronger because it had chosen both.

Anyone who thinks Turkey has chosen "both" is closing his eyes. Anyone who believes a country can choose "both" is blind.

State Dept: We Will Be in Afghanistan for "Many, Many Years"

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:31:00 GMT

That July 2011 "exit date" from Afghanistan has always had the phony feel of window-dressing, as confirmed here, which has failed to cloak the massive American build-up of infrastructure in the area that seems less short-term and makeshift than reorienting and permanent.

More proof of the exit fantasy was confirmed yesterday at the State Department. It subsequently showed up in the Indian press but, as far as I can tell, clear missed the US media.

From the Hindustan Times:

The US has reiterated its long term commitment to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, allaying India's concerns over America's stated policy to start withdrawing its troops from the war-torn country beginning July 2011.

"We're not leaving Afghanistan or the region at the end of next year," State Department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters at his daily news briefing.

Crowley was responding to questions about India's apprehensions on withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

New Delhi fears that after America withdraws troops from Afghanistan, the war-torn country will again slip back into the hands of Pakistan and anti-India elements.

"Our commitment to regional security is a significant one. We are going to be engaged with countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India for a long time, because it is in our interest to do so," Crowley said.

What "interest" is that? And is it the same "interest" in all three of those countries?

The "interest" that brought the US to Afghanistan was the Taliban government of Afghanistan that harbored al Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11. The toppling of the Taliban and rout of al Qaeda was in our interest. Nearly a decade later, is it still in our interest to remain? I say no, advocating a repositioning of our forces to execute what Gen. Paul Vallely describes as the "lily pad" strategy.

But won't al Qaeda return to Taliban safe havens if we depart? This question is the by-now old chestnut that tells us we must remain in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda Taliban safe havens as though the Taliban offered the only potential safe havens to al Qaeda in the world. Sorry, gang. What we persist in blindly branding as "al Qaeda" is absolutely everywhere -- from Gaza to Thailand to Mumbai to London to Madrid to Yourtown, USA. These facts on the ground, however, are disconnected to the national security debate.

Yes, we have an "interest" in Pakistan: their neutralization-needy nukes. But that's not at all the same thing as common cause with Pakistan, no matter how much summiteering Richard Holbrooke does. As Moorthy Muthuswamy writes in his book Defeating Political Islam, Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia and Iran, forms "the axis of jihad," and as such is one of the most aggressive purveyors of "political Islam." The sooner we recognize this and accordingly reconstitute our international alliances to include the natural foes of jihad, the greater our likelihood of survival becomes.

Which brings me to India, a natural foe of jihad. But even this shared anti-jihad interest doesn't require the presence of US troops as a means of "engagement."

Back to PJ Crowley and the Hindustan Times story:

"We have, per the President's decision, increased our military capabilities and force levels in Afghanistan. The timeline that the President outlined back in December is well known," he said, adding various reviews including those by NATO and Washington would come up at the end of this year.

"As the President said, we see July 2011 as an important transition point, but remember that we have both a military and a civilian component to our strategy. You know, the military element is not open-ended," he said.

The spokesman said American and international forces would gradually withdraw as Afghan forces build up its capabilities.

Clearly, $25 billion to build up those capabilities just wasn't enough.

As per the Kabul Conference, the Afghan plan is to provide security responsibility to the home forces throughout the country by 2014, he said.

Fantasists.

"So we are there to help stabilise the security situation in Afghanistan. We are there to begin to grow legal economy in Afghanistan, increase the capacity of the Afghan government at all levels -- national, regional, local.

None of which is in the American interest.

But our commitment to Afghanistan -- we will be there for many, many years," Crowley said.

"Over time, obviously the military element of the strategy will be reduced, and the civilian element of the strategy will, you know, continue apace.

It's exactly what's happening in Iraq, for example," he added.

Monster Intell Complex Won't Save Us From Unnamed Threat

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:36:00 GMT

This week's syndicated column:

A clarifying bomblet drops in the final paragraph of the opening installment of the big Washington Post series on what is best described as National Intelligence Sprawl:

"Soon, on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeth's mental hospital in Anacostia, a $3.4 billion showcase of security will rise from the crumbling brick wards. The new headquarters will be the largest government complex built since the Pentagon ..."

National security meets mental hospital: How tragically appropriate. And yes, these inmates will definitely be running the asylum -- some of the Post-estimated 854,000 Americans with top secret clearance now filling massive new government complexes all over the country -- another unwanted legacy of 9/11. Some of my conservative brethren worry that the Post series reveals national security secrets. The question is, with nearly a million people possessing top secret clearance, how many secrets are left to reveal? Is it possible that our national security apparatus has gotten too big not to fail?

The Post series focuses on the gargantuan-ness that, more than ever, bloats the intelligence realm. Last year's budget was $75 billion, 2-1/2 times larger than the budget was on 9/11. At least 20 percent of the government organizations pitted against terrorism, the Post reports, have been "created or refashioned" since 9/11, while many that previously existed have ballooned to historic size. For example, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency went from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. Since the 2001 attacks, 17 million square feet of new office space has been built or is now under construction in the Washington area alone.

I feel safer?

As the intelligence budget increased by tens of billions, the Post reports, "military and intelligence agencies multiplied. ... In all, at least 263 (government) organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11." In round numbers, U.S. intelligence activity is now spread among 1,200 government organizations supported by 2,000 private corporations at 10,000 locations across the country.

But still we must endure the indignities of shuffling shoeless through full-body scanners at our airports just to have a nice flight, maybe. Our great halls and institutions remain defended by state-of-siege-like installations. And we continue to adapt, accommodate and accept the "post-9/11 world," and seemingly forever now that these massive new government bureaucracies and new industries will attempt to retain indefinite support. Why?

The reason is this: In all of these scores and hundreds and thousands of organizations created and boosted and buffed up since 9/11 there is one thing they all forgot.

Islam.

I will bet my bottom dollar that in all of the hyper-burgeoning bureaucracies there is no single office organized to study, in Pentagon parlance, the "enemy threat doctrine" of jihad, which has, whether it is admitted or not, driven this intelligence boom in the first place. Similarly, I will bet there is no program designed to investigate the historical, canonical goals of jihad movements: namely, the spread of Islamic law (Sharia), and the attendant condition of dhimmitude that Sharia imposes on Islamized and Islam-dominated populations, even as such dhimmitude is an enabler of jihad. Instead, what we see in this frantic, government-led explosion is an Orwellian study in mass denial, a hamster-in-a-cage approach to what was first masked as "terror" and is now disguised as "transnational violent extremists" despite the fact that the threat is precisely and guilelessly presented by perps the world over as Islamic jihad.

Such is life in the politically correct, multiculturally dictated (read: dishonest) world.

Here's my idea for a brand new approach.

First, hire a crack team of true experts to catch military and security officials up on the fundamental doctrinal issues by which all of our strategy -- military, immigration, education and intelligence -- should be informed. For example, on jihad as enemy threat doctrine, Maj. Stephen Coughlin; on jihad history and Islamic anti-Semitism, Andrew Bostom; on dhimmitude through the ages, Bat Ye'or; on revaluing the West, Ibn Warraq.; on repositioning our military forces, Gen. Paul Vallely (USA ret.).

That should get us going all right and save the taxpayer trillions. Heck, we could run the whole thing out of my house. Oh, and one more thing: Turn St. Elizabeth's into a top secret rest home for several hundred thousand indefinitely furloughed intelligence analysts.

On Secure Freedom Radio with Frank Gaffney

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:52:00 GMT

No Mosque at Ground Zero

rbuscher@haleymiranda.com — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:45:00 GMT

I just taped a segment with Frank Gaffney for Secure Freedom Radio and he alerted me to this rousing ad against the mosque at Ground Zero.