We Are The Real Anti-War Campaigners

The article that is pasted below appeared on the CNN website yesterday.  This report also had a photograph of some of the left-wing groups that were present at the protest.  Many of them are anti -establishment "rent-a-mobs" that are sponsored by the Unions and Labour, and team up with the likes of the UAF to attack the British National Party.  From the look of many of the placards that were waved, the attendees were clearly not there for the sake of our troops, but because the cost of the war is effecting the amount of benefits the protestors receive.

Meanwhile, while the tie dyed t-shirt wearing hippies of the "Stop The War" group were gathering in the center of London, some of our members and supporters were manning the famous "Support Our Troops - Bring Our Boys Home" stalls in St Helens (Merseyside), Orpington (Kent), and Chelsea (West London).   Our national campaign to bring our troops home was running at full capacity from Mid-September to Mid-October.  It has since wound down to a handful of branches and groups across the U.K.  Our online petition can still be found on the right of this page and on the official British National Party website.

The pictures below are from the official BNP website

 London, England (CNN) -- A large protest was happening Saturday in London against the war in Afghanistan, with organizers saying thousands from around the country would take part.


Demonstrators were marching from Speakers Corner in Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square, where there were planned speeches from Labour politician Tony Benn, former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, two members of Parliament and others.


London's Metropolitan Police said more than 5,000 people were expected to take part.


Former British soldier Joe Glenton was one of those marching. He served in Afghanistan and was jailed when he refused to go back, and Friday, he handed back the veterans badge he received when he left the armed forces.  "There's a real upswell of support, and there's something coming," he told CNN about the anti-war sentiment he sees in Britain.


Also at the protest was Mandy Sylvester, who said her son has been in Afghanistan for four weeks with the British Paratrooper Regiment.  As protesters behind her held signs reading, "Cut war not welfare," Sylvester told CNN the war costs too much and is no longer justified.


"The reason why we're there has changed three times, to my knowledge," she said. "The reason why we're there now is because we're there."  The Stop the War Coalition was organizing the demonstration along with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the British Muslim Initiative.


Afghanistan is at the top of the agenda for Saturday's meeting of NATO leaders in Lisbon, Portugal, where they agreed with the Afghan government to leave international forces there for many years after a planned military transition in 2014.


Protesters called Saturday for the troops to come home, with one saying they are only "exacerbating the situation" by being in Afghanistan.  "Any development that has happened hasn't been for the Afghan people," said protester Chaz Singh. "It's only been for the businesses that have come from America, the U.K., and Europe."

The British National Party's Foreign Policy is as follows:



- British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government.    In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics.    Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain.    We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. In this regard, a BNP government will:   


Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and - Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country. -

Even though the "Stop The War Coalition" claims to be the voice of the anti war movement, I would like to remind them that we started our street campaign two months ago. It took a budget cut to get them out of bed.

How Low Can You Go?

It was only by chance that I caught this Sunday Telegraph article on the MSN website.  As the UK Government announces that it has to slash spending on Police, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Tax Credits, Winter Fuel for Pensioners, Royal Mail, and various other projects.  We then find out that most of the whores in Parliament have decided that they should also sell off our open spaces to the highest bidder. 

The Labour Party and Tory Government's have been selling off our Playing Fields for many years, so this latest asset strip of our green spaces is to be expected.  From another Telegraph report from last July, we were informed that the Labour Party sold off 200 football/soccer pitches to developers.

There's me thinking that Liberals are supposed to be in favor of protecting the environment.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, is expected to announce plans within days to dispose of about half of the 748,000 hectares of woodland overseen by the Forestry Commission by 2020.

The controversial decision will pave the way for a huge expansion in the number of Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, adventure sites and commercial logging operations throughout Britain as land is sold to private companies.

Sherwood Forest (Nottinghamshire)

Legislation which currently governs the treatment of "ancient forests" such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest is likely to be changed giving private firms the right to cut down trees.

Laws governing Britain's forests were included in the Magna Carta of 1215, and some date back even earlier.

Conservation groups last night called on ministers to ensure that the public could still enjoy the landscape after the disposal, which will see some woodland areas given to community groups or charitable organisations.

However, large amounts of forests will be sold as the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) seeks to make massive budget savings as demanded in last week's Spending Review.

Whitehall sources said about a third of the land to be disposed of would be transferred to other ownership before the end of the period covered by the Spending Review, between 2011 and 2015, with the rest expected to go by 2020.

A source close to the department said: "We are looking to energise our forests by bringing in fresh ideas and investment, and by putting conservation in the hands of local communities."

Unions vowed to fight the planned sell-off. Defra was one of the worst-hit Whitehall departments under the Spending Review, with Ms Spelman losing around 30 per cent of her current £2.9 billion annual budget by 2015.

The Forestry Commission, whose estate was valued in the 1990s at £2.5 billion, was a quango which was initially thought to be facing the axe as ministers drew up a list of arms-length bodies to be culled.

However, when the final list was published earlier this month it was officially earmarked: "Retain and substantially reform – details of reform will be set out by Defra later in the autumn as part of the Government's strategic approach to forestry in England."

A spokesman for the National Trust said: "Potentially this is an opportunity. It would depend on which 50 per cent of land they sold off, if it is valuable in terms of nature, conservation and landscape, or of high commercial value in terms of logging.

"We will take a fairly pragmatic approach and look at each sale on a case by case basis, making sure the land goes to the appropriate organisations for the right sites, making sure the public can continue to enjoy the land."

Mark Avery, conservation director for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) said: "You can understand why this Government would think 'why does the state need to be in charge of growing trees', because there are lots of people who make a living from growing trees.

"But the Forestry Commission does more than just grow trees. A lot of the work is about looking after nature and landscapes."

New Forest (Hampshire)

"We would be quite relaxed about the idea of some sales, but would be unrelaxed if the wrong bits were up for sale like the New Forest, Forest of Dean or Sherwood Forest, which are incredibly valuable for wildlife and shouldn't be sold off.

"We would look very carefully at what was planned. It would be possible to sell 50 per cent if it was done in the right way."

A Defra spokesman said: "Details of the Government's strategic approach to forestry will be set out later in the autumn.

"We will ensure our forests continue to play a full role in our efforts to combat climate change, protect the environment and enhance biodiversity, provide green space for access and recreation, alongside seeking opportunities to support modernisation and growth in the forestry sector."

Allan MacKenzie, secretary of the Forestry Commission Trade Unions, said: "We will oppose any land sale. Once we've sold it, it never comes back.

"Once it is sold restrictions are placed on the land which means the public don't get the same access to the land and facilities that are provided by the public forest estate.

"The current system means a vast amount of people can enjoy forests and feel ownership of them. It is an integral part of society."

In 1992 John Major's Conservative government – also looking to save money in a recession – drew up plans to privatise the Forestry Commission's giant estate, which ranges from huge conifer plantations to small neighbourhood woodlands.

John Gummer, then the Agriculture Minister, wrote to cabinet colleagues saying that he 'wanted to raise money and get the forest estate out of the private sector'. Mr Major backed the sell- off which, it was hoped, would raise £1 billion.

However it was later abandoned following a study by a group of senior civil servants, amid widespread public opposition.

Finally, you have to remember that the Coalition government is willing to sell off our history for a Billion or two, but then increases the Foreign Aid Budget by three Billion. 

The British National Party's Environmental Policy is as follows:

 - The British National Party is this nation’s only true Green party which has policies that will actually save the environment. Unlike the fake “Greens” who are merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime, the BNP is the only party to recognise that overpopulation – whose primary driver is immigration, as revealed by the government’s own figures – is the cause of the destruction of our environment. Furthermore, the BNP’s manifesto states that a BNP government will make it a priority to stop building on green land. New housing should wherever possible be built on derelict “brown land.”

Other environmentally friendly policies which the BNP has in its manifesto include: - The removal of unsightly overhead power lines from beauty spots and their burial underground; - The creation of a bulk transport tax regime that pushes supermarkets to supply more local and seasonal produce; - The encouragement of an extensive and rapid switchover to organic and low fossil fuel farming techniques; - The banning of the ritual slaughter of animals without pre-stunning, and the sale of such meat; - The elimination of the unhealthy, energy intensive and cruel factory farming of livestock; - The abolition of all “stealth taxes” and other charges on household rubbish collections.

Britain is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and our population is increasing — due entirely to immigration — which necessitates the building of ever more homes, which in turn places a strain on our infrastructure such as transport and water supplies. Independent environmental organisations believe that Britain’s population needs to be significantly reduced. Our immigration policies will achieve this. Together with independent environmental organisations the BNP recognises that Britain’s environmentally sustainable carrying capacity is substantially lower than its present population

With regard to the transport problem and the environmental impact it has, BNP policy is also refreshingly different. A BNP government will: - Develop alternative transport fuels such as bio-diesel and hydrogen; - Develop renewable energy sources such as off-shore wind farms, wave, tidal and solar energy; - Investigate the feasibility of cutting-edge, intrinsically-safe, fast-breeder nuclear stations; - Invest in a high-speed, magnetic levitation, inter-city rail network; - Allow the building of a new privately-funded airport on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary to reduce the pressure on, and stop the constant expansion of, the South East’s airports.

Oil and gas are finite resources, rapidly being depleted. Prices are going to continue to rise significantly and this will place a heavy burden on both industry and private consumers. Furthermore, as we are becoming increasingly dependent on energy from unstable and potentially unfriendly foreign powers we are becoming ever more vulnerable to economic blackmail or even harm. ‘Peak Oil’ is a clear and imminent danger to our economy and society, so Britain needs to invest in new technologies and be broadly self-sufficient in terms of energy. The BNP firmly rejects the “climate change” dogma while being fully conscious of the urgent need to combat all real pollutants in the environment. The time has come for change.-

Better Off On Benefits?

For many people the chance of finding paid employment where they live is very unlikely.  Towns and Villages across the East Midlands and Wales that were once thriving industrial areas are now ghost towns as factories and mines have closed their doors as greedy employers have opted for cheaper labor in Eastern Europe or Asia instead.  The current and previous governments have no intention of helping those people get back into work, as they know that once they get them on the benefit cycle, most will not be able to get off.  Over time the long term claimants will feel helpless without government support, so vote Labour to protect their benefits.

A recent article on the Russia Today website focused on the fact that Britain is at the top of the household jobless league table, compared to other major E.U countries. The report states that one sixth of all children live in a workless household. And with the economy heading for a double-dip, the number of people that are on long-term unemployment benefit is on the rise.

The report also went on to ask if the generous benefits system has created a generation of career claimants.

As an example, they interviewed a single Mother with four children, who has never worked, and asked her if she felt that $20,000 worth of benefits per year was enough to live on.  Her response was, "it is barely enough to stay afloat."  This is not unusal, as reports have shown that benefit dependency can become a way of life for many families across Britain.  For this family, the cycle has already started, as the claimant's 17 year old daughter has already had her first child.

The British National Party's Policy is as follows:

- Only the British National Party has the plan to reverse these decades of disastrous Labour and Tory social engineering programmes – through a sensible policy of workfare, not welfare.



The principle is simple: those who receive community support incur obligations as well. People who genuinely want to work must be provided with the opportunity to do so in return for training which will put them back into proper full-time employment.

In return for financial support and training for a new career, the benefit recipient must complete a certain number of hours of work per week. Properly implemented, this policy will undermine the benefit dependency culture and bring masses of unemployed back into the formal employment sector.

Ultimately there must be only one category of welfare recipient: those who genuinely deserve or have earned it. The scrounger entitlement mentality must be discarded. Those who can work but refuse to do so, must face the consequences of their actions on their own. -

Virtual Fence or Immigration Reform

This year has seen more than its share of controversy over illegal immigration. SBINet, the “virtual fence” at our southern border, was defunded, Arizona passed SB 1070, and Beltway pundits have expounded on the need for comprehensive immigration reform.


Most recently, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced an immigration bill just before Congress adjourned ahead of election season. Since “lame duck” action on an issue like immigration is highly unlikely, the question remains: Will the next Congress act on immigration? Or will other, less politically contentious issues, cut the line?

One thing is for sure: Securing the southern border is the one facet of the immigration issue that seems to have bipartisan support. Whatever their stance on immigration, congressmen from both parties agree on the need to be sure who is able to cross America’s southern border.

However, the issues the midterm elections seem to be turning on are fiscal responsibility, tax policy and the proper size and role of government, rather than traditional “wedge” issues like immigration reform. Even when politicians have made political hay out of immigration, the issue is so nuanced that nothing ever seems to happen. Witness the DREAM act, the immigration reform legislation that has been perennially re-introduced in Congress since 2001.

So, it looks like government contracting’s best hope for immigration reform is a re-invigorated and re-imagined SBINet, possibly using UAV patrols to secure the southern border against illegal crossings. Odds are, we’ll probably have to wait at least another two years for any meaningful political action on immigration.

Article Found In GovConExec Magazine



More about The Southern Border Initiative Network (SBINET) below:

Article Found On FierceGovermentIT website:

SBInet is a DHS effort to blanket U.S. borders with a chain of radars, cameras, and heat and motion detectors, allowing border patrol agents working from a common operational picture. SBInet has cost $1.9 billion so far, or 564 percent more than the initial projected cost, according to the Government Accountability Office. The prime contractor is Boeing

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lacks the capability to support SBInet technology already deployed along the southwestern border, says the Homeland Security Department.

According to the "Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology" fiscal 2010 spending plan that DHS submitted to Congress on May 20--recently obtained by FierceGovernmentIT through a Freedom of Information Act request--CBP does not possess the engineering and logistics resources or capabilities needed to sustain currently deployed SBInet technology. Federal fiscal years start each Oct. 1, meaning that federal agencies are now in the final weeks of fiscal 2010.

The plan calls for $25.3 million in fiscal 2010 spending on software, test equipment and training to enable CBP personnel to maintain SBInet information technology systems.

In the meantime, CBP is drawing on contractor staff from Boeing at a rate of $45.1 million during fiscal 2010 to provide equipment maintenance, help desk support and spare parts, the spending plan states. In fiscal 2009, Boeing received $37.5 million for the same tasks. As of Dec. 31, 2009, contractors outnumbered government staff working on SBInet by 154 to 135, the plan states.

It's unknown how much of the spending plan has changed since President Obama's August 13 signing of a southwest border security supplemental appropriations bill that pays for a $600 million boost in federal efforts in part through a $100 million subtraction from the SBInet budget.

New work on SBInet has been halted since DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's March announcement that the department froze additional funding for anything beyond already begun initial deployments along 53 mile stretch of Arizona border. The fate of the project hinges in great measure on a review Napolitano initiated in January; that assessment is scheduled for completion by Sept. 30.

According to a chart apparently made with pre-freeze data, DHS had planned to spend $697.6 million on SBInet during fiscal 2010, plus an additional $827.3 million in the first half of fiscal 2011. As of March 31, DHS had already spent $56.6 million on SBInet during fiscal 2010, the spending plan states.

The plan also calls for $8 million in spending on an open architecture common operating picture that could replace the COP utilized in existing SBInet deployments. Testing during December 2008 revealed that the SBInet information technology was prone to frequent crashes.

In general, CBP wants to rely more on in-house engineering, the plan states, which includes creation of a standards-based environment for new software development.

Field Trip To The Mosque

On May 17, 2010, a letter was sent home to the parents of the students at the Wellesley Public Middle School, in Massachusetts. The parents were informed that the Social Studies class would be attending the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, for a one day field trip.


The letter went on to explain that the trip had been arranged to give the students and parents an authentic experience inside a mosque by observing a Midday prayer service. Most of the parents believed, after reading the letter, that the students would get the chance to see Islamic architecture up-close, and learn about the history of Islam and Muhammed. It appears that the overall feeling was that this event was an innocent enough event for Christians and Jewish students to take part in, as it was only advertised as an informal educational outing to a cultural center.

Little did they know that the host, who was a white convert to Islam, would use the event as an excuse to try and recruit the attendees to Islam by lying about the freedoms that Muslim women enjoyed in Saudi Arabia during the 7th century and enjoy to the present day.

As the Midday Prayer Service was approaching, all of the female students, teachers, and parents were encouraged to leave the prayer area. One parent used a hidden camera to record the activities in the prayer area from a neighboring room. The parent was shocked to see that someone in the mosque had invited some of the Christian and Jewish boys to join in when no-one was looking. All of the students were copying the Muslim faithful by prostrating themselves with their foreheads on the ground.

After the field trip ended, the parent that filmed the event did some research about the mosque. She found out that many of the past and present (as of Fox News report during 2004) leaders have ties to Islamic terrorism.

The founder of the mosque, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, is currently serving a 23 year prison sentence for his connections to an Al Qaeda plot. Meanwhile, the Muslim American society, is responsible for the upkeep of the mosque, and is the overt face of the Muslim Brotherhood of America. For those of you that don’t know what the MBA’s goals are, I suggest you read the information below:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

The organization behind the video is called Peace and Tolerance. They have challenged the Principal, Superintendent, and the Chairwoman, Wellesley Board of Selectmen to investigate this incident, and make sure that it doesn’t happen again.



Many thanks to C.Y

Nick Griffin - Liberty Radio Link

My apologies for not posting the audio links to the archived show that Nick Griffin MEP appeared on during the evening of September 25, 2010.  Anyway, here's the links:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn92AZ_Xnqw

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3kB0h4jPds&feature=related

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gnvJWqyN4A&feature=related

Many Thanks to BNPxTruth for transferring the files over to his/her YouTube account.

Support Our Troops - Bring Our Boys Home

Week 1

Saturday brings week two of the Support Our Troops campaign.  Groups and branches from the Isle of Wight, Scotland, Wales, England and over to Northern Ireland, will all be out to to show that we are the only political party that cares about our military personnel. 

Prior to week one of the campaign, it was reported that 90 tabletops would be in action over the first couple of days.  Since then, news has come in that the number during week two has increased to 100.  New groups in Scotland will also be cutting their teeth during the coming weeks.  Who knows what the number will be when week three kicks-off.

Photographic evidence has also shown that lines of people have been drawn to our campaign by signing our Bring Our Boys Home petition.  Most branches and groups have each reported back that 100's of people have put their name to our campaign, and others have signed up members of the public on the spot. 

If you are reading this blog as an overseas reader, please go to the British National Party website and sign the online petition: Bring Our Boys Home Petition

Week 2

From official reports around the internet, it looks like week two of the campaign beat the expected turnout of  100 groups and branches by an additional 20.  The official BNP website fedback that we had 120 tabletops setup in villages, towns, and city locations last weekend.  Many groups have also vowed to keep the message out there during the week days as well. 

On Nick Griffin's Twitter page today, it mentioned that 10,000's of signatures have already been gathered on the petitions.  With two more weeks left of the main push, we are probably looking at between 40,000 - 50,000 signatures in total.  This campaign will continue on a smaller scale, from October 18, so it's anyones guess what the final tally will be.

Good luck to all of our activists on October 2.

Week 3

From the handful of reports that have filtered onto the BNP website so far, it looks like the interest from the public is still as strong as it was during weeks 1 and 2.  People are still lining up to sign our petitions in the 1,000's.  A round up of the first three weeks has been captured by Bertie Bert from thebritishresistance.co.uk .  Please add their website to your favorites list.    

Video Courtesy of Bertie Bert @ thebritishresistance.co.uk

Week 4

With the 4th weekend of the campaign behind us, and the main push now complete, it has been an extremely encouraging period for the British National Party.  The response on the ground, from the British public, has confirmed that the war in Afghanistan is very unpopular.  With a figure of 50,000 received signatures announced  last week, and many more weeks/months of action across Britain to come, we are on course to hit the 100,000 + mark before Christmas. 

Before now, there wasn't a political outlet for the frustration towards the Labour/Conservatives/LibDems ran "War on Terror".  The only option was to sign a high street petition ran by the anti-war/socialist worker party front groups.  As neither of the groups has any political representation, at any level, there was no way that they could force change.  The British National Party instead decided to campaign against the war seeing as no one else was interested.

With cuts to Social Services being made by the government, it doesn't seem fair that the Con/Dem alliance are still giving the U.K Ministry of Defence Billion's of pounds a year to fund this war until 2015.  Our troops should be brought home and the money should be used to protect our borders and police our dangerous streets.

Please click on the links below to watch video's/slideshows from our nationwide campaign:

Black Country BNP
Burnley BNP
County Durham BNP
Dorset BNP
Liverpool BNP
Merthyr Tydfil (Wales BNP)
Salford BNP
Wiltshire BNP

Nick Griffin On Liberty Radio

Following on from my list of shows that Nick and Simon have appeared on in the U.S.  I am glad to announce that Nick will be back on the Political Cesspool on Saturday night:  This is an excellent show to listen to, as the host, James Edwards is very professional, and unlike the BBC DJ's, he listens with interest, and doesn't interupt.

The Official Press Release is copied below:



Nick Griffin MEP on American Radio Station

PRESS RELEASE FROM LIBERTY RADIO

BREAKING NEWS: Nick Griffin set to appear live on The Political Cesspool Radio Program this Saturday, September 25

Category: Ethnopolitics, Free Speech

As promised, we have worked out the details to bring back Nick Griffin (MEP) for an all-new interview on The Political Cesspool Radio Program!

The following press release was just issued by the British National Party:

British National Party leader Nick Griffin MEP is scheduled for a guest appearance on the award-winning American radio show The Political Cesspool tomorrow evening, BNP overseas liaison officer Andy McBride has announced.

"The Political Cesspool's host, James Edwards, has made numerous appearances on CNN, while the show itself has been the subject of articles in The Los Angeles Times, The London Times, Newsweek Magazine, and many other major print publications," said Mr. McBride.

The show has gained international attention for conducting interviews featuring well-known American conservative columnist Pat Buchanan, rocker Ted Nugent and countless other headliners and news makers.

It is broadcast from the AM 1380 WLRM Radio Studios in Memphis, Tennessee, is syndicated on the Liberty News Radio Network and is also available via the Internet.

Mr. Griffin will appear on the show at 6:00 PM Central Time (U.S.), which is equivalent to midnight UK time, Saturday 25 September.

"The Political Cesspool advocates an America First philosophy and has received a certificate of recognition from the Memphis City Council for'Outstanding Contributions to the Community' with its hosts having been named Honorary City Councilmen," Mr McBride said.

"This show will go out all over the world, and is one not to be missed." The Political Cesspool can be found on the internet at their official site here.

Make plans now to listen live as Nick Griffin returns to our radio program!

Nick Griffin is the Chairman of the British National Party and was recently elected as a Member of European Parliament (MEP). His stunning ascension to Europe's highest governing body has been heralded as a turning point for those of us who champion paleoconservative viewpoints.

Mr. Griffin's forthcoming interview with us will be stored in the broadcast archives immediately upon the completion of our live show, enabling you to share it with your friends and family after the fact.

Simply click on the logo above to visit the radio show website.

An Interview with Franklin Graham

This article was published in the May 17, 2010 edition of Newsweek (U.S Edition).

For those of you are not aware of who Franklin Graham is, I ask if you have heard of Billy Graham?  Billy Graham is a very successful Southern Baptist Evangelist, who has been the spiritual advisor to 12 American Presidents.  Franklin Graham is his son, and the president and CEO of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and the international Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse.

Franklin Graham was originally invited to the Pentagon National Day of Prayer, as a representative of the Christian community, but was then told that he had been disinvited due to his comments about Islam (see interview below).  After complaints about Reverend Graham's comments, by the muslim participants, he was barred from attending the event by the Pentagon's Chaplain's Office.

Reverend Graham was interviewed by Jon Meacham and Lisa Miller regarding this event at the Pentagon.  The full interview is reproduced below:


MEACHAM: Would your sense of Christian humilty not lead you to see the point of critics who say, because of the things you've said [calling Islam "wicked,""evil"], you could possibly be divisive than unifying at a state-sponsored occasion?

GRAHAM:  Someone could try to make that argument. Eighty percent of America claims to be of the Christian faith. So there may be 20 percent who may be offended.

MEACHAM:  I'm in the 80 percent, and I'm offended.

GRAHAM:  That I mention Jesus Christ [in prayer]?

MEACHAM:  No, sir, by what you said about Islam, because I think it's more divisive than unifying

GRAHAM:  Nine years ago I said it was wicked

MEACHAM:  But you still believe ?

GRAHAM:  Sure.  But, again , I don't go out and speak about it.  I just have to ask you:  what they do to women, is that wicked or evil?  

MEACHAM:  I would go to the cross for your right to preach in almost any forum.  But I also understand the argument that the point of a public religious service is to be as unifying as possible.

GRAHAM:  I am who I am.  I don't believe that you can get to heaven through being a Buddhist or Hindu. I think Muhammad only leads to the grave.  Now, that's what I beleive, and I don't apologize for my faith.

MEACHAM:  We are an incredibly hospitable country to all faiths.  I think that's a good thing.  I don't know that you do.

GRAHAM:  Of course I think it's a good thing. And when the Muslims wanted to celebrate Ramadan at the Pentagon, I didn't write a letter and voice objections. And when they wanted to have their prayer service on Capitol Hill, on public property, supported by the Obama administration, I didn't write a letter to my Senators and congressmen.  But why can't we as Christians have our own program?

MILLER:  Forgive me, but you're not being disinvited because you're a Christian.

GRAHAM:  I'm being disinvited because of my faith and what I believe.

MEACHAM:  I understand the principle.  You're urging religious freedom - that your liberties have been abridged.

GRAHAM:  The Obama administration better be careful.  Millions of evangelical Christians voted for him in the last election. 

MEACHAM:  Are you suggesting that the Obama administration has been soft on Islam?

GRAHAM:  I think the whole nation is soft on it.  No question.  And there's still the concern with many people about what Obama really believes.  Obama's father was a Muslim, so the Islamic world sees him as a Muslim.  Now, he has told me personally that he believes in Jesus Christ and he is a Christian.  He said that again to me last week.  And I said, "Mr. President, thank you for sharing that with me.  I appreciate that."  So I believe what he says.  The Islamic world, though, they see him as one of their own.  So if the the president and his administration want to cut guys like myself out, that's fine.  But it's just sending a signal to the evangelical community that our people aren't important to him.

Now, we as nationalists have experienced a similar situation when our Chairman was disinvited from the Queen's garden party during July, because he took part in some interviews with the MSM.  He was already on his way down to London from Wales when he was informed that the invitation had been cancelled.

Gaddafi wants EU cash to stop African migrants

Article on the BBC Website this morning:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11139345

Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi says the EU should pay Libya at least 5bn euros (£4bn; $6.3bn) a year to stop illegal African immigration and avoid a "black Europe".


Speaking on a visit to Italy, Col Gaddafi said Europe "could turn into Africa" as "there are millions of Africans who want to come in".

Italy has drawn criticism for handing over to Libya migrants it intercepts at sea, without screening them first.

Far fewer now reach Italy from Libya.


European Commission figures show that in 2009 the number of people caught trying to enter Italy illegally fell to 7,300, from 32,052 in 2008. The data was collected under the EU's Eurodac fingerprinting system.

Col Gaddafi has forged close ties with Italy since a friendship treaty was signed two years ago. It sought to draw a line under historic bitterness between Libya and Italy, its former colonial master.

"Tomorrow Europe might no longer be European, and even black, as there are millions who want to come in," said Col Gaddafi, quoted by the AFP news agency.

He was speaking at a ceremony in Rome late on Monday, standing next to Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.


"We don't know what will happen, what will be the reaction of the white and Christian Europeans faced with this influx of starving and ignorant Africans," Col Gaddafi said.

"We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and united continent or if it will be destroyed, as happened with the barbarian invasions."

Audience of women


Col Gaddafi has long seen himself as a champion of African interests on the international stage and has hosted many summits with African leaders.

Mr Berlusconi made no immediate comment on Col Gaddafi's demand.

Italy has been carrying out joint naval patrols with Libya for the past year, intercepting illegal migrants at sea.

The BBC's David Willey says Col Gaddafi's visit to Rome was overshadowed by another controversial speech he made - to two groups of several hundred young Italian women, hired at a fee of 70 or 80 euros each from a local modelling agency.

He told them that Islam should become the religion of Europe and gave them free copies of the Koran, after he had lectured them for an hour on the freedoms enjoyed by women in Libya.

Media Pressure Valves

One of my fellow members in the U.K recently made me aware of this video on Youtube by Pat Condell.  In his latest offering, he has given his views on the planned mosque near Ground Zero.  As usual, Pat hits the nail on the head with a short and sweet overview of what is going to happen. 

Link from Youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4

Now, Pat is very popular on Youtube and Liveleak, but something just doesn't add up. In a way, he reminds most British Nationalists of The Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn.  He, like Pat openly promotes most of the BNP's policies in their column inches, on T.V or Youtube videos, but when asked if they would vote for the BNP, they say, "of course not."

Richard Littlejohn has even written in the Daily Mail that BNP Members are knuckle scraping scum.  He was also recorded on Sky News, during 2004, confirming that he used the insult above ito describe our members and supporters.

Link from Youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxmlaur5UsA

To most people, Richard Littlejohn and Pat Condell are speaking out for them. They feel that Pat and Richard are putting their necks on the line for their benefit.  In a way, they are seen as being the voices of the silent majority.
Most would not even dare speak their minds incase they were branded as Islamophobes, Sexists, Racists, Bigots, Small Minded, etc.  But as Pat and Richard are doing it, they must be very brave, and on the side of the average working class man and woman. In regards to Richard Littlejohn, he is not a spokeman for the working class, he is the voice of the Daily Mail.  From a report on Wikipedia, it appears that he doing very well out of borrowing our policies for his newspaper column, to the tune of $1.4 - $1.6 Million per year.

It seems that most of the fence-sitters in British society, who spend most of their time watching brainwashing soap operas, realilty T.V, or spreading gossip about their ex-boyfriend/work colleagues over Facebook, have no idea of what these people are up to.  Most of them secretly support our party and its aims, but because Richard or Pat do not approve of us, they vote Conservative or Liberal Democrats instead. I know of the growing interest in our party because of the increasing volume of maybes declared when asked by a polling company if the member of the public would vote BNP. 

It's time that these people are exposed to the truth contained in the following BNP publications:

http://www.bnp.org.uk/ (Main Site)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/freedom.html (Freedom Newspaper)
https://www.bnp.org.uk/identity.html (Identity Magazine)

The BNP stands up for its policies and members

Spot The Difference

Jan Brewer's (Governor of Arizona) Letter to Barack Obama

Request for help from Jan Brewer:

Mr. President, the need for action to secure Arizona’s border could not be clearer. Recently, my office received a number of calls from constituents concerned at reports of new sign postings in interior counties of Arizona warning residents not to access federal lands due to criminal activity associated with the border. These warnings signal to some that we have handed over portions of our border areas to illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. This is unacceptable. Instead of warning Americans to stay out of parts of our own country, we ought to be warning international lawbreakers that they will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to be establishing measures to ensure that illegal traffic of any sort is kept to an absolute minimum, and that Americans are safe and secure within our own borders.

When we visited, you committed to present details, within two weeks of our meeting, regarding your plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and expend $500 million in additional funds on border security matters. You also discussed sending members of your senior staff to Arizona to discuss your plans. While I am pleased the 28th has been set for a meeting time and we have reviewed a copy of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Southwest Border Next Steps” Press Release, I am still awaiting details on National Guard deployments and how the proposed additional border security funding will specifically affect Arizona (and the other Border States). As I mentioned to you on June 3rd, it is very difficult to have much of a dialogue without specific details regarding your proposals. I strongly urge you to request your staff provide us with missing details of your proposals prior to the meeting on the 28th.

While we await the specific details of your border security plans, I wanted to take the time to reemphasize some of what I shared with you and respond further to some of what we discussed. In essence, I have proposed a four-point Border Surge strategy, as outlined in my recent letter to Senator Charles Schumer, summarized as follows:

National Guard Personnel and Aviation

I believe a significant number of troops operating with a legitimate mission set is an essential part of any strategy to secure the border. I appreciate your commitment of 1,200 troops and the promise that Arizona would receive the largest contingent. I am concerned, however, that more is required, such as the deployment of 6,000 personnel proposed by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain for the entire southwestern border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDlN7VLmXQ&feature=player_embedded

Obama's Response:

Senate Passes Border Security Bill



Los Angeles Times (08/13/10) Mascaro, Lisa

The U.S. House and Senate on Thursday passed a border security bill that supporters hope will be the first step on the path towards comprehensive immigration reform. The bill provides $600 million to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, money that will be used to deploy 1,000 new Border Patrol agents, 250 new Customs and Border Protection Officers, and 250 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. In addition, two unmanned surveillance planes would be deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a supporter of the bill, said Thursday that he hopes the legislation will break the deadlock in Congress over immigration and allow bipartisan negotiations on immigration reform to resume. The bill is expected to be signed into law by President Obama on Friday.

Obama's Priorities:

-  50,000 (was 150,000) troops in Iraq and 7,000 private security contractors lined up to take over from late August/early September.  According to the Whitehouse, this figure will start to decrease from September, with a complete withdrawal during 2012.

- 98,000 troops on Afghanistani soil too.

So, Mr. Obama can provide close to 200,000 army personnel to protect the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, but cannot scrape the remaining 4,500 trained guards for his own southern border.

 - British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government. In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics. Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain. We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. -

Update on Security Contractors:

News came from the President of Afghanistan today, to make the 52 Serving Security Guard companies aware that he has just signed a decree which gives them four months to pull out of his country. He has notified the companies of his plan, and will only allow the guards that are working on contracts at the U.S Embassy or on Non-Government organisations to continue their operations.  All Afghanistani paramilitaries have been told that they have to disband their security companies and/or join the Afghanistani Police Force.

This obviously throws a wrench in the works, now that 1,000's of U.S troops have crossed the Kuwaiti border to head home to their friends and families .

Nick Griffin MEP & Simon Darby - U.S Radio Shows

• Radio Free Mississippi America - Jim Giles Interview (August 11, 2010)

With Nick Griffin MEP

Radio station web address:  http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/

http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio/RFM-2010-08-11-NickGriffin.mp3

With Simon Darby

Radio Free Mississippi America - Jim Giles Interview  (November 18, 2009)

http://www.radiofreemississippi.net/audio/RFM-2009-11-18-SimonDarby.mp3

• Liberty News Radio America - James Edwards Interview (August 2009)

The Political Cesspool Show with Nick Griffin MEP

Radio station web address:  http://www.libertynewsradio.com/

Topics discussed during the interview include:

• The Islamification of the West
• Freedom of speech or the Lack of it within Europe within the new E.U.S.S.R.
• Self Governance, Border control, State security.
• Climate Change, the truth and Peak Oil!

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2XY0RlzZXU
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfQ4u12gRlE
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwIqTL9-3pQ
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzEPemVdCRA
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w872_JVwnT8

Plaid Against Patriotic Red Arrows

The anti English/Pro Muslim party of Wales have just announced that they believe that the best way to save tax payers' money is to scrap the RAF Red Arrows air display team.  At a time when large numbers of British people are losing their jobs and hope for the future, we hear the true voice of the unpatriot and negative Plaid Cymru.  A spokesman for the RAF in Wales hit back at Jonathan Edwards MP (PC) by saying that the "Red Arrows are a flag-waver and were of great value to the armed forces and British industry".

The Red Arrows bring great excitement and patriotic pride to spectators whenever they appear at events across the U.K.   Click on the links below for a taster of what the Red Arrows do to wow the crowds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHyaeaMqsJQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8xemUxjgtE&feature=related

If Plaid Cmyru really wanted to save money, they could have suggested that the current ConDem coalition should scrap its International Aid budget, so that funds are made available for the Red Arrows and the National Health Service.  Instead, they have decided that it would make better financial sense to ring-fence the existing 0.7%  (£9.1 Billion) of the U.K's GDP, so that countries such as China and India can continue to receive funding towards their space/defense progams.  Being the good samaritans that Plaid Cymru are, they have decided that bankrupt Britain should bailout the unaffordable debts of the worlds developing countries too.

The British National Party's policy towards Overseas Aid and bailing out the third world is as follows:

- A BNP government will reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain. The time has come for change. -

Finally, it's interesting to see that they are keen to continue their push to become the true party of Islam in Wales, by campaigning for the rights of Turkey to join the EU.

Mohammed Ashgar, ex-Welsh Assembly Member for Plaid Cymru, is seen in this link leading an Islamic march through the streets of a Welsh City.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cly-56dCnIY&feature=fvw

BNP Manifesto – Economics Policy

The following paragraph has been copied from the British National Party's Economics manifesto:


- The renationalisation of monopoly utilities and services, compensating only individual investors and pension funds. Privatising monopolies does not benefit either the consumer or the country. All that happens is the ‘family silver’ is sold off and monopoly utilities and services are asset-stripped, often by foreign competitors. -

The opportunity to buy British utilities came about during Margaret Thatcher’s reign (1979 – 1990) as the Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party. At the time the government was struggling to reduce the massive public debt (4% GDP), which was brought on by the recession during the early 80’s. Margaret Thatcher had to raise funds fast, so decided to put most of the government’s valuable assets up for sale to the highest bidder.  The privatization policy also put an end to the governments ownership of British Airways, British Gas, British Petroleum (BP), British Telecom, British Rail, British Aerospace (now known as BAE Systems), Rolls Royce,  Jaguar Cars, The Rover Group and many more.

A 2001 study by the Public Services International Research Unit, which is affiliated with trade unions and opposes privatisation, stated that

• tariffs increased by 46% in real terms during the first nine years,
• operating profits have more than doubled (+142%) in eight years,
• investments were reduced and
• public health was jeopardised through cut-offs for non-payment.

After some online research of the Electricity/Gas distribution companies that operate in the U.K, I found that 5 of the largest Electric/Gas suppliers are foreign. Also, 8 of the U.K’s largest Water/Sewerage companies are also from overseas.

Public water and sewerage companies that have been sold to foreign buyers:

Thames Water ---- Currently owned by Kemble Water Limited (MacQuarie Bank of Australia)

Anglian Water ---- Currently owned by Osprey Consortium of Canada

Bristol Water ---- Curently owned by Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. (Agbar) of Spain

Bournemouth and West Hampshire Water ---- Currently owned by Cascal, a subsidiary of Sembcorp Industries of Singapore

Cambridge Water Co. ---- Currently owned by Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings Limited (CKI) of Hong Kong

Veolia Water UK ---- Currently owned by Veolia Environnement S.A. of France

South East Water/Mid Kent Water ---- Currently owned by Hastings Diversified Utilities Fund Utilities Trust of Australia.

Public Electric/Gas suppliers that have been sold to foreign buyers:

London Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France

Npower ---- Owned by RWE of Germany

SWEB ---- Owned by EDF of France

Seaboard Energy ---- Owned by EDF of France

Powergen ---- Owned by E-On of Germany

Twenty years on, and with the LibLabCon parties playing musical chairs with the job of leading this country, we are back in a recession and have a massive national debt. So, the knee-jerk reaction from the previous government and the current Lib Dem/Conservative coalition is to sell off assets, rather than look at where money is being wasted. The British National Party has stated time and time again that the best way to save the tax payer Billions, is to pull out of the European Union, Illegal Wars, and stop overseas aid.

From recent news reports, we, the British public, will also lose the following assets to foreign buyers:

Channel Tunnel: British share (50%) to Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Macquarie of Australia, or Borealis and Global Infrastructure Partners of Canada

Royal Mail: Partial or complete sale to Deutsche Post of Germany, or TNT of Holland

The Port of Dover: To Nord-pas-de-Calais regional council, which also owns Calais.

Is there anything left?

No Mosque at Ground Zero

By Newt Gingrich:

One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief. It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose sharia--Islamic law--upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct. They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand. Radical Islamists assert sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.


Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia but others use non-violent methods--a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.

Sharia and Western Civilization


Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women. Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to another religion. Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims. In these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.

Creeping Sharia in the United States


In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our very commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious belief.

However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of sharia supremacy. In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other Western countries) to accept the imposition of sharia in certain communities, no matter how deeply sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

The problem of creeping sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns. However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show sharia is coming here. Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book The Grand Jihad, have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert the protections of American law and American values over sharia's religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter. "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of sharia. The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price. It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code. Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace." They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by sharia's rules on proselytizing. This is a clear case of freedom of speech and the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.

Shockingly, sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances." (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero must be seen.

Exposing Radical Islamist Hypocrisy at Ground Zero


There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque. After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood. He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for sharia supremacy. In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared sharia law with the Declaration of Independence. This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque--"Cordoba House"--which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque. This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue. Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it. It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty. They say this despite the fact that there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they're partially correct-this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty. It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.