The idea that British Muslims, whose parents received asylum, found jobs, and made lives in Britain, could be so deeply affected by the "oppression" of Muslims in countries they have never visited seems incomprehensible. The notion that events in distant deserts should lead the middle-class inhabitants of London or Leeds to admire terrorists seems inexplicable. But why should this phenomenon be so incomprehensible or inexplicable, at least to Americans? We did, after all, once tolerate a similar phenomenon ourselves.

I am talking about the sympathy for the Irish Republican Army that persisted for decades in some Irish American communities and is only now fading away. Like British Muslim support for Muslim extremist terrorism, Irish American support for Irish terrorism came in many forms. There were Irish Americans who waved the Irish flag once a year on St. Patrick's Day and admired the IRA's cause but felt queasy about the methods. There were Irish Americans who collected money for Catholic charities in Northern Ireland without condoning the IRA at all. There were also Irish Americans who, while claiming to be "aiding the families of political prisoners," were in fact helping to arm IRA terrorists. Throughout the 1970s, until Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked President Ronald Reagan to stop them, they were the IRA's primary source of funding. And even after that they were widely tolerated.

I concede there is one major difference: The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston, which somehow made the whole thing seem less real. But in Britain the explosions were real enough. In 1982 — the year an IRA bomb killed eight people in Hyde Park — four IRA men were arrested in New York after trying to buy surface-to-air missiles from an FBI agent. In 1984 — the year the IRA tried to kill the whole British cabinet in Brighton — an IRA plot to smuggle seven tons of explosives was foiled, an action that led to the arrests of several Americans. As recently as 1999, long after the IRA had declared its cease-fire, members of an IRA group connected to an American organization, the Irish Northern Aid Committee (Noraid), were arrested for gun-running in Florida.

The range of Americans who were unbothered by this sort of thing was surprisingly wide. Some were members of Congress, such as Republican Rep. Peter King of Long Island, who stayed with IRA supporters on visits to Northern Ireland and drank at a Belfast club called the Felons, whose members were all IRA ex-cons. Some were born in Ireland, such as Michael Flannery, Noraid's founder, who once said that "the more British soldiers sent home from Ulster in coffins, the better," and whose flattering obituary in 1995 described him as a man who "treated everyone he met with gentle respect." Some were Americans of Irish descent, such as Tom McBride, a businessman who is still the chairman of the Hartford chapter of Noraid, and who still refuses to condemn IRA terrorism. "I think they are protecting a segment of the population that needs to be protected," he told me over the phone.

Nor were these opinions irrelevant. The Irish journalist Conor O'Clery, who has followed Irish-American relations for more than a decade, says the IRA has "always looked to the diaspora for moral backing" as well as money. That meant that when, in the 1990s, prominent Irish Americans began to advocate "constitutional nationalism" (meaning the political process) instead of "armed struggle" (meaning terrorism), the views of many in Northern Ireland shifted, too. The IRA's announcement last week that it would finally abandon armed struggle was at least partly the result of a decade of Irish American pressure. Which means, of course, that if Irish American pressure had been applied much earlier, the whole thing might have been over long ago.

My point here isn't really about Northern Irish politics, however, but about the extraordinarily powerful appeal of foreign, "revolutionary," "idealistic" violence to the inhabitants of otherwise peaceful societies. You don't have to be Muslim, or poor, or an extremist, to feel the romantic pull of terrorism. You can be a middle-class American and a lapsed Catholic whose grandmother happened to come from Donegal.

But the appeal of foreign violence can also be destroyed, or at least reduced, if community leaders agree that they want that to happen. If British Muslims deploy every one of their religious, civic and business institutions, they may, over time, be able to eliminate the climate of tolerance that made the London bombings possible, just as Irish Americans — as well as Rep. King, who has now called on the IRA to disband — eventually helped eliminate the climate of tolerance around the IRA. And if they don't — there will always be recruits willing to die for a glamorous foreign cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM9uH4XgOmI

“>link to muzzlewatch.com

Using the legend of Aztlan, many Chicano groups have laid claim to much of what is now the American Southwest as their “occupied homeland”. This notion was first widely voiced in the 1960s. At the first Chicano National Youth Conference held in Denver in 1969, the Plan Espiritual de Aztlan (Spiritual Plan of Aztlan) was written.
The first sentence of the Plan:
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano, Mexican, Latino, Indigenous inhabitants and civilizers of the Northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our snagre is our power, our responsibility and our inevitable destiny.”

The Plan goes on to outline the means to that end through social, economic, cultural and political independence. Under those seemingly benign aims, the Plan demands restitution for past ethnic and cultural destruction. It advocated driving the exploiters (Anglos) our of their communities, states that juvenile acts of delinquency will become revolutionary acts and declares that land belonging to them will be fought for and defended. Many, if not all, of the Latino activist groups embrace the Plan to some extent.

Chicano movements reject the label of “Mexican’, despite their ethnicity. They also reject ‘Latino’, a term that includes more than those of Mexican descent. They particularly disdain those who refer to themselves as Mexican-American as being traitors to ‘la raza’ (the race), their culture and heritage. The term ‘Chicano’ expresses the rejection of assimilation and of ‘Anglo’ Culture.

Movimento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan) has established chapters in 90% of public high schools, colleges and universities in the American Southwest and, to a lesser degree, throughout the United States. According to their organizational constitution and position papers, all members should be indoctrinated to the movement by discussing El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan and El Plan de Santa Barbara. The Plan of Santa Barbara asserts that the cost of the American Dream to Mexican people in the US had been the abandonment of their ties to their heritage and culture.

The MEChA constitution contains a lengthy segment on recruitment. This involves approaching “new faces” that appear after events such as rallies and symposiums, often young people in search of self-fulfillment and a feeling of belonging. These ‘new faces’ are to be made to feel part of the group immediately and educated on the Chicano philosophy, culture and history. They are given tasks within the organization as soon as possible to further instil that feeling of belonging. Loyalty and the sense of brotherhood are very important to MEChA and similar organizations, ensuring that the members will react in a predicable manner to a call to action.

Among the accomplishments of Chicano activist groups was the election of LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a member of MEChA while in college. Other achievements of such groups have been the establishment of bilingual education and Chicano studies programs in public schools. Five Hundred Years of Chicano History is one text book used in over 300 schools in the Southwest. The purpose of this book, according to the editor, is to “celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by raciest empire builders”. The book refers to ICE and the Border Patrol as “the Gestapo for Mexicans”.

One of the most popular books in Chicano studies programs is Occupied America: The Chicano’s Struggle Toward Liberation. The book states that the “Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was as vicious as that of Hitler’s invasion of Poland…” Author of the book, Rodolfo Acuna said at a MEChA conference in 1996, “Right now you are in the Nazi United States of America”. California’s Santa Barbara School Districts Chicano studies text book, paid for by taxpayers, teaches separatism, victimization, completely lacks patriotism to the US and advocates open borders.

Recent Latino immigrants, especially Mexicans, are increasingly less likely to assimilate into American culture. The outreach programs of groups such as MEChA encourage these immigrants to retain their culture and language. That atmosphere also discourages education in young Latinos since successful students are considered “wannabes” who are trying to “act white”. This in turn has lead to Hispanics having the largest dropout rate of any ethnic group, including other immigrants. The lack of education keeps many Hispanics from advancing beyond low skill jobs and poverty. Poverty that further exacerbates feelings of victimization and resentment toward the more prosperous.

The result is growing radical sentiments in the immigrant movement, especially among Hispanics. Evidence of this radicalization can be found in increasingly militant language. A Chicano student publication referred to Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty as “pigs” who were protecting a “false frontier”. Border Patrol agents and ICE are accused of rounding up thousands of “so called immigrants” like animals for illegally entering land that is historically theirs. A Plan de Aztlan conference resolved “We shall overcome… by the vote if possible and violence if necessary”. During recent immigrant marches people carried signs saying “Uncle Sam Stole Our Land” and “Reconquista de Aztlan”. Mario Obledo of the California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations said that “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave”. Dr. Armando Navarro, of the University of California at Riverside, was recently quoted in an editorial on the La Voc de Aztlan website; “Strategically, the tactical option of once again taking to the streets with the same or greater fury and passion that drove our great mobilizations of 2006 must be concomitantly developed.” The editorial insisted that “the movement must start embracing the tactics of non-cooperation and civil disobedience.”

The transnational Jabotinskian Askenazi political elites hold state power in Israel and have tremendous influence over the US government. The Irish case is perhaps closest, but the Republic of Ireland has usually kept its distance from the provisional IRA and its supporters.

In the case of Jabotinskians, this political elite is actively engaging in a conspiracy against the rights of American citizens — just look at the case of the Khalil Gibran International School and Dhabah al-Montaseri.

Racist Ashkenazi Americans through the NY Sun have successfully imposed a test of loyalty to Zionism and the State of Israel on al-Montaseri to the point where she had to resign her position as principal.

This sort of wide ranging conspiracy against the rights of Americans has probably reached the point of being a seditious conspiracy against the Constitution.

Chertoff, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser, Pipes, Libby and the whole crowd of Neocons lead by William Kristol are stealing and Israelizing America right before our eyes.

I knew some of these guys in college and prep school. Their primary loyalties then as now lies with the State of Israel and racist ethnic Ashkenazi tribalism. If putting such subversives in positions of national responsibility and policy-making does not constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, there is effectively no act for which a sitting president can be impeached.