Al-Baghdadi: no longer wanted, much longer dead

So, farewell then, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. You were killed this weekend in a US special forces operation in the Syrian province of Idlib. Of you, President Trump said, "He was a sick and depraved man, and now he is gone."

"Last night, the United States brought the world's number one terrorist leader to justice," said POTUS. "Al-Baghdadi is dead. He reached the end of the tunnel as our dogs chased him down." Mr Trump added. When he was cornered, al-Baghdadi detonated a suicide vest laden with explosives, killing himself and three of his children. These and other gruesome details of how the ISIS leader "died like a dog" were revealed by the President in a nearly 50-minute live press conference in which he described the operation and answered journalists' questions about the raid and his strategy in Syria.

US special forces raided the compound where al-Baghdadi was hiding (apparently being sheltered by al-Qaeda, sometime competitors of ISIS) under order to take the terrorist chief alive. To prevent being taken alive, al-Baghdadi blew himself into little terrorist bits. Some of the pieces were large enough to enable able identification by conducting an onsite DNA test. This was crucial given that al-Baghdadi had been declared dead several times in the past.

Although one of the dogs was hurt, there were no human American casualties during the operation. POTUS said US soldiers were able to capture critical material about Islamic State, including information about its origins and future plans. US intelligence knew about al-Baghdadi's whereabouts for a couple of weeks, he said. "He spent his last moments in utter fear, in panic and dread, terrified of American forces coming down on him."

The death of the ISIS "caliph" has been called a crippling blow to the once-influential Islamic terrorist group. And it is a clear and stunning victory for the American military and its Commander-in-Chief. And yet, predictably, the lefties and never-Trumpers are saying otherwise. The Dumbocrats are complaining that POTUS didn't notify them of the impending raid, and invite Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to join him in the White House to watch the event unfold.

The usual "experts" are being quoted by the lamestream media, predicting the death of the "austere religious scholar" (as WaPo called al-Baghdadi -- you couldn't make it up!) could unleash retaliatory attacks in both the Middle East and North America. Several Canadian "Middle East researchers" have said al-Baghdadi's death could prompt blowback from sleeper cell ISIS members hiding in other countries. "Every time that a terrorist group suffers an important defeat like this, whether it's the death of its leader or something else, you have to expect the possibility that this will motivate them for revenge," said Thomas Juneau, a Middle East "expert" at the University of Ottawa.

Personally, I'm not worried. The death of al-Baghdadi may not be the mortal blow that kills ISIS once and for all -- Islamic extremists will be amongst us and against us for a long time yet -- but it's a start. I'm happy to leave it to the Turks or the Kurds or the Russians or anyone else (even the Canucks) to carry on the fight against Islamic terrorism (a phrase strangely absent from most of the lamestream media reports) if they so choose. If they won't or can't contain and destroy ISIS, I'm confident America will do the job, when and if necessary.

Further reading: "Trump accused of 'war crimes' by liberal journos after his al-Baghdadi presser", Business & Politics, 27/10/19. I swear, if Trump walked on water, the lamestream media would say he couldn't swim!

UK "terror incident" - Guess the missing word!

Here is a selection of headlines from the lamestream media, relating to yesterday's "terror incident" at the estate of the British parliament, in which four people were killed and 20 injured or wounded.

Terror Attack Strikes Heart of London - New York Times
Nation Is Defiant as Police Arrest 8 After Parliament Attack - New York Times
U.K. attacker was British-born man; eight others arrested - Globe and Mail
The new wave of terrorism in Britain - Globe and Mail
London attacker was British-born and had been investigated by authorities, prime minister says - Washington Post
Britons are denouncing Donald Trump Jr.’s attack on London’s mayor - Washington Post - (London't mayor is, errr, a Muslim.)

Police arrest 8 in London terror attack investigation - Fox News
Attack is the latest terror scare for London - Fox News
U.K. attacker was British-born, had been investigated for 'violent extremism' - CBC News
British PM condemns 'sick and depraved terrorist attack' near Parliament - CBC News
British-born attacker 'known to MI5' - BBC
London attack - latest updates from Westminster - BBC

London attacker was British-born, once investigated for extremist links - Global News
Canada’s threat level unchanged after assumed terror attack in London - Global News
‘Oh God, it was horrible’: Witnesses describe panic amid carnage of London terror attack - National Post
Trump Jr. criticizes London mayor’s terrorism comments shortly after deadly attack on British Parliament - National Post
Trump’s son blasted for criticizing London mayor - Toronto Star
London attacker was British-born and had been investigated for extremist links, U.K. prime minister says - Toronto Star

[That's enough headlines. Ed.] Quite right. The point of listing all these is to demonstrate the egregious self-censorship of the lamestream media (including Fox News) in the USA, Canada, and even the UK itself. What the (((controlled))) media don't want to admit in print or in broadcast news, is the fact that the attacker, who has not yet been named publicly, had been investigated by MI5, the UK intelligence service, "in relation to concerns of violent extremism".

Putting it more bluntly than the pussy-footing British PM, they know who he is, and they know he's a Muslim, an Islamic extremist, just as Walt predicted in yesterday's post. But the words "Muslim" and/or "Islamic" appear nowhere, nowhere, in any statements, press releases, or media reports of the "terror incident".

So far today I've seen only one reference to the religion or motivation of the attacker. That was in the Times of London, where the sub-head to the story titled "Seven Arrested in Terror Raids" is "Police swoop in London and Birmingham after Islamist kills three".

You're not being told that the perp is a Muslim for reasons of political correctness. I'll give Fox News credit for running "Hirsi Ali: Islamic Terrorists 'Don't Go to Liberals and Say Thank You' for Being PC". Here's a quote.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali criticized what she considered the "apologetic attitude" some liberals around the world have toward identifying the religious component to Islamic terrorism. Ali, a women rights activist who was raised Muslim in Somalia but later became an apostate, called such a mindset "masochistic and stupid." She said on Tucker Carlson Tonight that radical Islamic terrorists "don't go to liberals and say thank you so much, we'll stop terrorizing you" because of some on the left refuse to identify terrorism's religious component.

That's the problem. If they identify the Islamic terrorist as such, they challenge the liberal orthodoxy that Muslims are really nice people and don't want to kill all non-Muslims and establish their "caliphate" in Europe and America. They don't want to stoke the fires of "Islamophobia", already burning brightly in the USA and western Europe, and now, even in Canada. See "Nearly 50% of Canucks want border-jumpers deported", WWW 20/3/17.

Speaking of which... the Canadian parliament, by unhappy coincidence, is today debating M-103, a non-binding motion by M.P. Iqra Khalid [an Irish-Canadian? Ed.] condemning Islamophobia and "all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination". Though largely symbolic, the motion would direct the Commons heritage committee to study the issue and develop strategies to tackle the alleged problem.

Free speech advocates fear that the "strategies" could include measures such as prohibiting the disclosure of a terrorist's identity, ethnicity, religion or "belief system" -- in other words, censorship of the facts of "incidents" such as the attack on Westminster. Many Conservatives have said they cannot support the motion because it does not define Islamophobia, leading some to fear it could stifle free speech and criticism of Islam. Others have argued that the motion provides special treatment to one religion over others.

It appears to me that the self-censorship of the lamestream media makes any "anti-Islamophobia" laws unnecessary. M-103 has the support of the governing Liberals and the pinko NDP, and is expected to pass easily. After all, "terror incidents" may happen in Paris, Brussels and London, but they would never happen in Ottawa... would they? Oh... wait...

FOOTNOTE: The mojo wire is spitting out reports that the Islamic State is claiming responsibility for the Westminster attack. ISIS said through its Aamaq News Agency that the attacker was a soldier of the Islamic State who "carried out the operation in response to calls for targeting citizens of the coalition" of countries fighting IS in Syria and Iraq.

British officials did not release the attacker's identity or confirm a link with the Islamic State group, though British Prime Minister Teresa May, in a statement which takes a WWW award for obfuscation, said it would be wrong to describe the attack as "Islamic" extremism. "It is Islamist terrorism," she said. "It is a perversion of a great faith." Anyone who can figure out the distinction between Islamic extremism and Islamist terrorism is invited to do so in the comments window below. Keep it down to 25 words or less, please.

ANOTHER FOOTNOTE: If the Rt. Hon. Teresa May means that Islam is the "religion of peace" the liberals keep apologizing for, perhaps she can explain why Muslims like Khalid Masood -- now identified as the attacker at Westminster -- keep trying to kill non-Muslims. As for me, I just ask, where's Santiago Matamoros (St. James the Moor-slayer -- see featured post), now that we need him more than ever.

How Obama fooled the Jews and took their money

This week the Security Council of the (Dis)united Nations voted to condemn the illegal seizure by the Jewish state (Israel) of Palestinian lands in Jerusalem and the occupied Left Bank. Much to the chagrin of the powerful Zionist lobby in Washington, the USA abstained, even though its veto would have defeated the resolution.

The Jews are predictably furious, accusing President 0 and his minion, John Kerry, of betraying them. This after all the Jews did for Obama and the Democrats. Israel's enemies dream of destroying the Jewish state as the first phase of establishing a global caliphate. Now Obama has now encouraged that dream, and the Jews are rending their garments.

The Jewish Federations across North America (JFNA) issued a statement saying it was "deeply disappointed" that the US did not veto the UN motion. The refusal to do so, they said, "undermined a core principle of American foreign policy that has been embraced by Democratic and Republican Administrations for decades." Moreover, they said it was "tragic that the [Obama] Administration chose to mar its legacy of support for the Jewish State and set back the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace."

The Orthodox Union joined the JFNA at the wailing wall, announcing that it was "gravely disappointed" with the Prez. Not vetoing the motion, they said, "undermined his legacy" and was an "unprecedented and deeply disturbing break from the past."

The leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations said that there was "no justification or explanation that validates the United States failure to veto the one-sided, offensive resolution adopted by the Security Council," and that the "United States vote will be seen as a betrayal of the fundamentals of the special relationship" between Israel and America.

One of the loudest cries of anger and anguish came from famed criminal lawyer (((Alan Dershowitz))), a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party, Barry Obama and, yes, Shrillery Clinton. Mr Dershowitz defended Mr Obama in the court of public opinion when people said the Prez was, if not a practising Muslim, at least an anti-Semite. Now it seems the bromance is over.

In "How Barack Obama fooled the Jews and betrayed them once he had their money" (National Post, 30/12/16), (((Lawrence Solomon))) writes that Mr Dershowitz "finally sees the evidence that had been in plain sight all along, and now understands the extent of Obama's deception. It was 'so nasty. He pulled a bait-and-switch', he says, explaining how Obama in private pretended that it was 'the settlements deep in the West Bank' that were negotiable, not the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, so core to Judaism and to Israel’s heritage."

Mr Solomon presents another, even more trenchant quote. "'(President Obama) called me into the Oval Office before the election and he said to me, 'Alan, I want your support. And I have to tell you, I will always have Israel's back.' I didn't realize that what he meant was that he'd have (Israel's) back to stab them in the back."

The article goes on to explain that winning Jewish support wasn't especially important to Obama and other Democrats in terms of votes. Jews represent just 2% of the American electorate, so they don't count for much at the ballot box. But Jews are huuugely important — even decisive — when it comes to political donations. The Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, and their 2% of the voting population accounts for about two-thirds of all donations received by the Democratic Party. Putting it another way, Jews donate twice as much to Democrats as the 98% of voters who are non-Jews.

The importance of Jewish money to Democratic fortunes (Mr Solomon writes) explains why Mr Obama waited to make his moves against Israel until after his two presidential campaigns and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, who he hoped would preserve his legacy. If Jews had understood his real intentions toward Israel, Mr Obama knew, they would have stopped writing cheques.

Walt predicts that it will take the Democrats at least a generation to recover from B. Hussein Obama's betrayal of their rich and powerful Zionist benefactors. Jews don’t like being made fools of, especially in public, especially by someone of Mr Obama's complexion!

Never forget 9/11

As we pause tomorrow to mark the 15th anniversary of 9/11, let's not forget who did this.

The criminals who flew the planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were Islamic terrorists. Most of them were citizens of Saudi Arabia -- not Iraq, but Saudi Arabia. They learned to fly -- or aim the planes, at least -- in the USA, unnoticed by American "security" agencies. They owed allegiance to Osama bin Laden, a Saudi.

Saudi diplomats and members of the Saudi royal family were flown out of Washington, by arrangement with the government of Bush II, even before the dust settled. So who did Dubya, egged on by Cheney and Rumsfeld, decide to make war on? Not their good friends the Saudis. Not Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in the north of Afghanistan or Pakistan. The target for retaliation became none other than Saddam Hussein. He was picked because the Americans knew where he was. Besides, Dubya had an Oedipal fixation on finishing the job his father started, thus proving that he was more of a man.

On 11 September 2003, Maureen Dowd wrote in the New York Times:

Our leaders have used goofball logic and lousy assumptions to trap the country in a cockeyed replay of the Crusades that could drain our treasury and strain our military for generations, without making us any safer from terrorists and maybe putting us more at risk....

Iraq never threatened US security. Bush officials cynically attacked a villainous country because they knew it was easier than finding the real 9/11 villain, who had no country.... By pretending Iraq was crawling with Al-Qaeda, they've created an Iraq crawling with Al-Qaeda.

The first paragraph turned out to be a considerable understatement. The last sentence was bang on except that the Islamic extremists changed their name from Al-Qaeda to the grander-sounding "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria", the so-called "Caliphate". But make no mistake. They are the same Islamic extremists, the same jihadis, bent on exterminating us "Crusaders", wherever they may find us, including in our homelands. The Bush War (continued half-heartedly by Obama) changed nothing, except to make things worse.

Further reading: "Why the '9/11 Truth' movement endures 15 years later", by Matt Kwong, CBC News, 10/9/16.

Who really "founded" ISIS?

The Donald made headlines last week by saying that Barack Hussein Obama founded ISIS, and his one-time Secretary of State, Hellery Clinton, was its co-founder. He said he meant it. Then he said he was speaking sarcastically, "but not too sarcastically". Perhaps that was going a bit far, but one can certainly make a good case that the IS "caliphate" has benefitted greatly from President 0's weak [non-existent? Ed.] foreign policy, and the ineptitude and general mismanagement of his administration in general, and Ms Clinton in particular.

Who knows why they've bungled the Middle East file so badly? Maybe the Prez really is a Muslim, as many people believe. Still, it's a bit much to give him credit for "founding" ISIS. At the beginning of the Obama-Clinton years, ISIS (or "ISIL", as they keep calling it) didn't really exist. All we had to worry about, the first eight years of this century, was Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. But it cannot be denied that ISIS sprang from Al-Qaeda, and from the mess the Paranoid States of America created in Iraq.

Who was responsible for the Iraq debacle? It wasn't Mr Obama, but a Republican. No, not Dubya -- except in the sense that he, as Supreme Commander, must bear the ultimate reponsibility -- but one his appointees, named and shamed by Gwynne Dyer in After Iraq (St. Martin's Press, New York, 2007). That would be... wait for it... Lewis Paul Bremer III, a former Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates. (Yes, that Kissinger.) Mr Bremer was appointed by President Bush II as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on 9 May 2003. His appointment declared him subject to the "authority, direction and control" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He led the American occupation of Iraq from 11 May 11 2003 until 28 June 2004. Here's what Gwynne Dyer says, with Walt's emphasis.

[Bremer] disbanded the entire Iraqi army and police force and banned all senior Ba'ath Party members -- and anybody in the top three management layers of government ministries, government-run corporations, universities and hospitals who was a Party member at all -- from future government employment. Bremer paid no need to arguments that, until his arrival, conversations had been underway with Iraqi generals for the reconstitution of the army, purged of its Saddam loyalists, and that in all the former ruling parties of post-Communist states in the early 1990s the majority of the "senior" members had been innocent professionals who had been compelled to join in order to do their jobs.

So far as it can be discerned these were Bremer's own decisions, not imposed on him by the White House, and they had catastrophic effects. With a couple of decrees he effectively gutted the Iraqi state apparatus and abolished the only other national institutions, the army and police, that at least in theory rose above mere sectarian, ethnic, and local concerns. He also abruptly three half a million people, most of them with weapons training, serious organizational abilities, or both, onto the street in the most humiliating way.

The Sunni insurgency began at once, led initially by ex-army officers and Ba'ath officials and public justified by incidents like the killings [by US soldiers of unarmed demonstrators] at Fallujah. These "dead-enders", as they were explained away in Washington, were soon joined in the insurgency by homegrown Islamist extremists who had previously been terrorized into submission by Saddam's regime, and by some foreign Islamists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who made themselves useful by offering to carry out suicide attacks.

By the autumn of 2004, only a year and a half after the invasion, the US authorities wwere recording between two thousand and three thousand insurgent attacks per month. The shocking pictures taken by the American torturers at Abu Ghraib had a big impact elsewhere in the Muslim world, but in Iraq they caused no particular upsurge in the violence: most people had already chosen their side.

Walt doesn't always agree with Gwynne Dyer's politics, but reads his columns in the international (non-American) media regularly, and often quotes him here. Mr Dyer earned a Ph.D. in Military and Middle Eastern History from the University of London, served in three navies and holds acade3mic appointments at the Royal Military Academy (Sandhurst) and Oxford University. I think he knows what he's talking about.

In the Introduction to After Iraq, Mr Dyer argues -- as Ron Paul has for lo these many years -- that the USA has no skin in what is essentially a Muslim civil war, and should get out of the Middle East immediately, before things get any worse. (Maybe things couldn't get any worse. Mr Dyer was writing in 2007, before ISIS swept across Iraq and Syria.) Here's what he says.

What should the rest of the world do about this? Nothing. Just stand back and let it happen. Outsiders to the region have no solutions left to peddle any more (nor any credibility even if they did have solutions), and they no longer have the power or the will to impose their ideas. For the first time in a century, the region is going to choose its future for itself -- and it may, of course, make a dreadful mess of it. Even then, outsiders should not intervene, because foreign intervention generally makes things worse -- but also because it's none of their business.

Further reading: "Just How Much Should Paul Bremer Be Blamed for the Rise of the Islamic State?", in Foreign Policy in Focus, 18/3/16.

Islamists' 7-phase plan to rule the world

I wanted to end the year on a note of peace, love and goodwill to all men [and women and gender-fluid persons. Ed.] but those things are in short supply, it seems. All over Europe, New Year's Eve celebrations are being scaled down or cancelled altogether for fear of Paris-style attacks by Islamic extremists. Inspectors Knacker, Poirot and Clouseau are busily rounding up the usual -- read: Muslim -- suspects, as the "Christian" West cowers in fear.

As well we might. In 2005, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein published Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda, in which he lays out, in Arabic, Al-Qaeda's grand strategy, a seven-phase, 20-year plan to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Here, in Glenn Beck's précis* [with slight edits], is how it works. As you read this, keep in mind that Mr. Beck wrote this in 2007, before anyone had heard of ISIS!

Phase One: "The Awakening" - Wake up Muslims around the world, by provoking the United States to attack the Islamic world. 9/11, with its resulting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was a pretty good start for this phase. Hussein wrote that Al-Qaeda considered 9/11 to be "very successful" and believes that its message is now being heard "everywhere".

Phase Two: "Opening Eyes" - The idea is to turn the Islamic community into a "movement" by recruiting young men and making Iraq the central base of operations. Progressing well.

Phase Three: "Arising and Standing Up" - Attacks on Syria, Turkey, Israel and possibly Jordan highlight this stage, which is hoped to make Al-Qaeda "a more recognized organization". Also well under way except that Al-Qaeda has been supplanted by ISIS.

Phase Four: "Take Over" - With many Middle East countries facing terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda's hope is to begin collapsing the governments of hated Arabic countries. Simultaneously, terrorists intend to attack oil infrastructure and suppliers and cripple the U.S. economy through cyber-terrorism. Moving along nicely.

Phase Five: "Caliphate" - With weakened or toppled governments and a decreased willingness of Western governments to intervene -- hello, President 0 -- an Islamic state can be created to bring about "a new world order". Yes, 10 years ago Mr. Hussein predicted the rise of the "Islamic state". Et voilà!

Phase Six: "Total Confrontation" - A "fight between the believers and the non-believers" will be initiated by the new Islamic army -- read: jihadists. Attacks on schools [Mr. Beck predicted in 2007] would "turn us into a nation of irrational nut-jobs, who would do insane things like torch mosques, and that's exactly what they want. That too has come to pass.

Phase Seven: "Definitive Victory" - With "one and a half billion Muslims" fighting, the Islamic army will defeat all others within two years, and the caliphate will stand.

The only thing Mr. Hussein missed, as Walt sees it, is that the jihadists adopted a more practical "stealth" variation of Phase Six. Why raise an army -- although they're certainly recruiting lots of "radicalized Muslims" in our prisons and on the Internet -- when you infiltrate thousands, even millions of Islamists into western countries disguised as "refugees". Three jumbo-jetloads of them will arrive in Canada this evening. From the ghettos of Toronto and Montréal, it's only a short hop across the border to the outlet malls of New York. Don't say you weren't warned!

* Footnote and book recommendation: I got the précis above from Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book (Simon & Schuster, 2007), which I recommend. Some might say that An Inconvenient Book was authored by a non-writer for non-readers. It does appear to have been designed for TV viewers, people who like lots of graphics and colour. But it's a quick and easy read, and there's some good stuff in there, including Mr. Beck's 4-phase plan for preventing the Islamists from taking over.

Walt explains the connection between Communism, Islam and Fatima

Where's Walt? A little over four years ago, the answer was: somewhere in that crowd of pilgrims in front of the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary, at Fátima, Portugal. It was there that the Mother of God appeared to three shepherd children, Blesseds Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lúcia Santos, known as "Sister Lucy" after she became a nun.

For those (including, sadly, the majority of Catholics) who don't know what happened at Fátima, a brief explanation, then a thought which occurred to me as I read Mark Steyn's controversial book America Alone. The Mother of God appeared at Fátima in 1917 to warn us that we are in the last times predicted in the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine. (To non-Catholic Christians, that's the New Testament Book of Revelation.)

The apparitions -- the most famous of the 20th century -- gained particular fame due to their elements of prophecy and eschatology, particularly with regard to possible world war and the conversion of Soviet Russia. They were officially declared "worthy of belief" by the Catholic Church.

As I read America Alone, I was struck by the significance of the fact that Our Lady chose to appear at Fátima, a dusty little village in the middle of Portugal. Why there? There were thousands, millions of places in the world where She could have found poor shepherd children to show Herself to. Or why not Rome? Or Jerusalem? Why Fátima?

When I first heard the name "Fátima", I associated it with Islam. And indeed, Fátima was named after Fatimah,‎ a daughter of the Islamic prophet Muhammad from his first wife Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. Wikipedia tells us that after Khadijah, Muslims regard Fatimah as the most significant historical figure, considered to be the leader of all women in this world and in Paradise. She occupies an analogous position in Islam to that the Blessed Virgin Mary occupies in Christianity.


Now here's the connection. Throughout America Alone, Mark Steyn argues that the real enemy of the West is Islam. One of the goals of the Islamists is to reconquer and reestablish the Caliphate, the Muslim empire (shown above) which, in the 7th and 8th centuries AD, stretched from the Middle East all the way to the Iberian peninsula. Fatima is in the northwest corner of of this vast tract of land.

How will the Muslims reassert their dominance over Spain and Portugal, and spread their empire through all of Europe and beyond? Not by force of arms. According to Steyn, terrorism is the weapon of a weak enemy. If America (led by Hussein Obama) really wanted to, it could cut out the heart of Islam just ilke that.

But the Islamists don't have to conquer us by the sword. Steyn says, and Walt agrees, that the Muslims will defeat and occupy the West by force of demographics. They are breeding like rabbits -- little veiled and turbanned rabbits -- while we are killing our children before they are born, by birth control and abortion. The fact is, the formerly Christian peoples are not reproducing fast enough to maintain their populations. Our populations are actually shrinking, whereas those of the Islamic states are expanding -- expanding into the empty spaces in the cities, towns and villages of our countries.

Where did we Christians get the idea that "zero population growth" is a Good Thing, a goal to be embraced by all enlightened and progressive thinkers? From the Communists! Our Lady of Fatima warned us that if the "errors of Russia" were not resisted, and that poor nation converted, those errors would spread throughout the world, billions of souls would be lost and entire nations annihilated.

And that is exactly what's happening. Chief among the errors of Russia (i.e. the errors of Communism) is "family planning" and the notion of sex for its own sake, rather than for God's purpose of procreation. Although Communism has supposedly been defeated, in Russia and the former Communist states, 70% of pregnancies are "terminated". Communist China persists in its "one child policy", under which millions of babies are killed every year, not just before birth but after!

So that's how Communism, Islam and Fatima interconnect. The errors of Communism are causing the suicide of the West. And who benefits? The Muslims. Europe -- including Britain -- is already well down to the road to becoming what Steyn calls "Eurabia". Canada, which is closer to Europe than America in its social attitudes and policies, will be next. And then America.

The only thing that can save us -- save the West from being occupied and dominated by the Muslim hordes -- is a return, a conversion to the True Faith, the Faith of our Christian fathers.