So, once more we find that our European friends exist in a world of delusion and self-absorption.  Here's hoping that this woman never wins another Oscar, ever.  But even aside from that, let's hope that Europe scrapes up the resolve to save its own culture from radical Islam.  It's a special kind of intellect that can observe the work of terrorists and then without irony assert that the destruction was all an inside job.  Astoundingly special.

You may be aware that Mohammed is quickly becoming the most popular boy's name in Britain and France.  And anyone who has followed the news in Denmark may be aware that things are getting hairy.  I'd like to believe that people like Mark Steyn are wrong.  I'd like to believe that a culture will, when faced with things like the Sept. 11th attacks, rally its disparate parts and commit to preserving its way of life.

But it seems that as the threat from militant Islam increases, European nations only bury their head in the sand with yet more vigor.  They attack those critical to Islam as bigots, blithely refusing to do anything about the imams who preach violence and conquest to impressionable, disenfranchised young immigrants.  They acquiesce to Muslim demands that demean women.  A recent example?  Giving tax breaks to men with multiple wives.  The Archbishop of Canterbury proposes that some form of shari'a law in Britain might be a good thing.  When some commentary is made, it is generally not productive.  Comes to mind the Danish Cartoons -- worldwide riots erupt and still the Europeans blame themselves.  They are committing cultural suicide.  If only we could let them. 
But in their place would rise a threat to America that is unprecedented in this age of unbelief.  A militant religion that would fill the void in Europe made by the excoriation of Christianity, that would within a few generations be poised to seriously impede American influence.
Because if you think the French don't like America now, wait until the French take their cues from the imams who are preaching today.

'9/11 attacks made up, ' says French best actress Oscar-winner

By PETER ALLEN - More by this author » Last updated at 01:08am on 2nd March 2008

Comments (11)

Oscar-winner Marion Cotillard has accused America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks

Actress Marion Cotillard sparked a political row yesterday after accusing America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks.

The 32-year-old French actress, who received an Oscar last month for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, openly questioned the truth behind the terrorist atrocity in an interview broadcast on a French website.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends.

Referring to the two passenger jets being flown into the Twin Towers, Cotillard said:

"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? They [sic] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

She added that the towers, planned in the early Sixties, were an outdated "money-sucker" that would have cost more to modernise than to rebuild altogether, which is why they were destroyed.

She said: "It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to re-cable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them."

Cotillard's stardom and increased earning power looked assured following her Oscar win.

But after her outburst, in which she also queried the 1969 Moon landings, a successful future in Hollywood appears to be in jeopardy.

She said: "Did a man really walk on the Moon? I saw plenty of documentaries on it, and I really wondered. And in any case I don't believe all they tell me, that's for sure."

Cotillard, who was born and brought up in Paris, made the comments on Paris Première - Paris Dernière, a programme broadcast a year ago.

Scroll down for more

Stars in their eyes: Elton John and partner David Furnish cosy up to the hottest new actress in Hollywood

Celebration: Marion celebrated her win with Hollywood's A-listers - including Sharon Stone - at Elton John's party in Hollywood

At the time her remarks were largely ignored, but their appearance yesterday on the French magazine website Marianne2 comes at a time when Cotillard's profile is sky-high.

She is shortly due to fly to Chicago to star alongside Johnny Depp in Public Enemies, a gangster movie expected to be her first big money-spinner.

Cotillard's film career began in Luc Besson's 1998 film Taxi - a huge hit in France but less so around the world.

She is slowly becoming a household name in France, in a list most recently topped by her close friend Audrey Tautou and previously by women such as Catherine Deneuve and Brigitte Bardot.

Scroll down for more

'I think we're lied to about a number of things' Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends

But Cotillard, who lives with actor and director Guillaume Canet, frequently tells interviewers she has no interest in money or prestige.

Denying that she had any kind of "Anglo-Saxon ambition", she said she prefers to "choose roles which suit me".

Despite her low-key image, Cotillard is an environmental activist who once worked as a spokesman for Greenpeace.

News of her anti-Americanism comes as Franco-American relations appear to be thawing, following Paris's refusal to show support for the invasion of Iraq.

President Nicolas Sarkozy insists he is pro-American, even supporting so-called "Anglo-Saxon" economic reforms.

John McCain made a stop in Norfolk, VA today to discuss foreign policy issues and receive some glowing praise from a number of his colleagues.  Always keen to learn more about international relations and, well, see famous people, I managed to weasel my way in and was treated to a sensible, realistic acknowledgment of the threat of radical Islam.  This is from some of the most knowledgeable authorities on national security in Congress. 
Chief among these in my eyes was John Warner.  A Southern gentleman in the truest sense, Senator Warner has been a strong advocate for the military and if he believes that John McCain will do well as the President then I am prepared to believe him.
The major point today was that we absolutely must confront radical, militant Islam.  I agree with that sentiment 100%.  Senator Sam Brownback made some very excellent statements, bringing the focus onto Africa where a significant amount of Muslim extremism is fomented.  Brownback is also extremely prominent in the pro-life community.  His endorsement of McCain puts any doubts about McCain's pro-life credits to rest.
In addition to these two men, the endorsement of former Secretaries of the Navy William Ball and John Lehman spoke volumes about their beliefs in McCain's strong military stance.  Rebuilding the military is key, as the Clinton years saw too much military reduction.  Rumsfeld made an error before Iraq and Afghanistan by not focusing more effort on building up force levels to avoid long, repeated deployments.  But another point made today was that we must maintain the All Volunteer Force by increasing recruitment and increasing opportunities for soldiers.  As McCain said, there is a market out there and young people have to know their needs will be met should they choose military service.

It is well within the interests of my region of Virginia to elect a man like John McCain. 

McCain is strong on the social issues.  Period.  McCain is obviously strong on foreign policy (his strong language regarding Iran was particularly impressive), though conservatives still need more assurance about the illegal immigration issue.  When I informed my good friend W that I was in attendance, he cut to the heart of the matter quite succinctly:  "...if they serve lunch order the enchiladas.  I hear they taste really good with a side of amnesty."  No lunch, but it is important to keep from getting star-struck.  Thanks W!
On a side note, I just saw myself on TV.  Some guy blocked my handshake with McCain and the annoyance on my face is pretty obvious.  I wish I had a picture.  It's ok, because I did get to shake Sam Brownback's hand and let him know I appreciate his pro-life stance.  He said we've got to push harder on that issue.  Agreed.
I got a picture of McCain answering questions from the press, which I have provided.  Forgive the quality.  I didn't think I'd actually be allowed inside and neglected to bring a camera!  If I can locate a bit of that video with my handshake fiasco, I'll post that too.  UPDATE:  Here's that video...Note the disappointed looking young man at 56 seconds in.  That old guy in front of me was such a fanboy, he jostled me out of the way just to tell McCain something the man wouldn't remember in 10 seconds anyway.

Enjoy this article from National review, get pissed, and tell somebody.  I think that even if you disagree with Steyn, you have to wonder at the audacity these Muslim groups have...and the complicity of this Canadian organization in stifling debate on the subject.

Free Steyn

By the Editors

Our readers know Mark Steyn well. His witty and learned commentary appears in every issue of National Review, and in many other English publications across the world. What Steyn’s American readers may not know is that a Muslim advocacy group in his native Canada is doing its best to muzzle him.

On December 4, the Canadian Islamic Congress announced that it had filed a complaint with three of Canada’s “human rights commissions” over an October 2006 article that Steyn had published in Maclean’s, Canada’s leading news weekly. “This article completely misrepresents Canadian Muslims’ values, their community, and their religion,” said Faisal Joseph, an attorney representing the complainants, in a press release. “We feel that it is imperative to challenge Maclean’s biased portrayal of Muslims in order to protect Canadian multiculturalism and tolerance.”

The article in question was adapted from Steyn’s recent book America Alone, which argues that Western society may be irrevocably altered — and not for the better — by unassimilated Muslim immigration. It’s no surprise that this thesis is controversial, probably in part because Steyn makes his points so well. But the real threat to tolerance here is the CIC, which would have the state impose penalties on those whose writings it disagrees with.

In doing so it only provides evidence for Steyn’s thesis. Another group of Canadian Muslims — the Muslim Canadian Congress — has said as much, denouncing the CIC’s complaint for affirming “the stereotype that Muslims have little empathy for vigorous debate and democracy.” But at the moment, the CIC’s push for censorship advances. Of the three human-rights commissions to which it submitted its complaint, two have agreed to hear the case. (The third has yet to decide.)

Since their founding, Canada’s human-rights commissions have done less to protect the rights of minorities than to undermine the liberties of everyone. To get an idea of what they’re like, consider the recent case of Stephen Boissoin.

Boissoin, a Baptist minister, learned that the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an initiative that described homosexuality as “normal, necessary, acceptable and productive.” Boissoin objected to this and wanted to make his views known. As he put it to a Canadian Internet publication: “[I] felt that as a taxpayer, and indirect funder of this initiative through my tax dollars, I had a right to communicate my opinion which is reflective of my religious beliefs. In an attempt to do so, I decided to potentially share my opinion at large by submitting letters to the editor in newspapers.”

The publication of one such letter brought a complaint from a “social justice” advocate, and Boissoin was dragged before the very body he had complained about — the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That was 2002. It took five years of anxiety-filled and expensive legal proceedings for the commission to rule against Boissoin. They determined that he had violated Alberta’s laws because there was, as one commission member put it, a “circumstantial connection” between the publication of the letter and an incident of gay-bashing. “Circumstantial connection” is of course another way of saying that Boissoin had nothing to do with it. One wonders in passing whether the same can be said of the Koran, and which side the commission would take if Maclean’s published a few choice Koranic passages on homosexuality.

Even if the human-rights commissions eventually rule for Steyn and Maclean’s, the proceedings will be costly, and will intimidate others who wish to express controversial views. To his great credit, one conservative Canadian cabinet minister, Jason Kenney, has spoken in defense of Steyn. Some of the Canadian press is coming to Steyn’s defense as well. We hope the chorus swells.

And we hope Americans raise their voices too. So far the U.S. media have paid little attention to the case, but it should matter to us. Steyn’s writings — even those in Canadian publications — have a large and influential American readership. We trust those readers prefer that Canada remain free.

Father killed daughter for not wearing hijab, her friends say

Dec 11 12:56 PM US/Eastern	259 Comments

View larger image Muslim Man Kills Daughter For Not Wearing Hijab

Friends and classmates of a 16-year-old girl who police say was murdered by her devout Muslim father in a Toronto suburb told local media Tuesday she was killed for not wearing a hijab. Police said in a statement they received an emergency call at 7:55 am local time Monday from "a man who indicated that he had just killed his daughter." The victim, Aqsa Parvez, was "rushed to hospital with life-threatening injuries, but tragically passed away late last night." Her father, Muhammad Parvez, 57, was arrested at the scene and will be formally charged with murder when he appears in court Wednesday, said police. The girl's friends, meanwhile, told local media she was having trouble at home because she did not conform to the family's religious beliefs and refused to wear a traditional Islamic head scarf, or hijab. "She wanted to go different ways than her family wanted to go, and she wanted to make her own path, but he (her father) wouldn't let her," one of her classmates told public broadcaster CBC. "She loved clothes," another of her friends, Dominiquia Holmes-Thompson, told the daily Toronto Star. "She just wanted to show her beauty ... She just wanted to dress like us, just like a normal person." According to her friends, Aqsa had worn the hijab at school last year, but rebelled in recent months. They said she would leave home wearing a hijab and loose-fitting clothes, but would take off her head scarf and change into tighter garments at school, then change back before going home at the end of the day. The victim's 26 year-old brother was also charged with obstructing police in the investigation.

I have to say, the news is out there if you just look for it.  Let's see, we had the honor killing in London a while back.  Now it seems that Canada has joined the club.  I anticipate that within the next two years we will have an instance of this in the United States.  Maybe I just don't know about it.
Want to know the problem of Radical Islam?  It's that it can grow within communities of moderate or liberal Muslims.  Some young fella, maybe second generation (or first, who knows) decides his parents aren't Muslim enough, he starts going to wacky websites and then he finds himself an imam who talks up hardline Islam, pretty soon he's a fairly solid fundamentalist, the type who would read the Koran and say,
"You know what, it's right to kill female members of my family if they cause me shame.  Thanks Allah!" 
It's interesting. 
It can happen in other faiths as well.  How many ex-hippies have Southern Baptist children?  Difference being that Southern Baptists only rarely engage in strangulation.