Now the same pattern is repeating itself in Europe and America, as the tentacles of Islamo-fascism engulf western civilization. In their written manifestos, the Islamists make no secret of their intention to conquer and subjugate Europe and America. In the sermons that rant from the leaders of their mosques week after week they exhort the faithful to commit without reservation to the holy war against western culture. They live on the largesse of their western host countries, while working steadfastly to destroy their benefactors. Living on public welfare in England, they call for the destruction of England. Living in America, they openly burn and trample the American flag. And through lawsuits, intimidation, and assassination, once again they are silencing the voices that warn against them.

Recently, a preliminary judge in Italy succumbed to political pressure from Islamists and their Italian apologists who brought suit against Ms. Fallaci on charges that she defamed Islam in her most recent book, La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason).** Judge Armando Grasso, in the northern Italian city of Bergamo, ordered Oriana Fallaci to return to Italy from the United States to stand trial in her native country. According to Hyscience, this is "in spite of the fact that state prosecutors had originally dismissed accusations of defamation from an Italian Muslim organization, and said Fallaci should not stand trial because she was merely exercising her right to freedom of speech."

With a courage learned from her parents and refined during a lifetime of frontline journalism, Oriana Fallaci still cries out against the impending danger. She describes in detail the methods by which the Islamo-fascists penetrate a civilized country, by which they develop the skills and resources in loco to destroy their host nation, by which they stockpile and train for Jihad against those who made them welcome. She watches with pain and disbelief as the western countries ignore the warning--even after the strike on the Twin Towers which should have been a louder wake-up call than the attack on Pearl Harbor. She sees the affluent westerners lulled in the apathy of their materialism return to buying their SUVs, going to their soccer games, watching Hollywood fantasies instead of understanding real life, worshiping liberal entertainment icons instead of national patriots. And she weeps with words, and her words are tears.

Cross posted at American Daughter

*The Rage and the Pride, by Oriana Fallaci, Rizzoli Press, New York, 2002

**On "Fallaci Charged With Defaming Islam" at Hyscience

Suggestion: Don't just be alarmed, get determined to stop this madness. Call your legislators at both the state and federal levels, tell your friends, comment on blogs, news media, and stay alert. Most of all, practice your faith - for if the Islamists have their way, that will end!

Here is something you might consider blowing open on your blog:

EPA and Human Testing - Human Dosing Studies
http://www.peer.org/campaigns/testing/human.php
EPA Embraces Human Testing Without Safeguards
Infamous CHEERS Study Returns and Multiplies Under Different Names
On Friday, April 8, in the midst of Senate hearings on his nomination to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stephen Johnson issued a defensively worded statement announcing the cancellation of the CHEERS study in which parents would be paid to spray pesticides in the rooms occupied by their infant children under age 3. Johnson did not admit any ethical problems with the study but nonetheless concluded the study could not go forward due to an atmosphere “of gross misrepresentation and controversy.”
In fact, Johnson is expanding the use of human pesticide dosing studies by EPA. While CHEERS (which stands for Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study) will not proceed with EPA funding, the same study can take place with private sponsors. In fact, the American Chemistry Council, representing 135 companies including pesticide makers, already pledged $2 million toward the study’s $9 million overall cost.
The reason Stephen Johnson clung so stubbornly to CHEERS is that it serves as a model for industry on how to conduct similar experiments for submissions to EPA. The pesticide industry has been pressing the Bush Administration to liberalize rules on human testing of pesticides and other chemicals since the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act. That Act set ten-fold stricter exposure standards for children absent reliable data showing no harm. Industry needs actual human experimental data to trump animal studies in order to justify relaxed exposure limits.
In February, EPA published a draft policy that opens the door for accepting any experiments conducted by pesticide companies and chemical manufacturers using human subjects without establishing any safeguards to ensure that the studies are conducted ethically and without harm to the subjects. Under this policy, EPA will –
Defer adopting protections for infants, neonates, pregnant women, and prisoners that apply to all medical and drug testing overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services. Instead, EPA announces it “may propose to adopt” stricter protections for vulnerable populations at some unspecified future date;
Not require companies to demonstrate that they have abided by informed consent, appropriate inducement and other basic ethical standards. Instead, EPA promises “to publish non-binding guidance reflecting its plans” to possibly apply these elemental safeguards sometime in the future; and
Avoid any independent safety or ethical review, as is required for other human subject studies. Instead, EPA has assigned one of its own staff members to act as a “Human Subjects Research Review Official.” In practice, however, it is up to the top political appointees to flag unethical corporate experiments on a “case-by-case basis.”
This policy is open for public comment until May 9. Please take a few moments to email EPA officials and go on record against human testing without safeguards at EPA.
The basic problem is this: human studies to see whether a drug can help its experimental subjects have far more ethical and safety protections than EPA studies to determine whether a chemical harms its subjects. Unless EPA adopts basic safeguards before it accepts human dosing experiments for regulatory purposes, the CHEERS fiasco will replay itself in other studies under other acronyms.
Contact PEER Tell-a-Friend Your Privacy
Ph: (202) 265-7337 • Fax: (202) 265-4192 • email: info@peer.org
all content © peer.org 2005