Monday, May 31, 2010

The Unholy Alliance of Marxism and Islamic Jihad


Andrew Breitbart's Big Journalism Blog has a MUST READ Essay entitled: Ten Questions About ‘The Grand Jihad’ For Author Andrew McCarthy


Posted by Michael Walsh May 31st 2010 at 1:14 pm in Featured Story, Politics, Religion

Andy McCarthy’s vital new book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, was published last week. The author, a former federal prosecutor, discusses the looming threats both foreign and domestic:

Q. Why did you write this book? Surely, you’re overstating the threat to the American way of life from radical Islam.

We’re 17 years removed from the declaration of a jihadist war against the United States, the bombing of the World Trade Center, and nearly a decade removed from the jihadist atrocities of 9/11. Yet, as recently as last week, we heard President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser insist that Islam has nothing to do with the threat facing us and that because Islam is, by his lights, benign, and so is jihad — merely an internal struggle to “purify” oneself or one’s community. In point of fact, we are facing a movement that is very mainstream among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, a movement that unabashedly declares itself as engaged in a “civilizational” war against America and the West. I don’t think I’m overstating the threat; I think I’m reporting the threat precisely as our enemies have stated it, notwithstanding that our political leadership won’t come to grips with the fact that we have enemies, let alone with the ideology that catalyzes them.


Q. You open with the memorable moment when President Obama bowed to the Saudi King. Although you dismiss the notion that Obama is some kind of “Manchurian Muslim,” why else would he do such a thing? In fact, why is he so loath to speak out against any Muslim, anywhere, if on some level he does not share either religious or cultural sympathies with them?

There is a difference between being a Muslim, which Obama is not, and sharing religious and cultural sympathies with Muslims — indeed, adhering to much of the Islamist narrative that blames America for our tensions with Muslims — which Obama surely does. As I explain in the book, based on a comparative study of Islamist and Leftist ideologies (particularly Qutb and Rousseau) as well as on numerous historic and present-day examples of cooperation between Islamists and Leftists, there is immense common ground between these two camps. Both are authoritarian systems, totalitarian in the sense that they want to control every aspect of the individual’s life, and virulently opposed to capitalism and individual liberty. President Obama is the leader of the modern hard Left and King Abdullah — whose title is Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques, Islam’s crown jewels of Mecca and Medina — is the emblem of the global Islamist movement. They share a common goal of radically transforming the West. Even though they part company on the details of what they would transform it into, they both need to topple American constitutional republicanism in order to install their utopias.


Q. The heart of your book is the argument that the Left and Islam have made an alliance of convenience, sharing a common enemy, which is classical Western civilization. Some dismiss this idea with the riposte that the Left will suffer as much if not more than anybody under Sharia Law. How do you answer them?

The Left has colluded with Islamists numerous times in the past: Iranian communists supported Khomeini against the Shah, Nasser confederated with the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian monarchy, the PLO has always combined Leftists and Islamists, the Pakistani People’s Party still regards its program as Islamic socialism (which is also the way Nasser saw his program), etc. This should surprise no one. Rousseau, the father of modern radical movements, was an admirer of Islam — mainly because it rejects the separation between the spiritual and secular realms. And just look around you: Who is al Qaeda’s main lawyer? The Leftist Center for Constitutional Rights. Who is CAIR’s reliable partner in litigation opposing sensible national security measure’s? The ACLU. Islamist groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council were very active championing Obama’s big-government takeover of healthcare. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the architect and chief theoretician of the global Islamist movement, is aggressively Leftist in its political and social programs.

So it seems silly to me to rationalize that the Left has lots to lose in a partnership with Islamists — as if we were talking about a hypothetical. The cooperation is happening. The better question is: Why? The easy answer is that the two sides have more in common than they have in opposition. Moreover, to say that the Left would suffer more than anyone under Sharia law misses the point. We are not in a situation where the only ones left are the radical Left and the Islamists — where they would square off against each other. Instead, we are at a point in history when they both have a more pressing common enemy: the culture of freedom in the West. As they have done numerous times in the past, they will work together to try to defeat that enemy. Once that happens — if we let it happen — then they can figure out which one is the crocodile and which one the last appeaser to be eaten.


Q. To what do you attribute the MSM’s reluctance to explore these questions? Does the “narrative” of the First Black President outweigh everything else? Are they lazy? Complicit? Some combination of all three?

The MSM has its roots in the modern Left: It is a product of the J-schools and Democratic Party politics. It has fostered our suffocating climate of political correctness in which America is always at fault, Obama is the savior, and Islam is an unalloyed societal good — to the point that even when a jihadist at Fort Hood, while screaming “Allahu Akbar!”, mass-murders twice as many people as were killed in the 1993 WTC bombing, the MSM (like our government) would rather gouge its eyes out than admit that the savage was a Muslim. There is laziness in the journalism biz just like there is everyplace else, but for the most part today’s journalists are invested in the Left’s ascendancy. We are living in their world.


Q. Why are Americans so slow to pick up the concepts of dawa and jihad?

For two reasons. First, our political leadership — including administrations of both parties — has been desperate to suppress Islamic doctrine’s role in fueling terrorism committed by Muslims. Second, though Islam aspires to be much more than a religion (it is an all-encompassing legal, political and social system from which the spiritual elements are indivisible), it is given the label of “religion.” We have an admirable impulse in the West not to pry into other people’s belief systems. Beyond that, no one wants to be accused of religious bigotry by a grievance industry dominated by Leftists and Islamists. Think about it this way: despite the enormity of evil and peril involved in terrorist attacks that have now claimed thousands of lives, we can’t get people to focus on the ideology behind violent jihad. How much more difficult it is, then, to get them focused on the less immediate threat of dawa, which Robert Spencer aptly describes as the stealth (generally nonviolent) form of jihad. Unless people perceive the challenge as truly threatening, they will never pick up on these concepts. The Islamist and Leftist groups are trying to keep them asleep. My book is a modest attempt to wake them up.


Q. Discuss the role of Political Correctness in our apprehension, or lack of it, of Islam.

As I’ve said, political correctness has a lot to do with our lack of apprehension. But so does flat out extortion. When people speak out against Islamist supremacism, they are threatened and sometimes killed — and the reaction of our opinion elites is to condemn the victims for being provocative. So we get to the absurd point where Yale University Press purges depictions of the Danish cartoons in a book about the Danish cartoons that sparked Islamist rioting. In the Flying Imams incident, which I consider in detail in the book, efforts are made to sue the passengers who reported the imams’ reprehensible conduct — and the airline, after some terrible rulings by a judge sympathetic to the Islamists, ends up having to pay a settlement. This is political correctness with some real teeth, and its unmistakable message is: If you see something, say nothing.


Q. Isn’t one of the problems that we continue to think in terms of nation-states, whereas Islam disdains such a concept in favor of the ummah?

Well, I prefer to think in terms of nation-states because, if we are saved, nation-states will play a major role in that. Nation-states are much more apt to pursue their interests, including their defense, than the alternative: international organizations run by transnational progressives who are a big part of the problem. It is undeniably true, though, that Islamists reject the Westphalian world order — and we should bear that in mind when they prattle about how much they purportedly love America and other Western countries, and how they’re just challenging us to live up to “our values.”


Q. What’s it going to take for us to wake up? If and when an American city is nuked will we even fight back? Or will the lawyers and the JAGs find legalistic excuses for inaction?

It’s going to take a solution from outside of government: the American people have to be made aware of the threat we face — which is much broader and more insidious than terrorism — and they have to demand action. This is not unheard of. Public outrage has been very effective in stopping some of our political leadership’s worst agenda items — comprehensive immigration reform and the closing of Gitmo come to mind; we came very close to derailing Obamacare and we still have a chance of reversing it before it goes into effect. But it is going to take public awareness and passion. I hope it doesn’t take a catastrophic nuclear attack, but — sad to say — 9/11 obviously didn’t grab people like it should have. In many ways, we’re worse off today.


Q. Is there a Martel, a Sobieski or a Kitchener on the horizon, or have we arrived at the Spenglerian end of western power?

The American people are an endlessly resourceful and energetic people. While dependency culture has made alarming inroads, I still believe we are passionate about our freedom, and we will fight for it once it is clear that the fight has to be made. But I admit, it’s late in the day.


Q. There must be one bright spot, right… Right?

It is still possible for us to have this conversation and to be very candid about what we’re up against. In a lot of places, that can’t happen, and if the Obama administration continues canoodling with the likes of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — which wants to criminalize any critical discussion of Islam — we’ll need to worry that America could become one of those places. For now, it’s not. For now, we still have our rights to speak, to persuade, and to act in our defense. There are real points of disagreement between Islam and the Left. They combine because they sense their mutual enemy, our freedom culture, is very potent. If that culture were fatally weak, they’d already have won. They haven’t … and they’re still a ways from achieving their aspirations. To me, that’s a pretty bright spot.


*******

Be sure to read the comments over at Big Journalism, too.

There is SO MUCH that can be discussed regarding this interview! For now, I want to focus on one answer given by Mr. McCarthy:


So it seems silly to me to rationalize that the Left has lots to lose in a partnership with Islamists — as if we were talking about a hypothetical. The cooperation is happening. The better question is: Why? The easy answer is that the two sides have more in common than they have in opposition. Moreover, to say that the Left would suffer more than anyone under Sharia law misses the point. We are not in a situation where the only ones left are the radical Left and the Islamists — where they would square off against each other. Instead, we are at a point in history when they both have a more pressing common enemy: the culture of freedom in the West. As they have done numerous times in the past, they will work together to try to defeat that enemy. Once that happens — if we let it happen — then they can figure out which one is the crocodile and which one the last appeaser to be eaten.
[Note: bold and italics mine.]

Want to see an example of a protester at a leftist march up in San Francisco who is holding a sign that reflects EXACTLY what Mr. McCarthy alleges in the quote above?


The sign reads: "Thank you S. F. (San Francisco) Liberals - You Die Last."

In light of this interview, that sign makes more sense now, doesn't it?

The Islamists think that they will defeat their former cooperative cohorts - the Marxists - and the Marxists think that they will ultimately triumph over the Islamists.

Remind you of anything in history?

Perhaps the fact that Nazi Germany secretly worked together with Islam, [See Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West] and also worked together with Communist Russia [See Glenn Beck's Documentary: Live Free or Die ] before they became enemies later on during World War II? See this video that discusses the agreement between the secret protocol between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Please consider alerting your family, neighbors, friends and acquaintances to the danger that the unholy alliance of Marxism and Islamic Jihad presents to the United States of America, and all other Western nations that hold to the desire for freedom and liberty, smaller government, a strong military to protect our nation and border. We want the ability to pursue economic entrepreneurism and wealth-building capitalistic enterprises without the intrusion of big government. Most importantly, WE THE PEOPLE here in America want to hold onto our sovereignty and RESTORE the Constitutional Republic form of government originally given to us by our Founding Fathers.

Those who do not read blogs and depend entirely on the controlled network news probably have no idea what is really going with the unholy alliance of Islam and Marxism behind the scenes here in America.

Hat Tips:

Big Journalism

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

Glenn Beck's Documentary: Live Free or Die

*******

Update at 8:14 p.m. PT:

I just visited the Amazon.com website and read an excellent review of the book:

28 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars McCarty informs and is willing to call things by their right names, May 26, 2010
By Craig Matteson (Ann Arbor, MI) - See all my reviews
(TOP 50 REVIEWER)

This review is from: The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (Hardcover)
The title of Andrew McCarthy's new book isn't something he made up, it is taken from a 1990s document from a "mainstream" "non-violent" Muslim organization describing their long term goal of hollowing out Western culture using its own values of tolerance and religious freedom. Note that Islamic countries do NOT allow tolerance and religious freedom in anything like the Western manner. And their two holiest cities are closed to us non-Muslims because we are unworthy to enter such holy places. Once they have hollowed out Europe, America, and other nations, they can fill the void with Sharia, which is the Muslim law and turn these nations into Islamic countries and their Grand Jihad will have achieved victory. Note, that terror is not necessarily part of this strategy.

In fact, Al Qaeda and their brother terrorist groups are frowned at in some of this Salafi circles. Others see them as tools that supply cover for their "moderate" work. But make no mistake about it, McCarthy warns, the goal of the Islamist moderates and the terrorists is the same. They desire the collapse of the West and the rise of Islam as the ruling way of life throughout the world. To the extent that Sharia spreads into Western democracies the strategy of "Grand Jihad" is victorious.

Have you heard of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani? He is a very powerful Shia cleric and deemed by our U.S. government as a "moderate" and key ally in Iraq. He teaches that we non-Muslims should not be touched or even associated with. That we, as non-believers, are filth no different than feces, urine, pigs and the like. Does that sound like moderation and mutual respect to you?

Islam is not a religion in the sense that the West currently views its various "faith communities" that are one aspect of the lives we assemble for ourselves from the lavish and extensive buffet we call our Western Culture. Islam is a faith, but it is more than that. In the Salafi view of Islam it is a complete way of life. Everything is settled and has been settled since around 900 A.D.. Well, they wouldn't use A.D. and I know it is fashionable to use C.E. nowadays, but I'm a Christian and will count my own years, thank you very much.

McCarthy also demonstrates how the post-Modern Left philosophies make us blind to this very real threat. We can't call terrorists what they are. We can't admit to ourselves what Islam is really about or even what Jihad actually means to hundreds of millions of Muslims or that this non-violent approach to conquering the West exists. This despite the fact that Sharia is making inroads into British, Dutch, and French jurisprudence. That there are whole sections of major cities in Europe that have been left to Muslim gangs to run because police cannot even enter them.

The Left elites advise that we can't use the word victory or that we are even at war with some kind of Islamic philosophy. These jihadist Islamist terrorists send a bomber into Detroit, my hometown, in order to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day, a high Holy Day that most Americans observe, and our government's first instinct is to lie to us and tell us he is acting alone and that it has nothing to do with terror or Islam. But our enemies know they are at war with us and say so. And we refuse to accept the fight. Will that really end well? Where we are actually in armed conflict with them we refuse to press our advantages and let the other side dictate the rules of engagement: that we can't fight at night or shoot until shot upon and we see their weapons, and so forth. They respect only strength and we hope to appease through weakness and bowing. We need to wake up.

This is a terrific, powerful, and very informative work. I hope you pick up a copy today and read it and share it with everyone you know. Andrew McCarthy knows what he writes about. That his critics viciously attack him personally rather than debate his arguments is strong evidence that he is spot on in his observations and strong in his arguments.

We need to stand up and engage this war of civilizations at all levels. Folks, this is not going to go away. Our enemy is implacable, patient, and relentless. We have to be stronger, more tenacious, and willing to endure all things until we achieve victory. But first we have to allow ourselves to call things by their right names.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Saline, MI

12 comments:

Al said...

Hi Christine,

Thanks for sharing another thought-provoking post. Have a blessed day.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I think this whole 'bowing' ordeal (or ordeals) is pretty strange. By sister-in-law's parents are from Taiwan. Whenever we see them I always take their hands and do a slight bow. They return the bow. It is what is done in their culture. It is a sign of respect. It doesn't mean I am a secret 'anything.'

I sometimes wonder if the hype that is going on about the Islam vs. West is the same as the hype that went on between the Communist East and the Democratic West. For decades Communism was the big scary demon waiting to pounce on us. They even had nukes. Anyway, just a thought...

Christinewjc said...

I'm glad that you keep coming back to read the posts here, Al!

May your day be blessed as well.

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

From what I have read, bowing in the Asian culture (a sign of respect) is far different from bowing to a Saudi king (a sign of submitting allegiance).

The way you brush away the former fears of the Communist Soviet Union makes me think that you must think that our way of life here in America can never be destroyed or overthrown by tyrants?

I don't think that the right term is "hype" concerning the threats.

You are probably much younger than I. I can still vividly recall the frightening air raid drills that my generation went through at the elementary school I attended in N.J. It was at a time when the height of fear of a Russian nuclear attack was very real during the Kennedy era. If a nuke landed close enough, crouching beside the walls of a school basement would not have protected us anyway.

Should I assume that you have no qualms regarding the ongoing attempts for the Islamization of America? You would be OK with that? Does it rank as just another "Change you can believe in??"

If you do feel that way, then all I can say is sheesh!! What will it take to wake people like you up?

Do you yet see Obama's incompetence in the Gulf Oil Gusher (it's not a "spill") Disaster? Do you not see his hostility towards Israel as a bad type of foreign policy? I could go on and on - the list is very long. Go read the sidebar at New Zeal blog to read about Obama's incompetence in leadership (or, more accurately, his deliberate destruction) of our Constitutional Republic form of government.

Even former journalist supporters of Obama, like Maureen Dowd and Peggy Noonan are sitting up, taking notice, and writing about his incompetence!

As Michael Savage once stated, Obama's "hope and change" has degenerated into "dope and strange."

Maggie Thornton said...

This is a wonderful overview. There is so much to say about the Left's adoration of Islam. The more we hear about it from high-profile writers, the better.

Al said...

My pleasure to return, Christine. Wisdom is a good thing. Be blessed.

Hello Maggie, Good to see you too.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine, what I meant by 'hype' was that governments always need enemies. I wasn't around during the Cuban Missle Crisis, but I grew up with a fear of the Soviet Union. I ever took two years of Russian in college thinking that at some point it may be useful.

Now obviously the U.S. was attacked in 9/11. I have no qualms whatsoever about going in and crushing those who did this. However, I do have qualms about attacking one country that seemed to have nothing to do with it. In the process we have spent trillions and made millions in new enemies. That doesn't make me feel safer.
I also have no qualms with people having the freedom to practice whatever religion they want to, and that includes Islam. I'm not sure if some people are going to propose outlawing it, but if that happened, it would be an attack on the very foundations that this country was built on. People should be able to practice any religion, but they also need to be responsible in their beliefs. Otherwise there should be penalties.

About the horrible oil problem--there are problems that even presidents can't fix. What is he supposed to do? Go and plug it with his finger? On the other hand, New Orleans was destroyed and look what our last president did to help that mess. However, I don't believe there was too much he could do. Presidents aren't gods. People should stop expecting them to solve every single problem that crops up. I'm sure if President Bush could have fixed New Orleans with a snap of his fingers, he would have done so. I'm sure that President Obama would fix the gusher if he could snap his fingers as well. But in reality things don't happen like that. And slogans are just that--they are made for people who don't want to think too deeply about things.
In my opinion, Israel is not always correct in everything they do. There is no reason why the U.S. should pretend that that is the case. If there is going to be hope for middle east peace, both sides are going to have to give up something. Otherwise, that area will spend the next 3,000 years fighting, just like they have the past 3,000 years (or so).

Christinewjc said...

Yes Maggie. We need to keep the real issue front and center. Otherwise, it will be dismissed away as something that is not for us to worry about.

I am currently re-reading a book written by Grant Jeffrey (in 2005) called The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West.

[Note to Kevin - if you are reading this I recommend the book to you. Jeffrey includes information about Saddam Hussein's role in the 9/11 attack on America.]

You are correct, Maggie. The left (socialists, Marxists) has had a history of joining with Islamists in their ideology. It's amazing to me that many of them do not know enough about the Bible and end times prophecy to realize that they are on the WRONG side concerning our struggles of good vs. evil.

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

According to Dictionary.com, the term 'hype' does not appear to fit your description. Perhaps another term would be more plausible?

I do not think that you are correct regarding "spending trillions and making more enemies," either. You continually complain that the Bush Admin. made the wrong decisions to use pre-emptive military strikes against our enemies in the Middle East, but have you noticed that Obama's appeasement and "blame America first" strategy of trying to make "nice-nice" isn't working? It only makes us appear weaker!

About the Oil Gusher problem. I just heard a great idea on the Michael Savage radio show. He stated that Obama's Admin. should have IMMEDIATELY sent U.S. Naval ships to the Gulf to set up boons(sp?), use methods to clean up the oil in the ocean, and utilize some sort of blockades (can't remember exactly what was said) to prevent the oil from reaching the beaches. Instead, Obama sends Eric Holder to threaten BP with lawsuits.

What is wrong with this picture??

About the Floatilla incident. Have you seen the video (that is only playing on Fox News - AFAIK) that shows that the "mission" was not just for humanitarian purposes? Israel (specifically the IDF) had no choice but to board the vessel to prevent it from violating the blockade procedure set up to keep weapons and terrorists out of Gaza. The ship had weapons on it!! Please, Kevin. Don't tell me that your ideology isn't getting in the way of logic! You need to watch the Glenn Beck show broadcast today. You will see the correct explanation of why Netanyahu was right to get Israeli soldiers on that ship. They were sent to inspect the Flotilla, and were IMMEDIATELY ATTACKED by these so-called "peaceful" humanitarians. Trouble is, many were members of Al Qaeda!

Back to Jeffrey's book. He reveals something that was not disclosed by the Bush Admin. One reviewer (at Amazon) mentions it:

(aee next comment)

Christinewjc said...

Very informative & well detailed!, March 20, 2007
By A. Browne "Angie" (USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West (Paperback)
Mr. Jeffrey dispenses supportive information to his opinion of the second coming of Jesus Christ!
Not only did he displayed supportive information on the second coming, but he thoroughly expelled the most forgotten details which occured in 2002 and beyond (for example, The Spetznaz truck (convoys) leaving Iraq, heading towards Syria and Iran; the disclosure of photos of the Spetznaz convoys (Russian-owned Spetznaz, that is) from the satellite imagery; reports supporting the cover up of nondisclosure removal of the missing WMD in these Spetznaz trucks by Bush and his CIA; contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in AFRICA in the 90's, etc.).
This book discloses missing facts and is an eye opener.
I truly believe, we are living those last days of age and the second coming is near.


I just read that segment of the book today while I was waiting for my car being serviced.

The explanation is long, but I will try to summarize.

Apparently, during the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, Russia repeatedly used a type of "emergency exit" ( where WMDs were moved by Russian Spetsnaz units out of uniform) and the WMDs Saddam bought from Russia went to Syria and Lebanon - to eradicate any evidence of the weaponry.

Jeffrey writes:

A variety of respected sources, including Shaw and Saddam Hussein's former top general, Georges Dada, have confirmed that Russian Spetsnaz troops coordinated the removal of Iraq's WMD to Syria by large truck convoys and aircraft in the period just before the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. 7

[Footnote: For more on this, see Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets (Nashville: Integrity Publisher, 2006)]

You might be asking why the Bush Admin. didn't reveal this with all of the countless attacks on the credibility of its prewar claims about Iraq's WMD and never publicly revealed the significant evidence that points to the removal of these weapons to Syria.

Jeffrey writes:

According to both Shaw and Sada, the Bush administration's desire to protect Russia from international embarrassment motivated it to suppress this intelligence in the hope that Russia would assist America in limiting Iran's and North Korea's plans to achieve a nuclear warhead.

Now, you can either believe the ranting talking heads of our media of mass disinformation, or Saddam's former top general - Georges Sada - on this issue.

Christinewjc said...

* spelling correction - make that Sada, not "Dada"

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"On the other hand, New Orleans was destroyed and look what our last president did to help that mess."

As I recall, he followed the law and the specific procedures. Contrary to liberal belief, state and local leaders have first and direct responsibility for handling emergencies in their sovereign area. The mayor is in charge of pre-storm evacuation with help from the governor as required. Both fell on their swords, with the mayor leaving 300 buses that could have been used for evacuation parked. Until and unless the state cedes authority to the Federal government in such cases, their was little that the federal government can legally do.

Compare and contrast with the present situation: Under the US Constitution (if you need to find a copy, look in the White House bathrooms; I understand Michelle had some toilet paper made up special) the Federal government has control over all navigable US waterways. In short, there is little that the state can legally do beyond the shore line without Federal approval.

The basic problem is that Obama's experience is as a community organizer. They can call themselves successful if they can simply get someone to sue the responsible party. They never have to come up with a plan to fix a problem or monitor how well it works. We are now seeing the logical outcome of that type of leadership.