Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 22, 2014, 05:32:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83751 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
451  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Horrific Nature of Christopher Stevens' Killing... on: September 22, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
When will the Obama administration and/or our sickeningly hypocritical leftwing media acknowledge this???

The Sexual Pathology of the Libyan Attackers

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 21, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Soon after the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead in Libya, reports began coming in that U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was not only murdered by the Muslim mob, but also sodomized both before and after his death, and his corpse dragged through the streets. This grotesque defilement was willfully suppressed by the mainstream media, who were focused like a laser on a much more horrific story: presidential candidate Mitt Romney talking like a conservative at a fundraiser. Thank goodness that in these difficult times we can count on the media to cover the news we really need to know.

As FrontPage Shillman Journalism Fellow Raymond Ibrahim writes,

Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found… Nor are men immune from such rapes. In fact, the photos of Ambassador Stevens—stripped of clothes, bloodied and tortured right before he was killed—very much resemble the photos of Gaddafi right before he was killed. One U.S.-supported “freedom-fighter,” for example, can be seen sodomizing Gadaffi with a rod as others dragged him along.

Ibrahim finishes by noting that “the al-Qaeda affiliated men who sexually abused and killed Gaddafi are the same men who sexually abused and killed America’s ambassador.”

This revelation about the sexual denigration of the reportedly gay Ambassador Stevens raises several questions. First, when are so-called liberals going to shed the rose-tinted goggles of multiculturalism and get in touch with a righteous anger about a pathologically anti-gay, ragingly misogynist, mob culture that sexually violates and murders innocents?

When are American progressives, who whine about a mythical Republican War on Women, going to denounce this perverse sexual pathology in Arab culture? When are leftist academics, up in arms about the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogations of hardened terrorists, going to vent their fury against a culture that routinely commits sexual torture and mutilation?

Gay rights supporters work themselves into a lather over the Chick-Fil-A restaurant chain, which discriminates against neither gay employees nor gay customers. I suppose they’re unaware that most Arab and African nations walked out of an historic UN Human Rights Council debate on gay rights earlier this year, refusing to legitimize homosexuality. When are the “liberals” going to break their monastic silence about a theocratic culture that hangs gays from cranes, as in Iran, where President Ahmadinejad famously claimed they don’t have the problem of homosexuality there?

Obviously these are all rhetorical questions designed to underscore the left’s disgusting hypocrisy, because the answer to all of them is never. Breaking free of the mental bondage of multiculturalist indoctrination would cause the entire world view of leftists to come crashing down. They must cling to their delusion or risk a complete psychological meltdown.

Another question: If suspicions of Ambassador Stevens’ homosexuality are true, why did the administration send a gay man to an unstable hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism? Did it not realize that the possible discovery of his sexual orientation could have ramped up the danger for Stevens? Kevin Dujan at Hillbuzz reports that a Serbian consulate employee named Dino

told me it was no secret that Chris Stevens was gay and that “it was stupid to send him to Libya as the ambassador when he was a known homosexual.”

Dino explained in great detail that the brutal sodomizing of Stevens’ corpse was something that Muslims do to show the “utmost disrespect to the body” and that this is “a great insult in Islam” reserved for homosexuals. ”It is like making him a woman in death and he will be a woman now after life,” the Serbian explained to me.

Women should find it pretty offensive that this process of degrading a corpse through rape is considered “making him a woman in death” and “a woman after life.” Why aren’t feminists taking to the streets to condemn this misogynist barbarism? Oh, I forgot – they’re busy picketing Washington for free birth control, costumed as vaginas.

The American left, forever screaming about gay marriage, demanding free birth control, and spewing hate at conservative Christians whom they disparage as the “American Taliban,” is shamefully silent about real evil in the world, about the most intolerant ideology on the planet and one that stands in stark contrast to the tolerance they claim to revere.

A final question: President Obama proudly announced, almost three and a half years into his tenure, that he had “evolved” far enough to support gay marriage; when can we expect him to “evolve” enough to express outrage – not just a composed, rote condemnation of violence – at a culture that condemns homosexuals to a grisly death?

Some might argue that, to avoid igniting the Middle East tinderbox, the President should stay calm and not inflame matters more. Screw that. Islamic fundamentalists have dragged an American ambassador’s mutilated body through the streets, killed three more Americans, and stormed our embassies in other countries as well. It’s long past time for the President of the United States of America to present a righteous fury to the Islamic enemy, show them not one whit of deference or appeasement, and move to protect American interests and avenge American murders.

But that won’t happen, because we have a President whose sympathies lie with the Muslim fundamentalists seeking to tear down America and the West. Because of that he will excuse their torture and killing of homosexuals, their insanely hateful oppression of women, their violent disrespect toward our embassies, and their murder of Americans. We have a President who is busy yukking it up with David Letterman, partying with former drug dealer Jay-Z at a fundraiser, and basking in the adoration of the hosts on The View to give a damn about American lives or American interests.
452  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Herman Cain... on: September 21, 2012, 06:44:47 PM
I supported Herman Cain from the beginning.  I've known about and admired him for many years here in the Atlanta area.  He was my number one choice, but sadly - the media attack machine took a serious toll on his wife - who has a heart condition - and he made the only honorable decision by bowing out of the race.  I don't believe ANY of the sexual harassment accusations had any merit, having met the man, and knowing people personally who have known him for many years.  I agree that he'd be a vastly superior candidate to Romney, but all that is water over the dam at this point.  As Mark Levin (never a fan of Romney) said repeatedly during the primary season:  "If Romney wins the nomination, we're going to have to fight like hell to drag him across the finish line, and then continue to fight like hell if he is elected to pull him to the right.  The bottom line is - Obama MUST be defeated if this nation is to survive as founded.  I'd vote for an orange juice can over Obama."
453  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Frank Gaffney's take on the Middle East situation vis a vis the election... on: September 21, 2012, 01:20:30 PM
2012 Tipping Point?

Center for Security Policy | Sep 17, 2012

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

History is replete with examples of strategic miscalculations in which an over-reach - usually born of contemptuous disdain for a foe - led to disaster for the aggressor.  Think Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812.  Or Hitler's of the Soviet Union 131 years later. We may look back at September 11, 2012 as the kick-off date for such a tipping point in our time.

To be sure, the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow Islamists - notably, al Qaeda franchises throughout the Middle East and beyond, other so-called "Salafists," Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia and the mullahs of Iran - were becoming increasingly aggressive towards us even before last week's mayhem in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.  Team Obama (notably in the person of its hapless and overexposed UN Ambassador, Susan Rice) and its running dogs in the elite media would nonetheless have us believe that the upset is the by-product of an amateurish short video that disparages Mohamed.

In fact, as most sentient beings have realized by now, that film is but the latest pretext for Islamists to demand our adherence to what they call shariah blasphemy laws.  [Such laws are but a part of the larger, brutally repressive Islamic political, military and legal doctrine that prohibits any expression that offends, or otherwise is unhelpful to, their faith.]

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has repeatedly conveyed a willingness to accommodate - or at least tolerate - this threat to one of our most fundamental constitutional liberties: freedom of speech.  That willingness is part of a pattern of submissive behavior that has encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies to believe that America is in retreat and that shariah's inevitable, divinely-directed and global triumph is at hand.  Their response, predictably, is to redouble efforts to make us, in the Quran's words, "feel subdued."

Examples of such behavior abound.  Consider just a few of the more telling cases-in-point (for more, visit www.MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com):

In May 2009, President Obama insisted that Muslim Brotherhood representatives be in the audience for his first speech directed at the Islamic world.  It was delivered at Cairo University and freighted with apologies for past U.S. policies and efforts to associate himself with the beliefs and priorities of his audience.
Interestingly, Mr. Obama had already operationalized that policy approach two months before, by having the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Council co-sponsor with Egypt a resolution drafted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  The object of the exercise was to further the OIC's longstanding objective of forcing UN member nations to prohibit and criminalize expression that offends Islam. 
In July 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched a formal effort with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation dubbed the "Istanbul Process" to explore ways in which our First Amendment rights could accommodate shariah blasphemy laws.  (Some of those playing an influential role in this exercise are discussed in a booklet about "The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration" I just published with the David Horowitz Freedom Center: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frontpagemag-com/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/.)
In December 2011, the Istanbul Process achieved an ominous milestone:  The odious UN Human Rights Council adopted, with strong U.S. support, Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief."  Lest anyone think this a clever finesse, more or less in alignment with current U.S. law, the OIC's secretary general made clear that his organization did not view it as "the end of the road."  And, indeed, developments of the past week - both here and abroad, official and non-governmental - suggest that Team Obama is prepared to go farther, too.
Given such encouragement, it is not surprising that the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies would respond by demanding further accommodations to them and their shariah agenda.  What is a surprise, though, is that they are acting out their ambitions at this juncture - not after November 6th, when President Obama will, in his words, "have more flexibility."  It suggests that the Islamists have reached their tipping point, propelled to seek decisive domination by President Obama's perceived weakness, irresolution and submissiveness.

In the face of our enemies' overreaching aggressiveness, however, the American people now face a tipping point of their own.  If they arrive at the only sensible conclusion - namely, that four more years of the Obama administration's malfeasance with respect to jihadism of both the violent and the stealthy, pre-violent kind - they may just respond by refusing to re-up a presidency that enables and emboldens our foes and undermines our liberties and friends.  And should such a tipping point be realized, it will be one of truly epic historic proportions and prized by freedom-loving peoples forever.
454  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / POWERFUL anti-Obama ad... on: September 21, 2012, 11:44:53 AM
This has been produced by the "Let Freedom Ring" PAC, and is running starting today in several key swing states:

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DQkSFU75LC0
455  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brilliant Handling of CNN Anchor by Pamela Geller Last Night... on: September 21, 2012, 07:17:33 AM
Watch/read and make your own judgement as to who has the more persuasive argument:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/video-pamela-geller-on-cnns-erinburnett-abruptly-cuts-segment-at-hamas-cair-description-full-audio-secretly-recorded.html
456  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / NYC Fox Affiliate on Anti-Jihad Subway Ads... on: September 20, 2012, 02:57:55 PM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/fox-news-anti-jihad-ads-free-speech-or-offensive.html
457  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Fox News in NYC on Anti-Jihad Subway Ads... on: September 20, 2012, 02:57:11 PM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/09/fox-news-anti-jihad-ads-free-speech-or-offensive.html
458  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: September 20, 2012, 12:42:28 PM
I second Crafty's surprise.  Rivera has seen virtually EVERYTHING through a racist prism as long as I can remember.  He vehemently defended Bill Clinton during the impeachment, then was surprised later when Clinton threw him under the bus and wouldn't give him the time of day.  When Rivera was hired at Fox a few years ago, the network received thousands of letters/e-mails from viewers outraged that they would hire this pathetic excuse for a journalist.  The man is a fool.
459  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Much-watch commentary - powerful rebuke of Obama... on: September 19, 2012, 07:50:49 PM
This is particularly well stated by Bill Whittle in the last two minutes of the clip - but it is worth watching the entire piece. I couldn't have said it better myself:

www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-trifecta-the-end-of-america-as-we-know-it/
460  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / New Pamphlet by Frank Gaffney... on: September 18, 2012, 10:13:26 PM
The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration

Posted By David Horowitz On September 14, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com

If anyone needed evidence that Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood, the events of the last few days should be more than sufficient.  On the anniversary of 9/11, on what should be a day of shame for the Muslim world, the US Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning critics of Islamofascism in language appropriate to the office of propaganda for the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamofascists launched violent attacks on Americans, repeating the outrages in miniature of the World Trade Center attacks 11 years ago. In the face of these outrages the posture of the U.S. government is one that would make Neville Chamberlain blush. In four years Barack Obama has managed to turn the entire Middle East over to America’s enemies. So that our readers can understand how this has happened and how far advanced the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama administration has progressed, we are publishing this pamphlet by Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, called The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration. We are printing 200,000 copies to distribute to concerned Americans. We are selling them at cost if you buy 25 or more to share with your friends.—David Horowitz

Read the pamphlet or order your copy by clicking here:   http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-gaffney/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-obama-administration/
461  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Rupert Everett's comments... on: September 18, 2012, 09:41:31 PM
I agree with Everett about this.  I think it's particularly selfish for gay couples to intentionally have kids through artificial insemination or volunteer females carrying the child, only to give it up to two gay men.  I know of several situations of this type, and I think it is very misguided.  Even adoption by same-sex couples should be only a last resort, for the same reasons.

I'm glad to see a prominent gay person speaking out about this.  It demonstrates that the monolithic "gay community" portrayed by activists is a myth.  Those who fail to toe the party line, however - are ostracized and considered traitors by the rest of the group.  Not dissimilar to black political conservatives.

Rupert's comment about "too many children in the world" is foolish, however - IMHO. 
462  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Article on CAIR... on: September 18, 2012, 04:57:41 PM
All too familiar.  CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front.  It was founded by the MB and is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation "charity" operation which was shut down by the Federal government  - the largest terrorist financing prosecution in U.S. history.   Note how it is always the non-Muslim who must give up his freedom of speech in order to "respect Islam."  CAIR is part of the stealth jihad movement in the United States - in fact, it is the most visible example of it. 

Those non-Muslims who continue to apologize for "offensive" speech, cartoons, literature, etc. are simply enabling their own destruction.  That includes our present Commander In Chief.  The fruits of this appeasement are in plain view all across the Middle East today as angry Islamic mobs chant "Death to America" and "Obama - We are all Osama now."  Of course, to say such a thing is, in the eyes of the politically-correct fool, "bigoted and hateful."  No - it is simply the truth - and unfortunately when it comes to Islam - truth is the new "hate speech."
463  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Romney's Comments... on: September 18, 2012, 12:45:54 PM
As many mainstream media personalities erupt in a hissy fit over what Romney said MONTHS AGO at a fundraiser (Mother Jones strategically released it now precisely to create such a frenzy), let's get some sane, factual analysis, shall we?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/18/the-data-behind-romneys-47-comments/

464  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Recapitulation theory... on: September 16, 2012, 03:45:00 PM
This is from Wikipedia, which I know is not necessarily the authoritative source, but I've also read articles by modern biologists which state that this theory is not valid:

Haeckel

Ernst Haeckel attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts. While often seen as rejecting Darwin's theory of branching evolution for a more linear Lamarckian "biogenic law" of progressive evolution, this is not accurate: Haeckel used the Lamarckian picture to describe the ontogenic and phylogenic history of the individual species, but agreed with Darwin about the branching nature of all species from one, or a few, original ancestors.[18] Since around the start of the twentieth century, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" has been refuted on many fronts.[7]
Haeckel formulated his theory as "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". The notion later became simply known as the recapitulation theory. Ontogeny is the growth (size change) and development (shape change) of an individual organism; phylogeny is the evolutionaryhistory of a species. Haeckel's recapitulation theory claims that the development of advanced species passes through stages represented by adult organisms of more primitive species.[7] Otherwise put, each successive stage in the development of an individual represents one of the adult forms that appeared in its evolutionary history.
For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal grooves between the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo resembled gill slits of fish, thus representing an adult "fishlike" developmental stage as well as signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, which form in many animals when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and pharyngeal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal arches appear in all tetrapod embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal arch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. But these embryonic pharyngeal arches, grooves, pouches, and slits in human embryos could not at any stage carry out the same function as the gills of an adult fish.
Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. The misinformation was propagated through many biology textbooks, and popular knowledge, even today. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[8]
Haeckel's drawings were disputed by Wilhelm His, who had developed a rival theory of embryology.[19] His developed a "causal-mechanical theory" of human embryonic development.[20]
Darwin's view, that early embryonic stages are similar to the same embryonic stage of related species but not to the adult stages of these species, has been confirmed by modern evolutionary developmental biology.
[edit]Modern status

The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is now considered defunct.[21] However, embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures.[22]
465  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 16, 2012, 06:01:58 AM
As I have repeatedly stated: This President and his administration loathe the idea of American exceptionalism.  These disastrous results are the predictable outcome of policies designed to weaken our defenses.  This is not - I repeat - this is NOT an accident.  As Steyn strongly implies, this administration is deliberately weakening this nation - domestically and around the world with regard to our foreign policy.  This is by design.  When will those Americans in denial about this - including many conservatives - give up their pollyanna-ish fantasy that this president, like any other - wants what is best for the United States as founded, and for her people?  We have an enemy-in-chief.
466  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: September 15, 2012, 05:25:53 PM
I agree that the Hitler reference was a bad idea, for a number of reasons.  It's rarely a good idea in any circumstance, since he's the lazy man's poster boy for evil.  My point stands nonetheless - I believe we are living in a period which is in many ways analogous to 1938 - except that 74 years later, the world's leaders ought to know better.  

It's illustrative of just how ignorant of history the masses are, and in many cases - our leaders are equally as ignorant, or unwilling to see and take proper action.  Netanyahu is a notable exception.

Where are the rest?  I don't believe Romney fully grasps the imminent danger, either.  He seems a bit detached, and has never really understood the malignant cancer that is Islam.

Obama is a Marxist at heart.  My suspicion is that he is not a religious man at all - he views Islam simply as a means to an end - a useful tool right now for bringing about the decline of America as a superpower - which he feels is long overdue.  Most Americans are unwilling to believe this is possible - that we've elected a man who despises this nation as founded - who believes it is illegitimate and inherently corrupt - and who wants to destroy and remake it in his utopian image.  That is the truth - we deny it at our peril.
467  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Commander in Chief - Enemy Infiltrator... on: September 15, 2012, 09:10:48 AM
I've been saying this since the man was elected.  He is not interested in American exceptionalism or American military superiority in the world.  The man has been a great success in enacting his agenda - which is clear from his actions, but never stated.  He has contempt for America - that is the fact of the matter.  Most people don't want to believe that - but then - most Germans didn't want to believe that Hitler was as evil as he turned out to be either.

I urge everyone to see Dinesh D'Souza's film 2016 - NOW.  It explains everything about what motivates Obama.  I can assure you it isn't love of this country.
468  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Easily Follow Your Congressional Reps' Records... on: September 11, 2012, 10:38:22 PM
This is a vital tool for keeping your Congressional representatives accountable.  Click on this year as well as last year to view your Rep's and your two Senators' records on these key financial votes:
 
http://congress.freedomworks.org
469  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Getting Over" September 11th... on: September 11, 2012, 09:13:25 AM
Getting Over 9/11

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 11, 2012 www.frontpagemag.com

Eleven years ago, nineteen fanatical Muslims turned hijacked aircraft carrying hundreds of terrified passengers into missiles targeting symbols of American economic might. Nearly 3000 innocents died horribly that day, including hundreds of courageous, selfless first responders making a superhuman effort to rescue their fellow citizens. And for years, when the anniversary of that day rolls around, progressives and their Islamic allies have been rolling their eyes and urging Americans to “get over it.”

They’re weary of being bummed out by reminders of 9/11. They wish we’d forgive and forget that it happened. Stop bringing it up and “harshing their buzz.” Move on, move forward. Some of those people simply don’t grasp that we must not forget because we are still at war with the enemy that attacked us that morning; the rest are very much aware that we are still at war, and they want us to forget because they are siding with that enemy.

It may seem impossible for many to believe that that morning could be forgotten – just as it once seemed impossible to believe that our government could erase words like “jihad” and “Islamist” from our national security lexicon, preventing us from even naming or describing the enemy; or that our government could deem a terror attack on our own soil to be “workplace violence” and whitewash it of its Islamic motivation; or that an American President could announce that one of his duties was to “fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”; or that he could proclaim us one of the world’s largest Muslim countries.

President Obama signed a proclamation last week designating Friday, September 7 through Sunday, September 9, 2012 National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. “Those who attacked us sought to deprive our Nation of the very ideals for which we stand,” the proclamation states. He is referring to al Qaeda, but the Muslim Brotherhood too seeks to deprive us of our ideals. The Brotherhood seeks the end of a free, capitalist, democratic America no less than al Qaeda does. And yet the President has literally invited them into our White House and has supported them in Egypt throughout the Arab Spring, including a $1 billion aid package to the new Egyptian regime.

So September 7-9 are National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. What about 9/11 itself? In a quiet, seemingly innocuous gesture three years ago, President Obama designated 9/11 as “The National Day of Service and Remembrance.” But the “Remembrance” part seems to be an afterthought, because the idea was to get Americans to “engage in meaningful service to create change… in four key areas”: education, health, energy/environment and community renewal. None of those seems to have anything to do with honoring 9/11, but that was the point: Muslim-American playwright Wajahat Ali (and one of the writers behind the Soros-funded “Fear, Inc.” report that smeared anti-jihadists as Islamophobic bigots) wrote in the Huffington Post at that time that “we are trying to move away from focusing on 9/11 as a day of horror, and instead make it a day to recommit ourselves to national service.”

Why? Because in order for Islamists and the radical left to advance their agenda of dismantling American exceptionalism and recasting America as the villain in our history books, they need Americans to put 9/11 behind us, let the victims slip from our memories, ignore that we are still at war with an enemy that danced in the streets to celebrate the attacks, and turn a blind eye to the fact that our civilization is under assault by a subversive stealth jihad.

Americans can commit themselves to public service any or every other day of the year; 9/11 should be reserved for solemn remembrance and renewed commitment to preserving American security, values and sovereignty. Greening your neighborhood? What does “green” have to do with 9/11? Only that it’s the color of Islam. Education? Fine – educate yourself and your children about 9/11 and the continuing threats of stealth jihad and “creeping sharia.” Environment and community renewal? Great – beautify your block by flying the Stars and Stripes on 9/11. It sends a simple message to the enemy and their useful idiots that you believe that making this day about installing fluorescent light bulbs trivializes the memory of 9/11′s victims, and that you will never let their deaths be erased from history.

How do things stand on this 9/11, eleven years later? Among other highlights, we captured 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a SEAL team took out bin Laden (no thanks to the resistance of Obama, despite all the crowing about his “gutsy” choice to green-light the mission). To his credit, Obama has green-lit drones that continue to take out key al Qaeda terrorists, such as the traitorous Anwar al-Awlaki. We have foiled dozens of attempted terrorist attacks on our own soil. All to the good.

Now for the bad. We have a president who embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. His Secretary of State is actively facilitating the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s goal to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Our Dept. of Homeland Security has to be waterboarded before it will even mention the word “Islam.” We are dumping the problem of a nuclear Iran on our erstwhile ally Israel. We have a military leadership that would consider a lack of diversity to be the most tragic result of the Ft. Hood shooting. We are throwing our troops in Afghanistan under the bus in a chimeric effort to win the hearts and minds of people who have neither. Our news and entertainment media collude with the Brotherhood front group CAIR to perpetuate the victimhood myth that Muslim-Americans have suffered a terrible backlash ever since 9/11. This is a recipe for cultural suicide.

But perhaps the 9/11 complainers are onto something. Maybe Americans should get over 9/11. Here’s how I recommend we do that. The best way this country can “get over” 9/11 and honor the memory of the dead and their families is to crush Islamic fundamentalism out of existence, the way we crushed Japanese imperialism and Nazism. Lay waste to the ideology that threatens the fundamental values that America and the West hold dear. Stamp out threats to our freedoms, to human rights, to our hard-won civilization. When we have eradicated sharia law and its proponents from the face of the earth, then Americans can truly and freely “get over” 9/11. Until then, the unholy alliance of progressives and Islamists should be forewarned that true Americans will never forgive, never forget.

470  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The General Motors Bailout "Success" Fiction... on: September 10, 2012, 11:15:21 AM

The Democrats’ GM Fiction

By The Editors - National Review Online

September 10, 2010

The Democrats have decided to run in 2012 as the bailout party. It is an odd choice — the 2008–09 bailouts were deeply unpopular among the general public, and even their backers were notably conflicted about the precedent being set and the ensuing moral hazard. But Democrats have nonetheless made one of the most abusive episodes in the entire bailout era their economic cornerstone: the government takeover of General Motors.

The GM bailout was always an odd duck: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in order to preserve liquidity in the financial markets by heading off the collapse of key financial institutions that had made catastrophically bad bets on real-estate securities — nothing at all to do with cars, really. GM’s financial arm, today known as Ally Financial, was in trouble, but GM’s fundamental problem was that its products were not profitable enough to support its work-force expenses. A single dominant factor — the United Auto Workers union’s extortionate contracts with GM — prevented the carmaker from either reducing its work-force costs or making its products more efficiently. And its hidebound management didn’t help.

Admirers of the GM bailout should bear in mind that it was the Bush administration that first decided to intervene at the firm, offering a bridge loan on the condition that it draw up a deeply revised business plan. President Obama’s unique contribution was effectively to nationalize the company, seeing to it that the federal government violated normal bankruptcy processes and legal precedent to protect the defective element at the heart of GM’s troubles: the financial interests of the UAW. It did this by strong-arming GM’s bondholders into taking haircuts in order to sweeten the pot for the UAW. The Obama administration also creatively construed tax law to relieve GM of tens of billions of dollars in obligations — at the same time that Barack Obama & Co. were caterwauling about the supposed lack of patriotism of firms that used legal means rather than political favoritism to reduce their tax bills.

Mitt Romney’s proposal for a structured bankruptcy would have necessitated considerable federal involvement, too, but with a key difference: The UAW contracts would have been renegotiated, and GM’s executive suites would have been cleaned out, placing the company on a path toward innovation and self-sufficiency rather than permanent life support. Which is to say, Obama did for GM what he is doing by un-reforming welfare: creating a dependent constituency.

The Democrats cling to the ridiculous claim that the bailout of GM and its now-Italian competitor, Chrysler, saved 1.5 million U.S. jobs. This preposterous figure is based on the assumption that if GM and Chrysler had gone into normal bankruptcy proceedings, the entire enterprise of automobile manufacturing in the United States would have collapsed — not only at GM and Chrysler but at Ford and foreign transplants such as Toyota and Honda. Not only that, the Democrats’ argument goes, but practically every parts maker, supplier, warehousing agency, and services firm dedicated to the car industry would have collapsed, too. In fact, it is unlikely that even GM or Chrysler would have stopped production during bankruptcy: The assembly lines would have continued rolling, interest and debt payments would have been cut, and — here’s the problem — union contracts would have been renegotiated. Far from having saved 1.5 million jobs, it is not clear that the GM bailout saved any — only that it preserved the UAW’s unsustainable arrangement.

Bill Clinton bizarrely tried to claim that the bailout has been responsible for the addition of 250,000 jobs to the automobile industry since the nadir of the financial crisis. Auto manufacturers and dealerships have indeed added about 236,000 jobs since then, but almost none are at GM, which has added only about 4,500 workers, a number not even close to offsetting the 63,000 workers that its dealerships had to let go when the terms of the bailout unilaterally shut them down.

Ugly as the bank bailouts were, the federal government appears set to make its money back on most of them, with the exception of some smaller regional banks and CIT. Even AIG, one of the worst of the financial basket cases, is set to end up being a break-even proposition for U.S. taxpayers. But tens of billions of dollars will be lost on GM. The federal government put up more for a 60 percent interest in the firm than GM is worth today.

At their convention, Democrats swore that GM is “thriving,” but the market doesn’t think so: GM shares have lost half their value since January 2011. And while the passing of the Great Recession has meant growing sales for all automakers, GM is seriously lagging behind its competitors: Its sales are up 10 percent, a fraction of the increases at Kia, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Porsche. With its sales weak, its share price crashing, and its business model still a mess, some analysts already are predicting that GM will return to bankruptcy — but not until after the election.

The Obama administration talks up all of the “jobs” it saved at GM — but jobs doing what? Manufacturing automobiles that are not competitive without a massive government subsidy? Propping up an economically unviable enterprise just long enough to get Barack Obama reelected? As much as it will pain the hardworking men and women of GM to hear it, it is not worthwhile to save jobs at enterprises that cannot compete on their own merits. So long as the federal government is massively subsidizing the operation, a job at GM is a welfare program with a fairly robust work requirement. (And we all know how the Obama administration feels about work requirements.)

We have bankruptcy laws and bankruptcy courts for a reason. It may make sense to expedite the proceedings for very large firms such as GM in order to prevent disruptions in the supply chain that would, as Ford’s executives argued, harm other, healthier firms. But bankrupt is what GM was, and bankrupt is what GM is, a fact that will become blisteringly apparent should the government ever attempt to sell off the shares it owns in the company.

The GM bailout was a bad deal for GM’s creditors, for U.S. taxpayers, and, in the long run, for the U.S. automobile industry and our overall national competitiveness. No wonder the Democrats are campaigning on a fictionalized account of it.
471  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / U.S. Still Target of 9-11 Jihad - Obama's Weak Response Increases Threat... on: September 09, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
Washington Times - Friday, September 7, 2012

Robert Spencer

Eleven years have passed since the jihad terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and terrorism appears to many to be yesterday's issue. There hasn't been a catastrophic jihad attack on American soil since that fateful day, and neither presidential campaign has done much more than pay lip service to national security issues regarding jihad terrorism. Yet there are numerous indications that the Islamic jihad against the United States is far from over.

President Obama's response to that jihad, however, has been to support the Arab Spring uprisings that have installed Islamic supremacist pro-Shariah regimes in North Africa and to dedicate his Justice Department to gaining special accommodation for Muslims in American businesses and educational institutions.

Osama bin Laden said in his October 2002 letter to the American people that "the first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." He could look with satisfaction at how Islamic law is rapidly becoming the sole law of the land in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia and at how the American political establishment is so warmly disposed toward even Islam's political and supremacist elements that a call simply to investigate Muslim Brotherhood influence in the government met with scorn and charges of McCarthyism.

So pervasive is the unreality about the jihad threat, in fact, that the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, has attributed the rapid rise in attacks by Afghan troops on their American trainers to a lack of affection on the Americans' part. He explained that on one occasion, "one of our battalion commanders publicly and openly hugged his Afghan battalion counterpart. And that solved the problem right on the spot."

In fact, these "green-on-blue" murders keep happening because there is no reliable way to distinguish an Afghan Muslim who supports American troops from one who wants to murder them, and political correctness prevents authorities from making any attempt to do so anyway because it would suggest that Islam is not a religion of peace. So ever more U.S. troops are sacrificed to this madness.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has just expressed his enthusiasm for Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood regime by forgiving $1 billion in Egyptian debt despite the fact that that regime has moved with startling rapidity to dismantle what there was of Egyptian democracy and secure its place in power for decades to come. Egypt's Arab Spring has ushered into power a regime that clearly is dedicated to ramping up the country's already virulent persecution of Christians, imposing principles of Islamic law that will subject women and non-Muslims to institutionalized discrimination and setting Egypt on a path toward open war with Israel.

Mr. Obama is set to repeat the same mistake in Syria, where a post-Assad government is almost certain to contain significant Muslim Brotherhood elements. Yet numerous analysts and pundits want the United States to rush into military action against President Bashar Assad, with no consideration of the likely nature of the regime that would replace him. Mr. Assad is terrible, to be sure. His successors are almost certain to be worse.

Meanwhile, domestically, Mr. Obama's Justice Department has joined lawsuits by Muslims demanding special accommodation in the workplace, forcing American businesses to change their long-standing practices and reinforcing the Islamic supremacist principle that wherever Islamic law and practice conflict with American law and practice, it is the latter that must give way. The Obama administration has not only shown no interest in Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) that are advancing the Brotherhood's stated goal (according to a captured internal document) of "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house," but even has partnered with several of those organizations on numerous occasions.

While all this is happening, however, jihad plots and attacks against the United States continue, even as the fog of denial and appeasement grows thicker than ever. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of murdering 13 Americans at Fort Hood in 2009 in the name of Islam, but the government classified his jihad attack as "workplace violence." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted recently: "The nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land . A new Middle East will definitely be formed. With the grace of God and help of the nations, in the new Middle East there will be no trace of the Americans and Zionists." In response, the United States hastened to assure the Iranians that it would not support an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Eleven years after Sept. 11, the U.S. government is thoroughly compromised and naively trying to appease the Islamic jihadists who have vowed to destroy us. Bin Laden, though dead, appears to be emerging as the victor.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of "Did Muhammad Exist?" (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2012).

472  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Caroline Glick on Obama's Anti-Israel, Anti-U.S. Foreign Policy... on: September 07, 2012, 12:41:03 PM
God, Jerusalem and American foreign policy

Caroline Glick - September 7, 2012 - www.carolineglick.com


Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama and his supporters have been dogged by criticism of his position on Israel. From the very outset of his tenure in office, critics and supporters alike have not been able to shake the sense that Obama is deeply hostile to the Jewish state.

Obama and his supporters have responded to every criticism of his treatment of Israel by pulling out a list. Every time his record on Israel is criticized, Obama and his supporters pull out a list of the things he has done for Israel. Just this week, in an op-ed in The New York Times, Democratic donor Haim Saban pulled out the list to justify his support for Obama.

As the list notes, Obama has given billions of dollars in military assistance to Israel. He has gotten stiff sanctions passed against Iran by the UN Security Council. He has agreed to sell F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to Israel. During his presidency, they say, the US has expanded its intelligence and military coordination with Israel. Obama has opposed some anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.

Obama's critics respond to Obama's list with a series of points. They note that in approving increases in US military assistance to Israel, including for the Iron Dome rocket defense system, Obama is simply carrying out a pledge made by his predecessor George W. Bush. They note that the UN Security Council sanctions have had no impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program.

So, too, Obama opposed even stronger sanctions against Iran passed with the overwhelming support of both houses of Congress.

He had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to sign those sanctions into law. And since he signed the sanctions law, he has used his presidential power to water them down.

Obama's critics mention that due to his insistence on appeasing Iran, last week Iran enjoyed its greatest diplomatic triumph since the 1979 Iranian revolution. More than a hundred nations sent representatives to Tehran to participate in the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit. And in the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon, those nations expressed support for Iran's nuclear program.

And while it is true that Obama has blocked two anti-Israel initiatives at the UN, he has been more supportive of the inherently anti-American and anti-Israel UN system than any of his recent predecessors.

As for Israeli-US intelligence cooperation, under Obama for the first time, the US has systematically leaked Israel's most closely guarded secrets to the media.

Indeed, critics of Obama's policy towards Israel have their own list. It includes Obama's repeated humiliations of Israel's prime minister. It includes the multiple clashes Obama has initiated with Israel with regards to Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem. It includes Obama's adoption of the Palestinians' position on Israel's borders.

But still, as Obama and his supporters will say, facts are facts and they have a list. And because the list is true - as far as it goes - they can argue that Obama is supportive of Israel.

Given its superficially compelling argument, it is remarkable that Obama's list has failed to end the debate about his position on Israel. Today Americans have no interest in foreign policy.

They don't want to hear that by leaving Iraq as he did, Obama squandered everything that the US fought for. They don't want to hear that he effectively handed the country over to Iran, which now has the ability to use Iraq as its forward base for operations in Syria, Lebanon and beyond.

They don't want to hear that Obama's surgeand- leave strategy in Afghanistan is fomenting a US defeat in that war and setting the conditions for the reinstitution of the Taliban government.

They don't want to hear about how Russia and China view the US with contempt and challenge its economic and strategic interests every day.

They don't want to hear how Obama played a key role in overthrowing the US's key ally in the Arab world, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. They don't want to consider the implications of the fact that the US is now bankrolling the Muslim Brotherhood's transformation of Egypt into an anti- American, radical Islamic regime.

And yet, in the face of this absence of interest in the world outside their borders, Americans remain interested in the question of whether or not Obama is supportive of Israel.

There are two reasons for Americans' enduring interest and concern about Israel. And they were both revealed this week at the Democratic National Convention when the story broke about how this year's Democratic platform differs from its 2008 platform. First it was reported that the platform contained no mention of God.

Then it was reported that unlike the 2008 platform, this year's Democratic Party platform made no mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

This year's platform watered down the language on Israel in other significant ways as well.

It did not refer to Israel as the US's "strongest ally" in the Middle East. It did not call for the continued eschewal of the Hamas terror group by the international community. It did not mention US opposition to the Palestinian demand for the so-called "right of return" - through which Israel would be destroyed by an influx of millions of foreign Arabs in the framework of a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. But whereas these other deletions were generally ignored, the platform's silence on Jerusalem generated a maelstrom of criticism that exceeded even its deletion of God.

Significantly, rather than treat the deletions of God and Jerusalem as separate issues, the media and the Democrats themselves presented them as two sides of the same coin. When on Wednesday the party's leadership decided to restore the language of the 2008 platform on God and Jerusalem - but not on Hamas, the so-called "right of return," and Israel's strategic significance to the US - they opted to do so in the same amendment.

The widespread perception of God and Jerusalem as related issues tells us something important about the American character. And it tells us something equally important about Obama and the party he leads.

Prof. Walter Russell Mead described Israel's place in the American mindset last year. As he put it, "Israel matters in American politics like almost no other country on earth. Well beyond the American Jewish and the Protestant fundamentalist communities, the people and the story of Israel stir some of the deepest and most mysterious reaches of the American soul. The idea of Jewish and Israeli exceptionalism is profoundly tied to the idea of American exceptionalism. The belief that God favors and protects Israel is connected to the idea that God favors and protects America."

Mead continued, "Being pro-Israel matters in American mass politics because the public mind believes at a deep level that to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America and pro-faith. Substantial numbers of voters believe that politicians who don't 'get' Israel also don't 'get' America and don't 'get' God."

By removing both God and Jerusalem from the platform, Obama and his fellow Democrats stirred the furies of that American soul at its foundations.

They showed they don't "get" Israel or God. And by extension, they don't "get" America.

The intellectually confusing decision to lump Jerusalem and God together in the same amendment no doubt owed to the fact that someone in the party recognized how disastrous the deletions were for their ability to convince wavering voters that the Democratic Party has their back.

And this brings us to nature of the Democratic Party today. For the amendment to the platform to pass, it needed the support of two-thirds of the convention's delegates. And so, on Wednesday morning, the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, brought the amendment to the floor for a voice vote.

Much to his obvious shock, the amendment did not receive the requisite support. Calls supporting the amendment were met by at least equally strong calls opposing it. Villaraigosa was forced to call the vote three times before declaring - contrary to the evidence - that the amendment had passed.

More than anything else, the floor vote showed how out of step a large and significant constituency in the Democratic Party is with the basic character of their country. The spectacle should raise concerns among all supporters of Israel who believe Obama's pro-Israel list is proof they have a safe home today in the Democratic Party.

Jerusalem's conflation with God in the American imagination is not the only reason so many people attacked the platform's watered-down language on US-Israel ties. The second reason for the uproar explains why the issue of Obama's support for Israel is the only foreign policy question that has dogged his administration since he took office. It explains why American support for Israel is a more salient issue for Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, Britain, Turkey or Russia.

Here, too, Israel's symbolic importance in the American imagination is central for understanding the matter. Beyond its religious significance, there is a widespread perception that Israel is on the front line of the war against America. As a consequence, Israel is the only foreign policy issue that telegraphs messages about the nature of America's foreign policy to an otherwise disengaged and largely indifferent American public.

For most Americans - if not for most Democrats - support for Israel is the most important plank of US foreign policy because it indicates the nature of that foreign policy as a whole. A president who supports Israel is a president who has his priorities straight. A president who is hostile to Israel is a president who can't be trusted on Iran or Russia or China or anything else.

In an apparent effort to end this state of affairs, Obama has adopted a policy towards Iran - whose nuclear program represents the greatest rising threat to US national security - that frames the issue as Israel's problem.

In so doing, Obama seeks to achieve two goals. First, he seeks to decouple Israel's national security from America's national security in the popular imagination. And second, he seeks to diminish popular support for Israel by presenting Israel as a country that is pushing America into an unnecessary war.

Obama's list of pro-Israel actions is essential to his ability to achieve this specific goal, and through its achievement to convince Americans of the overall success of his foreign policy. The list is essential because it transforms Israel in the public mind from a strategic ally into a strategic basket case in need of America's constant assistance.

In line with this, it is telling that the amendment of the Democratic platform did not return the 2008 platform's characterization of Israel as America's "strongest ally" in the Middle East.

But as the outcry the platform changes provoked demonstrated, Obama has failed to achieve this goal. And this is wonderful news.

On the other had, as long as he has supporters willing to publish op-eds and give interviews devoted to repeating the list, Obama will continue to make the case that he can be trusted on foreign policy despite his abandonment of God, Jerusalem and America's most vital interests.
 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
473  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz's Reflections on Zionism... on: September 07, 2012, 09:01:37 AM
Reflections of a Diaspora Jew on Zionism, America and the Fate of the Jews

Posted By David Horowitz On September 7, 2012

Editors’ note: In the following speech accepting the Ben Hecht Award for Outstanding Journalism from the Zionist Organization of America, David Horowitz notes that he wants everything that the Zionists want–a muscular Israel willing and able to defy the growing Jew hatred in the world; a Jewish State “armed to the teeth” and ready to use its military; an Israel augmented by the addition of its historical birthright of Judea and Samaria. Yet the paradox is that until now, Horowitz notes, he has never considered himself a Zionist in the sense that Theodor Herzl and other founders used that term. Herzl’s dream was that a Jewish homeland would “normalize” the Jewish people in the eyes of an historically hostile world, end their persecution, and “solve” the “Jewish problem.” Horowitz states that he always considered this possibility to be a “fairy tale” because of his understanding of the way envy and hatred operate on the international scene, especially with the advent of “Third Worldism.”  In addition to becoming a refuge, Israel also became a magnet for homocidal intentions. The events of 9/11 changed everything. Because of the rise of Islamism in the U.S.–especially influencing those who were once Israel’s strong defenders–as well as in the Middle East, Horowitz says that “supporters of freedom are all Zionists now.” Below is the text of the speech that Horowitz gave last night, Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012, in Philadelphia.

Let me begin by saying how honored I am to be invited to this podium by the Zionist Organization of America and Mort Klein, its courageous leader.  For decades Mort Klein and the ZOA have stood on the frontline defending the state of Israel and American Jews, and they are doing it now in what is certainly one of the darker periods for the Jewish people – darker all over the world – in our 5,000-year history. I applaud you for supporting Mort Klein and his team. I am touched by the recognition of an organization like this for the modest work I have done in behalf of Israel and the Jewish people.

Still, there is a paradox at the heart of this honor awarded me by the Zionist Organization of America, which will take me a moment to explain. It is true that I am widely attacked by anti-Semites and Jew-haters and the enemies of Israel as a Zionist — and an arch Zionist at that. I have been called variously a Zionist Jew, an “Israel Firster Zionist Jew,” “a rabid Zionist” (by Julian Assange no less), a “radical right-wing Zionist,” an “extreme Zionist,” an “extremist Zionist stalwart,” an “unrepentant Zionist,” an “ultra Zionist” and a “Zio-Nazi.”

Today, anti-Zionism is the cause of Jew-haters and anti-Semites the world over, and for Jews embarrassed by the fact that they are Jews and that others fear and despise them for that reason. Even the rare Jewish magazine of the left that is actually a supporter of Israel, is uncomfortable with the connotations of the Zionist label, and with what it means for Jews to defend themselves. In a recent unflattering profile, the Tablet magazine described me as touring the country “making the case for a muscular Zionism.”

I plead guilty to this charge. I plead guilty though I have never actually been a Zionist, or made a case for Zionism in the sense that Herzl and traditional Zionists understand it. Yes, I want muscular Jews and a muscular Israel. I want Jews proud of the extraordinary nation-state Jews created in 1948 out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. I want Jews who are armed, and Jews who will defend themselves with arms if necessary. Muscular in every way. Yes.

I want more than just individual Jews armed. I want a Jewish nation-state possessing in its arsenal the most advanced modern weapons available, a state that can be counted on to defend Jews from their global enemies, and particularly their enemies in the Muslim world who are legion and who have sworn our destruction, and who are openly planning to complete the job that Hitler started. I want a Jewish state, armed to the teeth, because Islamic Nazis, who are the storm troopers of a second Holocaust, are already mobilized, and because — as we discovered during the first Holocaust — there are not enough non-Jews in the world who are willing and prepared to defend us.

I am glad that Israel exists. I am glad that there is a country that will preserve Jewish culture, and be a model to the world of what Jews can do when they are given the chance. Today Israel is per capita the world’s leading scientific and technological innovator and contributor to human advancement. As a Jew I am proud of that.

I am also thrilled that in the creation of Israel Jews have regained their birthright. After 2,000 years of exile, the oldest surviving indigenous people in the world has won the right to some of its stolen homeland. I look forward to the day when Judea and Samaria, the historic centers of Judaism, become part of the Jewish homeland as well.

That homeland is now occupied by Palestinian Arabs who are at war with Israel, who have proclaimed their Jew-hatred to the world, and who have forfeited any right to the territories by conducting five unprovoked, armed aggressions against the Jewish state. The official policy of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is to make Jerusalem and the entire region of Palestine Judenrein. No other country in the world is expected to suffer such genocidal assaults without securing borders that are defensible, and Israel should not be expected to either.

Nonetheless, there is a paradox in this honor given to me, a Jew who has never been to Israel and who has never considered himself a Zionist in the sense that its founders intended. Theodor Herzl and his followers embraced the Zionist idea because they believed that the creation of a Jewish nation would provide a solution to the “Jewish Question” – the fact that Jews had been a homeless people for nearly two thousand years and were ghettoized and persecuted in the alien lands to which they were driven.

Herzl’s Zionist idea was grounded in the belief that the establishment of a Jewish state on Jewish land would finally “normalize” the Jewish people and end their persecution. The Zionist idea was that by including Jews among the nations, Jews would become ordinary, and like other peoples — that their inclusion would finally “solve” the Jewish problem. That was the meaning of Zionism as Herzl understood it, and indeed as it was understood until the Holocaust and the actual creation of the Jewish state.

But Herzl’s dream proved to be a fairy tale, as delusional in its way as the dreams of socialism, communism and progressivism, whose believers hoped would provide solutions to the conflicts and sufferings that blight our human state. All these isms took hold in the 19th Century, and became forms of modern faith. The traditional religions they supplanted had trusted in a Divinity for such a solution, but were forced into retreat before the advance of Darwinian theory and modern scientific developments. All the messianic visions of the modern age were driven by the desire for an earthly redemption that would resolve our human dilemmas and achieve what the heavenly redemption could no longer convincingly offer.[1]

Among these fantasies of a better world than the one we inherited, Zionism was the most conservative, and the most practical. The quests for a socially just future are based on no human reality but on the expectation of a human miracle, a transformation of who we are and what we have been into something wonderfully different. Zionism by contrast was based on the experience of actual peoples who had already taken their place among the nations. It was a quest for normality. Not for a world transformation but for an integration into the existing world of others.

But even this modest hope of the Jews has proved an impossible dream. It is true that half of Herzl’s goal has been realized, and in an astounding way. Yet its very realization has proved the hope that inspired it to be a folly. By all standards of civilization and modernity Israel should be admired and emulated by the rest of the world. Instead, the Jewish state is hated and is a pariah among the nations, just as Jews themselves are pariahs in most of the world outside America today.

Far from creating a refuge, Israel has become the focal point of all the genocidal intentions against the Jews, which have never been more overt or more global. Today Israel is the site of a Holocaust for which the Islamic world openly yearns, and which the rest of the world – with the possible exceptions of America and Canada — will not lift a finger to prevent.  This sobering reality has changed the meaning of Zionism, and has made it a more comfortable fit for me. Call it the Zionism of Survival.

In the household I grew up in, I was not brought up to be a Zionist because my parents were Marxist progressives who looked to a socialist future to provide an earthly salvation, and an end to the persecution of the Jews. My parents and their comrades believed that mankind’s conflicts would be resolved by a universal class whose revolution would abolish all nations and unite all peoples, and thus remove the distinctions that made them Jews.

My realization that this was not going to happen occurred through my relationship with a Marxist mentor named Isaac Deutscher. Deutscher had written a book called The Non-Jewish Jew, by which he meant Marxists like us – Jews who were of Judaism but not in it. By the time I came under his influence in the 1960s, he had become a defender of Israel and had been one since the Second World War. Deutscher viewed Israel as a “raft” state – a refuge that Jews could cling to after they had been shipwrecked in the storms that periodically engulfed them. The particular storm he was referring to was Hitler’s “Final Solution.”

During the interwar years, a debate had raged in Europe’s leftwing circles, which carried momentous consequences for those who participated in it. The debate was about how Jews should respond to the looming fascist threat. The Zionists were urging Jews to flee the continent and take refuge in the Palestine Mandate. Marxists like Deutscher argued that the Jews should stay in Europe and fight for the socialist revolution. But as Deutscher ruefully acknowledged later, the Jews who listened to the Zionists were still alive, while those who listened to Marxists like him were dead.

Under Deutscher’s influence, I became a quasi-Zionist, a believer in the raft state. Israel should exist and be defended until the socialist transformation abolished nation-states and solved the problem of the Jews once and for all.

Don’t think for a moment that this is some quaint Marxist delusion now consigned to the historical dustbin. The idea of a world without borders is alive and well in the international left and among liberals and progressives in America. It is the idea that animates the Democratic Party’s attacks on American sovereignty, and it is a vision whose intellectual leaders are Jews.

One of its canonical articles is called “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism” — for the latter and against the former. It was written by Harvard philosopher Martha Nussbaum.  According to Nussbaum, the cosmopolitan ideal which progressive people should aspire to is “the person whose primary allegiance is to the community of human beings in the entire world.” This attitude – that we are not Jews or Americans – but “citizens of the world” — explains why people on the left are so uncomfortable with — or simply hostile to — issues of national security and patriotism. It explains why progressive Jews can be indifferent to the survival of the Jewish state.

Even as I absorbed Deutscher’s lesson about the raft state, my belief in the progressive fantasy was rapidly eroding. I had begun to doubt the possibility of a redeemed future, a future fundamentally different from those with which we were historically familiar. As these doubts grew, they were changing my view of the unredeemed present. By the middle of the next decade I no longer believed in a new world order. This had immediate and profound consequences for my attitude towards Israel and my identity as a Jew, and as an American as well.

There was not going to be a future in which there were no longer nations or peoples in conflict; there was not going to be a future in which Jews would cease to be the objects of envy and resentment, and virulent hatred. There was not going to be a future in which a refuge – a raft state — was no longer useful.

Then came 9/11 and the Islamic attack on the World Trade Center. It was an event that made millions of people aware of the Islamist movement in the Muslim world and the fact that they were conducting a holy war against infidels in general, and Jews in particular. The incubator and leading force of this holy war is the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded by an admirer of Hitler and a godfather of the call to push the Jews of Palestine into the sea. Today, the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood is the Egyptian imam, Yusef al-Qaradawi, who has publicly prayed that the Muslim believers will finish the job that Hitler started.

Millions of Jews are in denial when it comes to the determination of Islamists to kill them. In part, this denial is psychological and familiar as when people face a prospect that is too terrible to contemplate. There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world today who worship a prophet who has told them that “the day of redemption will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘Oh Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.’” For a billion and a half Muslims that is the word of God. Denial is one convenient way of dealing with this fact.

This particular death warrant for the Jews can be found on the official website of the University of Southern California, where it was placed by the Muslim Students Union, which is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. When I asked a leader at the Wiesenthal Center to demand that this genocidal incitement be removed, his initial response was, “But it’s a religious statement.” Well, yes, but it is also a summons to kill the Jews. Such is the force of denial.

One of the chief instruments of the Muslim Brotherhood is the Muslim Students Association, which sponsors “Israeli Apartheid weeks” at universities across America and throughout the Western world calling for Israel’s destruction. Muslim Students Association members chant “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea” – that is from the eastern boundary of Israel to the western one. It is a call for the liquidation of the Jewish state because it is Jewish. Yet all across America, campus rabbis hold ecumenical dialogues with the Muslim Students Association, and defend it against its critics.

I have traveled to many universities to oppose these Jew-haters, and everywhere I go I am protested against and defamed by the Muslim Students Association and by their Jewish enablers. I have met with numerous campus rabbis and asked them to set conditions for their ecumenical outreach: first, that their Muslim counterparts desist from sponsoring Israeli Apartheid Weeks, and denounce those who conduct them; and second, that they only hold dialogues with people who publicly support the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East.

For these efforts I have been attacked by Hillel rabbis at Yale, the University of North Carolina, the University of California Santa Barbara, and the University of Florida, and by Hillel student leaders at the University of Pennsylvania and other schools. For voicing these concerns, they have called me a bigot, a racist and an “Islamophobe,” which is a smear invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics.

Last year I published a full-page ad in the Yale Daily News whose headline read: “The Palestinian Case Against Israel Is Based On A Genocidal Lie.” The genocidal lie is the claim that all of Israel – or any of Israel — is occupied Arab land. It is a claim used to justify all of the murderous acts committed against the Jews of Israel. In fact, Israel was created out of the ruins of the Turkish Empire, as were Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Turks are not Arabs, and Israel does not occupy any Arab land.

The Middle East conflict is not about land or a Palestinian state. It is a sixty-year war of aggression first by the Arab League and then by Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to destroy the Jewish state and push the Jews into the sea. This war is now a religious war, an expression of Islamic Nazism.

To be perfectly clear, I am not referring to all Muslims as Nazis. I am referring to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic forces now ascendant in Egypt and the Middle East who are actively promoting a second genocide of the Jews, along with their supporters in America and their secular allies on the political left.

When my ad about the Palestinian lie appeared in the Yale paper, the Slifka Center, the focus of Jewish life on campus, was outraged. They were not outraged by the Palestinian lie but by my ad, which told the truth. They were outraged because the truth offended the Muslim Students Association with whom they wished to be friends. To counter my ad the Slifka Center published its own full- page statement. It affirmed the Slifka Center’s “respect” – and I quote their words – “for the Muslim Students Association, which does not spread hateful lies about Israel.”

The Slifka statement then attacked my ad as the purveyor of “hateful ideas,” which it said would “lead to tragic rifts between the Jewish and Muslim communities,” as though campuses across the country were not already reverberating to the chants of “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea,” or as though Muslim masses were not already chanting “death to the Israel” at the call of Hizbollah and Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Having made its commitments clear, the Slifka ad then invited students to an evening with the Ground Zero Mosque Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, hosted by Slifka Center director James Ponet, the celebrity rabbi who officiated at Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

The suicidal tendencies of the intended victims of Islamic supremacy are tragically familiar. They recall the sad delusions of members of the Judenrate – the Jewish Councils in the Nazi ghettos – who organized the Jews for Hitler’s death camps, while pretending to themselves that the Germans were too civilized to kill them.

Delusions about Islamic Nazis are hardly confined to Jews, however. In the eyes of the Islamic fanatics, Israel may be the “Little Satan,” but America is “The Great Satan,” the arch demon that must be destroyed in the name of Allah. In his fatwas Osama Bin Laden identified Islam’s enemies as “Jews and Crusaders,” America being Christian and therefore the “Crusader Nation.” Every Islamist leader and organization from Ahmadinejad to Qaradawi, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Hizbollah and Hamas has promised death to Israel and America as the necessary means to their malignant ends.

Meanwhile, the Crusaders – like the Jews — are asleep. It is an old story. Just before the Second World War, Whittaker Chambers, a Communist defector, attempted to warn Roosevelt that a White House advisor named Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent and that his administration had been penetrated by Communist operatives. When Roosevelt was informed of Chambers’ charges he laughed and dismissed them. Hiss then accompanied Roosevelt to Yalta where he helped conclude the deal that delivered Eastern Europe to the Soviet Empire and triggered the Cold War.

Here is a story that may prove worse than that of Alger Hiss. In a series of foreign policy disasters the Obama Administration has assisted the Muslim Brotherhood in transforming the Arab Spring in the Middle East into an Islamist winter, beginning with the toppling of an allied regime in Egypt and the accession to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its expansion throughout the region. In August, the new Egyptian president sacked his military commanders, abrogated the Constitution, and assumed dictatorial powers greater than those possessed by his predecessor, and transforming Egypt into an Islamist state. Opponents of the dictatorship were crucified – literally nailed to crosses – in front of the government headquarters. It was the Brotherhood’s way of dramatizing its intentions to turn Egypt into a Medieval totalitarian state.

This was exactly what the American State Department had assured the world the Muslim Brotherhood would not do as it paved the way for the Brotherhood’s accession to power. The intelligence chief of the Obama White House had officially described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” and “secular” organization, which had embraced democratic and constitutional government.

The betrayal of these promises, and the violation of every principle the American government claimed to be supporting in the Middle East’s most important state, took place without a word of protest from the American government or the American Secretary of State.

As it happens the chief adviser on Muslim affairs to the American Secretary of State is Huma Abedin, one of whose mentors was the Nazi imam, Yusef Qaradawi. Abedin is an operative for the Muslim Brotherhood and a lifelong servant of its agendas. In the twelve years directly proceeding her hiring by the U.S. Government, where she became deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, Abedin worked for Abdullah Omar Naseef, one of the principal financiers of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence. Huma Abedin’s mother and brother are Muslim Brotherhood leaders, as was her father before them.

In their work for the Brotherhood, the Abedin family was specifically tasked with running Abdullah Omar Naseef’s jihad operation, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. The title sounds innocuous enough until you understand that the express goal of the Institute is to transform the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries into Muslim majorities as part of the Islamic jihad, with the express intent of creating Islamic states — in short, to conquer those countries for totalitarian Islam. To accomplish this goal Muslim minorities must be prevented from assimilating into non-Muslim societies and also be indoctrinated in Islamic supremacist ideas. That was and is the mission of the Abedin family. In addition to the network of Saudi-funded mosques in target countries like the United States, the chief organizations for accomplishing this goal are the Muslim Students Association, on whose Executive Board Huma Abedin served, and its offshoot, the Islamic Society of North America, which is now the principal source of advice on Muslim affairs for the Obama administration.

In other words, at the right hand of the American Secretary of State and the center of American foreign policy, is a woman whose family are leaders of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “grand jihad” — its plan to infiltrate non-Muslim societies, and “destroy the Western civilization from within” — in those exact words. And what people do these jihadists regard as the chief obstacle to their sinister designs? The Jews.

In the words of their own manifesto:

“The greatest challenge that faces Muslims in America and Canada are the Jews, who take advantage of their material ability and their media to distort the image of Islam and Muslims thereby spreading lies in the minds of the people of these countries.” The Jews also “serve Zionist interests in the Arab regions.”

In the hands of the Islamists and their allies, Zionism has become the name of all the opponents of Islamist supremacy and its holy war against infidels, against Jews and Christians, Israel and the United States. Americans and Israelis, Jews and Christians have their backs to the same wall. One cannot be defended without defending the other. Supporters of freedom are all Zionists now. And that includes myself. That is the way this war of the civilizations, or — as I prefer it – this war between Islamist barbarism and civilization, will continue until it is finally concluded, and the next conflict begins.

I say this, because as a conservative I understand that conflicts are endless, and these battles are without end. To be a conservative is first to understand that there is no solution to the dilemmas of the human condition. Second, it is to understand that to escape these dilemmas, human beings will inevitably embark on desperate quests for redemptions in this life. These redemptions, in turn, will require holy wars to purge the world of demons – of those who do not share their faith, and who stand in their way. In this regard, totalitarian Islam is really no different in its heart from totalitarian socialism or progressivism, even though the latter are secular and the former is pursued in the name of a vengeful and malignant God. Both seek to cleanse mankind of its irreparable imperfections.

To remain free beings, we are continually forced to defend ourselves and our breathing space, against the efforts of the redeemers to perfect us — against the armies of the saints who are determined to make the world a better place than it can ever be. That is how I see the political wars we face, and why they will never end.

On a personal level, and to answer the question I raised at the beginning of this talk about my identity: I am comfortable being a Diaspora Jew, both in this present struggle with the enemies of America and Israel, and beyond. Diaspora is the name of our Jewish exile, but exile is also the name of our human condition. We are thrust into this life, and remain here for awhile, and then we are gone. If there is a home for us that is truly permanent, it is not of this time or of this place.

My country, America, and the country of my people, Israel, share a common destiny. They are the gathering places of exiles, of those who understand better than others that we have no permanent abode in this world. It is because of this that we cherish the freedoms and the homes we do have, and we are not afraid to fight for them.

Notes:

[1] This is the subject of my book, A Point In Time: The Search for Redemption in this Life and the Next, 2011.
474  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Alan Dershowitz re: German Circumcision Ban... on: September 07, 2012, 08:31:39 AM
Shame on Germany for Circumcision Ban

Posted By Alan M. Dershowitz On September 7, 2012

Why do countries with long histories of anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry seem to care more about the so-called rights of young children not to be circumcised than do other countries in the world with far better histories of concern for human rights?  The same rhetorical question can be asked of countries, such as Norway, that care so much about the rights of animals not to be slaughtered according to Jewish ritual.  These questions are entirely rhetorical because every thinking person knows the answer.  It’s not because Germans or Norwegians are better people and care more about children and animals than do Americans.  It is because they care less about Jews.  Or more precisely they care a lot about Jews.  They just don’t like them very much and don’t care if they are forced to leave the country because they cannot practice their religions there.

So let no one praise a nation that murdered a million Jewish babies and children for shedding crocodile tears over the plight of the poor little baby boy who, following a many thousand year old tradition, is circumcised a week after birth.  Every good person should condemn Germany for what really lies at the heart of efforts to ban circumcision—old-fashioned anti-Semitism, a term coined by Germans for Germans and against Jews.

History is not irrelevant in assessing current policies.  The history of Germany (and Norway) in prohibiting Jews from practicing their traditional rituals goes back to a time when overt anti-Semitism was not only acceptable, it was de rigueur.  Today, new words replace discredited old ones.  Anti-Zionism instead of anti-Semitism. The welfare of children instead of the banning of religious rituals.  But it’s all the same.  Anyone who falls for the new pseudo scientific nonsense about the evils of circumcision or ritual slaughter is as naïve or bigoted as those who fell for the old pseudo scientific racial claims of Nazism.

Indeed, there is an ugly whiff of “racial superiority” in the implicit assumption underlying these bigoted laws:  Namely, that Germans and Norwegians are somehow morally (if not racially) superior to other countries that permit such “barbaric” practices.

So let’s call a spade a spade and let’s call anti-Semitism by its true name.

How then should reasonable people respond to these unreasonable efforts to make it difficult to practice traditional Judaism?  Some have called for a legal response.  Perhaps.  But fighting these bigoted practices in court plays into the hands of those who are proposing it.  In Nazi Germany, respected jurists were able to use the law to justify the most primitive forms of racism.  Indeed Nazism operated through the Nuremburg laws and other such anti-Semitic legal enactments, which were declared entirely lawful by the German courts.  Efforts to use the law against these manifestations of racism backfired, by legitimating the Nazi’s legalistic undertakings.  So let those who seek to challenge these laws do so but not without understanding the downside of such action.

Some may suggest that the alleged science purporting to support these bans be challenged on the basis of scientific truth.  Perhaps.  But that too may play into the hands of those who would argue that even acknowledging a possible scientific basis for these bigoted proposals lends some legitimacy to them.  “Science” too was used to support Nazi racial studies.  Should German scientists now conduct “twin studies” on circumcised and uncircumcised siblings?  Why is Germany not willing to accept the conclusion reached by the American Academy of Pediatrics following a five year review of the best research, that “the health benefits” of circumcision – including reduction of HIV and papillomavirus transmission – “out weight the risks?”

The best response is to shame the Germans into rejecting this new form of left wing anti-Semitism, by showing them how similar it was to the Nazism they now claim to abhor.  This approach will not work in Norway, because Norwegians have forgotten their history and still believe they were victims of Nazism rather than collaborators.  Norway’s anti-Semitic laws preventing Kosher slaughter of animals date back to the pre Nazi period and have remained in force since that time.  Norway seems to have no shame nor is it capable of being shamed.  Many Germans, on the other hand, seem willing to remember the past—at least up to a point.  They must confront that past and look into the historical mirror before they once again go down the road of treating their Jewish citizens as second class or worse.

Shame on those Germans who would ban circumcision.  Shame on those Germans who do not care enough to rise up in anger against the pseudo scientific bigots who falsely claim to be interested in the sensitivities of children.  Praise for those Germans who do stand against the bigotry of their countrymen.

Let other countries with cleaner hands take the lead in conducting real scientific research and in seeking to protect the rights of children and animals.  The dirty hands and filthy past of Germany forever disqualifies that country from leading the effort to ban Jewish rituals.  For shame!

This article was published in German by the Juedische-allgemeine.
475  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Siding with Savages... on: September 06, 2012, 08:57:38 AM
Siding with Savages

Posted By Mark Tapson On September 6, 2012 @ www.frontpagemag.com

Atlas Shrugs blogger Pamela Geller, lightning rod for the hateful fury of the unholy alliance of Islamists and the radical left, is under attack again for daring to run a pro-Israel advertising campaign in New York and San Francisco.

Ms. Geller is executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), in addition to being the author of Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance and The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (with Robert Spencer). For Islamists and the multiculturalist progressives who have bought into the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy of demonizing its opposition as “Muslim-hating,” Geller is the most public face of the mythical “Islamophobia” in America.

Geller’s AFDI advertisements in San Francisco read, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” In New York, the ads read, “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01. And counting. It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.”

Some public officials in both cities are taking unprecedented steps to denounce and distance themselves from the ads. As Ms. Geller related in a FrontPage Magazine interview, Greenburgh, New York Town Supervisor Paul Feiner announced that he wanted Metro-North to warn passengers that the ads could be upsetting and don’t represent Metro-North’s views or that of the community. Muslims, he said, “should not be discriminated against. The posters encourage hatred, discrimination and do not help the efforts to fight hate crimes.” Peter Swiderski, the mayor of Hastings-on-Hudson, and the Board of Trustees sent out a letter to the village asking residents to write to the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) expressing dismay that the ad was not deemed hate speech. The letter also read,

While the Board respects everyone’s right to free speech, we categorically condemn the bigotry and innuendo expressed by this billboard message. To tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few is deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant.

Except that the ad doesn’t refer to all Muslims. It doesn’t even “tar” Islam, which jihadists themselves already do a spectacularly good job of tarring. The ad merely notes the 19,250 deadly attacks (a number that has since risen dramatically) since 9/11/01 carried out in the name of Islam. It underscores the “Islamorealism” that people like Feiner and Swiderski, in their politically correct bubble, prefer to deny and ascribe instead to “Islamophobia.” It refers to jihadists, who have no compunction about killing less fanatical Muslims. Apparently Feiner and Swiderski are more outraged that the ad “could be upsetting” to jihadists than they are about the Muslim victims of their co-religionists. How tolerant of them.

Geller countered by responding to Swiderski and asking why no such mailing went out concerning recent anti-Israel ads run by the MTA. “This speaks to a systemic, institutionalized anti-Semitism prevalent in your administration and among the Board. Care to comment?” Geller posed a rhetorical question to FrontPage Mag interviewer Jamie Glazov, “Why didn’t he react as viscerally when the same kiosks had vicious blood libels posted about Israel?

San Francisco, the city that proudly champions every America- and Israel-hating radical nutball or movement you can name, was of course horrified by what it deemed to be racist hate speech from “notorious anti-Muslim hate blogger” Geller and AFDI (the AFDI has been stamped as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose mission is to designate as such everyone who disagrees with the well-funded progressive agenda).

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, reluctant to open itself up to an AFDI lawsuit for suppressing its free speech, did not refuse Geller’s ad but added a disclaimer: “SFMTA Policy Prohibits Discrimination Based On National Origin, Religion and Other Characteristics and Condemns Statements That Describe Any Group As Savages.”

Not content with posting the disclaimer alongside the ad itself, SFMTA Board of Directors chairman Tom Nolan felt compelled to announce publicly that “the recent ad has no value in facilitating constructive dialogue or advancing the cause of peace and justice.”

Actually, the ad concisely offers the only possible support for “the cause of peace and justice” – siding with civilization over barbarism. There can be no “constructive dialogue” with, for example, a fundamentalist regime whose most fanatical desire is to wipe you from the face of the earth. Nothing has been less constructive in terms of derailing the Iranian Ayatollahs and their lust for nuclear weapons than the West’s decades-long effort to engage them in “constructive dialogue.” Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs have merely used that as a delaying tactic to string us along while they steamroll ahead with their genocidal plans.

The only people who would find the AFDI ads offensive are those who don’t think twice about disparaging Israel as a genocidal apartheid state propped up by the racist, imperialist United States of AmeriKKKa. These willfully blind hypocrites believe Israel and America are the greatest threat to world peace and that jihad is nothing more than “inner struggle.” Funny how Western multiculturalists leap to the defense of a culture they don’t understand and whose supremacist atrocities they whitewash, while readily denouncing their own culture as the fount of all evil.

Let me be perfectly clear, as our President is fond of saying: Islamic fundamentalists are savages. Israel celebrates life; Islamists love death. Israel gives medical care even to Palestinian failed suicide bombers, sends emergency relief teams worldwide, and makes life-giving scientific advancements. Jihadists behead captive soldiers, partygoers, and children; frame mentally challenged Christian children for blasphemy, the punishment for which is death; hang homosexuals from cranes; crucify suspected spies in Yemen and dissidents in Egypt; wage genocide against Christianity minority communities in the wake of the “Arab Spring”; and celebrate the murderers of children. If that doesn’t validate Ms. Geller’s framing of this conflict as a Clash of Civilization and Savagery, I don’t know what does.
476  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Democratic Platform Betrays Israel... on: September 05, 2012, 05:39:36 AM
New Democratic Party Platform Betrays Israel

Posted By Joseph Klein On September 5, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com

Despite some introductory bromides proclaiming the “unshakable commitment” of President Obama and the Democratic Party to Israel’s security, the 2012 Democratic National Platform, titled “Moving America Forward,” mirrors perfectly President Obama’s decision to turn his back on our closest ally in the Middle East. It represents a radical break with prior Democratic Party platforms, not to mention its counterparts issued by the Republican Party, that have expressed unequivocal support for the Jewish state.

Obama has demanded publicly that Israel agree to return to the indefensible pre-1967 armistice lines with some unspecified land swaps. However, he made no comparable demand on the Palestinians to give up their “right of return” claim under which millions of “refugees” and their descendants would be permitted to populate pre-1967 Israel and destroy the Jewish character of Israel in the process.

In keeping with this totally unbalanced approach, the 2012 Democratic Party platform removes language that has appeared in previous Democratic Party platforms on the Palestinian refugee issue.  The 2004 and 2008 platforms had stipulated that, as part of the peace process in creating a Palestinian state, “the issue of  Palestinian refugees” should be resolved “by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.” The 2012 Democratic Party platform is silent on the issue.

The 2012 Democratic Party platform is also silent about the status of Jerusalem. Again, while Obama has insisted that Israel negotiate a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 armistice lines, Obama does not appear to have a problem with the Palestinian demand that, as part of the final negotiations for a Palestinian state, the holy city be divided, with East Jerusalem (where Jewish holy sites are located) becoming the Palestinian capital.  This would mean that the people with the longest historical connection to the undivided city of Jerusalem as their most sacred ground have to give up control over their holiest sites based on an artificial division that occurred when Jordan illegally seized the eastern half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed it.

What a difference four years makes. The 2008 Democratic Party platform, on which Obama ran for president the first time, was unequivocally supportive of Israel’s position on Jerusalem: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

The only reason why the Obama administration did not insist on explicitly reversing this plank in the current platform and chose to remain silent is that they are afraid of the political repercussions among their key Jewish-American constituency.  Just remember Obama’s statement to former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” If re-elected, an unleashed President Obama will have the “flexibility” to side fully with the Palestinians’ demands.

The 2012 Republican Party platform has not broken faith with the Jewish state on the final status of Jerusalem:

“We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states – Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine – living in peace and security.”

The current Democratic Party platform omits any reference to the Hamas terrorists, let alone the decision of the supposedly more moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate a “unity” government with the terrorist organization while it still launches rockets against Israeli civilians.  The current Republican Party platform, by contrast, states that “radical elements like Hamas and Hezbollah must be isolated because they do not meet the standards of peace and diplomacy of the international community.”

The United Nations is a hotbed of Israel-bashing, among its many other failings.  Nevertheless, the 2012 Democratic Party platform calls the UN “a centerpiece of international order.” It takes great pride in the Obama administration’s “reversing the previous administration’s disdain for the UN.”

What the Obama administration has actually done is to engage the dysfunctional United Nations as if it were the central part of its foreign policy, as well as the sole arbiter of international law – all while the UN itself is rapidly succumbing to the influence of radical Islam.  Obama decided that the United States should join the travesty known as the UN Human Rights Council, which is dominated by the 57 member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation. When the Human Rights Council is not busy dutifully passing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s resolutions restricting freedom of speech that is critical of Islam, it goes after Israel while conveniently whitewashing the records of the real serial human rights violators the world over, some of whom sit on the Council.

Between the UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, more UN resources and time are devoted to the advocacy of the Palestinian cause than to any other issue. And the United States is picking up nearly a quarter of the tab.

Incredibly, the Obama administration wants to reverse years of bipartisan support for cutting off funding to any UN agencies that admit the Palestinians as a member state.  U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice testified before a House subcommittee in March 2012 that “longstanding legislative restrictions,” which require withholding of U.S. funding from such agencies “only harms U.S. interests.”  Which interests are those – to appease the Palestinians and pave their way for full UN member state status when they have not yet met the standards for international recognition of statehood including a viable governing authority?

This year’s Democratic Party platform claims that “the President and the Democratic Party” are “working to reform international bodies.”  Which international bodies would those be, since the Obama administration’s actions certainly do not indicate any seriousness about reforming the UN? This is evidenced in Rice’s own testimony that the Obama administration opposes “legislation that would link efforts to reform the UN to withholding dues.”

The Republican Party platform does not gloss over the UN’s failings, especially its use as a forum for Islamists and other human rights abusers to try and delegitimize the democratic Jewish state:

As long as its scandal-ridden management continues, as long as some of the world’s worst tyrants hold seats on its Human Rights Council, and as long as Israel is treated as a pariah state, the U.N. cannot expect the full support of the American people.

Anyone who cares about the future of the Jewish state of Israel need only look at the two major political parties’ platforms to see which of them also cares.
477  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Pamela Geller interviewed on Fox News... on: September 04, 2012, 06:56:06 PM
Watch and decide if you think Geller is being unreasonable in her arguments here (3.5 minutes):

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fv9LxyhZ7pY
478  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / A nuclear Iran... on: September 04, 2012, 03:17:59 PM
President Obama has made it abundantly clear by his actions from the start of his term in office that he has zero interest in helping to defend the state of Israel.
He's also demonstrated that he doesn't believe a nuclear Iran poses a threat to the United States.

The idiocy of that belief is staggering.  I'd go so far as to say that Obama is exhibiting dereliction of duty when it comes to protecting the United States by ignoring the clear and present danger of an Iran with nuclear weapons.  I will also say that G.W. Bush ought to have done something about this before the end of his term, as was strenuously argued by Dick Cheney (according to Cheney's statements after he left office.)  Cheney correctly anticipated that if Obama were elected, he would do nothing to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb.

Israel is only the canary in the coal mine, as understood by anyone who has paid attention to Iran's statements and actions over the past 10+ years.  Israel is only the "little Satan" in their eyes.  The U.S. is the "Great Satan," and we will be their next target after Israel.

Our leaders have failed us miserably in this regard.
479  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Former Leftist: "What is right about Geller and Spencer." on: September 02, 2012, 08:03:54 PM
What Is Right About Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Posted By Eric Allen Bell On March 1, 2012 - www.frontpagemag.com

[Editor's note: The article below is written by Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at  the “Daily Kos” because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” Don't miss Eric Bell on Frontpage's television program, The Glazov Gang. Visit his Facebook page: http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell.]

I write this mainly for the benefit of so many of my Liberal friends.  I know you have good hearts, but have been badly deceived by your peers and leaders when it comes to the threat of Jihad, and the character of those few brave individuals, who have had the courage to risk everything, to stand up for liberty and human rights…

BACKGROUND:

In the summer of 2010 I was invited to write an article for Michael Moore.  I was in production on a documentary I was calling “Not Welcome” regarding the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in the middle of the American Bible Belt.  His endorsement gave me a huge boost with the Hollywood crowd.  Having worked in the entertainment industry for years, this was not my first film, but it was to be my first documentary.  So when I went on to write a few more articles for MichaelMoore.com the wheels were greased for me to get into a room with the right people, and secure the finishing funds I needed to complete post production.  And if there is one thing Hollywood loves (almost as much as congratulating itself), it’s the story of an innocent minority group being wrongly persecuted, preferably in the South, especially if the antagonist happens to be the Religious Right.  And as my editor and I assembled the first 25 minutes, of the 300 hours of footage shot, this film promised to deliver just that.  “Wow, I really wasn’t expecting this.  I would like to thank the members of the Academy, Michael Moore and the Prophet Mohammed for making all of this possible…”

But then the winds changed direction.  It seems that fate had issued a Fatwa against my perfect plan.  The Arab Spring sprang into action and ruined everything, as it degenerated disappointingly into the Islamist Winter.  It was as if I had been slapped upside the head by reality, thus knocking off my blinders and causing me to ask a lot of inconvenient questions.  I was left wondering if there was perhaps more to the story of so-called “revolution” than what had been portrayed on Al Jazeera and “Democracy Now with Amy Goodman”.  You can read more about this in an article I wrote for Front Page Magazine here: “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam”.

I took a second and more critical look inside Islamic scripture, comparing and contrasting the countless acts of Islamic terrorism, with specific commands to carry out these violent and barbaric attacks on innocent infidels as ordered in the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sunnah.  And after much difficult soul searching I had realized I was making more than just a documentary.  I was making a terrible mistake.   So I went back to my backers and told them how I had changed the outline of the documentary, to include a critical examination of the violent dimension that informed so much of the Islamic world today, and throughout history, and how desperately this story needed to be told, and I consequently lost the backing to my film.

As a writer who had written over a hundred articles for The Daily Kos, a liberal blog which receives about a million visitors a day, I wrote 3 articles outlining what I had learned about Islam, it’s execution of homosexuals and how hundreds of millions of women around the world were living under Islamic gender apartheid.  I called attention to this as a human rights issue, human rights being in theory a big concern among Liberal audiences.  The warm reception that followed included being labeled a “bigot” a “right winger” and an “Islamophobe” in the hundreds of subsequent reader comments, demanding that my “hate speech” be banned.  And after that the Islamophobia watchdog site, Loonwatch.com created a link for readers to write directly to the editors of DKOS, demanding my voice be silenced.  And I was immediately banned from ever writing for The Daily Kos.

In the weeks that passed I received many “goodbye” texts and emails from friends letting me know that we were no longer friends.  I saw my name get smeared in print – lies, misquotes, distortions, character assassination.  Loonwatch.com named me the “Loon At Large”

(UPDATE: Since appearing on the Michael Coren show and telling my story about how Loonwatch put my name out on the street in the Islamic world, Loonwatch has since pulled that article from their site.  Thank you very much Michael Coren!).

My friend count on Facebook took a hit.  My blog, which has had over 23 million visitors and  usually receives at least a million visitors per month, got hacked over and over for weeks before my traffic rebounded.   And, many of my subscribers left the site, telling me that I was “spreading intolerance and ignorance”.  On donations and ad revenue I took a massive financial hit.  For so many who had known me for so long, I had become nothing more than an “intolerant hate monger”

PAMELA GELLER:

In the process of defending myself from all of these accusations, in a desperate attempt to distance myself from those names that had become synonymous with “Islamophobia” at least in my circle, I made critical remarks about Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller – comments meant to distinguish myself from the real “hate mongers” but comments that turned out to be uninformed and just simply just not true.  I thought they were true at the time.  But having only recently sipped from the well of knowledge, I had not yet flushed all of the Kool Aid out of my system.

For example, in a Daily Kos piece (before my excommunication for blasphemy) I wrongly lumped Pamela Geller in with Pastor Terry Jones, a religious zealot who preaches burning the Koran.  A simple YouTube search will yield no shortage of remarks made by Geller, stating she opposes the burning of books, all books, and that furthermore she is not anti-Muslim, does not advocate persecution or hatred of Muslims, and even goes so far as to point out that it is in fact Muslims themselves, who are the biggest victims of Islamic violence.  The number of times she has spoken out for the hundreds of millions of Muslim women, who suffer under gender apartheid alone, is evidence that Pamela Geller is not a hate monger, but rather a fearless advocate for human rights – including the rights of Muslims.

It is amazing, the human capacity for seeing only what we want to see.  And it is especially humbling, I can tell you, when one identifies that unattractive quality within oneself.  But the freedom that comes with trading in your cozy conclusions for difficult questions is well worth the cost.  Everything is up for grabs.  You evolve.

In taking the time to really get to know who Pamela Geller is and what she has done to earn this sensational media status, as some sort of evil hate monger, this intolerant fanatic who opposes religious freedom, I finally did some long overdue research of my own.  And soon after simply scratching the surface, it was immediately clear that the bold stance Pamela Geller took publicly against the Ground Zero Mosque was absolutely right.  Spot on, in fact damned near clairvoyant.

This shameless shrine, this 13 story Islamic gloating tower was to be financed with $100 million from the “Cordoba Initiative” an organization with very questionable ties to Jihadi interests – to be ran by Imam Raouf and promoted by his wife Daisy Khan (pronounced “Con”).

Cordoba, by the way was at one time the capital of an Islamic Caliphate and the city where Muslims had converted a Cordoba church into the third largest mosque in the world – an inconvenient truth that those of us in the Liberal world were told was simply misunderstood.  But when the spin doctors at CAIR failed to convince the skeptics, this mysterious $100 million Islamic fund rebranded the name of the victory mosque, to simply “Park 51”.  It kind of sounds like an exclusive night club from the seventies, except without the liquor or cocaine, and where the women must throw a sheet over their heads and keep their mouths shut.

No matter how the Cordoba Initiative tried to spin this story, Pamela Geller kept on insisting this was a mosque.  According to press releases parroted by left leaning media outlets, “Park 51” was more like a YMCA, where old people could play bingo or shuffle board or whatever they do.  There would be Mommy and Me classes and the center just happened to have a prayer room on the top two floors for Muslims to pray.  (also known as a mosque).  Never mind that this mosque would overlook the site of the collapsed World Trade Center, where thousands of innocent people lost their lives after Islamic terrorists struck on 9/11.  And never mind that construction of a mosque this close to Ground Zero was perfectly consistent with 1,400 years of Islamic conquest.  This was to be a victory mosque the whole family could enjoy.  And if you don’t like it, then you’re a racist and a bigot and a right wing Islamophobe.  Did I mention that the new facility was designed to “bring the whole community together”?

As an advocate for cultural sensitivity for the American people (we could use more of those), Pamela Geller gave numerous television interviews.  She was hammered and grilled mercilessly as an intolerant fanatic by a highly biased media, but she did not back down.  She kept her cool and she stuck to the facts.  For instance, fragments of a hijacked airliner had reportedly landed on the Burlington Coat Factory (the piece of Ground Zero real estate which was swooped up using questionable sources, to become the Victory Mosque).  She asserted that the proposed site was in fact sacred ground, a war memorial, and not at all an appropriate place to build a $100 million “shrine to the very ideology that inspired the attacks of 9/11”.

I used to think that this was too broad a statement to make.  I used to think that connecting Islam to 9/11 was somehow unfair.  I used to not think, and think that I was thinking.  And it seems for many of us Gen X’ers “educated” in government run schools, this type of not thinking was how we were taught to think.  And the institutions of “education” told us that this type of not thinking was called “tolerance”.  Applied evenly, one could learn to tolerate Communism, Nazism or even the President of Iran.   See Oliver Stone’s son and recent convert to Shia Islam as Exhibit “A”.

So why did Pamela Geller call Islam an “Ideology” and not a religion?  Perhaps this was because Islam is only a small part religion.  In large part Islam is a tyrannical political system, and very much a barbaric legal system (the Sharia) practiced by hundreds of millions of Muslims in Islamic countries around the world and growing.  And all three components go together to form what is known as “Islam” the so-called “religion of peace”.   And yet so many in the mainstream media twisted Ms. Geller’s words to make it sound as if she were a crackpot, who actually thought that a mosque was going to be built on the site of the actual Twin Towers, while ignoring her valid points, or else cutting her off before she could finish making a valid point.  And this is what so many of us wanted to believe, what we needed to believe – because the alternative meant that maybe she was right, and this went against a culture that raised us to believe all belief systems are of equal value and must be respected equally because anything less was unfair.

A huge portion of American culture is dominated by a naïve and usually well-intentioned view – that one must always side with the perceived victim in any conflict.  And terrorist-linked organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) have done a masterful job of manipulating this predisposition in painting a picture of Islam in America as the victim.  Never mind the fact that Islam itself is perhaps the greatest victimizer in the world today.  The perception that Islam is the underdog in America has allowed CAIR to bully and infiltrate the media, either by calling them out whenever they feel that Islam has been slighted or, more recently, creating an atmosphere where media outlets such as the New York Times are voluntarily censoring themselves.

For a religion that is so easily offended by the simplest slight, such as drawing a cartoon or burning a book, one would hope that a Muslim cleric with a hundred million dollars behind him could find another location – one that does not offend millions of Americans.  And this was a point that Pamela Geller never backed down from, even though she knew that she could be risking her life.

ROBERT SPENCER:

There were two defining incidents that caused me to eventually do a full 180 on my views concerning Islam as a mostly peaceful religion with a few bad apples.  The first one I have already mentioned in “The High Cost of Telling the Truth About Islam”.  Briefly:

“I flew back to Nashville to shoot a conference on whether or not Islam was conducive with Democratic Values and on the way to my hotel room I learned that my cab driver was from Egypt.  I asked him how he felt about the fall of Mubarak, a dictator worth over $70 billion dollars while so much of his country was living in poverty and he told me he was concerned.  Concerned?  Wasn’t this good news?  The cab driver was a Coptic Christian and he told me that he feared for his family back home.  “If the Muslims take control, and they will, it will be very dangerous for my parents and my sisters.  I’m scared for them right now”.  After that conversation, I started to pay more attention to the news coming from the Islamic world in the Middle East. Over the coming months I watched as the Muslim Brotherhood gained political power in Egypt.  I saw that cab driver’s worst fears come true as Coptic Christians were attacked by Islamic mobs.  I saw Tunisia institute Sharia, the brutal Islamic Law.  After Libya fell, the Transitional Council also instituted Islamic Law.  The nuclear armed Islamic government of Pakistan arrested and punished those who cooperated with the United States in killing Osama Bin Laden.  A woman under the Islamic government of Afghanistan faced execution for the crime of being raped.  Similar news stories emerged from Iran.  A man who typed “there is no god” as his Facebook status in Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, was arrested for blasphemy.”

Also, I read a book by Robert Spencer called “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion”.  I knew his reputation for being an “Islamophobe” as I had been a reader of Loonwatch.com for over a year – a site which is obsessed with Robert Spencer, and is aligned with another site called SpencerWatch.com – both of which go to great lengths to depict him as the worst human being in the world.

When I picked up “The Truth About Mohammed” I kept waiting for that moment when he would reveal himself to be the “Loon” they said he was and I could stop reading.  But that moment never came.  As it turns out, all of these horrible things I was reading about Mohammed could not possibly be “Islamophobic” because they were all coming directly from Islamic scripture.  Everything he said was based on what Islamic sources, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sunnah, were saying about Mohammed.  There was very little editorializing.  Spencer was merely reporting in a very non-sensational way, what Muslims are taught about the life of their prophet.

I checked this out for myself.  Not only did I want to disbelieve what I was reading, but I needed to disbelieve it.  If what Robert Spencer was saying about Mohammed was true, then I had to rework my entire documentary, rethink my entire worldview, possibly lose backing (that hurt) and even have to go back and admit to my readers that I had it all wrong.  I really, really wanted Robert Spencer to turn out to be a “Loon”.  But he simply is not.

In fact, Robert Spencer is one of the only people out there telling the truth about Mohammed and successfully getting through to a significant number of people.  And although I had seen him appear on news shows that I don’t like, being interviewed by people that I don’t agree with, there was absolutely nothing in his book that promoted his religion or promoted a partisan political point of view.  He was simply stating the facts.  And if I could detect any kind of agenda from this at all, any hint of this being in any way personal for him, it was pretty clear that his concerns had to do with protecting human rights.

From there I watched a documentary that Robert Spencer was featured prominently in (which I very highly recommend) called “Islam: What the West Needs to Know”.  Again, I did my homework and it all checks out.  From that point I watched nearly everything I could find on YouTube with Robert Spencer in it.  Then I read “The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran”.

Since first sharing my change in perspective on Daily Kos and later on Front Page Magazine, I had the honor of speaking with Robert Spencer on a number of occasions.  In fact it was he who reached out to me when my articles on Daily Kos got me banned.   We have since been on radio programs together and I receive his JihadWatch.com email regularly.  In keeping with the style of his books, Jihad Watch merely reports the facts concerning all the many acts of Jihad that have happened that day or week, with plenty of links to independent news sources from around the world, to substantiate what is being said.  JihadWatch.com more than anything has been, and continues to be, incredibly eye-opening and an excellent source of reference material, for anyone who is serious about understanding the very real threat of Jihad – including Stealth Jihad, both here at home and around the world.

Countless millions of people fall victim to Jihadists every single day.  This is perhaps the worst human rights nightmare facing the world in our time.  And, there are tragically so very few people out there who are risking their neck, quite literally, to bring us accurate information concerning this.  Quite frankly I find most (but certainly not all) of the sites that are critical of Islam to be either hateful or else too religiously motivated for me.  And my sense is that this has a lot to do with maintaining the false perception that the Counter Jihad movement is partisan or religiously motivated.  JihadWatch.com is the best, as far as I am concerned, when it comes to getting the facts in a reliable, non-partisan, non-proselytizing format.

SUMMARY:

So why would I have had such a wrong perception about Spencer and Geller?  In the Liberal world, the world I now mostly just see in my rear view mirror when it comes to many issues I am reconsidering, there is not much tolerance for a diversity of opinion – something which was made abundantly clear when I was 86’d from Daily Kos, as punishment for not singing off the same sheet of music, when it comes to Islamic Supremacy.  So I wrongly and naively thought that the Conservative world must work the same way.   Huge mistake.   The truth is, not only are there a wide range of views within the Conservative world, but even in the subculture of Counter Jihad there are many points of view as to what exactly the threat is and what to do about it.

This simply does not exist so much on the Left.  And that is unfortunate, because I believe that America could benefit from having a healthy dialogue between those who are more cautious, respectful of traditional values and those who question whether the way we have always done things is the best way to move forward.

Perhaps no Americans understand better the threat of Jihad more than our brave men and women in uniform.  Today as I write this article, in places such as Afghanistan, our troops face the very real threat of being shot in the back by a Muslim ally in uniform who is willing to murder them in cold blood because someone, somewhere burned a book.  A book!

What we are seeing is an escalating battle between the civilized world and uncivilized fanatical masses, shaking their fists yelling “Death to America!  Death Israel” burning our flags, storming our embassies, beheading our journalists, developing nuclear bombs to point at our ally, Israel and blowing themselves up yelling “Allahu Akbar!” while killing innocent children because they are Jewish.

I often wonder if there are more Islamic Supremacists in the Middle East today who want to see the Jewish race exterminated than there were Germans who wanted the same thing during World War II.  This is how serious the threat is from Orthodox Islam.  And it is only getting worse.

A new holocaust is brewing and it’s coming from Hamas, Hezbollah, state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran and it finds its roots in the history and the teachings of Orthodox Islam.  And this is being taught in the Islamic schools of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories – but even more disconcerting is that the hatred of Jews is found in literature sent over to far too many American mosques, from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and published by the Muslim Brotherhood.  Anyone who is not concerned about this, anyone who is saying nothing, doing nothing – anyone who thinks this whole thing is an overreaction, ask yourself, “How did Hitler pull off the Holocaust?” and then look in the mirror.

My fellow infidels, you are right to be concerned. No, you are not a bigot or an “Islamophobe” if you speak out. Yes, there are lots of peaceful Muslims all over the world who share our concerns – who are our partners in this effort, who tell their stories and love their children and love America just like we do.   You do not need to hate or fear Muslims. Information is the number one enemy of Islamic Supremacy. Spread it!

Whatever I’ve lost, whatever I’ve endured is nothing at all compared to what Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer courageously endure, day after day, year after year, nonstop as they are pummeled by the media, their words distorted, their characters assassinated, portrayed as hate mongers, fear mongers, bigots and fanatics – their pictures pasted onto Islamic websites all over the world, constantly, with the very clear message that these people are the “enemies of Allah” and have “insulted Islam”.

Whether protecting the rights of people abroad – their right to free speech, their right to leave their religion without facing the penalty of execution, the right not to be falsely imprisoned, the right to report if you have been raped and not be punished for it, by being stoned to death or forced to marry your rapist – make no mistake about it – these two courageous truth tellers are risking everything to protect what we all hold dear.

They will most likely have to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, given the amount of violence so far that has been perpetrated on those who have been murdered in the past for simply speaking out against “the religion of peace”.  And they risk their lives for you and for me, and for the liberty and the protection of human rights for billions of people around the world, every single day, year after year.

And although there are many people who are fighting this fight every day, many unsung heroes, when it comes to speaking out in the media, no one has lead the charge more effectively, with moral clarity and courage than Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

What is right About Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer – is what is right about America.

Peace,

Eric Allen Bell
Eric@BellMedia.org
480  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Jumah at the DNC" Event Fizzles... on: September 02, 2012, 10:35:10 AM
"Jumah at the DNC" Event Fizzles

by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY  1 Sep 2012 www.breitbart.com

Organizers at the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs anticipated crowds at yesterday's "Jumah at the DNC" event in Charlotte, North Carolina would reach 20,000. Instead, only 300 Muslims showed up for the open air prayer ceremony.
The event had been listed on the schedule of events that were part of the officially sanctioned DNC/Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee's website. But less than 24 hours before "Jumah at the DNC" was held, nervous officials at the Host Committee quietly removed it from the list of officially sanctioned DNC pre-convention events.
As Jim Hoft reported at TownHall.com last night:
[T]he Jumah event was removed from the DNC web site calendar, and there is no reference at all to the event. A supporter noted in an e-mail, “It was still there 5.30 PM on 8/30/2012 and at 6.30 PM it was gone! I looked everywhere but it’s not listed anymore.”
Readers can see the cleaned up version of the scrubbed August 31 schedule of events here.
Officials at the Host Commitee confirmed that the event was removed. As NBC reported late yesterday:
"This event, like many others on the page, was user generated," a senior Host Committee official told NBC News on Friday. "Upon further review, and because speakers for the event and statements and positions from event organizers were not appropriate and relevant to the Host Committee, Charlotte in 2012 has decided to remove the event from our events calendar."
One of the event organizers, radical Islamist Imam Jibril Hough, bristled at the Host Committee's actions:
"This is about caving in to fear and ignorance," said Hough.
The radical Islamist nature of the BIMA organization was highlighted by the topics addressed at yesterday's "Jumah at the DNC" --Islamophobia and opposition to Anti-Sharia laws. The featured speakers were also controversial:
-- Jibril Hough, who claims Muslims lived in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus in 1492. Hough is listed as a "spokesman" for BIMA, and his views are reflected in the "indigenous Muslims" claim included in the group's title.
--Retired Army Muslim Chaplain, Captain James Yee, who was charged with sedition but not prosecuted since to do so would have revealed national security secrets.
-- Imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
It was a disappointing turn of events for the event's sponsor, the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs, an obscure radical Islamist organization.  In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Tuesday, Ibrahim Jaaber, son of BIMA Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber, said that the DNC "reached out" to the Muslim organization and invited it to hold the two hour prayer service as one of the officially sanctioned pre-convention events that began yesterday. In addition to the "Jumah at the DNC" event yesterday afternoon, BIMA was scheduled to host the DNC/Charlotte in 2012 Host Committee officially sanctioned "Islamic Regal Dinner" last night.
But with the convention scheduled to kick off on Monday, the negative publicity surrounding the radical Islamist speaking and organizing "Jumah at the DNC" became too much for the Host Committee to tolerate, and both the "Jumah at the DNC" and "Islamic Regal Dinner" events officially disappeared from the organization's website late Thursday.
The Host Committee is described on its website as "a non-profit, non-partisan organization established by the city of Charlotte to fulfill obligations of the master contract with the Democratic National Convention Committee." It is run by three Democratic Party stalwarts and a politically ambitious CEO based in Charlotte. North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue and North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan serve as honorary co-chairs, and Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx and Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers serve as co-chairs. Rogers has contributed to Senate candidates of both parties, but most recently donated $30,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2010, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Native Americans, who can properly claim to be "indigenous" to the United States, were upset that prior to the scrubbing of the event from the DNC/Charlotte in 2012 website, the Democratic Party had apparently recognized the Orwellian interpretation of "indigenous" set forward by BIMA.
As Miki Booth wrote last week:
Native Americans are very angry to learn that Muslims in the United States of America are being touted as “indigenous”, a complete falsehood. The fact is, American Indians are the indigenous people of North America, as Hawai’ians are to Hawai’i and the Aborigine to Australia. Organizations like BIMA marginalize native Americans in favor of Muslims, and Indians are not pleased. Speaking with many tribal friends and associates here in northeast Oklahoma, it is clear that the support Obama received from native American Democrats in 2008 is waning.
The controversy surrounding the initial Democrats' embrace of BIMA's incorrect use of the term "indigenous" to describe American born Muslims is expected to further diminish the party's standing among Native Americans. The Democratic Party is already on the defensive with Native Americans because its Massachusetts Senate nominee, Elizabeth Warren, has come under heavy criticism for falsely claiming to have Native American ancestry.
The BIMA website says the organization is "a non profit organization seeking status with the United Nations as a non governmental organization (NGO). BIMA was founded in 1992 by the late Hajj Heshaam Jaaber. The objective of BIMA is to provide social and economic development to indigenous Muslims in the United States of America." Heshaam Jaaber was Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber's father and Ibrahim Jaaber's grandfather.
Ibrahim Jaaber is a 2007 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was an All-Ivy League basketball player. He told Breitbart News that his role in his father's BIMA organization is to provide media management services. Two months ago he purchased the "muslimbureau.com" domain name which BIMA uses for its website. Prior to that time, BIMA had no web presence.
It remains unclear if BIMA is an actual organization or a recently established "shell corporation" opportunistically set up by a small group of radical Islamists to take advantage of the Democratic Party's ideological desire to appeal to politically correct diversity. Indeed, other than spokesman Hough, the entirety of the BIMA organization seems to be limited to Executive Director Muhammad Jaaber and his two sons.
One son, Yusuf,  is listed as the organization's press contact. Ibrahim, the second son who owns the organization's domain name and describes his role in the organization as a person responsible for media management, is involved with BIMA on a part time basis. Since his graduation from Penn, he has played basketball professionally in Bulgaria and Italy. He has had several NBA tryouts, including one with the Houston Rockets in 2011, and told Breitbart News he is hoping for a tryout this coming season with either the Indiana Pacers or the San Antonio Spurs. Some time after 2007, he became a citizen of Bulgaria, which allows him to play basketball on the Bulgarian national team. He was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and maintains his American citizenship as well.
481  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Gay AZ Sheriff Cleared of Wrongdoing... on: September 02, 2012, 09:17:02 AM
www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-arizona-sheriff-idUSBRE87U15O20120831
482  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Robert Spencer responds... on: September 01, 2012, 10:39:03 AM
Los Angeles Times calls for restrictions on freedom of speech of counter-jihadists

Robert Spencer - www.jihadwatch.org - August 26, 2012

Before reading Nathan Lean's call for the restriction of the freedom of speech of critics of jihad and Islamic supremacism in the Los Angeles Times, it is illuminating to bear a few things in mind.

First: Nathan Lean, the editor-in-chief of Aslan Media, is a thug who has sent me numerous veiled threats. For security reasons, I maintain several offices and mailboxes in different parts of the country, and don't actually live near any of them or check the mail in them myself. Nathan Lean got hold of one of the addresses, and several months ago tweeted me, in a complete non-sequitur, the name of the state it is in. A week later, he sent me another tweet including the name of the city where one of these mailboxes is located. Four months after that, he sent me an email calling me a "dumb fuck" and adding "But, having a look at this, I kind of pity you," which was followed by a link containing a photo of a woman in the same city. The woman has the same surname as mine; apparently Lean thought she was my wife.

Now, the purpose of these tweets and emails is unmistakable: Nathan Lean was signaling to me that he thought he knew my whereabouts (and that of my family), despite my attempts to conceal them. And why would he want me to think that he knew where I was? So that I would be frightened into silence, afraid that one of his many violence-inclined allies might do me in if I continued to speak out for freedom and human rights. I therefore duly forwarded all these communications to the FBI, and they've informed me that they're keeping on eye on Nathan Lean.

Yet this gutter thug still remains in the employ of Islamic supremacist hate propagandist Reza Aslan, and is published in the Los Angeles Times, which tells you a great deal about Reza Aslan and the Los Angeles Times.

Second, by publishing this thug's screed calling for restriction of the freedom of speech, the Los Angeles Times is cutting its own throat. For my opinions are certainly politically incorrect today, but if Lean succeeds in getting them criminalized, his patrons at the LA Times might find one day that they, too, hold an opinion unacceptable to those in power, but the precedent to silence them will already have been set, with their willing help.

"Anders Behring Breivik: Norway's sane killer," by Nathan Lean in the Los Angeles Times, August 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):

...The Islamophobia that led Breivik to his ruinous binge, for example, came from his digestion of the writings of several anti-Muslim activists, including bloggers Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who head the group Stop the Islamization of America. Breivik mentioned them in his 1,500-page manifesto, posted online.
Nathan Lean must get up every morning and thank Allah for Anders Behring Breivik; after all, where would he be without him? In any case, as long as Lean keeps repeating his libel, I will keep telling the truth: while he'd like you to believe that Breivik's "manifesto" is just Geller and me through and through, actually Breivik cited many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson -- who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders. Also swept under the rug is the fact that whether he is sane or not, Breivik's manifesto is actually quite ideologically incoherent -- so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. I am no more responsible for Breivik than the Beatles are for Charles Manson.

Indeed, the whole attempt to smear Pamela Geller and me with Breivik's murders rests on several leaps of illogic and unstated assumptions. Even if Breivik's views really were exactly the same as ours, as Lean wants you to think, would the Los Angeles Times or Nathan Lean (well, maybe he would) really stand behind the idea that if someone commits violence in the name of an idea, that idea is thereby discredited and must be driven out of the public discourse? In that case, precious few ideas would be left, since people at one time or another have committed violence in the name of virtually every cause under the sun.

In any case, if ideas that were deemed to lead to violence really were silenced, the proponents of a supposedly peaceful Islam that Nathan Lean is so anxious to protect and defend would be silenced as well. After all, Lean admits below that Geller and I denounced Breivik's violence. But that is not enough for him: the whole thrust of his piece here is the claim that what we say and do inspires other people to do violence. Now, that is not in the slightest degree true of what Pamela Geller and I say and do, but it is certainly true of the many, many imams worldwide who openly teach that Muslims should wage war against unbelievers, and also true of those who don't teach violence openly, but do teach hatred and contempt of those outside the accepted circle (which, incidentally, Nathan Lean teaches as well). And if we denounce violence but must nevertheless be silenced, then so also must peaceful Muslims such as Nathan Lean's boss Reza Aslan, who supposedly denounces Islamic violence but has written favorably many times about the violent jihad terror groups Hamas and Hizballah.

The pair has agitated some of the country's nastiest displays of prejudice. Their bus advertisements equating the Palestinian cause with jihad created a stir in New York and San Francisco, and they fanned the flames of the uproar over the Park51 Islamic Community Center in 2010.
This one made me laugh: Pamela Geller and I are "equating the Palestinian cause with jihad"! No one ever thought to do it before we did! Apparently Nathan Lean hopes his hapless Times readers know nothing about Ahlam Tamimi, who praised Allah for the murders of Israelis in a pizza parlor (murders in which she participated), or about the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has called for jihad to liberate "Palestine,"; or about Jordanian Muslim cleric Riyadh al-Bustanji, who said recently: "I have brought my daughter to Gaza, so that she can learn from the women of Gaza how to bring up her children on Jihad, martyrdom-seeking, and the love of Palestine," or thousands of other Muslims worldwide who have called the Israel/"Palestinian" conflict a jihad. No! It is all just a nasty display of prejudice by Geller and Spencer!

Damningly, they see their mission as Breivik saw his: They call themselves "freedom fighters" on a valorous journey to save the world from Muslims.
Like his boss Reza Aslan, Nathan Lean can't even be honest or decent enough to characterize his foes' views accurately. In reality, we are not trying to "save the world from Muslims," but from a radically repressive, supremacist political ideology that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. If Muslims sincerely renounce these aspects of Islamic law and work against their spread, they are welcome to join us, as I have said repeatedly throughout my public work.

But when it was publicized that the Norway killer mentioned Spencer and Geller in his writings, they cried foul. "Clearly this individual is insane," Spencer wrote on his blog. After Breivik's initial psychological evaluation Geller expressed relief, writing, that Breivik was "declared certifiably insane, which was evident by his actions and his ten-years-in-the-making manifesto."
The magnitude of Breivik's butchery was apparently sufficient evidence of his psychosis. No normal person, in Geller and Spencer's view, would ever do such a thing. But only if that person is not a Muslim. When Muslims engage in violence, they are represented by Islamophobes as ordinary believers acting in a way that aligns with tenets of their faith, not fringe lunatics whose delusional religious interpretations lead them to a monstrous end. Though Spencer and Geller denounced Breivik's violence, they never rejected his anti-Muslim ideas. And that is a problem.

Here again, Lean ignores the extremely inconvenient fact that when Muslims engage in violence, they repeatedly justify that violence by reference to mainstream Muslim understandings of Islamic texts and teachings, and peaceful Muslims have not mounted any large-scale movement to oppose them or interpret those texts and teachings in a different way. He pretends instead that it is we who have equated Islam with violence. A few thousand imams preaching from the Qur'an and Sunnah would beg to differ.

The Norwegian court's verdict, which means that Breivik will spend at least 21 years behind bars (and probably much more), underscores the need for society to address those who promote hatred and jabber about the evils of multiculturalism and the looming clash of civilizations. It proves that amplified racism, which carves society into fragments and pits them against one another, has real consequences and reaches the minds of rational thinkers who absorb such narratives and take them to their logical conclusions.
Trying to wish away intolerance and bigotry may be convenient but it is costly. During Breivik's trial, a right-wing extremist testified that he knew of nearly 100 other people who share the killer's views and supported his massacre....

The discourse of hate must be stopped before it affects other extremists quietly waiting for an opportunity to be lauded as heroes.

Here we come to the heart of Lean's argument: he wants "society" to take action against those who stand for freedom and human rights against jihad, Sharia and Islamic supremacism, for we "must be stopped." This is a veiled but clear call for restrictions on our freedom of speech -- as clear as his threats against me. Lean, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), wants speech critical of Islam to be criminalized. And the Los Angeles Times, to its everlasting discredit, publishes this.

That fact is the worst part of Lean's article: that he is given ready entree to mainstream media outlets to publish his hateful libels and calls for the restriction of our Constitutional rights, but we are not allowed any space for rebuttal of his false charges. When the Breivik libel first began appearing, Pamela Geller and I submitted a rebuttal op-ed to the chief places that had smeared us: the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the rest. None even had the courtesy to answer. But this enabler of Islamic supremacist oppression and hatred has easy access to the largest forums for influencing public opinion.

Nonetheless, because he stands for nothing but lies and hatred, Nathan Lean's cynical attempt to monetize the hysteria about "Islamophobia" is doomed to fail. If, however, he somehow does succeed in silencing those who are defending the freedom of speech and other basic human rights, his children and his children's children, having endured the devastation that his Islamic supremacist masters have wrought upon the West, will rise up and curse his name.

I'd rather fail in defending freedom than succeed with a legacy like that.

Posted by Robert on August 26, 2012
483  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Yawn... on: August 31, 2012, 12:51:12 PM
Once again, JDN refuses to cite any of the assertions made in Geller's piece, and instead chooses to portray her as non-credible.  After repeated attempts by me, Crafty and others to persuade him to actually take issue with specific assertions in the articles posted here, he falls back on the tired, leftist tactic of smearing the messenger.  It's really quite tiresome, childish and frankly pathetic.  I submit that it is JDN who is generally not taken seriously here, because this character assassination and reference to others who condemn the messenger he happens to despise is apparently all he is capable of.

Henceforth (and I've broken this rule too many times already with regard to him) I will not waste any time responding to "arguments" - from JDN or others - which amount to nothing but ad hominem attacks and/or compurgation.  I have MUCH better things to do with my time than respond to dullards who are by definition incapable of independent thought and argumentation.  I consider it rather self-evident that the majority of the readers of this forum are able to distinguish between an honest attempt at a discussion and the tactics of what is commonly known as an "Internet troll."
484  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Anti-Israel Ads run without controversy - not so with anti-Islam ads... on: August 31, 2012, 10:47:30 AM
The double-standard here is really staggering - and indicative IMHO of the growing acceptance of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and around the world:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/genocidal-campaign-bring-these-ads-to-your-city.html
485  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama sends form letters to families of fallen SEALs... on: August 30, 2012, 01:42:26 PM
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/obama-honored-fallen-seals-by-sending-their-parents-a-form-letter-signed-by-electric-pen/
486  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How wonderful that the DNC is so inclusive! No Islam-bashing here! on: August 30, 2012, 12:55:05 PM
And LOOK!  They sure did a GREAT job of vetting this guy!

Democrats Embrace Siraj Wahhaj: Supporter of Cop-Killer, Al Qaeda and Hamas, Part II

Posted By Laura L. Rubenfeld On August 30, 2012 - frontpagemag.com

In just a few days, the Democratic National Convention “Kick off events”week will include its first ever “Jumah (gathering) at the DNC” – three Islam-centered events beginning with a Friday prayer and sermon, an evening Islamic banquet and an all day Islamic festival.

Many of the individuals scheduled to speak during the DNC week have extremely spurious backgrounds, including support for Al Qaeda and the U.S. State Department designated terrorist organization, HAMAS.   Brooklyn-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj will headline the Muslim portion of the convention.

This is part two of an in-depth study of a man who will have the ear of thousands planning to attend the DNC Convention, thanks to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ DNC. [To see Part I, click here]

Wahhaj Supports Islamic Extremism in Sudan

Hassan Al-Turabi was the leader of the National Islamic Front (NIF) political party in Sudan In the 1980’s.   It was then that shari’ah law was implemented nationwide to Muslim and non-Muslim people alike.  The criminal code was changed to include such barbaric punishments as cross amputation (cutting off the left hand and right foot), stoning, flogging, and death sentences for apostasy and blasphemy.  The prominent Islam reformer, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (“Taha”) was executed in 1981 for apostasy. [ii]  Siraj Wahhaj supports Al-Turabi’s draconian shari’ah as it was enforced.  In one sermon at his mosque, Wahhaj proclaimed “I would cut off the hands of my own daughter (if she stole) because Allah stands for Justice.” [iii]

Sudan became a safe-haven for terrorists i.e. Osama Bin Laden and HAMAS, under Al- Turabi, And in 1993, after the World Trade Center bombing, Sudan was named by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terror. [iv]

Siraj Wahhaj made these statements at the time Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror:

May Allah bless Sudan…these are people who want to establish the Shari’ah, establish Quran, and Sunnah, they want to establish the religion and therefore hated by the government of the U.S.A…I’m not going to make you comfortable because our book, the book we believe in, is not Dale Carnegie’s, How to Win Friends and Influence People; But it’s the Quran.

Wahhaj Joins ISNA in Support for HAMAS and the National Islamic Front (NIF)

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) calls itself the largest Islamic organization in the U.S..  The leaders of two terror groups Sami Al-Arian – Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Mousa Abu Marzook- HAMAS  “helped establish” ISNA in 1981.[v]

Wahhaj became a member of the ISNA Advisory Council in 1987.  10 years later, HAMAS leader, Mousa Abu Marzook who had been deported from Jordan for his terror related activities[vi], wrote a thank you to many organizations in The Washington Report Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) for their support of him..  One of the organizations he thanked was ISNA.  It was at that time, Wahhaj was ISNA Vice President, having been named to that position the same year, in 1997. [vii]

In the Spring 2001 edition of the ISNA publication, Islamic Horizons, the Sudanese leader Hassan Al Turabi, of the NIF, stated: “I do not think that it is only a dream, but there is a possibility not only for America to be Islamized, but also in fact to develop as the role model of Islam.” [viii] This ISNA article was published while Sudan was listed as a state sponsor of terror.

When asked, Siraj Wahhaj refuses to condemn HAMAS.  [ix]

Siraj Wahhaj and CAIR

Not only were Marzook and Al-Arian co-founders of ISNA, they were also co-founders of an Islamist organization, which evolved into the Council for American- Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Marzook and Al-Arian co-founded the precursor to the Council for American Islamic Relations, a U.S. front group for HAMAS.

Article Eight of the 1988 HAMAS Charter proclaims:

“Allah is its goal; the Prophet is its model, the Quran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Omar Ahmed, who co-founded the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was caught just a few years after CAIR’s incorporation publicly stating similar goals:

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth. [xi]

Siraj Wahhaj has been on CAIR’s Advisory Board, [xii] and for over the last decade has been the designated fundraiser at many CAIR fundraiser banquets.  Wahhaj has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for CAIR. [xiii]  At a recent CAIR San Francisco fundraiser, where Siraj Wahhaj was listed as fundraiser, CAIR’s guest speakers included the attorney for Sami Al-Arian, Linda Moreno.[xiv]

Wahhaj and the North American Islamic Trust

One subsidiary of ISNA is the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT was the first U.S. Islamic financial trust. [xv]

ISNA and NAIT are included in “A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” of the Muslim Brotherhood in a 1991 memorandum[xvi] written by Mohamed Akram, a top HAMAS Operative living in the United States at that time.  The document is dated May 22, 1991.  Siraj Wahhaj’s own bio says he was on NAIT’s Board of Advisors from 1989-1993, which puts his service with NAIT and ISNA squarely during the same period this document was written.   This Muslim Brotherhood memorandum reads much like Wahhaj’s sermons and lectures:

The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. [xvii]

Siraj Wahhaj Supports Convicted Cop Killer, Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin

Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (formerly known as H. Rap Brown), an African-American convert to Islam, is a former Black Panther with a forty year history of violence who’s been listed twice on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” list. [xviii] Al-Amin once said, “I say violence is necessary. It is as American as cherry pie.”[xix] Al-Amin was arrested for murdering one deputy sheriff and injuring another in 2000.  The shooting was not racially motivated as both deputies were Black.  Al-Amin murdered the Deputy Sheriff In cold blood– walking over to the already injured deputy and shot the man three more times. [xx]

Siraj Wahhaj founded Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA) in 2001 to defend Al-Amin. [xxi] On MANA’s website, Al Amin is listed as an Islamic scholar. The site even publishes an article by Al Amin directed to Muslim clerics, titled, “Advice for Imams.”  In 2004, the Georgia court denied Al-Amin’s appeal, “Al-Amin’s guilt was overwhelmingly established through the eyewitness identification by [the] Deputies, as well … as by the vast amount of physical evidence tying defendant to the crimes.” [xxii]

Al-Amin was convicted in 2002 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The DNC is celebrating a man who supported a cop-killer!

Siraj Wahhaj’s Support for Hizb ut-Tahrir

The Hizb ut-Tahrir  international movement which campaigns for the establishment of a global Islamic state, or Caliphate (Khalifah) governed by Islamic (shari’ah) law.   Although, legally permitted inside the United States, Hizb ut-Tahrir has been described as a “conveyor belt” of terror. [xxiii] Hizb ut-Tahrir former members include Al- Qaeda architect of 9/11 , Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and the former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.    On a Hizb ut-Tahrir draft Islamic constitution, it advocated for separate and distinct laws for non-Muslims based on Islamic doctrine, death for apostasy, and waging jihad as a top priority for the government. [xxiv]

Siraj Wahhaj has been a long time supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir.  In 1994, he attended a conference in London.  During the conference, the Islamists called for jihad, attacked democracy as a system of government, and declared that “the Islamic system is the only alternative for mankind.” [xxv] Less than a week later, back in the U.S., Wahhaj celebrated the Hizb ut-Tahrir as “scholarly brothers, knowledgeable brothers in the din” (understanding that Islam is not just a religion, but a complete way of life) with “good insight.” Wahhaj specifically stated that the group “is right in their pushing for the Khilafah (Caliphate).” [xxvi]

Conclusion

Given the massive documentation, going back decades, of his support for radicalism, violence, cop-killing, the worst Islamic extremism, and the overthrow of the Constitution, as well as his use of positions of leadership to pursue these goals, it is time to demand an explanation from the DNC about their embrace of Siraj Wahhaj.

Notes:

Andrew C. McCarthy, Willful Blindness: a Memoir of the Jihad, (New York, NY: Encounter Books, 2008), 213.

[ii] “Profile: Sudan’s Islamist leader,” BBC News, January 15, 2009, (accessed 7.16.11)

[iii] Audio, Siraj Wahhaj, “Stand for Justice,” May 8, 1992

[iv] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism,  “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” U.S. Dept. of State, May 19, 2011, (accessed 8.5.11)

[v] Steven Emerson, “ISNA’s Lies unchallenged again,” Counterterrorism Blog, August 11, 2007.

[vi] “Abu Marzouk: Damascus Welcomed Expelled Hamas Leaders, as Visitors,” ArabicNews.com, November 23, 1999, (accessed August 23, 2011)

[vii] ISNA “Speakers Information: Short Biographies.”

[viii]  Interview with Hassan Al-Turabi, ISNA’s Islamic Horizons, March/April 2001.

[ix] “Speaker on Islam Won’t Condemn Hamas, al-Qaeda at UCF,” March 3, 2011, (accessed 7.22.11).

  • US v. Holy Land Foundation, Case 3:04-CR-00240-P “Memorandum Opinion Order,” (Page 15-20).
[xi] http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/109.pdf

[xii] CAIR “Who are We?”  Management and Staff, Archive, December, 7, 2001.

[xiii] For Example: CAIR Fundraiser, Vienna, Virginia, October 7, 2001, CAIR Fundraiser, Orange County, California, October 19, 2002, CAIR Fundraiser, Anaheim, California, October 4, 2003, CAIR- Fundraiser Southern California, October 9, 2004, CAIR- San Jose Fundraiser 11.7.10, CAIR Fundraiser – Orange County, California 10.30.10, CAIR – Anaheim 11.1.08, CAIR Fundraiser Anaheim 11.10.07, CAIR Fundraiser 11.18.06, CAIR-San Francisco 9.17.06, CAIR New York Fundraiser, July 7, 2008, CAIR San Diego Ist Annual Fundraising Banquet, September 17, 2006

[xiv] CAIR- CA, “Thank You for Your Generous Support of CAIR’s Work:  More Than 750 Turn Out for CAIR-SFBA Banquet,” Dec 09, 2010, (accessed 8.11.11).

[xv] Steven Merley, “The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States,” Hudson Institute, April 2009, (accessed 8.15.11).

[xvi] Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. HLF, et al. (P. 7 of 18).

[xvii] Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. HLF, et al. (P. 7 of 18).

[xviii] Muhammed Abdullah Ahari, “The Islamic Community In The United States: Historical Development,” undated, Islam for Today, (accessed 4.9.11).

[xix] Susy Buchanan, “End of Watch: Ricky Leon Kinchen, 35,” Southern Poverty Center, Intelligence Report, Fall 2005, Issue 119, (accessed 7.11.11).

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Joe Kaufman, “Islamist Payola in the City of Brotherly Love,” FrontPageMagazine, January 03, 2008, (accessed 8.23.11).

[xxii] Al-Amin v. State, 278 Ga. 74, 88(18)(a), 597 S.E.2d 332 (2004) (citation and punctuation omitted).

[xxiii] Shiv Malik, “The Conveyor Belt of Extremism,” New Statesman, 18 July 2005, http://www.newstatesman.com/200507180005

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Video Sajjad Khan, Hizb ut Tahrir: International Khilafa Conference August 7, 1994, Wembley Arena,  London, England

[xxvi] Audio Siraj Wahhaj, Somewhere on August 13, 1994.
487  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN's obsession with dismissing the idea of stealth jihad... on: August 30, 2012, 12:12:03 AM
I posted here (on August 16, 2012 - Reply #531 in this thread) an article which raised questions regarding how Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin can afford to pay the rent for their new $3.3 million Manhattan residence.  It posited that the source of the funds might be the Muslim Brotherhood.  The article goes on to list the reasons for this concern, which are several, and include Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations.  JDN chooses nevertheless to ignore the remainder of the article and all of these points, attempting an intellectual sleight-of-hand by pretending they don't exist, and then asserting:

"reality, as I posted, is a Jewish man, a friend of the Clinton's, owns the house and is giving it to them either free or at a reduced rate.  Further, everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government.  If I had to guess the disclosure form is over 50 pages long.  Of course she notified her superiors of her pending move; given the FACTS, there was no problem." - JDN

Hmmmm - let's examine this assertion.  JDN's "evidence" to support this claim as to how Weiner and Abedin can afford to live in the aforementioned apartment is contained in an article he linked to from the New York Press (an online publication).  It is reproduced verbatim below:

Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin moved into a $3.3 million Manhattan apartment on Park Avenue owned by a wealthy Democratic donor Jack Rosen, according to NY Post reports.

After leaving the congressional seat that earned Weiner $174,000 a year due to his notorious sexting scandal, the couple made the drastic upgrade from their 875-square foot two-bedroom condo in Forest Hills worth $430,000 to their new 2,210 square-foot, four-bedroom, 3.5-bathroom home.

Weiner is jobless and Abedin makes about $155,000 a year as a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so many are surprised that the couple can afford the rent on the place located at 254 Park Avenue South at East 20th Street. Real-estate experts say that the couple pays at least $12,000 to $14,000 per month while a Democratic fund-raising source speculates to the NY Post that the couple may be living there gratis, as Rosen is a close friend of the Clintons. Rosen has given money into Bill and Hillary Clinton’s election campaigns for years, even flying the Clintons in his private plane. He has also contributed thousands of dollars to Weiner’s financial reserves.

Abedin’s job forces her to face restrictions on receiving gifts and must disclose any financial dealings so her decision-making is not swayed by private interests. But an official who knows the couple denies the notion that Rosen would try to affect Abedin who could then influence Clinton.
(emphasis mine)

So - JDN asserts that I am ignoring reality by posting an article which explicitly states that A DEMOCRATIC FUND-RAISING SOURCE IS MERELY SPECULATING THAT THE COUPLE IS LIVING THERE RENT-FREE.  To repeat - this doesn't even address the issue of Abedin's documented connections to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and the obvious concern that this ought to raise.

JDN further fatuously states: "everyone knows that these matters are carefully reviewed by government."  I dare say that few of the posters or readers of this forum share JDN's evident confidence that this administration's vetting process is sound.  Exhibit A to the contrary might be Van Jones.  I could cite several others, but it's rather late, and frankly I don't much relish wasting time rebutting frivolous arguments which seem to always boil down to ad hominem attacks, compurgation, refusal to acknowledge relevant evidence, and obfuscation.

488  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Little Green Footballs... on: August 28, 2012, 12:59:38 PM
Not sure why JDN delights in citing this blog and implying that it is somehow "conservative." It's run by Charles Johnson, who has publicly distanced himself from the "American right."

Per Wikipedia:

On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." He has been heavily critical of conservatives and libertarians since then. (emphasis mine)
489  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / JDN's repeated smears of Spencer and Geller... on: August 27, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
JDN once again demonstrates his complete ignorance (or intentional misrepresentation) of the facts by posting Nathan Lean's Los Angeles Times diatribe against Spencer and Geller.

Read this response to Lean's piece by his two targets and judge for yourself:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/08/-los-angeles-times-calls-for-restrictions-on-freedom-of-speech-of-counter-jihadists-traffics-in-smea.html

490  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in America on: August 27, 2012, 02:26:55 PM
It's impossible not to notice that JDN has a considerable emotional investment in dismissing the idea of Islamic stealth jihad.  Robert Spencer has written an entire book on the subject (Stealth Jihad), and both Raymond Ibrahim and David Horowitz underline the myriad causes for concern here.  The mere fact that certain "respected conservatives" are crying foul can't erase the evidence.  I urge all readers of this thread to read the Ibrahim article and watch Horowitz's speech and form your own opinions.  As Ibrahim correctly observes, this wouldn't be the first time that massive infiltration of the U.S. government has occurred and gone unnoticed with the exception of a few lone voices in the wilderness, who were later proven correct despite having been roundly condemned at the time.

Crafty's description of them as "Cassandras" is quite apt.
491  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Allen West's recent commentary on the Presidential Campaign... on: August 27, 2012, 11:12:19 AM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSez25yb_g0&feature=player_embedded#!
492  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / David Horowitz's Keynote at CPAC 2011... on: August 27, 2012, 10:02:27 AM
This is referenced in the article I posted previously.  Definitely worth watching:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDjdggtA-M&feature=player_embedded

493  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist... on: August 27, 2012, 07:05:36 AM
A Disturbing Event: The American Conservative Union Embraces an Islamist

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On August 27, 2012

The conservative movement appears to be at a crossroads in its approach to the threat of Islamic supremacism—not only abroad but at home. Does the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as the dominant force of the “Arab Spring” bode ill for America? Or is the Brotherhood merely another “political actor” as the Obama administration would have us believe? Is Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, a potential security risk worth investigating, as Representative Michele Bachmann and four conservative congressmen have suggested? Or is the mere raising of this question a witch-hunt, as Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner and numerous Democrats maintain?

A few months ago, these questions reached another flashpoint in an unlikely setting. The incident took place at an irregular board meeting of the American Conservative Union, an organization usually intent on keeping wobbly Republicans honest. The rump group in attendance — several key board members told Frontpage they were not even aware the meeting had been called – voted “unanimously” to dismiss long-standing accusations against two ACU board members. The accusations had been made by Center for Security Policy head, Frank Gaffney. Their focus was on the activities of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, two prominent ACU board members, whom Gaffney claims are influential agents of Islamist agendas. The ACU’s dismissal of Gaffney’s claims was contained in a memo written by attorney Cleta Mitchell, who called them “reprehensible” — terms no less damning than McCain’s slap down of Michele Bachmann.

Frank Gaffney is a former defense official in the Reagan administration and first made these claims public in 2003 in an article, “A Troubling Influence,” which was published on this site. In introducing the article, Frontpage editor David Horowitz acknowledged that Norquist had played an important role in the conservative movement, but also described Gaffney’s claims as “the most disturbing that we at frontpagemag.com have ever published.” He further characterized them as “the most complete documentation extant of Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column.”

The Frontpage article documented Norquist’s links to supporters of Hamas and other Islamist organizations dedicated to “destroying the American civilization from within” in the words of a Muslim Brotherhood document, and its Israeli ally. These figures included Abdurahman Alamoudi—who is currently serving a lengthy sentence for his involvement in a terrorist plot—and Sami Al-Arian, who was the finance head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a terrorist organization responsible for over a hundred suicide bombings in the Middle East. Before Alamoudi and Al-Arian were arrested, Norquist and Khan served as key facilitators between them and the Bush White House. Now that both have been convicted of terrorist activities, there can no longer be any doubt that they were working on behalf of America’s terrorist enemies.

Among the Norquist-sponsored initiatives furthering the Islamist agenda, according to Gaffney, was his effort to abolish the use of classified national defense intelligence evidence in terrorism cases. Islamist organizations and Norquist himself typically refer to this as “secret” evidence and suggest that the use of it offends the Constitution. But as former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy explains, the cases in which it is normally used are immigration proceedings, not criminal prosecutions. Unlike American citizens, aliens do not have the right to be in the United States in the first place, and should not be able to force disclosure of the nation’s defense secrets as the price tag for demanding that they leave. Sami Al-Arian was the prime-mover of the “secret evidence” campaign, which he launched to protect his brother-in-law, a member of his terror network, from a pending deportation.

In addition, Gaffney charges, Norquist used his own organization, Americans for Tax Reform, to circulate and promote a letter from Republican Muslims attacking conservatives opposed to the controversial “Ground Zero Mosque.” He also campaigned to protect the Iranian regime from sanctions, from its domestic opposition, and from military action against its nuclear program – all the while demanding draconian cuts in U.S. defense spending.

The other subject of Gaffney’s concerns is Suhail Khan, a Norquist protégé with longstanding personal and professional ties to a variety of Islamist movements. Khan’s father, the late Mahboob Khan, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the founders, in the 1960s, of the Muslim Students Association, the cornerstone of the Brotherhood’s American infrastructure. As Daniel Greenfield documents in his pamphlet, Muslim Hate Groups on Campus, the Muslim Students Association has been instrumental in indoctrinating young Muslims in Islamist ideology, and has an alarming legacy of senior members – Anwar Awlaki most prominent among them – graduating to positions of prominence in al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. In the 1980s, Mahboob Khan was instrumental in creating an MSA spinoff, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA. ISNA became so deeply enmeshed in the funding of Hamas that it was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation. [For more information on how the Muslim Brotherhood has targeted the United States for subversion, see Robert Spencer’s pamphlet, Muslim Brotherhood in America.]

Suhail Khan’s mother, Malika Khan, was a close partner in her late husband’s work, and is a long-time leader of another Brotherhood front, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was created out of the Brotherhood’s Hamas-support network. Its parent organization was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. Malika Khan currently serves on the Executive Committee of CAIR’s San Francisco chapter, which distinguished itself in 2011 by promoting a conference that urged Muslims not to co-operate with FBI investigations.

These familial activities are not incidental because Suhail has publicly embraced his parents’ “legacy,” and done so before Brotherhood audiences. Despite this background and thanks to Grover Norquist’s patronage, Suhail was able to gain access to the Bush 2000 campaign, and was then appointed to a position in the Bush administration. According to Gaffney, while working at the White House, Khan helped craft and disseminate deceptive notions such as “Islam means peace,” al Qaeda “hijacked” Islam, and jihad is only a “personal struggle,” never a holy war against infidels.

In 2001, Khan appeared on a platform with about-to-be-convicted terrorist and top Muslim Brotherhood figure, Abdurahman Alamoudi. The setting was an American Muslim Council conference in Washington. Alamoudi is the founder of the Council, and once explained to a Brotherhood audience: “I think, if we are outside this country, we can say ‘O Allah, destroy America.” But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it….”

A video tape of the 2001 event shows Alamoudi heaping praise on Suhail and his father (see here from 5:38 on).  At the time, Khan was serving as the Muslim gatekeeper in the White House Office of Public Liaison, a role he used to afford access to Muslim Brotherhood guests. Introducing him, Alamoudi expressed the hope that Khan was preparing for higher office:

We have with us a dear brother, a pioneer, somebody who really started political activism in the Muslim community …. When it was a taboo for the Muslim community, no doubt about it. When Suhail Khan started not too many people were aware that we had to do something….Some of you saw him today in the White House, but inshallah soon you will see him in better places in the White House, inshallah. Maybe sometime as vicepresident soon, inshallah. Allahu Akbar!

The terrorist, Alamoudi, also had praise for Suhail’s father:

Suhail Khan is the son of a dear, dear brother who was a pioneer of Islam work himself. Many of you know his late father … who was part of all kinds of work … Suhail inherited from his father not only being a Muslim and a Muslim activist, but also being a Muslim political activist. [emphasis added]

After effusively thanking Alamoudi for these words, Suhail said: “Many of you, of course, knew my father. He was someone who dedicated his life to the community and I’ve always felt that I have to work in the same – those footsteps.”

The footsteps of Mahboob Khan have been traced to some un-reassuring places. Shortly after 9/11, the Washington Post reported that Mahboob Khan had played host to Ayman Zawahiri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, who had entered the U.S. in the mid-nineties to obtain funds and recruits for al Qaeda. One of his stops was at the al-Noor Mosque in California, a mosque founded by Mahboob Khan.

After 9/11, Suhail Khan had to give up his role at the White House as a result of the fallout from his Brotherhood associations. Yet with the support of Norquist, he managed to land on his feet and was given a political appointment in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

Aside from Khan’s multiple Islamist connections, Gaffney charges he has also been actively engaged in agendas championed by the Brotherhood, including trying to undo the statute making material support for terror a crime. That law was put into place in part because large sums of zakat—Islamic “charity” monies – were regularly going to fund the terrorist activities of Hamas and al Qaeda.

Is there validity, then, to Gaffney’s charges? In discussing Gaffney’s original article, David Horowitz told me:

What disturbed me most—and ultimately persuaded me that Frank was on to something—was the fact that Grover didn’t respond to Gaffney’s charges although I invited him to do so in Frontpage. Then when I caught up with Grover at a CPAC conference, and said he really needed to answer the charges, he brushed me off saying he didn’t have time – he was ‘too busy with the revolution,’ were the words he used, a reference to his conservative crusades. Then I spoke to Suhail, who had called me to complain about the claims Frank had made about his father. In this conversation, Suhail flat out denied them, saying his father was only a member of the mosque rather than its founder, and that he couldn’t remember an event with Zawahiri. When I asked Frank for his sources for these claims, he sent me the Washington Post article, which described Mahboob Khan’s role in founding the mosque and hosting Zawahiri. I sent this to Suhail for a reply, but never heard from him again. That made me realize there was something to be concerned about.

Khan was not so reticent – or in such denial — about his father’s Muslim Brotherhood activities when he appeared before audiences of the faithful, however. At a 1999 conference of the Islamic Society of North America, Suhail told those in attendance:

It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-nineties and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.

Despite these disturbing manifestations of Khan’s allegiances, Norquist sponsored Suhail to become a member of the board of the American Conservative Union in 2010. At this point, Gaffney’s concerns intensified. With Grover’s help, the Muslim Brotherhood was infiltrating the very heart of the conservative movement. By this time, however, Gaffney’s access to the ACU’s audiences was restricted. Because of his charges against Norquist, a very powerful member of the ACU Board, Gaffney had long since been barred from speaking at its annual CPAC gathering. But Horowitz, who was not a Washington insider like Gaffney, was a different story, and he was invited to keynote the 2011 CPAC conference. Horowitz used the occasion to address the issues raised by Norquist’s activities and Khan’s presence on the ACU Board, and to put them in historical context:

Over the last ten years, the influence of the Brotherhood has spread throughout our government. There is nothing new in this sad reality. In 1938, Whittaker Chambers attempted to warn President Roosevelt that one of his White House advisers, Alger Hiss, was a Soviet agent. When Roosevelt was given Chambers’ information, he laughed and disregarded it. Alger Hiss remained as the president’s adviser until the House Un-American Activities Committee flushed him out….

Frank Gaffney has been the courageous bringer of the bad news about Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan to the board of the American Conservative Union. Many good conservatives on the board have refused to believe the evidence of Suhail Khan’s Brotherhood allegiances and agendas. They are of the opinion that Suhail’s public appearances with Alamoudi and the Muslim Brotherhood fronts took place a decade ago, and that he doesn’t promote violent agendas. I understand this. My parents were Communists in the heyday of Stalin. The Party’s slogan was not “Bring on the dictatorship of the Proletariat” or “Revolution Now.” But that is what they believed. The slogan of the Communist Party was “Peace, Jobs and Democracy.”

The ACU’s response to Horowitz’s remarks was to withdraw his invitation to speak at CPAC events, although he had been a regular speaker over many years.

Earlier this year, Gaffney and his organization put together a ten-part video course called “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within.” Featured in the course were the roles played by Norquist (Parts 3-7) and Khan (Part 4) in promoting and enabling Brotherhood influence operations. The Khan segment includes a clip (starting at 4:28) from the speech that Khan gave at a 1999 ISNA conference. In the speech, Khan embraces the well-known Muslim Brotherhood ethos:

The earliest defenders of Islam would defend [against] their more numerous and better equipped oppressors, because the early Muslims loved death—dying for the sake of Allah Almighty—more than the oppressors of Muslims love life.   This must be the case when we are fighting life’s other battles [i.e., politics].  What are our oppressors going to do with people like us? We are prepared to give our lives for the cause of Islam.  I have pledged my life’s work, inspired by my dear father’s shining legacy, and inspired further by my mother’s loving protection and support, to work for the ummah.

This is classic jihadist rhetoric. (“We love death, the U.S. loves life; that is the big difference between us,” explained Osama bin Laden in one of his fatwas.) In effect, Khan praised history’s earliest jihadists, portraying them as “defenders” and their victims as “oppressors,” just as al Qaeda does in its present-day fatwas. Khan used the same language that glorifies “martyrdom” (or suicide-attacks) on behalf of Islam. (“Death in the service of Allah is our highest aspiration” is part of the Muslim Brotherhood motto.) Khan then praised his father’s Muslim Brotherhood “legacy,” and pledged his life’s work to the Muslim umma, which translated means the “Islamic nation.”

Are these remarks merely a “youthful” indiscretion? Horowitz, whose biography makes him something of an authority on second thoughts, answered the question during his keynote address at the 2011 CPAC event:

As for the question of whether Suhail Khan believes now what he openly said then, my answer is this: When an honest person has been a member of a destructive movement and leaves it, he will feel compelled to repudiate it publicly and to warn others of the dangers it poses. This is a sure test of whether someone has left the Muslim Brotherhood or not.

Suhail Khan has never repudiated his father’s Muslim Brotherhood legacy or the patronage of the convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi. Nor has he disavowed his praise for Islamic martyrdom, nor has he taken steps to warn his fellow Americans of the Islamist threat posed by his past and present associates (part 4 of Gaffney’s videos documents Khan’s continuing involvement with Mohamed Magid, Muzammil Siddiqi, Nihad Awad and other top Muslim Brotherhood figures and organizations.) Instead, he has denied that the Muslim Brotherhood even operates in America.

On September 21, 2011, the ACU finally took up the issue of Frank’s charges. The occasion was an unusual meeting of the ACU board, which normally meets only twice a year – in Washington and via teleconference. This particular meeting took place in Orlando, Florida, where an ACU event was being held. Because of the unusual venue, far away from ACU headquarters, most of the ACU board members did not attend, including several whom Frontpage talked to who had not been informed of the meeting and who were not in sympathy with its result. When the rump board met, they voted unanimously to adopt a resolution that dismissed Gaffney’s charges out of hand, and declared their “complete confidence in the loyalty of Suhail Khan and Grover Norquist to the United States,” and “welcome[d] their continued participation in the work of ACU and of the American conservative movement.” In adopting this resolution, the board members also declared that they “profoundly regret and reject as unwarranted the past and on-going attacks upon their patriotism and character.”

In making its decision, the board appears to have relied entirely on a memorandum provided by one of its members, Cleta Mitchell, a well-known and widely admired conservative lawyer. In her memorandum, and despite its sweeping conclusions, Mitchell addressed the specifics of only one of Gaffney’s many findings, while categorically dismissing them all: “There is absolutely nothing contained in any of the materials” presented by Gaffney, she wrote, “that in any way linked Suhail (or Grover) to such [‘Muslim extremist’] organizations or their activities.”

The one specific that Mitchell took issue with was an unlikely one given her categorical statement there was absolutely nothing that in any way linked Suhail to Islamist organizations or their activities. This was the video of Khan’s 1999 address to the Islamic Society of North America featured in Gaffney’s video course. ISNA is the principal Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States; it was founded by Suhail Khan’s own parents; and before this audience Khan spoke in the ritualistic language of the Muslim Brotherhood about how Muslim warriors love death more than their opponents love life, about his devotion to the Muslim nation, and his readiness to die for Allah. Mitchell dismissed his comments in these words: “Yet, even in that speech, there is nothing that suggests Suhail is unpatriotic or subversive.  The clip from the speech is simply (in my view) rhetoric that is, quite frankly, meaningless in terms of substantiating any of Mr. Gaffney’s allegations.” But is it meaningless to paraphrase the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood to a meeting of the most important Muslim Brotherhood organization in the United States, and embrace it as one’s own aspiration?

Mitchell rests her case against Gaffney and in behalf of Khan on a single point: “Suhail was subject to FBI background checks and cleared to work directly for the President and Vice-President? How would the FBI have ‘missed’ ties to such groups if those ties existed?”

In fact, as Gaffney observes — under the right circumstances, and with the right sponsors — it would have overlooked them quite easily. “The fact that Suhail Khan received a security clearance during his time in government is an indictment of the clearance process, not evidence that his background is problem-free: Ali Mohammad—Osama bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’ and longtime al Qaeda operative—also went through a background check and received a security clearance to work with the federal government. Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood killer, not only obtained a clearance, he was even promoted from captain to major despite his monitored communications with al Qaeda leader Anwar Awlaki, and the fact that in the course of his military education, he announced during a lecture that it was the duty of Muslims under shariah to kill infidels preparing to attack other Muslims (i.e., U.S. soldiers awaiting deployment to Afghanistan).

Horowitz agrees. He points to the fact that Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff, has a top security clearance, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that her closest family members have been Muslim Brotherhood leaders and that for twelve years prior to being hired by the State Department, she worked for an Islamist organization founded and run by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a top funder of Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network, and a Muslim Brotherhood eminence.

Given these well-known facts, Khan’s security clearance seems a pretty thin reed on which to base so sweeping a dismissal of Gaffney’s concerns, let alone refer to them as “reprehensible.” To understand her position better, I tried to interview Mitchell, but she declined to comment, saying by email “I am precluded from talking to anyone about this because of the confidentiality provisions of the boards on which I serve which have been dealing with Frank Gaffney issues.”

That confidentiality, however, had been already breached when someone on the ACU board leaked the details of its Orlando meeting and the contents of Mitchell’s letter – and leaked them not to conservatives but to the left-wing organization “ThinkProgress.” One of the things I wanted to ask Mitchell was how she thought this letter might have been leaked and by whom (Norquist? Khan?). Accompanying ThinkProgress’s release of the Mitchell letter was this summary on its website of what had transpired:

Gaffney … was unanimously condemned by the one of the most powerful conservative organizations in America, as two documents obtained exclusively by ThinkProgress this week show.  Last September, the board of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which puts on CPAC and includes top leaders of various factions of the conservative movement, unanimously passed a resolution (read it here) condemning the “false and unfounded” attacks Gaffney had made against Norquist and Khan, both board members, after having another board member, Cleta Mitchell, look into Gaffney’s serious charges of sedition and abetting an enemy.  In a letter to the ACU board (read it here), Mitchell, a prominent and very conservative attorney, said that after reviewing the “evidence” Gaffney presented (including a lengthy PowerPoint presentation and DVDs video laying out the case against Norquist and Khan), she found his “ceaseless war” to be “reprehensible.”

Another issue I wanted to ask Mitchell about was what she thought of the fact that her sweeping memo along with the leak had given powerful ammunition to the Brotherhood and its agents in their campaign to silence critics of Islamism. ThinkProgress had previously published a “report” on “Islamophobia” (following an earlier one by CAIR on the same subject). As David Horowitz and Robert Spencer demonstrate in their pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, Islamophobia is a term actually invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to silence its critics. The ThinkProgress report on Islamophobia attacked a dozen leading conservative critics of the Islamic jihad (also singled out by CAIR), including Frank Gaffney, as “bigots” and “racists.” Future editions of the report and future left-wing attacks will undoubtedly draw on the testimony of ACU board.

When asked about these events, Gaffney noted the irregular nature of the board meeting that condemned him, and deplored its lack of due-diligence that led to its categorical dismissal of the readily available evidence. He stated:

By acting solely on the basis of Mitchell’s defamatory and superficial memorandum, and then through the deliberate leak to a Soros-funded leftwing organization, the leadership of the American Conservative Union has discredited itself and given ammunition to those who want to prevent legitimate inquiries into Islamist influences in Washington.

This seems a more than reasonable concern. Since many prominent ACU board members were not present to conduct this auto-da-fé, there appears to be ample basis for it to seek a second opinion in regard to the case of Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.  Should it fail to do so, the ACU board will simply reinforce suspicions that it has been successfully infiltrated and subjected to an influence operation by those opposed to everything for which the conservative movement stands.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
494  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: D'Souza's film - "2016 - Obama's America" on: August 26, 2012, 08:15:13 AM
I saw this yesterday and it is SUPERB.  Very well-done and documented.  I strongly encourage all readers of the forum here to go see it and tell your friends.

Of course, certain drones will call it "camel dung," but if all they can do is attack the credibility of the messenger, they have no coherent counter-argument.

Go see it.  Tell your friends.  Spread the word.  Those unfamiliar with D'Souza will be greatly enlightened.
495  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Walid Shoebat, Frank Gaffney, Andrew C. McCarthy... on: August 22, 2012, 05:41:55 PM
Note well how JDN conveniently fails to address any of the allegations presented IN GREAT DETAIL by these sources in the posts below.  The best defense he can evidently muster for his rather mindless and drone-like repetition of the term "witch-hunt" is to attack the sources themselves.  Nothing to see here - the sources are all lunatics - let's move on, shall we? 

Furthermore, JDN presents no evidence in support of these ad-hominem attacks other than hearsay, or third-party condemnations.

Rather pathetic and transparent attempts to avoid an actual substantive discussion, if you ask me.

496  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Huma Abedin - it just keeps getting worse... on: August 22, 2012, 02:59:28 PM
Huma Abedin, Islamist Connections and Willful Blindness

Posted By Jamie Glazov On August 22, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and New York Times bestselling author who put the Blind Sheik behind bars in the first World Trade Center bombing.  He is the author of Willful Blindness and, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

FP: Hi Andy, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

You are carefully following the controversy over Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, and her ties to Islamic supremacism. Give us an update on your findings. Walid Shoebat has discovered something quit startling lately, yes?

McCarthy: Thanks, Jamie, it’s a pleasure to be back.

You’re right, Walid Shoebat – who has done essential research in this area – did indeed come up with an eye-opening discovery. He has detailed it here, and I wrote about it here. It is an Arabic document that outlines the Saudi government’s efforts to propagate the Kingdom’s fundamentalist version of Islam and sharia (Islam’s legal system and framework for society). The document is called The Efforts of the Servant of the Two Holy Places, King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz, to Support the Muslim Minorities. Walid has described it as a “manifesto.”

It bears on the present controversy because Huma Abedin served for a dozen years as the assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, publication of which was the main business of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. Both the institute and the journal were founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a wealthy and influential Saudi academic who became a financier of the al Qaeda terror network as well as the secretary-general of Muslim World League – one of the most significant joint ventures of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi government in terms of spreading Islamic supremacist ideology. Naseef recruited Huma Abedin’s parents to run the journal when it started in the late seventies, and it has been an Abedin family venture since that time, with Naseef remaining closely involved.

FP: Why “Muslim Minority Affairs”?

McCarthy: Well, that’s really the salience of Walid’s latest find. From the Saudi and Brotherhood perspective, “Muslim Minority Affairs” is not merely a title for an institute or a journal. It is a strategy and a jurisprudence of building the global Islamist movement by integrating into the West, resisting assimilation, establishing enclaves of Islamic supremacism, and pressuring host governments both to accommodate what become growing Muslim demands and to indulge the rule of sharia in these enclaves – which sets a precedent that facilitates the gradual incorporation of sharia elements in the law and culture of the host country.

This design, of course, has to be considered in context with what else we know about the Muslim Brotherhood. It has been brazen about its intention to “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” by dawa – the aggressive form of proselytism that pressures non-Muslim societies to adopt sharia incrementally. And in the Brotherhood’s private communications, as I explain in The Grand Jihad, it has described its work in America as a “grand jihad” or a “civilization jihad” to “eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.”

As I outlined in a speech at the National Press Club about two weeks ago, the overarching Saudi/Brotherhood design, coupled with Naseef’s key involvement and the substance of what one reads in the journal (a subject on which Andrew Bostom has done important work), underscores that the direct link between Ms. Abedin and Naseef is very troubling. Indeed, the intimate connection of the Abedin family with Naseef, their ties to such other Brotherhood luminaries as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, and the connections not only to the Brotherhood but to organizations that have been formally designated as facilitators of terrorism, powerfully demonstrates that the five conservative members of the House of Representatives were absolutely right to raise concerns about Islamist influence in our government.

FP: So one would think that a lot of people owe Michelle Bachmann an apology, including the media. Where is the apology?

McCarthy: Congresswoman Bachmann knows Washington well enough not to be holding her breath waiting for an apology. What is really stunning and demoralizing to me, though, is that only five members of Congress – five out of 535 if you count both chambers – have had the conscientiousness and courage to stand up and be counted on this. We have an obvious national security problem, and it goes way beyond Huma Abedin. We not only have several people with significant Islamist ties being consulted by our government on foreign and domestic policy, including counterterrorism policy. We are simultaneously seeing American policy shift dramatically in a direction that favors the Muslim Brotherhood, an avowed, incorrigible enemy of America and the West. Yet, we can’t even get one percent of our elected federal representatives to raise an eyebrow? I’ll tell you what. I speak to a lot of people around the country, and a lot more than one percent of them are worried about what’s happening.

FP: Share with us a bit about Huma’s involvement with the MSA and what that signifies.

McCarthy: Yes, that’s disturbing, too. In 1997, Ms. Abedin was on the executive board of the Muslim Students Association at George Washington University in Washington – while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and while she was an assistant editor at Naseef’s journal. The Muslim Students Association is the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infrastructure – an infrastructure that the Brotherhood has quite intentionally constructed for the purpose of executing the “Muslim Minority Affairs” strategy of giving like-minded Muslims the space and fortitude to resist assimilation and demand accommodation. As I explained in The Grand Jihad, this strategy is also aptly described as “voluntary apartheid,” and one of its most influential proponents in Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist.

The Brotherhood started the MSA in the early sixties and there are now hundreds of chapters at colleges and universities across the U.S. and Canada. Of course, thousands of students have been involved in these organizations. Many of them join for innocuous social reasons – to make friends with people of similar cultural background, etc. You have to be careful about over-generalizing: not everyone who is or ever has been part of a MSA chapter harbors sympathies for the Brotherhood and its ideology. Indeed, some MSA chapters – especially the ones that are not formally connected to the national organization (I should perhaps say the “continental” organization, since Canada is included) – reflect the debates about reform that are extraordinarily important and very much a part of Islam in the West.

Nevertheless, it is simply a fact that, as a whole, the MSA is a bastion of the Brotherhood’s brand of Islamic supremacism and that, as night follows day, the MSA has an alarming track record of its alumni going on not only to Islamist activism but even to violent jihad. Patrick Poole’s account here is a real eye-opener. And he makes the important point that many of the MSA members who’ve gotten involved in jihadism had leadership positions in their chapters. That is, the more immersed a young Muslim becomes in this Brotherhood enterprise, the more likely it is that he or she will become a committed agent in terms of aggressively spreading Islamist ideology.

The GWU chapter in which Ms. Abedin served on the executive board has a history worth noting here. Its chaplain in 2001 was Anwar al-Awlaki, the now notorious al Qaeda figure who was, back then, ministering to some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Futhermore, at Walid Shoebat’s website, Ben Barrack has pointed out that Mohamed Omeish was also a chaplain at GWU’s MSA chapter. He headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda. Omeish’s brother, Esam, headed the Muslim American Society, which is the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official branch in the United States. (The Brotherhood has many affiliated organizations in which members participate, but the MAS was actually formed to be the Brotherhood’s formal presence here – although many Brothers have been ambivalent about whether a formal presence was needed or desirable.)

The Omeish brothers were closely associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was once regarded as Washington’s model Muslim moderate by many of the same bipartisan Beltway elites who’ve taken shots at Michele Bachmann and her four conservative colleagues. Of course, Alamoudi is now serving a lengthy jail sentence, and we’ve learned that he was a major financial backer of al Qaeda and Hamas. As Paul Sperry has recounted at Frontpage, it was Esam Omeish who brought Awlaki in to be the imam at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia (I’ve written about that mosque, in The Grand Jihad and in this column). Awlaki and Mohammed Omeish overlapped for a time as chaplains and advisers to the MSA chapter at GWU. And as Ben Barrack points out, citing this Fox News report, Secretary of State Clinton – with Ms. Abedin as one of her top advisers – somehow managed to invite Esam Omeish to participate in a conference call the State Department organized for the purpose of discussing relations between our government and the Muslim community. By then, as I recount in The Grand Jihad, Esam Omeish was a fairly notorious figure in Washington: He had had to resign from a Virginia immigration panel to which he’d been appointed by the state’s Democratic governor, Tim Kaine, because videos surfaced in which he had praised the Palestinians for resorting to “the jihad way” so that “Palestine” could be “liberated.”

On that score, it is worth noting that Esam Omeish, like many Islamists of the Brotherhood stripe, is also a hard Left political activist – again, see Paul Sperry’s article on Omeish, which begins with him speaking at a Cindy Sheehan antiwar rally. The alliance between Islamists and Leftists is one of the major themes of my aforementioned book, The Grand Jihad.

FP: Share with us what you know and think about the overall Brotherhood influence on our government and our society’s willful blindness about it.

McCarthy: I think our society is becoming increasingly less willfully blind about it, which is one of its major disconnects with Washington.

As far as the federal government is concerned, it is worth remembering why we have a legal concept known as “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness” (the latter, as you’ve been kind enough to mention, is the title of my first book, a memoir of the Blind Sheikh investigation). When people irresponsibly put their head in the sand, when they go out of their way to avoid, or at least pretend to avoid, knowledge of facts that bear critically upon their actions, the law no longer accepts their claims of ignorance – they are held accountable. If someone you have every reason to know is involved in the drug business pays you to transport a package across town to someone else you have every reason to know is involved in the drug business, you don’t get off the hook by claiming, “Well, gee, I never looked inside the package, I didn’t know there was heroin in it.” That is the stage we are at with government officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates are being consulted on counterterrorism policy – to the point that our federal agencies are purging their training materials of references to Islam. The Obama administration recently issued a visa to a member of formally designated terrorist organization (the Blind Sheikh’s “Islamic Group” – Gama’at al-Islamia) and hosted him for talks at the White House about the future of Egypt – something that would be felony material support to terrorism if an ordinary American citizen did it. When the administration was called on it, the Homeland Security Secretary responded that we can expect more of the same in the future. The government is aligning with Brotherhood organizations across the region – in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. The administration has formed a “counterterrorism forum” with Turkey and other Islamist countries – excluding Israel (the world’s number one terrorism target) and essentially adopting the Muslim Brotherhood’s claims that terror attacks against Israel are not really “terrorism” (they are “resistance’ against an illegitimate “occupying” power). The administration is also colluding with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in an effort to impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech that would make it difficult, if not legally impossible, to engage in frank discussions about the obvious nexus between Islamic supremacist ideology and sharia aggression (of both the violent and non-violent varieties).

The general public is much more agitated about the trajectory we are on than Washington is, and it expects the officials responsible to be held accountable. People are becoming informed, and once you’re informed, you have no tolerance for willful blindness.

FP: Andy McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. And thank you for your brave fight for the defense of our nation and civilization.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here. 
497  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / DNC hosts Islamists... on: August 22, 2012, 09:17:18 AM
Jihad At the DNC

Posted By Robert Spencer On August 22, 2012

It is no surprise, after four years of Obama Administration pandering, Muslim groups have a prominent role at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. The Charlotte Observer reports that organizers expect as many as 20,000 Muslims to attend the “Jumah at the DNC” series of events being organized by the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA). Among these events is an all-day “Islamic Cultural & Fun Fest,” which will include a “TownHall Issues Conference” that will address “issues such as Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that this “TownHall Issues Conference” will not include any discussion of Islamic jihad terror plotting in the U.S., or of how Muslim groups have tried to exaggerate the problem of “Islamophobia” by faking hate crimes. It is likewise certain that the “Anti-Shariah” issue will be portrayed as an attempt by bigoted Americans to restrict Muslim religious freedom, when in reality it is solely an attempt to prevent the political and supremacist aspects of Islamic law that are at variance with constitutional freedoms from gaining a foothold here. Certain also is that the discussions of the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act will focus on how these measures are supposedly excessive and unfairly target Muslims.

The overall thrust of the entire “TownHall Issues Conference,” as is clear from its stated agenda, is to portray Muslims as the innocent victims of a bigoted, racist and “Islamophobic” government and law enforcement establishment that is unfairly scapegoating Muslims as a whole for the misguided deeds of a few on September 11, 2001. It will include no discussion of the many attempted jihad attacks against the U.S. since then, or of the successful ones, such as Nidal Malik Hasan’s massacre at Fort Hood or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s murders outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas. Any and all scrutiny of the Muslim community in the U.S. will be portrayed as gratuitous and unwarranted. The assembled Democrats, meanwhile, will be falling all over themselves to promise that whatever domestic counter-terror apparatus the Obama administration has failed to dismantle during its first term will go under the knife during its second.

But the most disturbing aspect of the entire “Jumah at the DNC” is not the obvious victimhood-mongering of its agenda, but the people involved. The Democrats are playing host to an unsavory gang of Islamic supremacists with numerous ties to jihad groups. Even this is not surprising, but it should be a matter of concern to any Americans who are more aware of the jihad threat than the average politically correct Democrat pol.

Take, for example, BIMA spokesman Jibril Hough. Hough’s mosque, the Islamic Center of Charlotte, is owned by a Muslim Brotherhood group, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case. When confronted about this on a radio show, Hough first professed not to be aware of the charges against NAIT, and then refused to disavow the organization, saying only that he himself was “not necessarily” a member of NAIT and: “I was not involved in the decision to allow NAIT to be the [title] holder.”

Meanwhile, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC is none other than Siraj Wahhaj. Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country; in 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., Siraj Wahhaj is not as moderate as he may appear at first glance.

Wahhaj was several years ago designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He himself has denounced this designation as essentially meaningless, but he didn’t earn it by doing nothing. In the early 1990s he squired the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, all around New York City and New Jersey, sponsoring talks by him in area mosques. The Blind Sheikh, of course, is now serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, as well as in jihad plots to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

When Wahhaj was traveling around with the Blind Sheikh, was Rahman “moderate,” and then became “radicalized”  later? Or did Rahman and Wahhaj share a supremacist and violent view of Islam, but Wahhaj is going about his jihad in a way that is less likely than Rahman’s to draw law enforcement scrutiny? No one ever asks Wahhaj such questions – least of all Democrat Party politicians.

Nor is Wahhaj’s association with the Blind Sheikh the only blot on his reputation as a “moderate.” He has warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has also asserted that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”

So why is such a man acting as the “Grand Imam” at “Jumah at the DNC”? The Democrats are so in thrall to multiculturalism that it is likely that few, if any, DNC organizers know or care about Wahhaj’s Islamic supremacist statements and ties. To raise any concerns about such a speaker would be “Islamophobic,” violating every rule of the anti-American, anti-Western ethos that prevails among so many Democrats today.

The worst thing about Siraj Wahhaj’s appearance at “Jumah at the DNC” is that it is so thoroughly unsurprising. What would be genuinely shocking would be if the DNC anywhere, at anytime, featured a speaker who spoke realistically about the jihad threat. But there is about as much chance of that as there is of the Democrats ditching Obama and nominating David Horowitz as their candidate for President of the United States.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
498  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Obama dismisses allegations of deliberate "leaks"... on: August 21, 2012, 03:17:33 PM
OBAMA AND THE POLITICS OF TREASON

Posted on August 21, 2012

BUCK SEXTON
Buck Sexton is The Blaze's national security editor and a GBTV contributor. Before joining the Blaze, Buck served in the U.S. Intelligence Community for six years.

President Obama has dismissed and derided the former military and intelligence officers who believe his administration passed out sensitive national security information for partisan gain. In a press conference yesterday, he said of the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund and similar groups—“I don’t take these folks too seriously.”

Unsurprisingly, the White House has been quick to attack the men behind these accusations instead of explaining to the American people that this administration has not leveraged defense secrets for positive press reports. The best Obama was able to muster in his defense yesterday was “this kind of stuff springs up before election time.”

Of course, this does not adequately address accusations of leaks that many believe could amount to treason.  While the specific source of the leaks remains in question, as a former intelligence officer, I see why so many informed observers, including the OPSEC whistleblowers, smell something rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let’s press into the facts of the case.

From the start of the controversy, the news articles that leaked the information claimed that their sources were members of “Obama’s national security team.” That would seem the drain the pool of possible leakers rather quickly, but alas—no progress has been made on the White House-approved investigation.

Even without that massive clue, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the White House as the source. The leaks are obviously political because they are positive. Leaks usually hurt administrations, but not these leaks. Whoever told the press about these sensitive national security matters had very high-level access and used it to lionize the President. From the Bin Laden raid details to the President’s so-called “Kill List,” the leaks bolstered the perception that Obama had transformed into a hawk.

In response to the OPSEC group’s accusations, media outlets often tout that Obama’s Department of Justice has brought more Espionage Act prosecutions—six and counting—than every President before him combined. They cite this to further a narrative that Obama takes leaking seriously, but that’s a misreading. The prosecutions have everything to do with appearances for Obama and very little to do with national security.

Leaks can create major political headaches, as seen during the Bush years. To blunt this liability, the Obama administration established an early precedent: leak, and Attorney General Holder’s DOJ will ruin your life.  This approach ensnared a range of offenders—from legitimately dangerous offenses to a case against former NSA analyst Thomas Drake that completely fell apart in court.

Thus the Obama administration has maintained a two-track enforcement approach to leakers. Senior political operatives seem to get away with them; working-level national security professionals cower in fear of DOJ’s wrath.

Instead of pulling clearances and firing alleged leakers, Obama’s DOJ jumped right to felony charges in these instances. Regardless of the trial outcomes, the message to all who have classified access and a political disagreement with Obama was heard loud and clear.

And what liberals claimed was laudable behavior under President Bush—leaking– was now treasonous under Obama. For a President who ran on a promise of transparency, this was a particularly craven abandonment of previously espoused principle.

Contrast the draconian enforcement approach to working-level intelligence employees with the zero arrests that have been made in relation to the major national security disclosures that set off the current furor. Despite the reckless revelation of sources and methods in the recent leaks, it is a near certainty that no senior White House officials will face charges or even lose their security clearance because of them.

Instead, the White House will make the Pentagon and intelligence agencies turn the screws even tighter on civil servants who had nothing to do with these disclosures. To appear tough, the executive branch has empowered prosecutors and internal bureaucrats to ferret out leakers that do not exist. Countless patriotic Americans who protect classified information every day will be harassed and slowed in their work so that connected political advisors and special assistants in the White House can continue to tell whatever they want to whomever they want.

Of course, all of this would have been avoided if President Obama had decided to release the information officially, as is his purview as Commander-in-Chief. Instead, somebody with seemingly unrestricted classified access gave the stories behind closed doors to favored media mouthpieces. Had President Obama declassified the information himself on record, his administration could also be held to account for the intelligence fallout afterwards. Thus the current White House policy of disclose-and-deny gives the administration de facto credit without suffering any blowback.

Once again, politics, not the safety of the nation, is the primary factor at work.

President Obama’s national security record is unlikely to determine the election this fall. But to groups like OPSEC Education Fund and countless national security professionals still working in the shadows, the spate of leaks plays into a broader narrative of a solipsistic President and administration that appear to value reelection above all else.

Though we will likely never find out the source of the leaks, President Obama appears more upset about them as a political liability than a possible threat to our national security. That alone is cause for concern.
499  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Southern Poverty Law Center has ZERO credibility... on: August 21, 2012, 11:10:12 AM
Hatred's Strange Bedfellows

Washington Times | Aug 20, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Last week’s near-massacre at the Family Research Council (FRC) put into sharp relief a curious fact:  The people most aggressively denouncing others for their “hatemongering” sure are engaging in a lot of it themselves – with dangerous, and potentially lethal, repercussions.

Take, for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  Back in the heyday of the civil rights movement, the SPLC helped counter the Ku Klux Klan and other racists and anti-Semites.  At the moment, though, the SPLC is hanging out with today’s counterpart to the KKK and the preeminent threat to civil rights – especially those of women – in America: Islamists bent on insinuating here their anti-constitutional, misogynistic and supremacist doctrine known as shariah.

A case in point occurred last Wednesday night, just hours after a gunman named Floyd Lee Corkins entered the headquarters of the FRC. Corkins apparently was bent on killing as many of the Center’s employees as possible, perhaps because of the social conservative group’s listing (along with this columnist and a number of others) earlier this year by the SPLC as among the worst hate groups and bigots in America. 

It turns out that, as with the Family Research Council, what seems to qualify one for smearing by the Southern Poverty Law Center is disagreement with its political agenda.  If you lawfully object to, say, the erosion of traditional marriage or open borders, you stand to be condemned by the SPLC as a hater.  It seems that if you are militantly in favor of the radical homosexual agenda or racist groups like La Raza, however, you get a pass from that organization.

Particularly striking in this regard is the utter blindness of the SPLC to the hatemongering in which Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist organizations in this country regularly engage.  If you warn, on the basis of abundant evidence – including such Islamist groups’ own statements – that they are seeking to subvert our freedoms and form of government by insinuating shariah into this country then, boom, the self-appointed arbiters of hate will brand you a monger of it.  But those whose Islamic creed promotes hatred of other religions, man-made laws and people who embrace them are never mentioned as a problem.

On Wednesday, August 15th, the director of the SPLC’s “intelligence project,” Heidi Beirich, participated in an open conference call organized by one such Islamist group, the Muslim Public Affairs Council.  She used the occasion to inveigh against anti-Muslim hate groups and to declare that her group was “very, very concerned” about their proliferation.

What makes this performance absolutely bizarre is the fact that MPAC is not simply a Muslim Brotherhood-associated organization that, by definition, is in the business of promoting shariah’s virulently intolerant code.  The organization also has a documented history of anti-Semitism, including such hatemongering as: the contention on 9/11 by its executive director, Salam Al- Marayati, that the Jews should be viewed as possible perpetrators of the attacks of that day; repeated claims that Zionists and Jews “own” the Congress, its staff and the American media; and vitriolic support for the designated terrorist organization, Hamas, whose explicit goal is destroying Israel.

So egregious is Muslim Public Affairs Council’s record of hatemongering that an ecumenical group of seven leaders of national faith-based and civil rights organizations wrote the leadership of the Southern Poverty Law Center last week urging the SPLC not to associate with those Islamists.  An attachment noted that  an MPAC-sponsored event in December 2000 featured an exhortation from Imam Mohammed Al-Asi, a supporter of the quintessential Islamist hate group, Hezbollah, and director of the Islamic Education Center in Potomac.  He declared on that occasion:

“Now, all our khatibs (speakers), our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public.…Rhetoric is not going to liberate Al-Quds [Jerusalem] and Al-Aqsa [the mosque on the Temple Mount]. Only carrying arms will do this task. And it’s not going to be someone else who is going to carry arms for you and for me.  It is you and me who are going to have to carry these arms.”

It is deeply regrettable that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been reduced to a propaganda arm of enemies of freedom.  It should be embarrassed about its evident refusal to hold accountable any of the myriad Islamist entities that are authentic promoters of hatred – apart from Louis Farakhan’s Nation of Islam, a group so racist, so anti-Semitic, so hateful that even the SPLC evidently could not overlook its record.  And the SPLC should abandon its odious practice of listing as hate groups those – like the Family Research Council – with whom it simply disagrees politically, and seeks to silence.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is quick to allege ties between people it calls haters and people who use violence against the object of the purported hatred.  If the SPLC is genuinely interested in preventing such behavior, then the organization and its leaders should stop what amounts to encouragement of it.
500  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Huma Abedin: More Damning Evidence... on: August 17, 2012, 08:48:46 AM
The Huma Abedin-House of Saud Connection Exposed

Posted By Jamie Glazov On August 17, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood activist who is the author of For God or For Tyranny.

FP: Walid Shoebat, welcome back to Frontpage. The interview we did last year, The Dark Muslim Brotherhood World of Huma Abedin, has become extremely relevant and I would like to discuss your new highly disturbing findings with you.

Shoebat: Thanks for having me again Jamie.

FP: Last Friday, President Obama voiced strong support for Huma Abedin during the Iftar dinner, saying the top aide to Secretary of State Hillary has been “nothing less than extraordinary in representing our country and the democratic values that we hold dear.”

Yet you have presented a 37-page dossier and WTC 1993 prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has linked the Abedins [here] and [here] to two terror supporting supervisors: al-Qaeda financier Abdullah Naseef and the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradwi. Moreover, you have now made a discovery that links the Abedins’ Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs enterprise to a sinister Wahhabist Saudi agenda called Muslim Minority Affairs.  Kindly share your new discovery with us.

Shoebat: President Obama needs to refute the facts and provide answers that are void of rhetoric. He can’t and he won’t. My findings all started as I was researching Huma’s father “Sayed Zaynul Abedin” in Arabic looking for further clues and suddenly there it was, an unbelievable document commissioned by the late King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz which can be downloaded [here] and [here]. I couldn’t believe my eyes. It had a long grandiose and fanciful title: The Efforts of the Servant of the Two Holy Places to Support The Muslim Minorities. It included Huma’s father and his work Muslim Minorities in the West published in 1998 as part of 29 works to construct this conspiratorial manifesto. (#11. P. 134) It explained the Muslim Minority Affairs (hereafter MMA) not simply as a title or as a religious or social entity but as a Saudi foreign policy of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

It is an entire management system using MMA as the vehicle to catapult MMA to gain specific goals:

1—Recruit individual Muslims that live in non-Muslim lands and transform them as a collective unit by establishing centers, educational programs, mosques and organizations like ISNA and MSA in order to stop Muslim assimilation in non-Muslim host nations.

2—These then can influence the non-Muslim host nations by shifting the demographic scale due to their population growth in favor of the Saudi agenda.

3—A gradual implementation of Sharia will ensue by becoming a major revolutionary powerhouse.

4—This will tilt the host nation in favor of Muslims due to their increase as a population.

5—By this, a transformation then ensues in the host nation to gradually begin to implement a Wahhabi style Sharia.

6—The host state then will join the Muslim commonwealth.

Amazed, I began to research the Abedins’ Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs (hereafter IMMA) from historical accounts and testimonies. The two connected perfectly and what emerged was extremely troubling from a national security perspective: the Abedins for decades were actually serving a foreign entity, the government of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs and not American Democracy as President Obama stated. The Abedins’ IMMA is a Saudi-based branch implemented, commissioned and stationed through the same entity that produced this policy to serve Saudi Arabia’s and not American interests.

FP: Ok, but how exactly can you connect the Abedins’ IMMA to the Saudi MMA?

Shoebat: Easily, we have:

[1] Testimonies.

[2] The hierarchical construct of the Abedins’ IMMA fits the Saudi manifesto MMA chain of command.

and

[3] We have historical references showing IMMA was officially under these authorized organizations that were set up by Saudi Arabia.

These make an ironclad case. Here is an example; the manifesto states that:

“It [MMA] will work under the umbrella of the Muslim World League (MWL) and International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) and World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and others” (P. 6, also see P. 23)

The Arabic Dictionary on Media Icons by Zarkali confirms the above plan fits IMMA:

“Sayed Z. Abedin is a specialist on Muslim Minority Affairs issues… In the early 1970′s, Sayed Z. Abedin went to Saudi Arabia for one year as a visiting professor. He was welcomed by King Abdulaziz University, which provided him the means to create a scholarly program regarding Muslim Minorities. Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, the Dean of King Abdulaziz University then envisioned the creation of an academic entity called the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), under the management of Ahmad Bahafzallah, who was the General Trustee for the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY). Professor Sayed Z. Abedin was encouraged to supervise the Muslim Minority Affairs and served as IMMA’s chief editor.” (Al-I’lam by Zarkali, is an encyclopedia on major figures in the Arabic-Muslim Media, P.p. 218)

Abdullah Ghazi, a graduate of Harvard University in Comparative Religion, provides additional testimony as he reminisces about how he met the Abedins:

“Later we shifted to Gary in Indiana State, 40 kms from Chicago. In 1976, I met Rabita (MWL) chief Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef and Dr. Zainul Abedin of Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs. They encouraged me to take up this venture. The first book to come out was Our Prophet, an assignment from King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah at Dr. Naseef’s behest…”

The history of the Abedins’ IMMA and of the Saudi manifesto’s hierarchy for MMA perfectly match. As we see, it was the Muslim World League (MWL) with Abdullah Omar Naseef, a Wahhabist who created IMMA under Ahmad Bahafzallah of World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) to supervise the Abedins.

FP: What proof can you provide from the manifesto itself regarding the goals you mentioned?

Shoebat: We provided several snapshots from the manifesto itself:



This snapshot in English says:

“The Muslim societies in all continents of the world exist as either ‘Muslim Nation’ or ‘Muslim Minorities’. The assessment to determine what constitutes ‘state’ from a ‘minority state’ is done based on a number of measures. First the numbers scale, which is, if a nation has Muslims exceed half the population and its Constitution states that Islam is its official religion or that Islamic Sharia is its source of law, this state is then considered an Islamic state.” (p.29) “Since the number of Muslims has risen greatly in the last years where they became 1.3 billion Muslims. From these we have (900) million already in Muslim nations. The 400 million live as communities and as Muslim Minority” (p. 31) “… In Africa resides (250) million Muslims and in Europe resides (60) million Muslims and in North America and South America resides (10) million Muslims. So, according to these statistics it is expected that the number of Muslims will reach 2.6 billion six hundred thousand within a short span of time. The Muslims then will become a mighty and effective power in the world, of course, due to the increase in their numbers—then these will shift the demographic balance in their favor.” (p. 32).

It actually maps out with statistics and demographic analysis every nation where Muslim minorities exist. Remember, Huma’s mother is an expert on demography and world populations and contributed greatly to that effect in the JMMA journal. Regardless how small the numbers, these are expected to advance Wahhabist ideology.

FP: Ok, what about this “Wahhabist” link? Can you provide proof?

Shoebat: The document pulls no punches. It mentions “puritan Islam” as directed by “Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab,” the father of Wahhabism:


“Allah destined this region [Saudi Arabia] for a historic role. So He commissioned the two Imams—Muhammad bin Saud and Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, may Allah have mercy upon them. But the times have passed on Imam Muhammad bin Saud by the emergence of the reformer—Muhammad bin AbdulWahhab. So the two Imams cooperated together to judge by what Allah brought forth, to fight against heresy and to bring Muslims back to puritan Islam.” (p. 8 )

FP: Is the United States mentioned in the plan?

Shoebat: Indeed, all over it, it discusses accomplishments in ISNA, MSA, banking, centers and even names the mosques designated to fulfill the plan in the United States, except there are obstacles. The United States is the home of the main obstacle that hinders their agenda—the Jews. There the manifesto shifts, sounding more like an Arab version of Mein Kampf. Here I include the original snapshot from the document itself and translated it to English:


“The greatest challenge that faces Muslims in the United States and Canada are the Jews who take advantage of their material ability and their media to distort the image of Islam and Muslims there by spreading their lies and distortions in the minds of the people in these countries. The Jews employ their efforts and direct their material wealth and their high positions to serve Zionist interests in the Arab region. They [the Jews] take advantage of situations to distort the image of Arabs and Muslims. The Zionist organizations spend enormous efforts to obstruct the spread of Islam in these areas.” (P. 79-80)

FP: This is scary stuff, and our media and government are completely silent and blind.

Let’s continue: how can we know that the MMA is not some isolated issue or something simply on paper?

Shoebat: McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad perhaps can provide a better analysis as to the billions spent by Saudi Arabia in the U.S. to advance their agendas. I am here to provide missing links, the proclamations from the Arabic texts that westerners don’t review, things considered taboos to discuss and translate, an insight from a defector who switched sides. That’s what I do.

As to the MMA concept, it is not isolated to the Abedins or even the Saudis. Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood support the same concept, they even link to each other with the same title: “the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minority Affairs.”

In other words, the IMMA is not simply a name of an outfit; it represents a definition, a jurisprudence rooted in a sinister doctrine with short and long-term goals. Qaradawi has a similar manifesto for the Brotherhood. MMA scholars across the board have an obsession using this jurisprudence steering Muslims into this theocratic collective revolution.

FP: Give us some examples.

Shoebat: No problem. Take Europe’s Abdul-Majid al-Najjar, Assistant Secretary-General of the European Council for Fatwa and Research. While working on supposed building relations with the West, he adheres, in Arabic, to the same collectivist concept. In his “Creating a Fundamentalist Jurisprudence of the Muslim Minorities in the West,” he states:

“Islamic Sharia ruling is for every circumstance, time and place and in all circumstances… It was ordained that Islam was assigned the mission to inherit the globe. It is a mission possible through only the collective religious performance and mission impossible through individual religiosity.”

Let’s take Taha Jaber al-Alwani who is an ardent anti-Semite who, by the way, runs the United States Department of Defense program (out of all places) for training Muslim military chaplains in the U.S. military. This is the first time we translated this:

“… it [MMA] is a Jurisprudence for a group confined to its special circumstances which is allowed what others are not. Its exercise needs an understanding of social sciences, especially sociology, economics, political science and international relations… for the fundamentals of success for the Muslim Minority Jurisprudence it must adhere to the collective earth concept.” [here]

Alwani, a man commissioned by our government, even calls for a soon-to-be military conquest and provides an official fatwa permitting and preparing for the use of force:

“Commitment to the Quranic concept of Geography: The land belongs to Allah, his religion is Islam, and every country is already in the House of Islam—now in the present time—since they will be in the House of Islam by force in the near future. The whole of humanity is a Muslim Nation: it is either ‘the religion of the nation’ which has embraced this religion [Islam], or a ‘proselyte nation’ we are obliged to conquer.” (Alwani, The Jurisprudence of Muslim Minority Affairs. No. 7)

This is no mirage; it’s real and it is why we see people like Nidal Malik Hasan attacking military personnel and military installations from within; he snapped and couldn’t wait.

FP: So it’s on all levels, military and civil?

Shoebat: Yes. In America, even the Director of the Islamic Center of Lubbock Texas Mohammed bin Mukhtar Shanqeeti agrees:

“The Muslim Minority Jurisprudence is not a heresy or a novel, it’s an ancient doctrine filled with the provisions for Muslims living in Dar al-Kufr (House of the Heathen) or Dar Al-Harb (House of War).” [link, here]

Even the Abedins’ Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA ) confirms that their program stems from these same extremist sources: “The theory of the Jurisprudence of Muslim Minorities is most easily clarified by shedding light on its founders” which the notes state are none other than Muslim Brotherhood “Yusuf al-Qaradawi” and “Taha Jabir al-Alwani”.

In a nutshell, The Muslim Minority Affairs program is part of a grand plan to destroy America from within, exactly as what the Muslim Brotherhood planned, which was exposed in the Holy Land Foundation trials.

FP: Tell us a bit more on the provisions for Muslims living in the House of the Heathen.

Shoebat: Now you are entering into how the plan combines two Jurisprudences; the Minority Affairs Jurisprudence and the Jurisprudence of Muruna (Flexibility). Muruna is the “process of permitting evils” specifically for Muslim Minorities that is “sanctioning prohibitions for the sake of an interest”. You can learn all about it [here]. This jurisprudence permits “reversing Sharia rulings” in order to “gain interests.”

So the rulings on marriage with non-Muslims as we have with Huma and Anthony Weiner now become sanctioned even if Sharia prohibits it.

While the media argues that Huma married a Jew as evidence for her assimilation, in actuality it’s more the reason for suspicion, especially since that her mother is a Muslim Brotherhood leader who never denounced the marriage. That with Huma’s years of service as part of a Wahhabi scheme provides reasonable concerns.

FP:  You keep referring to this character from Saudi Arabia, Abdullah Omar Naseef, as an al-Qaeda affiliate. What is the evidence that he is tied to al-Qaeda?

Shoebat: Besides much evidence reported on Abdullah Omar Naseef contributions for al-Qaeda, we have the WTC vs. Al Baraka, et. al. (see pp.384-386), It mentions Naseef, who arranged to meet Osama bin Laden and launch what seems like a major attack, right from one of Naseef’s Muslim World League (MWL) offices:

“…a Memo on IIRO [International Islamic Relief Organization] / MWL letterhead detailed a meeting between Abu Abdallah (Osama bin Laden), Dr. Abdullah Omar Naseef, Sheik Abdel Majeed Zindani, and Dhiaul Haq, in which it is stated that, ‘the attacks will be launched from them (these offices)… You must pursue finding an umbrella which you can stay under…and I prefer the name of the League (most likely, Muslim World League) because Dr. Naseef is one of the brothers…’”

While these statements were only in the preliminary documents that were removed in later documents, possibly since they are regarding older operations prior to 9/11, yet, Naseef, according to this, was in direct communication with Osama bin Laden; this might shed a different light on the matter of Huma Abedin. For years, she had close ties with Naseef. But despite this, Naseef was proven to have been an al-Qaeda financier. The Naseef-Huma connection has no degrees of separation as many claimed. These statements made by the media were simply false.

Andrew McCarthy wrote that Naseef could have escaped the civil lawsuits on a technicality:

“…he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found to be uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)”

The Abedins went back and forth, setting foothold in India, where Huma’s parents worked during 1978 with Maulana Muhammad Yousuf of Jamaat-e-Islami. Yusuf came after Abu Al-Ala Maududi, who was key in the Tabligh in the Indian subcontinent’s equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood. It has extensive ties to Wahhabists, including Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They represent an extremist Salafist brand. Then somehow they were in Saudi Arabia working with Naseef who spearheaded IMMA and commissioned the Abedins from Saudi Arabia to launch the program is the U.S. and the United Kingdom. Do you think they circulated the earth promoting this program solely by themselves as part of an American dream?

FP: What can we do about this?

Shoebat: Here are some things citizens can do immediately:

1—Petition to bring Huma’s ex-boss Naseef to face American justice.

2—Connect the dots between the Saudi Wahhabist plans and the Abedins’ IMMA, only then can we begin to unravel why the Abedin family works with nefarious characters like Naseef and Qaradawi.

3—Understand how interlinked these organizations are, their layers and sub-layers.

4—IMMA was a family affair under Saudi management, a foreign entity that intends to do harm to United States interests.

5—Ask politicians why is it a taboo to discuss Huma Abedin, and demand they refute the facts and provide answers that are void of rhetoric.

6—Support these courageous Congressmen. These are heroes, not slanderers as McCain says. They represent the interest of the people and not the policy of silence. McCain says to question Abedin’s loyalty is “dangerous” when it is silence that is, in fact, dangerous.

FP: Thank you Walid for sharing this very important information with us.

Shoebat: My pleasure.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 13
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!