The American Kafir


Here We Go Again

Source: Brog’s Blog

Here We Go Again

Like most of you, I awoke this morning to the disturbing news that Israeli commandos had raided a flotilla of “peaceful” ships trying to bring food to the residents of Gaza.  In their “brazen” assault, the Israelis had killed at least ten “peace activists.”  Oh no, I  feared, perhaps some of those young Israeli soldiers finally snapped under the pressure.  This time, they went too far.  They had spilled the blood of those who had chosen the path of peace.

Then the facts of what actually happened began to emerge.  As they did so, it became increasingly apparent that the Israelis had acted in self defense, after repeated attempts to avert violence had been ignored.  And it also became clear that once again Israel’s side of the story was neither obvious nor simple.  It takes an open mind and knowledge of the facts to understand what led to today’s tragedy at sea.  Lacking both, most observers issued their guilty verdict against Israel the minute the death toll was announced.

First of all, this “humanitarian” flotilla was, at best, a cynical PR stunt.  There is no food shortage in Gaza.  Israel maintains an open corridor for the transfer of food to Gaza, and this route is used daily by legitimate relief organizations including the United Nations and the Red Cross.  Over the last 18 months, well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies have entered Gaza from Israel.  This equals almost a ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza.

Secondly, the Israelis offered the flotilla a peaceful way to resolve the conflict.  They proposed that the ships dock at Israel’s southern port of Ashdod and unload their cargo there.  The Israelis pledged to transfer all truly humanitarian cargo to Gaza.  They simply wanted to screen the cargo first so that they could ensure that no arms or explosives were hidden among the food and other legitimate items.  This offer was flatly rejected.

Only then — when faced with the declared intention of these ships to break Israel’s security blockade of Gaza – did Israel decide to board the ships and bring them to Ashdod by force.  To do otherwise would have been to allow Israel’s opponents to dictate Israel’s security policy.  The Gaza strip is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization openly committed to Israel’s destruction.  As the constant smuggling of arms and rockets into Gaza – and their repeated use by Hamas — makes clear, Israel has every right and reason to screen shipments going into Gaza.

So long as the Israeli soldiers who boarded these boats were met by peaceful protests, no one was hurt.  Of the six ships in the flotilla, Israeli naval forces boarded five of them without incident.  Only on one ship – the Marmara — did Israeli soldiers harm passengers.  Why did they do so?  As videos taken by Israel’s navy since made clear, the Israelis boarding this particular ship met with instant and vicious violence.  As the Israeli soldiers were lowered one-by-one onto the ship by helicopter, they were assaulted by an angry mob that beat them with metal rods and knives, threw them off the sides of the deck, and reportedly stole their handguns and shot at them.  What awaited the Israelis was a lynch mob, pure and simple.  Only after the mob began using deadly force did the Israelis respond with deadly force to save their lives.

Anyone doubting the intensity and severity of the attack by the so-called peace activists should watch the following video taken by the Israeli navy.  It is sobering.

We will no doubt learn more of the specifics in the days to come.  And we may well come to learn that the Israelis made mistakes in the planning and execution of this operation.   But as the initial facts have emerged, it has already become clear that these soldiers were acting in self defense, and would never have resorted to violence had they not genuinely feared for their lives.  Yet as in prior conflicts, Israel’s efforts at self defense are being twisted and distorted by the very people who provoked and now celebrate the violence.

So here we go again.  Prepare for a wave of attacks and vitriol to crash upon Israel.  Get ready for lies and exaggeration to control the media coverage.  And gird yourself to stand up and spread the truth.  Because once again, the truth is Israel’s ally.  And once again, it is up to us to spread the truth when others will not.

If you have not yet signed the Israel pledge, please click here to do so now.  And if it is at all possible, please join us in Washington, DC this July.  It was already clear months ago that this DC Summit was going to be our most important one yet.  And the stakes have steadily risen since then.  We need to show up in DC record numbers to make Israel’s case to our elected officials and to the general public.  Yes, the truth is Israel’s ally.  But the truth will be lost in a sea of lies without witnesses willing to testify.

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

By George Friedman

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario

In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza

The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel

It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:

“This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

European Antichrist looking more and more unlikely

European Antichrist looking more and more unlikely

Says atheists will have field day with popular Bible interpretation

Posted: May 30, 2010
7:58 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

With Europe on the verge of economic collapse, what about all those popular predictions that the European Union would become the world’s political powerhouse, giving rise to the endtimes prophecies of a world dictator known to Bible students as the Antichrist?

Joel Richardson, author of a best-selling book on Bible prophecy, says atheists will have a field day mocking Christians for the incorrect interpretations about the last days.

“Nearly twenty years ago, I intently watched as a very popular Christian television prophecy teacher declared, ‘the present formation of the European Union is literally the fulfillment of Bible prophecy right before our eyes!'” he writes in a commentary today in WND. “According to this teacher, the creation of the European Union represented a biblically prophesied revived Roman Empire. Because the last-days empire of the Antichrist as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation is portrayed as a 10-nation alliance, this teacher confidently declared that when the number of EU member states reached ten, this would signal the imminent return of Jesus Christ. And soon, the number of EU member states reached the magic number 10 just as this teacher had predicted. Then the number reached eleven, and then twelve. Soon there were twenty. Today there are 27 member states. The teacher’s very confident predictions failed.”

Richardson said the formation of the EU in 1993 spurred even more prophecy teachers to set their sights on Europe.

“But the present harsh realities in Europe may soon cause all of this Euro-centric, restored Roman Empire prognosticating to come crashing down,” writes Richardson.

He also expects many Christians to become disillusioned as the EU fights for its very survival, rather than for the global dominance that was predicted.

The author of “The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth About the True Nature of the Beast” wants everyone to know that if the EU falls, it is not an indictment of the truth of the Bible.

“Despite its popularity, the Euro-centric end-time perspective has never represented anything akin to Christian orthodoxy or dogma,” he writes. “Throughout the history of the church, many great Christian leaders have looked not to Europe, but to the Middle East for the emergence of an end-time empire. In fact, going back to the first few centuries of the church, the consistent testimony of the early believers is that the Antichrist, his empire and his religion would arise from out of the Middle East, and not Europe. As such, rather than tacking in the wind yet again, what many teachers and students of Bible prophecy are awakening to is the reality that the biblical prophecies about the last days are thoroughly Jerusalem, Israel and Middle-Eastern-centric. What many Westerners, and perhaps Americans most of all, often fail to recognize is the fact that the Bible is a thoroughly Eastern book. Always has been. As shocking as this may be to some, the Bible was not written primarily for Americans.”

When “The Islamic Antichrist” was released last fall, it immediately zoomed to the top of the religious charts at Amazon and the No. 1 spot among all books at Scribd – an online e-booker retailer. Yet Richardson, a student of Islam and the Middle east, found few churches in America welcoming him as a guest speaker. He was not invited to address many prophecy conferences. He found himself as a “political incorrect” outsider in most evangelical circles.

His book makes the case that the biblical Antichrist is one and the same as the Quran’s Muslim Mahdi.

“The Bible abounds with proofs that the Antichrist’s empire will consist only of nations that are, today, Islamic,” says Richardson. “Despite the numerous prevailing arguments for the emergence of a revived European Roman empire as the Antichrist’s power base, the specific nations the Bible identifies as comprising his empire are today all Muslim.”

Richardson believes the key error of many previous prophecy scholars involves the misinterpretation of a prediction by Daniel to Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel describes the rise and fall of empires of the future, leading to the end times. Western Christians have viewed one of those empires as Rome, when, claims Richardson, Rome never actually conquered Babylon and was thus disqualified as a possibility.

It had to be another empire that rose and fell and rose again that would lead to rule of this “man of sin,” described in the Bible. That empire, he says, is the Islamic Empire, which did conquer Babylon and, in fact, rules over it even today.

Many evangelical Christians believe the Bible predicts a charismatic ruler, the Antichrist, will arise in the last days, before the return of Jesus. The Quran also predicts that a man, called the Mahdi, will rise up to lead the nations, pledging to usher in an era of peace. Richardson makes the case these two men are, in fact, one in the same.

“Today, many scholars, students and teachers alike are acknowledging the consistent testimony of the prophets as pointing us to the Middle East,” he writes today. “As any realtor will tell you, it’s all about location, location, location. Likewise, as any astute Bible student should know, the first issue that must be established when attempting to properly interpret the Bible is context, context, context. And simply stated, the context of virtually all biblical prophecy is Israel and the Middle East. Jesus will not be returning to Paris, London or Independence, Missouri, but rather Jerusalem. Literally every last one of the final battles as depicted by all of the biblical prophets take place in Israel and the surrounding vicinity. When the prophets specify which nations surround Israel to attack her, the wording used in Hebrew is goyim caybib, which translated means ‘the surrounding nations.’ These are Israel’s neighbors; they are not references to Belgium or Luxembourg or Rome.”

Richardson is the co-author with Walid Shoebat of “God’s War on Terror: Islam, Prophecy and the Bible” and co-editor of “Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out.” “The Islamic Antichrist” is published by WND Books and is available autographed in the WND Superstore.

Issa seeks probe of White House talks with Sestak

Source: Washington Times

Issa seeks probe of White House talks with Sestak

'IT'S CLEARLY A CRIME': Rep. Darrell Issa repeats call for a probe of White House discussions with Rep. Joe Sestak. (Associated Press)

By David Eldridge, Joseph Webe

Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, called Sunday for an independent investigation of whether the White House offered a job to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak to end his Senate run, in the wake of administration admissions Friday that it had put out feelers to Mr. Sestak via former President Bill Clinton.

Mr. Issa, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told “Fox News Sunday” he wants the FBI or the Justice Department to investigate the White House’s discussions with Mr. Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, about dropping his bid to unseat incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who had support from President Obama.

“If they offered a job, it’s a crime,” Mr. Issa said. “It’s clearly a crime. What the White House is now saying happened falls under the statute.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell acknowledged mishandling of the matter by the Obama administration, but downplayed the matter, saying Republicans were attempting to criminalize “hard-knuckle politics.”

“This is why people think Washington is crazy,” the Democratic governor said. “This happens all the time.”

Asked whether the incident contradicts Mr. Obama’s campaign promises of a more transparent and more ethical Washington, Mr. Rendell said the president promised change, but “he didn’t say he was going to change everything about everything.”

“Has he changed hard-knuckle politics? No,” he said.

Mr. Rendell did criticize the White House for “stonewalling” on the topic, something he said was “not smart.”

Mr. Sestak did not drop his campaign and went on to defeat Mr. Specter in the May 18 Democratic primary. He will face Republican Pat Toomey in November.

The White House confirmed Friday that Mr. Clinton had acted as a go-between with Mr. Sestak. A day earlier, the president said there was “nothing improper” about the White House’s conduct.

Friday’s report came amid heavy pressure from Democrats and Republicans for the White House to provide details about Mr. Sestak’s repeated contention that he was offered a job if he would pull out of the race.

In the two-page report, White House lawyer Robert F. Bauer said the job offered was a nonpaying, advisory board position in the executive branch and that accusations of improper conduct by the administration “rest on factual error and lack a basis in the law.”

The report also stated the White House had no direct contact with Mr. Sestak, but that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “enlisted the support” of Mr. Clinton to speak with Mr. Sestak.

Mr. Sestak said he received only one call, last summer, from Mr. Clinton on the issue.

“During the course of the conversation, [Mr. Clinton] expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background,” Mr. Sestak said in a written statement. “He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a presidential board while remaining in the House.”

Mr. Sestak said he almost cut off Mr. Clinton in saying “no” and that his only consideration about the race was “whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families” and that Mr. Clinton said he expected such a response. The conversation then “moved on to other subjects.”

Mr. Sestak said during a Capitol Hill press conference he did think the offer was illegal.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Rendell recounted what he called a similar event a few years ago.

“I did the same thing in 2006 to ask former Congressman Joe Hoeffel to drop out of the race against Bob Casey in the primary,” he said.

When Fox moderator Chris Wallace asked him, “Did you offer him a job?” Mr. Rendell responded, “I said come back and see me if you do it. He came back and saw me. And he was out of public service; I appointed him as a deputy secretary of commerce. He did a great job.”

Mr. Issa, who appeared with Mr. Rendell in the segment, responded by pointing out the key difference between the Hoeffel and Sestak cases.

“I think Governor Rendell just said it very well. He carefully made sure he did not offer him a job as a quid pro quo,” Mr. Issa said. “Governor Rendell just made the point for us. If he had offered a job in order to get out of the race, it would have been a crime – a crime under a law signed, of all things, by President Clinton during his administration, the last update. If you offer a job or a position, 18 USC 600 clearly says that is a crime.”

Mr. Issa also called the White House’s account “a non-plausible answer,” because in order to accept even an unpaid administration job, Mr. Sestak would have had to not only not challenge Mr. Specter for the Senate seat, but give up his House seat.

“The real question, Chris, [is]: Do we believe this is a further cover-up, because they’re now talking about a job that President Clinton should have known Sestak couldn’t take,” Mr. Issa said.

On Wednesday, the seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee made a similar request to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Still, such a request is unlikely from the full committee, where Democrats are in the majority.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele said the White House response is further proof the administration needs to “open itself” to an independent investigation.

“In the three months since Joe Sestak first made his allegation, the White House has denied, stonewalled and is now trying to downplay the claims with an unsubstantiated memo,” Mr. Steele said. “This memo frankly raises more questions: What was Bill Clinton authorized to offer? Did President Obama sign off on this conversation before it took place?”

Mr. Sestak, a former Navy admiral, made the assertion about a “high-ranking” job offer at least twice – once to a local cable-television interviewer Feb. 18 and again last week. Mr. Sestak has said he would cooperate in any investigation.


Libs offended by words … from Justice Earl Warren

Filed under: Uncategorized — - @ 2:07 pm

Source: WND

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Libs offended by words … from Justice Earl Warren
Prayer penned by late judge used at Texas textbook meeting

By Bob Unruh

Posted: May 29, 2010


Critics of a recent successful move to restore some of America’s traditional historical references to textbooks in Texas launched a long list of criticisms against a conservative education board member who dared to mention Jesus and the Christian faith in a meeting invocation.

Then the critics discovered the words were penned by the late Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, whose tenure on the court was marked by the removal of prayer from public schools and other similar moves.

“Those who wish to revise American history are often ignorant of history,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. “Some secularists wish to revise history in order to bury America’s rich religious heritage.

“It was the Great Awakening that preceded the American Revolution. Without a religious revival, there would have been no lasting civil liberty, and without the American Revolution, there would be no America,” he said.

“Those who wish to exclude God from our history either suffer from dementia or are dishonest,” said Staver.

The invocation delivered by Texas Board of Education Member Cynthia Dunbar, a professor at Liberty University School of Law, has been posted online:

The text read:

“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses. Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia or the Charter of New England or the Charter of Massachusetts Bay or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the same objective is present – a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people…I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.”

The invocation came near the end of arguments over textbook standards that will be used in Texas for the next 10 years. Board members approved 9-5 a series of changes that emphasize the teaching of American history and rejected attempts by historical revisionists to change significant parts of the nation’s story, officials said.

Justice Earl Warren

After Dunbar’s invocation, the Texas Freedom Network, which promoted the progressive changes, wrote a scathing article.

“She offered the board’s opening prayer this morning and removed any doubt about what she and other far-right board members want students to learn: America’s laws and government should be based on the Christian Bible,” said the criticism.

But Liberty Counsel pointed out the faux pas.

The words were Warren’s, the liberal activist who served on the high court from 1953-1969, from a Time magazine article.

Staver told WND that many who offered criticism of Dunbar were quick to “scurry and run for cover” when they discovered the actual source of the words.

Condemnation posted on the Texas Freedom Network Insider included:

  • From Steven Schafersman: “Invocations like this at the beginning of state agency meetings by public officials are, in my opinion, terribly bigoted in addition to being nonsense. By her remarks, Dunbar disenfranchised all in the audience who follow different faiths or no faith.”
  • From “fireweaver”: “Will Ms Dunbar start calling for a Christian form of Shariah law? She sounds like someone who would find that appealing. She’s whack.”
  • From “Keanus”: “Dunbar, and the entire Christian Right, believes teaching, indoctrination and preaching are synonyms. For that reason they are doomed to a life time of ignorance, and, worse, blithely ignorant of their ignorance.”
  • From “Thomas”: “Dunbar is a subversive, traitorous threat to the national security of the United States as are all Christian domestic terrorists of her ilk.
  • From “Siobhan”: “This woman can go to hell – and take the rest of her religious wingnut friends with her. I’ve already lived with this enough. I’ve seen first hand what it’s done to my relatives in Ireland.”

One commenter was watching carefully and apparently knew history, writing:

“Cynthia Dunbar must have been chuckling to herself as she laid plans for offering this ‘prayer.’ Between the opening lines (‘Heavenly Father … As we look to our past to guide us, let us reflect on the convictions of those who have gone before us.’) and a particularly non-inclusive closing (‘All this I pray in the name of MY lord and savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.’), she inserted an excerpt of a speech given by Chief Justice Earl Warren at the 1954 National Prayer Breakfast as quoted contemporaneously in Time magazine. Clever.”

At the Texas Tribune, Brian Thevenot wrote that after the fact, Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller was unamused.

He quoted her: “Making a joke out of a prayer to score a political point? Now that cheapens faith for us all.”

The textbook dispute caught the attention of columnist Phyllis Schlafly, who noted the Texas school board’s nationwide influence on textbook publishers because of the size of the state’s market.

She pointed out education “experts” in Texas had suggested eliminating from history references to Independence Day, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Edison, Daniel Boone and Neil Armstrong and replacing Christmas with Diwali.

“Liberals don’t like the concept of American exceptionalism. The liberals want to teach what’s wrong with America (masquerading under the code word ‘social justice’) instead of what’s right and successful. The Texas Board voted to include describing how American exceptionalism is based on values that are unique and different from those of other nations,” she said.

But she said the results were good.

“The deceptive claim that the United States was founded on a ‘separation of church and state’ gets the ax, and rightfully so. In fact, most of the original 13 colonies were founded as Christian communities with much overlap between church and state,” she said. “History textbooks that deal with Joseph McCarthy will now be required to explain ‘how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of Communist infiltration in U.S. government.’ The Venona papers are authentic transcripts of some 3,000 messages between the Soviet Union and its secret agents in the United States.”

Likewise, WND columnist Chuck Norris commented.

“Liberals and progressives complain that conservatives are hijacking the curriculum process and modifying textbooks to fit their ideological whims. But the history of textbook alterations has clearly proven it is the former who have changed the course and content of curricula and textbook production. Conservatives have been largely the guardians or preservationists of tradition. Progressives have changed curricula content to pacify the politically correct and adopt what they value today and want others to value tomorrow,” he said.


Seeing a fallen soldier home

This is a very sad and shameful moment for our country, when we do not show the courtesy for one of our own fallen Soldier. What have we become? Have our fellow citizens hearts turned to stone that much, where we can not show common courtesy and thanks for a fallen Soldier’s family?

No matter what you feel about the two wars going on, this was a young man who gave his life for our country, under the orders of our president and congress. What does his family receive? Their fellow citizens can be arrogant and cold toward them. Every one of those passengers should be ashamed. How can they sleep at night with that much selfishness and coldness?

Source: Washington Times

Seeing a fallen soldier home

Gratitude should be foremost in American hearts and minds

By Colleen M. Getz

His name was Marine Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson – although I did not know it when his life brushed mine on March 25 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Lance Cpl. Wilson was not there in the terminal that afternoon; at age 24 and newly married, he had been killed in Afghanistan on March 22 by a roadside bomb. A coincidence of overbooked flights led our lives to intersect for perhaps an hour, one I will never forget.

I did not meet his family that day at the airport, either, although we were there together that evening at the gate, among the crowd hoping to board the oversold flight. I did not know that I had a boarding pass and they did not. I did not know they were trying to get home to hold his funeral, having journeyed to Dover, Del., to meet his casket upon its arrival from Afghanistan.

I also did not know that they already had been stuck for most of the day in another airport because of other oversold flights. But I did not need to know this to realize what they were going through as the event unfolded and to understand the larger cause for it. No matter how we as a nation have relearned the lesson forgotten during Vietnam – that our military men and women and their families deserve all the support we can give them – despite our nation’s fighting two wars in this decade, it is all too easy for most of us to live our lives without having the very great human cost of those wars ever intrude.

But it did intrude heartbreakingly that day at the airport gate. It began simply enough, with the usual call for volunteers: Anyone willing to take a later flight would receive a $500 flight voucher. Then came the announcement none of us was prepared to hear. There was, the airline representative said, a family on their way home from meeting their son’s body as it returned from Afghanistan, and they needed seats on the flight. And there they were, standing beside her, looking at us, waiting to see what we would decide. It wasn’t a hard decision for me; my plans were easily adjusted. I volunteered, as did two women whom I later learned sacrificed important personal plans.

But we three were not enough: Six were needed. So we stood there watching the family – dignified and mute, weighed with grief and fatigue – as the airline representative repeatedly called for assistance for this dead soldier’s family. No one else stepped forward. The calls for volunteers may have lasted only 20 or 30 minutes, but it seemed hours. It was almost unbearable to watch, yet to look away was to see the more than 100 other witnesses to this tragedy who were not moved to help. Then it did become unbearable when, in a voice laced with desperation and tears, the airline representative pleaded, “This young man gave his life for our country, can’t any of you give your seats so his family can get home?” Those words hung in the air. Finally, enough volunteers stepped forward.

I had trouble sleeping that night; I could not get out of my mind the image of the family or the voice pleading for them.When I met my fellow volunteers the next morning at the airport, I found I was not alone. One had gone home and cried, and another had awakened at 3 a.m.; all of us were angry and ashamed that our fellow passengers had not rushed to aid this soldier’s family and consequently had forced them to be on public display in their grief. We worried that this indifference to their son’s sacrifice added to their sorrow.

It turned out my destination was his hometown, so I was able to learn his name and more. I learned he had been a talented graffiti artist and had married his sweetheart, Hannah, the day before he deployed to Afghanistan. They planned a big wedding with family and friends for after he returned home. I learned how proud he was to become a Marine in January 2009. I learned that he and his fellow Marines liked to give the candy they received from home to Afghan children. In sum, I learned that he was the kind of honorable, patriotic young person we want defending our country and how great our loss is that he had to give his life in doing so.

I posted a message to his family on the online condolence book. I told them I was sorry for what they went through in trying to see their son’s body home, but because of it, many more people were going to have heard of Justin and his dedication to his country: I was going to tell everyone I knew about what I had witnessed and tell them his name. And I have.

I thought that was enough, until I received a thank-you note from Lance Cpl. Wilson’s father-in-law.It was a completely humbling experience; he wrote that he was glad I had been able to learn about Justin, and he wanted me to know that Justin “served knowing the risks, but felt it was his obligation and privilege to serve his country.” At that moment, I realized that in this day of an all-volunteer military and a distant war that touches so few of our lives directly, more people should hear the story of Lance Cpl. Wilson and his family.

I’ve thought a lot about what happened that day in the airport, and I choose to believe my fellow passengers were not unfeeling in the face of a soldier’s death and a family’s tragedy. They were just caught off guard – they were totally unprepared to confront the fierce consequences of the war in Afghanistan on their way to Palm Beach on a sunny afternoon.And I believe it was for this reason that people did not rush to the podium to volunteer their seats. It was not that they did not want to, and it was not that they did not think it was the right thing to do. Rather, it was because they were busy trying to assimilate this unexpected confrontation with the irrevocable cost of war and to figure out how to fit doing the right thing into their plans – to fit it into their lives not previously touched by this war. In the end, enough of us figured out how to do the right thing, and it turned out as well as such a painful situation could.

But still I wonder: Barring some momentous personal event that necessitated a seat on that flight, how could any of us even have hesitated? How could we have stopped to weigh any inconvenience to our plans against the sacrifice Lance Cpl. Wilson and his family had made for our country? In such circumstances, it is not a question of recognizing the right thing to do; we should know it is the only thing to do.

From what I have learned of him, in his short life, Lance Cpl. Wilson created a legacy of courage and patriotism that will not be forgotten by those who knew him. I hope there’s a greater legacy as well. I hope through this account of his family’s struggle to see him home, if ever again the war intrudes unbidden on my life or yours, we will know what we must do, and in their honor, and for all those who serve and sacrifice, we will do it.

Colleen M. Getz works in the NATO policy office of the Department of Defense.

Court accused of coveringfor Obama in ‘Walpingate’

Source: WND

Court accused of covering for Obama in ‘Walpingate’

Judge appears to be stonewalling scandal linked to White House

By Drew Zahn

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin, whose dismissal by President Obama last year has been challenged by congressmen as potentially illegal political retaliation, is now stepping up the battle to get his job back, accusing the judicial system of stalling his case and, thus, doing the White House a convenient favor.

Court documents filed last week accuse U.S. District Court Judge Richard Roberts of failing to act within federally mandated time requirements and “doing nothing at all” to move the case forward.

Similarly, a joint congressional report by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., which found the administration had failed to comply with requirements of the law and “orchestrated an after-the-fact smear campaign to justify the president’s action,” has been allowed to languish.

Meanwhile, “Walpingate” fades from the public memory, and the White House has moved on to appoint Walpin’s replacement, as though the scandal were resolved.

The advantage the White House gains by delays in the case hasn’t been lost on a recent Washington Times editorial, which calls for a halt to nomination of Jonathan Hatfield to Walpin’s old position:

“[Judge Roberts] has played into the hands of the Obama administration, which has used every possible stalling tactic to keep the case buried and its merits unexamined,” the editorial contends. “The goal, which is highly improper, seems to be to render Mr. Walpin’s case moot by putting Mr. Hatfield in his place.”

The editorial insists the integrity of the offices of inspector general is even more important for “an administration increasingly known for outlandish stonewalling of Congress and the press and for its Justice Department’s refusal to investigate any purported administration wrongdoing.”

As WND reported, the White House fired Walpin from his watchdog position over the Corporation for National and Community Services shortly after the inspector general exposed sexual misconduct and gross misappropriation of federal funds by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter.

Independent federal inspectors general, however, are supposed to be granted special protection from political interference or retaliation – thanks in part to a law co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama – to ensure they are free to investigate waste and fraud uninfluenced by political cronyism.

Congressmen Grassley and Issa, however, issued a report suspecting Obama of violating his own law.

“Throughout our investigation of Mr. Walpin’s removal, the White House has repeatedly communicated that the president was not motivated by inappropriate political reasons,” said Issa. “The fact is Gerald Walpin led an aggressive investigation of a political ally of President Obama that successfully recovered taxpayer dollars. While firing an investigator who uncovered the abuse of funds by a political ally might be considered an act of ‘political courage’ in Chicago politics, for most Americans it raises troubling questions.”

Walpin had sued the CNCS in July of last year, seeking reinstatement. Dozens of procedural steps and court filings later, however, the judge has refused to take any action on the case, save granting the defense an extension and denying a preliminary injunction request that would have required the CNCS to supply affidavits and documents in its defense.

Now Walpin is petitioning a higher court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to issue a writ of mandamus directing Judge Roberts to either promptly resolve the outstanding motions in the lawsuit or transfer the case to a judge who can.

According to court filings, Walpin “brings this petition reluctantly, and only after trying by every other means reasonable available to try to break the logjam in his case.”

The documents also cite Grassley and Issa’s report, before declaring the judge “need not have allowed such unlawfulness to continue and should, at the very least, have ensured that the substantive questions be timely tried.”

The origins of ‘Walpingate’

In 2008, Walpin was overseeing an investigation of St. HOPE Academy, a charter school founded and operated by Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and self-described friend of Barack Obama. Walpin referred Johnson to the U.S. attorney’s office for criminal and civil prosecution for “false and fraudulent conduct in connection with $845,018.75 in federal funds.”

According to Walpin’s referral, St. HOPE used members of AmeriCorps – which is run by CNCS – for political campaigning to re-elect Board of Education incumbents, and the hours spent on those elections were improperly recorded as AmeriCorps service hours.

“The money was given to St. HOPE to finance AmeriCorps members, who are basically volunteers that they call members, to do tutoring in schools among disadvantaged students,” Walpin told Eric Hogue of Hogue News. “My investigation found they didn’t use the AmeriCorps members for tutoring; they used them to drive Mr. Johnson around, to wash his car, to do all sorts of janitorial and administrative work [that] the money wasn’t given to them for.”

Johnson’s eligibility to receive federal grants was consequently suspended on Sept. 24, 2008.

Despite Johnson’s proven misconduct, the voters of Sacramento elected him mayor less than two months later. But when, in February 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the city of Sacramento’s eligibility to receive stimulus funds under ARRA was thought to be threatened by Johnson’s suspension.

The U.S. attorney’s office, headed by acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown, negotiated a favorable settlement for Johnson that reinstated his eligibility to receive federal funds.

According to Grassley’s and Issa’s report, however, the settlement included “no meaningful guarantee” that the United States would ever actually collect any payments from St. HOPE, which was saddled with the bulk of the settlement.

Last May, Walpin, who had been shut out of the settlement negotiations by Brown, complained to the board that oversees AmeriCorps funding, prompting Brown to file a complaint against Walpin.

Three weeks later, Walpin received a phone call from the White House telling him to resign or be fired. Walpin refused the phone ultimatum and was fired 45 minutes later, despite a law requiring the president to give 30-days notice to Congress before removing an IG and to explain the reasons for doing so.

And while the firing alone was enough to trigger Grassley’s demand for an investigation and an initial report in June 2009, documents cited in Grassley and Issa’s final, joint report cast the firing in an even more political light:

  • Brown, sometimes referred to in the press as a Republican critic of Walpin, actually left the GOP in 1988 and registered as a Democrat through 2007.
  • Brown wrote a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in the midst of the Johnson investigation, laying out his qualifications for and seeking a political appointment to the U.S. attorney position. The congressional investigation report concludes, “It would be reasonable for an already skeptical public to wonder whether Brown excluded Inspector General Walpin from negotiations and settled the St. HOPE matter with Johnson in order to curry favor with the White House because Brown wanted the president to appoint him.”
  • Brown and Matthew Jacobs, Kevin Johnson’s attorney, frequently exchanged informal emails deriding and scoffing over Walpin, emails the report states “do not suggest an appropriately arm’s length negotiating relationship.” Further, the report states, “Together with his efforts to obtain a political appointment from the president, Brown’s communications with Johnson’s attorney contribute to the appearance that Walpin’s removal was more about his vigorous pursuit of the St. HOPE matter than about any other legitimate, unrelated factors.”
  • An internal memo that reveals that the White House considered issues in deciding to remove Walpin that it did not disclose in the official notice to Congress, including a complaint about Walpin’s investigation of another Obama political ally in New York.

Grassley and Issa concluded, “None of the documents produced after the publication of our initial report undermine or conflict with the conclusions of the [final] report. Arguably, some of the new documents could actually reinforce the public perception that the inspector general was removed for political reasons.

“In particular, the revelation that the acting U.S. attorney was seeking a presidential appointment at the time he filed a complaint against Walpin puts that complaint in a different light,” they continue. “Moreover, the fact that the White House allowed the documents to be withheld for so long and that it required so much effort to finally obtain them also suggests a lack of transparency that is inconsistent with the goals repeatedly articulated by President Obama for a more open and accountable administration.”

The Court of Appeals has issued an order for all sides in the Walpin lawsuit to submit response to Walpin’s filing within the next seven days.

Source: Judicial Watch

FBI Probes Charity Exposed By Fired Inspector Gen.

Last Updated: Thu, 06/18/2009 – 3:06pm

A mayor’s charity exposed for fraud by a fired inspector general is being investigated by the FBI for obstructing an investigation into its suspicious spending of federal funds.

The charity’s founder, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, illegally used nearly $1 million in federal funds to pay volunteers for political activities, run personal errands and even wash his car. After acknowledging that “there may have been administrative errors,” the mayor reached a settlement with federal prosecutors to repay more than $400,000 with no further penalties.

The government agency watchdog (Gerald Walpin) that investigates taxpayer-financed community service groups was the first to discover the fraud at Johnson’s nonprofit. But the mayor is a close political ally of Barack Obama’s so the president abruptly fired Walpin this week, violating a law that safeguards the independence of federal watchdogs.

Now a Sacramento newspaper reports that the FBI is investigating claims from the nonprofit’s (St. HOPE) executive director that a high-ranking official obstructed a federal inquiry by deleting Johnson’s electronic mails during the investigation. In a resignation letter published by the paper, the executive director says that a board member accessed St. HOPE’s e-mail system and deleted some of Johnson’s e-mails.

“We had to pay thousands of dollars to recover the information deleted from our e-mail system as a result of this highly inappropriate and potentially unlawful incursion into our e-mail system,” the former director’s letter says. “We are still unsure whether all of the deleted information has been recovered.”

St. HOPE is one of many local charities nationwide that annually gets thousands of dollars in federal grants from the government’s so-called national service programs. Among them is AmeriCorps, which annually distributes millions of federal dollars to local groups to conquer everything from illiteracy to affordable housing and the environment.

Founded in 1989, Johnson’s St. HOPE claims to help poor inner-city youth access educational opportunities, leadership training, character development and spiritual growth. The taxpayer-funded group has been rocked by scandal and turmoil however, with the resignations of key board members, an absent chief financial officer and the misuse of federal funds. A recent newspaper editorial said the group is in utter disarray.

Source: Judicial Watch

Obama Blocks Probe Of Fired IG

Last Updated: Wed, 12/23/2009 – 3:55pm

Violating its own guarantee of unprecedented transparency, the White House is blocking an investigation into the controversial firing of an inspector general who exposed one of President Obama’s political supporters—a California mayor—for misusing federal funds.

First Lady Michelle Obama was reportedly behind the contentious June dismissal of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin and congressional investigators want to interview the aide (Jackie Norris) who may have given the order. At the time Norris was the First Lady’s chief of staff but the White House counsel’s office has blocked investigators from interviewing her, according to a national news report.

Norris is currently a senior advisor at the organization that oversees AmeriCorps, the country’s national services program which annually receives millions of federal dollars to conquer everything from illiteracy to affordable housing and the environment. During his tenure as inspector general, Walpin exposed a multi million-dollar fraud scheme in AmeriCorps’ most expensive program, a teaching fellow project at the City University of New York, and he busted a Sacramento charity, operated by a powerful Obama ally who happens to be the city’s mayor, for misusing nearly $1 million in federal grants.

The mayor (Obama pal Kevin Johnson) illegally used the money to pay volunteers for political activities, run personal errands and even wash his car. Johnson, a former professional basketball player, acknowledged that there “may have been administrative errors” and reached a settlement with federal prosecutors to repay about half of the money. This certainly indicates that Walpin did his job of rooting out government fraud, waste and abuse quite efficiently.

It also explains why Obama has yet to come up with a valid reason—other than retaliation for busting his corrupt friend—to fire Walpin. The president violated a law that safeguards the independence of government agency watchdogs and the Democratic senator (Missouri’s Claire McCaskill) who authored the measure blasted the commander-in-chief for removing an inspector general who exposed widespread waste in taxpayer-financed community service groups.

Obama “failed to follow the proper procedure” in notifying Congress about the removal and for failing to give a valid reason for the termination, according to McCaskill. Obama first said that he lost confidence in Walpin and later amended the story by claiming that that the otherwise efficient watchdog was “confused” and “disoriented” at a meeting.

Source: Judicial Watch

Obama Breaks Law In Govt. Watchdog Firing

Last Updated: Wed, 06/17/2009 – 2:37pm

Barack Obama violated a law that safeguards the independence of government agency watchdogs when he fired an inspector general who found that one of the president’s political supporters—a California mayor—misused federal funds.

The Democratic senator who authored the law (passed by Congress last year) relating to the termination of government agency watchdogs blasted her good friend the commander-in-chief this week for abruptly removing an inspector general who has exposed widespread waste in taxpayer-financed community service groups.

In a statement posted on her U.S. Senate website, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill says Obama “failed to follow the proper procedure” in notifying Congress about the inspector general removal and for failing to give a valid reason for the termination. Earlier this week Obama said he had lost confidence in the inspector general (Gerald Walpin) but McCaskill reminds the president that loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason.

The president has subsequently amended his story, blaming Walpin’s removal on the fact that he was “confused” and “disoriented” at a meeting last month. Walpin certainly seemed lucid during his tenure as inspector general of the country’s national service programs, which annually receive millions of federal dollars to conquer everything from illiteracy to affordable housing and the environment.

He exposed a multi million-dollar fraud scheme in AmeriCorps’ most expensive program, a teaching fellow project at the City University of New York and he busted a Sacramento charity, operated by a powerful Obama ally who happens to be the city’s mayor, for misusing nearly $1 million in federal grants. The mayor, Kevin Johnson, illegally used the money to pay volunteers for political activities, run personal errands and even wash his car.

Johnson, a former professional basketball player, acknowledged that there “may have been administrative errors” and reached a settlement with federal prosecutors to repay about half of the money. This certainly indicates that Walpin did his job of rooting out government fraud, waste and abuse quite efficiently. It also explains why Obama can’t come up with a valid reason to fire him.

Additional Resource:

AmeriCorps Inspector General Shredded White House Documents at Request of Agency’s Spokeswoman
By Fred Lucas
November 12, 2009

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Obama Used Bill Clinton To Orchestrate Sestak Bribery Scheme

Source: Judicial Watch

Obama Used Bill Clinton To Orchestrate Sestak Bribery Scheme

Surprise, surprise the White House has completed a thorough investigation into the Joe Sestak bribery scandal and determined that no one in the Obama Administration committed any crimes because Bill Clinton actually carried out the shady scheme to eliminate the Pennsylvania congressman from the U.S. Senate race.

A few months ago Sestak, a two-term congressman from Philadelphia, revealed on national television that the White House tried bribing him to drop out of this year’s U.S. Senate race. The popular Democratic lawmaker said he was offered a top federal job to keep him from challenging Senator Arlen Specter in this month’s primaries. After nearly three decades as a Republican, Specter became a Democrat last spring after giving Obama the critical vote for his disastrous $787 billion stimulus and the president vowed to help him get reelected.

Instead Specter, an institution in Pennsylvania politics, got dethroned by Sestak in last week’s Democratic primaries just as Camp Obama had feared. It marked a huge defeat for the five-term incumbent who once chaired the powerful Judiciary Committee and presided over nomination hearings of federal judges. While Specter’s political career has come to a halt the scandal surrounding the president’s unscrupulous effort to help him remain in office continues full throttle.

After months of stonewalling, the White House finally gave into the public demand for an explanation on how the deal went down. The facts are especially important because many laws have been violated in the Sestak matter, including 18 USC 210: Offer to procure appointive public office; 18 USC 211: Acceptance of solicitation to obtain appointive public office; 18 USC 595: Interference by administrative employees by Federal, State or Territorial Governments; and 18 USC 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity.

The laughable probe was conducted by a less than objective party, the president’s White House counsel, because Attorney General Eric Holder refused to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter. The predictable conclusion is that the Obama Administration is off the hook because the president’s clever chief of staff used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to convince Sestak to drop out of the Senate race. Besides, investigators found that Sestak was offered an unpaid “advisory position,” which is perfectly legal anyways.

That’s not what Sestak says, though he has refused to offer specifics. Reports indicate that he was actually offered a “senior position” in the Obama Administration to drop out of the Democratic primary race. Regardless of that discrepancy, both sides agree that Bill Clinton was the point man. The former commander-in-chief was called upon because he’s a prominent party leader who wields tremendous power yet can’t be held accountable.

If this doesn’t constitute political sleaze, then what does? How about dangling a federal judgeship in front of a soon-to-be-fired staffer to avoid a big public scandal? Just last week a Washington insider revealed that Obama offered his first White House counsel (Gregory Craig) a federal judgeship in exchange for his resignation. It seems that change has indeed come to Washington.


Sestak Memo Only Raises More Questions

Filed under: Corruption, Eric Holder, Laws, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — Tags: , — - @ 6:14 pm

Source: The Foundry

Sestak Memo Only Raises More Questions

Posted By Hans von Spakovsky

Robert Bauer, the White House Counsel, has released a two-page memorandum [1] in response to the controversy involving Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and the promise by President Obama at his news conference yesterday that there would be “an official response shortly” from the White House. The administration has been stalling for months about giving a full explanation of what happened and who was involved in potentially violating federal law ever since Sestak first claimed he had been offered a position in the administration in exchange for withdrawing his primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter. The facts recited in the memorandum do not let the White House off the hook, even if the White House claims otherwise,

Bauer’s memorandum denies that Sestak was offered a position as Secretary of the Navy. What supposedly was offered was “service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity.” (Sestak originally said he was offered a “job,” not an advisory position).

Bauer titles this particular paragraph as “Uncompensated Advisory Board Options.” Bauer denies that White House staff directly discussed these offers with Sestak; instead, Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff, enlisted former President Bill Clinton to “raise” these options with Sestak. Sestak “declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”

Bauer asserts, without providing any examples, that there “have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior Administrations…discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office.” He then concludes that “[s]uch discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Why would it take months for the White House to offer this explanation if the offer were legal and ethical? The likely reason is that it is, in fact, not legal. Bauer seems to be basing his claim that there was no violation of federal law on the assertions that 1) the positions offered to Sestak were “uncompensated” and 2) the offer(s) were not made directly by the Chief of Staff, but by Bill Clinton. However, 18 U.S.C. § 600 [2] makes it a crime for:

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election…

Bauer admits that Rahm Emanuel asked Bill Clinton to offer Sestak an appointment to a “Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch Advisory Board,” and that the appointment would be attractive, i.e., a benefit. The statute does not absolve you of liability if you are offering someone an uncompensated appointment. It also specifies that you are guilty of a violation if you make such an offer “directly or indirectly.” Moreover, since the executive branch may not spend money that is not appropriated by Congress, any such board would be authorized by or at least paid for by an “Act of Congress.”

Bill Clinton is potentially guilty of a direct violation of this statute since it applies to anyone whether they are in the executive branch or simply conspiring with members of the executive branch. This is certainly a new wrinkle to this scandal, but there is no question, based on Bauer’s own admissions in the memorandum, that Rahm Emanuel indirectly promised an appointment to Sestak as a “reward” for political activity “in connection with a primary election.”

Of course, what is not answered in this memorandum are the exact details of when this occurred, what exactly was said in the conversations between Emanuel and Clinton, and Clinton and Sestak, or most importantly, whether or not President Obama had any knowledge of what Emanuel was proposing either before or after it occurred. We also have no indication of who exactly investigated this matter and whether Emanuel was questioned under oath, whether there are any phone, email or other written records to support the conclusions in the memorandum, or whether any information has been forwarded to the Justice Department (which is responsible for investigating and enforcing the federal laws that may have been broken).

This memorandum also does not mention a similar incident that has also not been investigated. In September of last year, The Denver Post [3] reported that top Colorado Democrats told the newspaper that Jim Messina, President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff, offered a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency, to Colorado legislator Andrew Romanoff. This after news leaked that Romanoff was “determined to make a Democratic primary run against Sen. Michael Bennet.” While White House spokesman Adam Abrams was quoted as saying that Romanoff was never offered a position in the administration, the exact nature and content of the conversation(s) that Messina had with Romanoff have never been disclosed. Was this incident actually investigated by the White House Counsel’s Office? By the Justice Department? If not, why not? Was Messina interviewed under oath? Was this another case of Chicago-style, hardball politics being applied in Colorado as well as Pennsylvania?

The Justice Department has a duty to investigate such possible violations of federal law. So far, however, the Attorney General has shown no inclination to fulfill his obligations and uphold his oath to faithfully and impartially enforce the laws of the United States. That is especially important now when, according to the information contained in White House Counsel Robert Bauer’s own memorandum, the elements of a federal crime were apparently committed by the White House Chief of Staff and even more surprisingly, a former president of the United States.

Search 18 U.S.C. § 600 : US Code – Section 600: Promise of employment or other benefit for political activity

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

How radical Islam and the Left are sabotaging America

Source: Washington Examiner

Obama afraid to call it a ‘war on terror’

By: Andrew C. McCarthy
OpEd Contributor
May 24, 2010

Part one of a three-part series

President Obama’s administration has been roundly ridiculed, and deservedly so, for its aversion to the language of war — indeed, for the word war itself. From the Bush language purge, though, it was but a short hop to this sorry destination. Short and inevitable.

Saul Alinsky, Obama’s community-organizing inspiration, waxed at length about language in “Rules for Radicals,” about the power of words to inspire … or to enervate.

The president learned his lessons well: bloodless prolixity deftly imposed from who knows where within Leviathan’s sprawl. It was not the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or even the National Intelligence Directorate but the Office of Management and Budget that advised the Pentagon that the word war is now out.

“This administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror,’ ” said the new, March 2009 guidance. Our warriors were curtly told, “Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

That this “overseas contingency” on which we are “operating” has left a rather large (and still unfilled) hole in the ground in lower Manhattan apparently was beside the point. Or, better, was exactly the point.War is a powerful word, redolent of power, force, zeal and national purpose. That is why the left routinely invokes war in its beloved campaigns against poverty, obesity, and other abstractions.

Real wars, the forcible defense of our nation and the pursuit of our interests, are to be avoided. So are real enemies.

Thus came the complementary announcement (an affirmation filed in federal court by Attorney General Eric Holder) that “enemy combatants” aren’t enemy combatants anymore. They are simply “individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay.”

Unfortunately, that formulation ran the risk that we might confuse jihadists with Cuban refugees.

During the Clinton administration, in which Holder served as deputy attorney general, those apprehended while seeking to escape Communist tyranny also became known as “individuals currently detained at Guantanamo Bay” — a policy aggressively defended by the Justice Department at the time, without much harrumphing from the left.

Perhaps that’s why Holder interchangeably used “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations” — more precise, though not quite as catchy.

As in the final Bush years, “Islam” is not to be uttered in conjunction with “terror.” Our “contingency” is only with “violent extremists,” and we wouldn’t presume to suggest that they are motivated by anything other than, say, George Bush, Abu Ghraib or the existence of Guantanamo Bay.

In Obamalogic, people who live in foreign sharia societies where women are stoned for adultery somehow appreciate the American jurisprudential distinction between detention under the laws of war and detention under civilian due process. And what do you know? Just like the American left, they turn out to be profoundly offended by the military detention.

That, we’re told, is the root cause of terro– er, violent extremism — notwithstanding that there was no Gitmo on 9/11 or during the raft of atrocities that predated it. The word terror is passe. We wouldn’t want to use a term that comes straight out of the Koran. Rather than terrorism, Obama’s hapless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano explained, she prefers the term “man-caused disaster.”

Bloodless is one thing, but mindless?

A civilization fights to preserve itself or it dies. Has ours become so hollow, such a pale imitation of its former self? Do we lack the capacity even to speak of the evils arrayed against us? Have we become so cowardly that our censure is reserved for our saviors, not our pillagers?

The Grand Jihad is banking on it.

Ignorance about Islamic radicalism is our downfall

By: Andrew C. McCarthy
OpEd Contributor
May 25, 2010

Part two of a three-part series

Hassan al-Banna, a charismatic, Cairo-trained educator known to his acolytes as “the Guide,” established the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. Its solution to the problems ailing Muslims was a very particular brand of Islam: Salafism.

The term Salafiyyah refers to the “Righteous Ancestors,” Mohammed and his companions. Banna, a scholar of Salafism’s original 19th century theorists, reasoned that by degrading the unalloyed Islam of the first Islamic community with countless accommodations to modernity, Muslims had strayed from the prophet’s teaching.

He was a student of Rashid Rida, an intensely anti-Western “reformer” who argued that the religious and political elements of Islam were inseparable. Banna echoed Rida’s vigorous rejection of rationalism, seeking to steer Salafism away from modernizing Western influences.Only by returning to the Islam of the founders could the umma — the Muslim Nation — reverse its political, economic and social torpor. This would require faithfully implementing the divine law, sharia.

With sharia’s injunctions firmly in place, the Muslim Nation would inevitably rise to the hegemony that was Allah’s due. “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated,” Banna taught. The mission of Islam is “to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

Today, ignorance about Islamist ideology is widespread, even after decades of attacks have made Islamic terrorism the top U.S. security challenge. Salafism, in particular, remains a mystery to most Americans, though it is the enemy’s animating ideology. Islamists have used our ignorance to great effect.

Most Americans who have some passing acquaintance with the term “Salafist” assume it is a label for terrorists. Therefore, in the public mind, Salafists are the real bad guys, to be sharply distinguished from the ubiquitous Muslim “moderates” — who are purportedly “moderate” because they allegedly “reject terrorism,” not because their views are actually benign.

This is a hopelessly ill-conceived construct, but leftists — who dominate policy circles, the academy and the media — are delighted to have us see things this way. With Americans in the dark, Islamists freely pass themselves off as moderates. That makes it politically palatable for the left to collaborate with them in undermining the American establishment.

There’s no reason, however, why the rest of us should abide an arrangement, steeped in fiction, which steadily erodes our liberty and security.

To be clear: Salafism, the original inspiration of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the guiding ideology of all Islamists, the Islamist terrorists as well as those Islamists who purport to reject terrorism. Both types of Islamists want the same thing: the Islamization of society.

Both reject Western rationalism and the Christian unity of faith and reason. Both favor Sharia determinism. Both support the development of fundamentalist Muslim enclaves and the ultimate supplanting of American constitutional democracy by Islamic law.

Nonterrorist Islamists want to overthrow the U.S. government every bit as much as the terrorists do. They are not moderates. Their differences with the terrorists are over means and methods, not goals.

True, some of these differences are intense and each side fires invective, and worse, at the other. But we should not be fooled by any of this. For all their infighting, the Islamists and the terrorists start and hope to end in the same place.

They are the flip sides of the same revolution, playing a good cop/bad cop routine — which is really bad cop/worse cop. The differences between the two camps are overwhelmingly a matter of tactics, not goals. They have a lot more in common with each other than they do with the West — starting with brute fact that they both see America as their enemy.

Jihadist glorified on silver screen

By: Andrew C. McCarthy
OpEd Contributor
May 27, 2010

Part three of a three-part series

Government’s distortions about the nature of Islam in America can be distressing. Even worse are the places where those distortions are willfully solicited. Take, for instance, Johari Abdul-Malik.

Recall he’s the Virginia imam who starred in the State Department’s cinematic hagiography “Eid in America.” Abdul-Malik is an African-American from Brooklyn who converted to Islam.

If the video is your only encounter, you’ll reckon him up as the warm, avuncular “Director of Outreach” at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church. For the unwary viewer, the friendly Islamic Center, and its ur-tolerant companion, the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque, instantiate Muslim life in the United States.

I daresay the cutting room floor was more interesting … and more accurate.

State apparently thought it best not to include footage of Imam Abdul-Malik’s call for “sabotage” terrorist attacks against Israel. As he put it in 2001:

“You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies … the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.”

Yes, what better way to show respect!

Of course, not alluding to this speech spared State the embarrassment of explaining that the conference at which Abdul-Malik gave it was hosted by the Islamic Association of Palestine, the epicenter of U.S. support for Hamas, itself the Palestinian terrorist branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Perhaps Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has forgotten that the self-proclaimed “purpose” of Hamas — according to its charter — is “to create an Islamic Palestinian state throughout Israel by eliminating the State of Israel through violent jihad.” One might have thought, however, that she’d at least vaguely recall Hamas as the thug central her husband formally designated as a global terrorist organization, one of the first ever so recognized under U.S. law.

Nor, evidently, did State think it wise to include Abdul-Malik’s 2004 promise of Islamic supremacy in America. He made it in a Friday “sermon,” the sacerdotal cloak for many an Islamist tirade:

“Alhamdullilah [Praise to Allah] and we will live, will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life … I’m telling you don’t take it for granted because Allah is increasing this deen [religion] in your lifetime. Alhamdullilah that soon, soon … before Allah closes our eyes for the last time, you will see Islam move from being the second-largest religion in America — that’s where we are now — to being the first religion in America.”

As it happens, “outreach” at Dar al-Hijrah is just Abdul-Malik’s day job. As a sideline, he is a director of the National Association of Muslim Chaplains.

The founder and president of that outfit, Warith Deen Umar, has glorified the 9/11 hijackers, explaining that “even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud” them.

For his part, Abdul-Malik is a bit more circumspect. When asked by the investigative journalist Paul Sperry about other “sermons” at the mosque that lionize violent jihad and “martyrdom,” Abdul-Malik couldn’t see what the problem might be. In their own way, he explained, Muslims are like United States marines, a spiritual force in Allah’s cause:

“Telling people to give their all for their faith is not an unusual idea. That’s the same thing as telling Marines in this country semper fidelis.”

I somehow think our marines fighting and dying in Afghanistan would not be flattered by the comparison.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor and author of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America,” from which this is adapted.

Detroit transit sued for nixing ‘Leaving Islam?’ ad

By Walt Long, Jr.

Go get em Pam!!!! For information right from the source, go to Pam’s site at Atlas Shrugs.

The Muslim’s use this type of advertising called Da’wa. It is amazing how the tables are turned on Islam that they scream and yell foul play. If you want to advertise individuals to Islam and use a false pretense as the Qur’an having Jesus mentioned as part of Isalm, then maybe you should also advise the people that the Qur’an states G-d did not have a son, far be it from G-d to have a son.

I will let the Qur’an speak for itself, then you can judge for yourself. These are just a few of the many such hatred for Christians and of course the Jews, I will not bore you with a lot of verses:

Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.'”
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah only said: ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'”

Qur’an 5:14 “From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot and abandoned a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, stirred up enmity and hatred among them to the Day of Doom. Soon will Allah show them the handiwork they have done.”

Qur’an 5:73 “They are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: ‘God is one of three in the Trinity for there is no Ilah (God) except One, Allah. If they desist not from saying this (blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall them – the disbelievers will suffer a painful doom.”
Qur’an 5:75 “The Messiah, Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had to eat their food. See how Allah does make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded!”

Source: Washington Times

ASSOCIATED PRESS INFLAMMATORY? This ad, created by Stop Islamization of America, has already been been used on public buses in Miami and New York City. The Detroit-area bus authority has refused to use the ad, but SIOA has filed suit in federal court to force its use.

Detroit transit sued for nixing ‘Leaving Islam?’ ad


A bus-ad campaign that seeks to offer resources to those considering leaving Islam already has stirred up controversy in Miami and New York, but its next city may create the most fireworks – Detroit, the U.S. metropolitan area with the heaviest concentration of Middle Easterners.

The Detroit-area bus authority has refused to run the ads from Stop Islamization of America, an organization headed up by conservative activist and anti-jihad blogger Pamela Geller, prompting SIOA to file a federal lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Mrs. Geller said the transport authority’s refusal to run her ads violates her First Amendment right of free speech, and she will take the lawsuit to the Supreme Court if necessary.

“It is against the law, and I tell you, those ads will go up whether they like it or not,” Mrs. Geller said.

SIOA initially encountered a similar refusal in Miami, but Mrs. Geller said a lawsuit prompted the transport-authority there to relent in less than 24 hours.

Several calls to the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, which operates the bus system serving Detroit and two surrounding counties, were not returned Thursday.

Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Michigan, said he expects that even if the ads do run in Detroit, they will not elicit any response besides puzzlement. The Detroit area, centering on Dearborn, is home to a quarter-million Muslims, whom Mr. Walid does not expect to react favorably to the presence of SIOA’s ads in their city.

“If she’s planning to put those Islamophobic ads in Detroit, she’s wasting her time,” Mr. Walid said.

The Detroit area also has a large Arab and Middle Eastern Christian population, centering on suburbs north of the city proper.

Mrs. Geller said SIOA began its national city-by-city ad campaign in response to bus ads in Florida inviting people to convert to Islam.

The SIOA ads read, “Fatwah on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got Questions? Get answers!” and provides a Web address that links to organizations that serve Muslim apostates. The bus ads are running in Miami through June 15 and began running in New York last week and will run through late June, Mrs. Geller said.

Part of the conflict centers on whether Muslims are free to leave Islam without retribution, and whether their families will punish or kill them for conversion.

One such case that has made national headlines in the U.S. involves 17-year-old Rifqa Bary, who fled her parents’ Ohio home to stay with a Florida Christian minister after she converted. In the ensuing custody and foster care disputes, her Muslim parents deny that the girl will be harmed if she returns home.

Abdul Rahman, an Afghan citizen, was arrested in 2006 for converting to Christianity there, and members of his family asked prosecutors to seek the death penalty. But the international outcry over Mr. Rahman’s case, and the fact that the Afghan government was installed by the U.S. invasion – plus doubts about the case and Mr. Rahman’s sanity – combined to prompt the court to release him.

The consensus view among Muslim jurists worldwide is that apostasy, unless mitigated by such factors as mental illness or duress, is punishable by death. Mrs. Geller cited a fatwa, or ruling point on Islamic law, issued by the authoritative Al-Azhar University in 1978, that said: “This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent, and if he does not, then he must be killed, according to Shariah [law].”

Mr. Walid denied Mrs. Geller’s claims, though he provided no authoritative citations, and attacked Mrs. Geller’s character.

“She’s a well-known anti-Muslim bigot,” he said. “She makes no distinction between extremist Muslims and mainstream Muslims.”

Mr. Walid said that although there have been a few cases of violence against Muslims who convert away from the religion, there is no retribution for those who choose to leave Islam.

“People are free to leave Islam or any religion at any time. This is the United States of America,” he said.

But a public educator in Dearborn, speaking on the condition of anonymity owing to fear of retribution, said there is a climate of fear in the Detroit area’s Muslim community.

“The fear is palpable. I know there are things I am ‘not allowed’ to say. A discussion of religion with a Muslim person is often prefaced by the statement, ‘Dont say anything about the Prophet [Muhammad].’ In free society, open and honest conversation is not usually begun by a prohibition. Threats and intimidation are just part of life here.”

CAIR’s denial of the dangers of apostasy are part of the reason behind Mrs. Geller’s campaign, which she defined as a religious-freedom issue.

“We’re not encouraging people to leave Islam,” she said.

Whether or not the ads actually encourage apostasy, the furor elsewhere already have received a considerable amount of negative attention from American Muslims.

“The ads are to serve a purpose – to incite Islamophobia,” Mr. Walid said. “The average person here will see them for what they are.”

The Dearborn educator, however, said the ads serve a positive purpose.

“This kind of campaign and Americans support of it could assure these frightened Muslims that they have the rights that every other American has, that they will be protected, not abandoned or exposed to their leaders should they act upon their desire to be free,” the teacher said.


Stealth Jihad

Source :Legion

Stealth Jihad

Shariah law dictates worldwide conversion to Islam, whatever it takes.

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

For the first time in its history, the United States is trying to wage and win a war without accurately identifying the enemy or its motivations for seeking to destroy us. That oversight defies both common sense and past military experience, and it disarms us in what may be the most decisive theater of this conflict: the battle of ideas.

Such a breakdown may seem incredible to veterans of past military conflicts. Imagine fighting World War II without clarity about Nazism and fascism, or the Cold War without an appreciation of Soviet communism and the threat it posed.

Yet today, the civilian leaders of this country and their senior subordinates – responsible for the U.S. military, the intelligence community, homeland security and federal law enforcement – have systematically failed to fully realize that we once again face a totalitarian ideology bent on our destruction.

That failure is the more worrisome since the current ideological menace is arguably more dangerous than any we have faced in the past, for two reasons. First, its adherents believe their mission of global conquest is divinely inspired. Second, they are here in the United States in significant numbers, not just a threat elsewhere around the world.

What, then, is this ideology? It has been given many names in recent years, including political Islam, radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, extremist Islam and Islamofascism. There is, however, a more accurate descriptor – the one its adherents use. They call it “Shariah.”

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about Shariah is that it is authoritative Islam, which presents itself as a complete way of life – cultural, political, military, social and religious,

all governed by the same doctrine. In other words, this comprehensive program is not simply the agenda of extremists hunkered down in caves in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Neither can its directives be attributed to deviants hijacking Islam.

Rather, Shariah – which translates from Arabic as “path to God” – is actually binding law. It is taught as such by the most revered sacred texts, traditions, institutions, top academic centers, scholars and leaders of the Islamic faith. Fortunately, hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world do not wish to live under a brutally repressive, woman-demeaning, barbaric and totalitarian program. Such Muslims are potentially our allies, just as those who do adhere to Shariah are our unalterable foes.

The immutability of Shariah-adherent Muslim  hostility toward the rest of us derives directly from the central tenet of Shariah: Muslims are explicitly required to seek the triumph of Islam over all other faiths, peoples and governments.

The ultimate objective of Shariah is the establishment of a global Islamic state – Sunni Muslims call it “the caliphate” – governed by Shariah. The means by which this political outcome is to be achieved is called “jihad.”

Since 9/11, many Americans have become unhappily acquainted with the terrifying, violent strain of jihad. Under Shariah, violence – often described by non-Muslims as “terrorism” – is the preferred means of securing the spread and dominion of Islam, as it is the most efficient.

While Shariah deems jihad to be the personal obligation of every faithful Muslim capable of performing it – man or woman, young or old – they can forgo the violent form when it is deemed impracticable. In such circumstances, the struggle can be pursued through means that are, at least temporarily, non-violent. Taken together, the latter constitute what renowned author and expert Robert Spencer calls “stealth jihad.” Adherents to Shariah call it “dawah.”

Examples of stealth jihadism abound in Western societies, notably Europe and increasingly in the United States. They include the demand for symbolic and substantive accommodations in political, economic and legal areas (for example, special treatment or rights for Muslims in the workplace, in public spaces and by government); the opportunity to penetrate and influence operations against government at every level; and the insinuation of the Trojan horse of “Shariah-compliant finance” into the West’s capital markets.

If stealth jihad seems less threatening than terrorism, the objective is exactly the same as that of violent jihad: the subjugation to the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) of all non-Islamic states that, like the United States, make up the Dar al-harb (House of War). It follows that those who seek ostensibly to impose Shariah through non-violent techniques – notably in the West, the organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood – are our enemies every bit as much as those who overtly strive to defeat us by murderous terrorism.

Many Western elites, including the Obama administration, have been seduced by the seemingly benign quality of the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, we know from the 2008 prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation – the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history – that the Muslim Brothers’ mission in the United States is “a kind of grand jihad to destroy Western civilization from within … by their own miserable hands.”

Another Brotherhood document, titled “The Rulers,” was seized in a 2004 raid and describes how the organization will try to overthrow the U.S. Constitution in five phases:

• Phase I: Discreet and secret establishment of elite leadership

Phase II: Gradual appearance on the public scene, and exercising and utilizing various public activities

• Phase III: Escalation, prior to conflict and confrontation with the rulers, through the mass media

• Phase IV: Open public confrontation with the government through the exercise of political pressure

• Phase V: Seizing power to establish an Islamic nation, under which all parties and Islamic groups will become united

“The Rulers” makes plain that all the above-mentioned phases “are preliminary steps to reach the (fifth) phase.”

The Muslim Brothers know that by masking their ideological agenda as a religious program, they can use Western civil liberties and tolerance as weapons in their stealthy jihad. For this strategy to succeed, however, they must suppress any discussion or understanding of the true nature of Shariah.

Adherents to Shariah insist that their law prohibits any slander against Islam or Muhammad. Under such a catch-all restriction, virtually any kind of conversation about – or critique of – Islam can be considered impermissible if Muslims find it offensive. Particularly in Europe, the ever-present prospect of violence, like that which followed the September 2005 publication of Danish cartoons poking fun at Muhammad, is generally sufficient to induce self-censorship.

In this country, the application of such prohibitions seems unthinkable, given the guarantees of free speech enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Unfortunately, the Obama administration last year co-sponsored with Egypt a relevant and deeply problematic resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council, promoted for years by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim-majority nations that stridently embraces Shariah and seeks to legitimate and promote its advance around the world.

The resolution calls on members of the United Nations to prohibit statements that offend Islam. It also calls for criminal penalties to be applied to those who make such statements.

The U.S. implementation of such a resolution would obviously be a matter not just for the executive branch, which supported it, but for Congress and the judiciary as well. It is a safe bet that any formal effort to supplant the First Amendment in this way would meet with great resistance.

To a stunning degree, U.S. leaders have been effectively conforming to Shariah slander laws for some time now.  For instance, presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have both repeatedly described Islam as a “religion of peace,” without acknowledging the requirement for jihad its authorities demand, pursuant to Shariah.

At the Muslim Brotherhood’s insistence, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department have barred the use of perfectly accurate terms like “Islamic terrorism.” The U.S. government has also embraced the Muslim Brothers’ disinformation by translating jihad as nothing more than “striving in the path of God.”

Under the Bush and Obama administrations, the favored name for the enemy has been “violent extremism” – a formulation that neither offers clarity about the true nature of our foe nor lends itself to a prescription for a successful countervailing strategy. Even when al-Qaeda is identified as the enemy, it is almost always accompanied by an assurance that its operatives and allies have “corrupted” Islam. Ignored, or at least earnestly obscured, are two unhappy realities: such enemies are implementing Shariah’s dictates to the letter of the law, and they have millions of fellow adherents around the world who view Islam’s requirements the same way.

One of the most egregious examples of this practice of unilateral disarmament in the battle of ideas is the January report of the independent review of the Fort Hood massacre, co-chaired by former Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vernon Clark. Their 86-page unclassified analysis purported to dissect an event allegedly perpetrated by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan – a medical officer whose business card described him as “Soldier of Allah,” whose briefings justified murder of his comrades in the name of jihad, and who shouted the Islamic martyr’s cry “Allahu Akbar!” (“God is great!”) as he opened fire, killing 13. Incredibly, the words “Islam,” “Islamic terror,” “Shariah,” “jihad,” and “Muslim Brotherhood” were not used even once in the West-Clark report.

Such political correctness, or willful blindness up the chain of command, doubtless caused Hasan’s colleagues to keep silent about his alarming beliefs, lest they be punished for expressing concerns about them. Now, reportedly, six of them have been designated as the scapegoats for what is manifestly an institutional failure.

The painful truth is that however we rationalize this sort of behavior, our Shariah-adherent enemies correctly perceive it as evidence of submission, which is the literal meaning of the word “Islam,” and what Shariah demands of everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Indeed, Shariah offers non-believers only three choices: conversion to Islam, submission (known as dhimmitude) or death. Historically, dhimmitude was imposed through successful Muslim conquests. In more recent years, tolerant Western nations have increasingly succumbed to stealthy jihadism, backed by more or less direct threats of violence.

That trend, worrying as it is, may be giving way in this country to a new campaign: jihad of the sword. The past year saw a fourfold increase in the number of actual or attempted terrorist attacks in the United States. Sadly, that statistic will likely be surpassed in the year ahead. Four of the nation’s top intelligence officials have testified before Congress that it is certain new acts of violence will be undertaken in the next three to six months. Worse yet, a blue-ribbon commission has calculated that the probability of the use of weapons of mass destruction somewhere in the world by 2013 is now over 50 percent.

Is this dramatic upsurge in violent jihad directed at the United States unrelated to our behavior? Or does it reflect a growing calculation on the part of our Shariah-adherent enemies that violence against the United States is now, once again, practicable?

Either way, the time has clearly come to make a far more serious effort to defeat both the violent and stealthy forms of jihad being waged against this country. If we are to do so, however, we have to start by telling the truth.

Our enemy is not “violent extremism,” or even al-Qaeda alone. Rather, it is the millions of Muslims who – like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and their allies – adhere to Shariah and who, therefore, believe they must impose it on the rest of us.

We are at war with such individuals and organizations. Not because we want to be. Not because of policies toward Israel or the Middle East or anything else we have pursued in recent years. Rather, we are at war with them because they must wage jihad against us, pursuant to the dictates of Shariah, the same law that has guided many in Islam for some 1,200 years.

What is at stake in this war? Look no further than The American Legion’s Americanism Manual, which defines Americanism as “love of America; loyalty to her institutions as the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness; and the willingness to defend our country and Flag against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Such values cannot coexist with Shariah, which demands the destruction of democratic nations like the United States, its governing institutions and liberties. Shariah would supplant them with a repressive, transnational, theocratic government abroad and at home.

The extraordinary reality is that none of this – the authoritative and malevolent nature of Shariah, its utter incompatibility with our civilization, and its adherents’ determination to force us to convert, submit or die – is concealed from those willing to learn the truth. To the contrary, the facts are widely available via books, the Internet, DVDs and mosques, both here and overseas. Interestingly, on Dec. 1, 2005, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called on his troops to expose themselves to precisely this sort of information: “I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote ‘Mein Kampf.’ He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet, their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.”

As it happens, Maj. Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and Army Reserves intelligence specialist recruited by the Joint Chiefs to be their expert on the doctrine and jurisprudence of jihad, took Pace’s admonition to heart. He wrote a master’s thesis inspired by the chairman’s quote, titled “To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad.”

Coughlin’s briefings explicitly and repeatedly warned military leaders of the enemy’s “threat doctrine” – drawing from, among Islamic texts, passages the Fort Hood suspect used to justify his massacre. Unfortunately, engaging in such analysis, let alone acting on it, was powerfully discouraged in January 2008 when Coughlin was dismissed from the Joint Staff after he ran afoul of a Muslim Brother then working for Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

In short, we are today confronted by the cumulative effect of a sustained and collective dereliction of duty, one that is putting our country in extreme peril. Our armed forces – like their counterparts in the intelligence community, Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement – have a professional duty to know the enemy and develop appropriate responses to the threat doctrine. If this dereliction is allowed to persist, it is predictable that more Americans will die, both on foreign battlefields and at home.

The American people also need to become knowledgeable about the threat of Shariah and insist that action be taken at federal, state and local levels to keep our country Shariah-free. This toxic ideology, if left unchecked, can destroy the country and institutions that are, indeed, “the best yet devised by man to secure life, liberty, individual dignity and happiness.”

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington and host of the nationally syndicated program “Secure Freedom Radio.”

© 2010 The American Legion. All Rights Reserved.

Muslim Teachers in Pakistan Allegedly Abuse Christian Students

Source: Compass Direct

Muslim Teachers in Pakistan Allegedly Abuse Christian Students

Derogatory remarks, beatings, pressure to convert to Islam drive two girls to drop out.

SARGODHA, Pakistan, May 19 (CDN) — Muslim teachers at a girls school here have derided Christian students for their faith, beat them, pressured them to convert to Islam and forced them to clean school bathrooms and classrooms after class hours, according to area Christians.

Muslim teachers at Government Higher Secondary School in village No. 79-NB (Northern Branch), Sargodha, in Punjab Province, have so abused Christian students that two of the dozens of Christian girls at the school have dropped out, said a 16-year-old student identified only as Sana.

“Christian students are teased and mocked by radical Muslim, female teachers from the start of the school day to the end,” she said. “Due to the contemptuous behavior on religious grounds by the fanatical Muslim principal and staff, Christian students feel dejected, depressed and frustrated. I am totally broken-hearted because of the intolerance and discrimination.”

Rebecca Bhatti, a 16-year-old grade 10 student, told Compass she left the government school because her main teacher, along with an Islamic Education & Arabic Language teacher identified only as Sumaira, a math teacher identified only as Gullnaz, other Muslim teachers and Ferhat Naz, the principal, would call Christian girls in to the staff room at recess and demand that they polish their shoes or wash their undergarments and other clothes.

“If any girl turned down the orders of any of the Muslim teachers, they were punished,” Bhatti said as she spilled tears. “The Muslim school teachers ordered us to wash lavatories daily and clean the school compound and classrooms, even though there is staff to keep the school clean.”

She said that the school also denied Christian students certificates of completion when they had finished their studies.

“This was to bar Christian students from gaining admission to other educational institutions or continue their education,” she said.

The principal of Christian Primary School in the village, Zareena Emmanuel, said that Naz and Sumaira subjected Christian students to beatings. Emmanuel also said that Muslim teachers at the secondary school derided Christian students for their faith.

“I regret that it is the only government school of higher education for girls at the village and adjoining areas,” Emmanuel said, “and therefore Christian girls have to experience such apathy, religious discrimination and bitterness each day of their schooling, which is supposed to be a time of learning and imagination.”

Christian residents of the village said they have been longing to bring abuse at the school to light. The Rev. Zaheer Khan of Maghoo Memorial United Presbyterian Church and Emmanuel of the primary school have asked education department officials of Sargodha Region to investigate, he said.

Khan also said that Naz and Muslim teachers including Gullnaz, Sumaira and Muzammil Bibi have treated Christian students contemptuously and have frequently asked them to convert to Islam.

“The attitude of the Arabic & Islamic Education teacher, Sumaira, toward the Christian students is beyond belief,” he said, “as she has forced the Christian girls to wash toilets, classrooms and clean the school ground, saying they must not be hesitant to do sanitation work because it’s the work of their parents and forefathers handed down to them.”

Questioned about the abuses, Naz told Compass that she would immediately take note of such incidents if they had occurred.

“Any of the teachers held responsible of forcing Christian students convert to Islam will be punished according to the departmental rules and regulations,” Naz said. “A few Christian girls have abandoned their education because of their domestic problems, but even then I’ll carry out a departmental inquiry against the accused teachers, and no one will be spared if found guilty.”

Naz said the inquiry would focus especially on the accusations against Sumaira, Muzammil and Gullnaz.

Protesting residents gathered outside Naz’s office last week said she had no real intention of investigating the alleged abuses; some said she was making weak excuses to defend her staff members. They urged an independent investigation of Sumaira, Gullnaz, Muzammil and Naz.

“This cannot be tolerated, as it’s a matter of their girls’ careers and education,” said one protestor.

Noureen Austin, a 19-year-old Christian student in grade 12, described the school environment as discriminatory, depressed, gloomy and agitated.”

“No Christian student can get a quality education there,” she said. “Most of the school faculty are fanatical female Muslims who would not waste any chance to target Christian girls because of their belief in Christ.”

Strategy focuses on terrorists at home

Source: Washington Times

White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, seen here in January, told reporters Wednesday that national security strategy "explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home." (Associated Press)

Strategy focuses on terrorists at home

Internet used as tool to radicalize, recruit

By Eli Lake

President Obama’s new national security strategy will include a new focus on the threat posed by Americans who can be recruited and radicalized by al Qaeda through the Internet, the president’s senior counterterrorism adviser said Wednesday.

“The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat to the United States posed by individuals radicalized here at home,” said John Brennan, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, in a speech.

Mr. Brennan told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that “we have seen individuals, including U.S. citizens, armed with their U.S. passports, travel easily to extremist safe havens and return to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement.”

Mr. Brennan spoke on the eve of the release by the Obama administration of a new National Security Strategy report.

The new strategy, according to Mr. Brennan, will continue the George W. Bush administration strategy of seeking to distinguish al Qaeda terrorism from the religion of Islam. Mr. Brennan specifically said the Obama administration would no longer use the terms “Islamist” and “jihadist” “because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.”

At the same time, the new strategy states that the United States remains on a war footing against al Qaeda and seeks to destroy the group and its affiliates, Mr. Brennan said. He further noted that the group behind the Sept. 11 attacks is different from other Muslim terrorist groups that might have local grievances.

The emphasis on homegrown radicals reflects the recent trend of attacks and attempted attacks in the United States by U.S. citizens or residents who were inspired to wage terrorism as a result of information posted on the Internet.

The latest such attempt was purportedly made by Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalized American arrested in connection with an unsuccessful attempt to detonate a homemade car bomb in New York City’s Times Square.

Highlighting the new concerns about U.S. citizens becoming radicalized, Mr. Brennan declined to comment when asked if he thought al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden posed a greater danger to the United States than Anwar al-Awlaki.

Mr. al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born Yemeni cleric whose English and Arabic Internet sermons and e-mails have been credited with inspiring both Nigerian national Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day, and U.S. Army psychologist Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan, charged with killing 13 people during a Fort Hood, Texas, shooting rampage in November.

“I think they both present a threat to American security in different ways,” Mr. Brennan said. “Osama bin Laden, who has built up al Qaeda over the past two decades, is the titular head of that organization, and he is representative of the violence and the murderous agenda that al Qaeda holds.”

He went on: “But individuals like Anwar [al-]Awlaki, who recently released a video, demonstrated that his rhetoric is anything but peaceful. It’s anything but Islamic. It is dedicated to murder and lashing out. So they both have the ability to inspire and to try to prey on those victims who believe that they are true Muslims.”

Mr. al-Awlaki and Internet recruitment also were the focus of a recent report by the Rand Corp. that stated there has been a significant increase in indictments of Americans who were recruited for jihadist violence.

Eighty-one of 125 people were indicted for jihad-related crimes between 2002 and 2008. Forty-two people were indicted for such crimes in 2009, and two more were indicted in 2010, the report says.

The study, authored by former U.S. special operations officer Brian Jenkins, concludes that one in 30,000 Muslim Americans is vulnerable to radicalization, a fact “suggesting an American Muslim population that remains hostile to jihadist ideology and its exhortations to violence.”

The new threat is different in some ways from the immediate threat after Sept. 11, 2001. Then, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies were looking for highly trained sleeper cells and seeking to disrupt sophisticated attacks involving multiple targets and a network of operatives working together.

Today, the threat is posed mainly by individuals who are inspired to conduct attacks on civilians, however crudely, according to counterterrorism experts.

Suzanne Spaulding, a former staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said: “Here is what public officials need to say: ‘We are working incredibly hard to prevent another terrorist attack, but there is no guarantee, and one of these attacks may succeed. The important thing to remember is that we are a resilient nation.'”

The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide details on the issue of monitoring al Qaeda-oriented websites in English, where new people are often recruited to become terrorists.

When asked if the Obama administration wants broader authority for such domestic surveillance, Mr. Brennan said: “What we’ve tried to do is to make sure that we balance appropriately the need for security, but also recognition of the civil liberties and privacy rights that make this country great.”

He added that “what we’ve tried to do is increase our intelligence-collection capabilities, particularly overseas, because both Shahzad and [attempted New York City bomber] Najibullah Zazi obtained training at those training camps in Pakistan. And so what we need to do is to try to modulate those intelligence-collection capabilities so that we might be able to pick that up.”

That issue of monitoring Internet recruitment was the topic of a hearing Wednesday of the House Homeland Security Committee. At the end of the hearing, Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat, who chairs the subcommittee on intelligence, information sharing and terrorism risk assessment told The Washington Times that U.S. officials had some “authorities” to monitor Web radicalization.

She declined to provide details.

“There are authorities on the book that can be used — [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], for example — and Title 3 can be used if there are reasons to suspect an individual, but do we just go to a website and track people? I’m not going to answer that question,” she said.

“We follow the laws of this country to look at people we have specific reason to believe are engaged in criminal activity.”

The Palestinians: The Real Traitors

Source: Hudson

The Palestinians: The Real Traitors

May 25, 2010 5:00 AM
by Khaled Abu Toameh

The former PLO “ambassador” to Australia, Ali Kazak, believes that an Arab journalist who writes about financial corruption and theft in the Palestinian Authority is a “traitor” who should be murdered the same way as collaborators were killed by the French Resistance.

Kazak told the newspaper, The Australian: “Khaled Abu Toameh is a traitor. Traitors were also murdered by the French Resistance, in Europe; this happens everywhere.”

Asked why he calls the journalist a traitor, the former PLO representative, who lives in Australia, explained: “Palestinians are the victims. He shouldn’t write about them, he should write about the crimes of the Israelis.”

Kazak’s threat does not come as a surprise to those who are familiar with the methods used by Arab dictatorships to silence anyone who dares to demand reforms and transparency.

The threat reminds journalists like me how lucky we are that we live in Israel and not under the jurisdiction of the PLO or Hamas.

We are also fortunate that Kazak and his radical supporters are sitting far away in Australia and not in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they would be lining up journalists and critics against the wall and shooting them like the “traitors who were murdered by the French Resistance.”

The PLO, like most of the Arab dictatorships, has a long history of targeting journalists who refuse to “toe the line.” This clampdown is one of the main reasons why the Palestinian media is still far from being independent and free.

One of the first things the PLO did when it entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1994 was to wage a campaign of intimidation and terror against Palestinian reporters and editors.

Another photographer had his two arms broken by members of Fatah’s armed wing, the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, apparently after he had been heard bad-mouthing senior officials associated with Arafat.

A photographer who took a picture of a donkey strolling along the beach of Gaza City was arrested and beaten by Palestinian security agents on charges of “defaming the Palestinian cause” by distributing a picture of the animal instead of documenting the “suffering” of his people.

A newspaper editor who failed to publish a story about Yasser Arafat on the front page of his newspaper found himself thrown into a Jericho prison for a week.

The offices of a newspaper in east Jerusalem were torched after the editor published an editorial denouncing financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

The director-general of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation was gunned down in Gaza City, and it’s widely believed that Arafat had ordered the assassination.

Earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority leadership instructed all Palestinian journalists and editors to refrain from publishing allegations of rampant corruption made by Fahmi Shabaneh, the former head of the anti-corruption department in the Palestinian security forces.

The absence of a free and independent media in the Palestinian territories has driven many Palestinians to seek work in the Western media, including Israeli newspapers and radio and TV stations.

But Kazak thinks that it is not enough that these journalists have been forced out of their own media. Now he wants to see them being murdered for working for writing about one of the most significant problem facing the Palestinians: financial corruption and bad government.

Kazak needs to be reminded that the party he claims to represent lost the January 2006 parliamentary election largely due to its failure to combat corruption.

The real traitors are those who established another corrupt dictatorship in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and stole billions of dollars of international aid that was supposed to improve the living conditions of their people.

The real traitors are those who built a casino for the Palestinians instead of building them a hospital and a school.

The real traitors are those who are trying to silence journalists and reformists who want to see a better life for their people.


Pakistani Writers Examine the Role of Clerics and Mosques

Filed under: Islamic Clerics, Jihad, Muslim, Pakistan, Radical Islam — - @ 7:17 pm

Source: MEMRI

Pakistani Writers Examine the Role of Clerics and Mosques: ‘The Deobandi Leadership… [Has] Refused to Give… [Its] Disapproval to Suicide Attacks’; ‘Imagine Tens of Millions of Muslims as Captive Audiences to Imams for a Half Hour Every Friday’; ‘Imams… Are Answerable to Mosque Councils; Their Job Descriptions Should be Documented, Their Sermons Prepared in Advance’

From April 13 to April 15, 2010, nearly 150 Islamic clerics representing different madrassas and Deobandi religious groups converged in Pakistan’s cultural city of Lahore to discuss the issue of terrorism and its impact on Pakistani society and economy. The meeting was apparently held under pressure from the Pakistani military, to get the clerics to condemn suicide bombings in Pakistan. The Deobandi movement also had a stake in the meeting, as it faces a challenge from suicide attacks, which may lead to erosion of its credibility among the Pakistani people.

However, according to a May 2 report in the liberal Pakistani newspaper Dawn, titled “Still Shying Away From Condemning Suicide Bombings,” the conferees failed to condemn the suicide bombings, due to differences in clerical approach. In the report, Nasir Jamal wrote: “[Hardline clerics] Maulana Ludhianvi and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed are said to have ‘turned the tables’ on the organizers and forced them to restrict themselves to issuing a joint communiqué that was soft on militants and harsh on government and, obviously, on the United States.

In Pakistan’s predominantly Sunni society, Deobandi clerics are overwhelmingly influential among the people; this influence originates from their many mosques and religious madrassas.

The following four articles examine the issue of clerics’ influence in Pakistan and the role of the mosques, and particularly their sermons at Friday prayers. Nasir Jamal’s report, mentioned above, noted that the Deobandi clerics remain divided on the issue of suicide bombings and still consider the situation in Pakistan to be the result of the U.S. role in the region. Prominent Pakistani writer Muhammad Ali Siddiqi commented on the Lahore conference, noting the condoning of violence by Pakistani Ulema (religious scholars) as a protest against the United States. Columnist and Ohio-based physician Dr. Mahjabeen Islam wrote in two columns in the Lahore-based Daily Times on the role of mosques, especially the Friday sermons and imams (prayer leaders), in Pakistani and American societies, arguing that governments need to regulate the mosques, set out the job descriptions for prayer leaders, prepare the Friday sermons for them in advance, and monitor their speeches.[1]

“Still Shying Away From Condemning Suicide Bombings,” Nasir Jamal, Dawn, May 2, 2010

“The Deobandi Leadership in the Country… [Has] Refused to Give a Consensual Nod of Disapproval to Suicide Attacks”

“The Deobandi leadership in the country has for the moment refused to give a consensual nod of disapproval to suicide attacks and other acts of militancy – despite efforts by some members to reconcile the school to new realities.

“A meeting held here [in Lahore] recently was part of this initiative for reconciliation. Rising above their political and factional disputes, around 150 leaders representing different Deobandi groups, seminaries and political parties from Karachi to Bajaur converged in Lahore on April 15 for a rare meeting. Over three days they shared space at the Jamia Ashrafia [madrassa], one of the oldest and influential Deobandi institutions in the city.

“Many participants are known to have links with Pakistan’s visible and invisible [military-led] establishment. They included moderates such as Mufti Rafi Usmani and hardliners such as Maulana Mohammad Ahmed Ludhianvi of the banned [militant religious organization] Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan.

“Big names in politics – Maulana Fazalur Rehman, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed and Maulana Samiul Haq, whose Darul Uloom Haqqania in Akora Khattak in [the province of] Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is credited to have given birth to Afghanistan’s Taliban movement, were also there along with heavyweights such as Maulana Saleem Ullah Khan and Hanif Jalandhari, who manage the Deobandi seminaries and education system in the country.”

“The Objective of This Rare Deobandi Gathering, According To Some Participants, Was To Deliberate on Terrorism, Debate Its Causes, Discuss Impact on the Economy and Politics, and Suggest Solutions and Work Together To Stem The Menace”

“The objective of this rare Deobandi gathering, according to some participants, was to deliberate on terrorism, debate its causes, discuss impact on the economy and politics and suggest solutions and work together to stem the menace.

“‘The basic goal of this conference was to organize the movement for enforcement of Shari’a through peaceful and democratic means, and discuss the reasons for terrorism in the country,’ Qari Hanif Jalandhari told this reporter from Multan by telephone… Qari Hanif conceded that militancy and terrorism could harm the Deobandi movement, [wondering:] ‘If terrorism can impact upon the economy and add to the troubles of common citizens of this country, how we can escape its effects…’

“Others say the meeting was organized at the behest of the government (read establishment), which is desperately looking for wider support from Deobandi pockets against militants fighting the army in the tribal areas… If that was what the meeting aimed to gain, it was only partially achieved.

“Maulana Ludhianvi and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed are said to have ‘turned the tables’ on the organizers and forced them to restrict themselves to issuing a joint communiqué that was soft on militants and harsh on government and, obviously, the United States. ‘Neither a fatwa triggered this war nor will it help stop one. If a fatwa could stop this war, we would have peace in our tribal areas and the rest of the country now,’ another participant, who also refused to give his name, said [and added:] ‘Whatever is happening in Pakistan or Afghanistan today is a reaction to the American policies, its increasing influence and interference in Pakistan and our government’s inability to understand this fact and side with the West…'”

Clerics’ Communiqué: “Militancy and Terrorism Continue to Haunt This Country; In Our View It is the Consequence of the [Pakistani] Foreign Policy”

“[The joint communiqué] blames the government’s policy of ‘toeing the American line’ on Afghanistan for growing terrorism…”

Following are some excerpts from the joint communiqué are:

“Militancy and terrorism continue to haunt this country in spite of wide denunciation of such acts (suicide bombings and subversive activities) by all patriotic people as well as use of organized military force. The situation calls for a dispassionate analysis of the fundamental causes (of this situation). In our view it is the consequence of the foreign policy that [former military ruler General] Pervez Musharraf pursued… and the incumbent government continues to follow.

“We demand that the government separates itself from the war in Afghanistan and stops pursuing pro-American foreign policies and providing logistics support to foreign forces (for military operations in Afghanistan…

“[However] If the government is following erroneous policies, it does not mean that we set our home afire. We, therefore, confidently and honestly believe that only peaceful struggle is the best strategy that can help enforcement of Islamic Shari’a in Pakistan and secure it from the foreign influences.

“The use of violence is contrary to Islamic teachings and detrimental to our objective of enforcement of Shari’a in the country and efforts to expel Americans from this region. Rather, it is helping the United States deepen its influence in this region…”

“Ulema and Terrorism,” Muhammad Ali Siddiqi, Dawn, May 10, 2010

“Ulema at Lahore said that the Government’s… Obedience to Commands from Washington in Their Opinion is the Reason Behind the Militants’ War against the Government”

“The proceedings at the Deobandi Ulema’s recent conference in Lahore must be studied less for its expected refusal to condemn suicide bombings and more for the insight it gives into the psyche of a large section of our powerful ulema community. Of equal significance are the fissures that came to the fore between hardliners and harder-liners. Evidently, the latter carried the day.

“It was gratifying that at least some ulema – among them Maulana Samiul Haq – were cognizant of the negative impact which acts of terrorism were having not on the nation but on the Deobandi image.

“While the delegates did indeed plead with the militants to adopt peaceful and democratic means for the establishment of Shari’a in Pakistan, a majority of the ulema… said terrorism would continue to haunt Pakistan as long as ‘factors and causes’ responsible for it continued. What was mind-boggling, however, was the principle some ulema propounded to establish a link between terrorism and government policies.

“Briefly, the ulema at Lahore said that the government’s foreign policy is pro-America, and this obedience to commands from Washington in their opinion is the reason behind the militants’ war against the government. That this war against the government and the army translates itself into a war on the state of Pakistan itself was an issue into which the ulema chose not go.”

“To Our West is a Theocracy, in Iran… But No Opposition Group Has Started Killing Iran’s Men, Women and Children”

“If one were to accept resort to terrorism as a justifiable means for registering dissent against government policies, then every country in this world must be ravaged by terrorism, because there is no government on the surface of the earth whose policies do not have critics. Let us, for instance, see the situation in two of Pakistan’s neighbors – Iran and India — where government policies have diehard foes.

“The nuclear deal between America and India was first agreed upon in principle when Manmohan Singh met George [W.] Bush in July 2005… The treaty evoked opposition from key members of the Senate and House foreign relations committees, but to my knowledge no senators or congressmen or lobby groups resorted to terrorism or to threats of terrorism to express disapproval of this aspect of the Bush government’s foreign policy.

“In India, the treaty aroused intense opposition, not only from the traditionally anti-American parties of the Left but also from the extreme rightwing Hindu parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party. The press was equally divided… All along the intensely emotional debate, no party or group started killing India’s own citizens and blowing up markets and schools and temples and mosques…”

“To our west is a theocracy in Iran, almost as obscurantist and ruthless as Ziaul Haq’s tyranny [in Pakistan during the 1980s]. The clerics have imposed an ideological dictatorship on Iran, the Internet is censored, foreign channels are banned or shown selectively; there is no opposition press and even government newspapers are often banned when they deviate from the official line… But no opposition group has started killing Iran’s men, women and children, and blowing up shopping plazas in Tehran…”

“It is, however, in Pakistan that some segments of the ulema think that killing our own people is a justified way of expressing dissent against the government’s policies.”

“Ideologically Motivated Governments, Movements and Individuals, Whether Religious or Secular – Nazi, Zionist, Taliban – are Singularly Devoid of the Milk of Human Kindness”

“Mind you, the government’s perceived pro-American policies do not have opponents merely in the religious right. Even liberal sections of opinion – the recently formed Workers Party Pakistan, for instance – are sharply critical of a continuation of Pervez Musharraf’s war on terror by the Pakistan People’s Party-led government. But none of these political parties and elements has justified blasts… or the blowing up of mosques or a girls’ university to register their protest against the government’s foreign policy.

“The religious touch to the ulema’s anti-Americanism is laughable. Just the other day [i.e. during the 1980s war in Afghanistan], they were head over heels in love with America, and any opposition to the CIA’s overt and covert operations in Afghanistan was considered heresy because there existed an ‘indissoluble unity’ among the People of the Books [Christians, Jews and Muslims].

“The ulema know the hurmat [dignity] Islam attaches to human life. In case some of them have forgotten, the blast in the Rawalpindi Askari mosque on December 4, 2009 killed, among others, 16 children…”

“For some mysterious reason, ideologically motivated governments, movements and individuals, whether religious or secular – Nazi, Zionist, Taliban – are singularly devoid of the milk of human kindness. The attitude of a large number of Pakistani clerics today reminds us of the Christian church’s cold-bloodedness in burning purported heretics at the stake in medieval Europe.”

“The Power of the Friday Sermon,” Dr. Mahjabeen Islam, Daily Times, May 14, 2010

“Imagine Tens of Millions of Muslims as Captive Audiences to Imams [prayer Leaders] for a Half Hour Every Friday All across the Globe”

“Imagine tens of millions of Muslims as captive audiences to imams [prayer leaders of mosques] for a half hour every Friday all across the globe. The Friday sermon is so much a part of the prayer itself that one cannot talk, text or phone during it.

“Through the ages the juma [Friday] prayer has been ingrained as part of the Friday schedule of observant Muslim men. And yet most daydream during the sermon, shutting out the frequently out-of-touch imam. With the rapidly escalating state of global insecurity perpetrated by fringe-fanatics, it behoves the larger Muslim population to go into overdrive and find very quickly what it is that we can do to stem this tide of lunacy in the name of Islam.

“Feeling similarly violated after the London train bombings in 2005, I felt I had an epiphany: ‘Project Friday Khutba’ I called it. The premise is a simple statement in every Friday sermon plainly calling terrorism haram (forbidden). The Friday sermon is governed by rules: There must be a quotation from the Koran, one from the Hadith [sayings and deeds of the prophet], and by most schools of thought, some reflection on areas of current day socio-politics.

“To understand the impact of this better, first, the current state of imams the world over deserves attention. In Pakistan and probably most of the Muslim world, bright achieving children become professionals: doctors, engineers, architects, accountants and the like. As a general rule, imams, mullahs [clerics] and maulvis [religious teaching] are unfortunately a default profession. Some of them are products of orphanages and thus there is the added layer of the pathology of an absent family life.

“Unlike clergy schools in Christianity and Judaism, the basic prerequisite of being an imam in the Muslim world may only be that of being hafiz (having memorized the Koran). The non-religious education of an imam may be either non-existent or minuscule, up to the tenth grade, usually not university level.”

“Egocentricity, Myopia, Self-Aggrandisement, Frank Materialism, Hidden Agendas, Strong Male Chauvinism and Intense Patriarchy Characterize the Majority of Imams in North America”

“The North American situation is similarly bleak. Most imams are imports from the Arab and Muslim world, with thick accents in English and little understanding of the North American Muslim socio-politics. Some are graduates of Al-Azhar in Egypt or the International Islamic University in Islamabad, but mindsets do not change with BAs or even PhDs. Egocentricity, myopia, self-aggrandisement, frank materialism, hidden agendas, strong male chauvinism and intense patriarchy characterize the majority of imams in North America. There is also a perverse penchant for four marriages, the public one under American or Canadian law and a couple others under their distorted interpretation of Islamic law. For shame!

“The intense interest in sex is so transparent that during taraweeh (the evening prayer in Ramadan), the sole subject [of discussion] across the continent is how intercourse is allowed during the nights of Ramadan. And to these specimens we have given over our religion and the spiritual leadership of the Muslim masses!

“In Surah Juma (62:9) the Koran says, ‘O you who believe! When the call for prayer is given on (Friday) the day of congregation, rush toward the remembrance of Allah and stop buying and selling; this is better for you if you understand.’ As per a Hadith, women are exempted due to childcare constraints, but I figure that if I am a wage-earner and monitor a medical schedule and do not have little children to tend at home, Friday prayer becomes mandatory on me as well, for the Koran always supersedes a Hadith. I digress only to prove that Friday prayer at the mosque is equally imposed on both genders. And that swells the population that the imams have access to.

“If you draw upon memory you will agree that in the most major of world events, imams slickly go ostrich. It is true that a lot of them are totally clueless and have not heard about what is going on. Others feel that if they put on their robes and sit in the pulpit and act important and talk about minutiae like how not to close your eyes when you are standing for prayer, the elephant in the mosque, I mean the room, will miraculously go away.

‘“Sister, sister, we do not have… terrorists in the mosque!’ I was told dismissively when I approached a couple of imams to implement what is perfectly doable after the London train bombings. I thought machines had x-ray vision; here they were claiming to know the minds of their entire congregations?”

“No Imam Holds Divinity in the Eyes of God; Imams Serve the Mosque And Are Answerable to Mosque Councils; Their Job Descriptions Should be Documented, Their Sermons Prepared in Advance and Reviewed”

“If a disenchanted, angry and possibly economically distraught young man does attend the Friday prayer and for a half hour is compelled to listen to an imam, the opportunity for preaching Islam’s message of ‘killing non-combatants is haram’ becomes a golden one.

“Dire economic straits seem to rule the world over as well as a deep well of fury against the West for the perceived injustices in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and now Pakistan. One does not need both for an explosive future; one is more than enough to capitalize and build on. The premise is ‘listening to and talking about things does cause misgivings, regardless of rationalizations an enmity does build up.’

“All of us develop in the crucible of our own very personal worldview. With Faisal Shahzad [captured in connection with the Times Square attack] an ideological pull seems to have done it. With the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the same seems to apply, for it was his father that alerted the authorities of his leanings. Neither of them were economically disadvantaged, though talk has it Shahzad’s home was foreclosed a year before the event.

“Islam is a deeds-based religion and for those of us so inclined it is necessary to do a quick inventory and see how we fit on the world stage and what it is that we can do to prevent the crazies from wresting our religion. [Islamic caliph] Umar ibn al-Khattab advised to ‘do your hisab (accounting) before it is done for you.’  On a collective level, as an ummah we need to make it mandatory on ourselves to determine the causes of this lunacy and develop ideas to deal with it.

“No imam holds divinity in the eyes of God. Imams serve the mosque and are answerable to mosque councils and boards. Their job descriptions should be documented, their sermons prepared in advance and reviewed and each sermon should clearly state that terrorism is haram and that ‘killing one is like killing all of humanity’ (Koran, Maidah, 5:32)…”

“Muslim governments and congregations themselves should do some house-cleaning of imams that are equivocal about violence or openly promote it. And use the Friday sermon to wash the brains of the flock of any extremist ideology that might be taking root…”

“Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular have been brought to a precipice it seems. We need to de-escalate quickly. The message in the Friday sermon can be effective and powerfully reverberating, being all the while clothed in the beautiful tranquillity of Islam.”

“Revising the Friday Sermon,” Dr. Mahjabeen Islam, Daily Times, May 21, 2010

“With a Congregation That is a Captive Audience Every Friday, It is Vital that Governmental Regulation Monitors the Content of the Friday Sermon as Well as What is Taught in the Madrassas”

“The situation with mosques in Pakistan is very different from that in North America, and it is thus important to customise the solution. In Pakistan, with the exception perhaps of the very large mosques, most are the foci of prayer alone. Many have attached schools or madrassas. The criteria for leading congregational prayer according to a Hadith [sayings of Prophet Muhammad]… are first, knowledge of the Koran and Sunnah, and then seniority.

“The mosques in Pakistan remain largely unregulated and the majority is manned by imams [prayer leaders] who are only capable of leading prayers or have memorized the Koran. It is a micro-minority that has true religious training and a good grasp of the Koran, the Sunnah, Hadith, Shari’a, fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), ethics, philosophy and economic and social issues.

“With a congregation that is a captive audience every Friday, it is vital that governmental regulation monitors the content of the Friday sermon as well as what is taught in the madrassas. Specific guidelines must be formatted and implemented. This is a relatively immediate solution.

“What will really change the situation will take a decade, maybe a generation. Pakistani society must pull itself up by its bootstraps and change its view of imams… The cycle of economic disadvantage being perpetuated also needs to be broken. The best and the brightest with an interest in Islam should be given scholarships in Islamic universities and then incentivized financially to take up spiritual leadership as a profession. When the poorest and the least educated become imams and are given half an hour or more every Friday to spout off at will, without perspectives or controls, extremism can only grow.

“In North America the situation has a different yet equally tragic face. Imams are largely imported from the Muslim world and they may be well schooled in religion but they are oblivious to current day socio-politics. A distraught Arab-American woman went with her husband to a North American imam for desperate counselling: ‘My husband is gay,’ she said and her husband did not deny it. ‘Sister, do not worry. Put on some nice nightclothes and rent a hotel room and everything will be alright,’ was the imam’s reply. They divorced soon thereafter. Not that they would not have anyway, but the content and tenor of the imam’s counselling leaves a lot to be desired, you will agree.

“Understanding issues that befuddle the youth is again an area that most North American imams are terrible at. There are questions about homosexuality, dating Muslims, drug abuse, incest, domestic violence and sometimes just adjustment and acceptance. Many an imam in the U.S. has only one answer to these questions: ‘haram!‘ [i.e. forbidden in Islam] If they were dealing with the village idiot that might fly but in our complex society it only serves to alienate and depress an already struggling Muslim youth.

“Many North American mosques have imams deliver lectures in the language of the majority community of the mosque. Some are advanced enough that headphones with a live translation into English are provided. How attractive is that ambience to American-born youth? Heavy accents in English and literal translations from their native tongues are terribly inhibiting. A Pakistani youth may understand the Pakistanized English of the imam but his or her full attention cannot be guaranteed in this situation. Already the sermon is out-of-touch; the accent makes it stratospheric…”

“Imams [in North America], Like the Rest of Us, Bring a Great Deal of Mental Baggage with Them from Their Countries of Origin – And A Lot Of It is Related to Women”

“A job description of imams should again be preferably templated in a central authority and then distributed for use across the continent. Imams, like the rest of us, bring a great deal of mental baggage with them from their countries of origin – and a lot of it is related to women. Gender roles, especially as detailed in Islam, should not just be understood, they must be applied to the North American context.

“Policy regarding the treatment of women in a mosque is shaped by the imam. If the Salafi brand of Islam is followed, Muslim women are gowned, gloved and shoved into hallways to pray, or cloistered in cluttered rooms with closed circuit television to pray among wailing babies and rambunctious toddlers. All the while the men pray in a hushed environ.

“Imams are supposed to be role models for the congregation. A squeaky clean personal life, unsoiled by clandestine [extra]marital alliances, violation of employment contracts, working all the hours that they are paid for and not arrogating sinless priesthood upon themselves or ownership of the mosque would be good first steps toward the role-model persona. Their Friday sermons must be read, preapproved by the Boards of the mosques and placed on the mosque website for further education of the congregation.

“And the most important change will happen only when American-born youth choose to become imams, educated in institutions here. Muslim parents must facilitate this, rather than pushing their disinterested progeny into the default profession: medicine.

“In Pakistan as well as in North America, Muslims must focus on the roles, character, qualifications and politics of the men that have millions captive to their sermon on Fridays the world over. The change though initially slow would eventually be exponential. And you will agree it is about time.”

[1] The original English has been lightly edited for clarity. All subheads are by MEMRI

Fancy restaurants and Olympic-size pools: What the media won’t report about Gaza

Fancy restaurants and Olympic-size pools: What the media won’t report about Gaza

By Special to the National Post

By Tom Gross

In recent days, the international media, particularly in Europe and the Mideast, has been full of stories about “activist boats sailing to Gaza carrying desperately-needed humanitarian aid and building materials.”

The BBC World Service even led its world news broadcasts with this story at one point over the weekend. (The BBC yesterday boasted that its global news audience has now risen to 220 million persons a week, making it by far the biggest news broadcaster in the world.)

Indeed the BBC and other prominent Western media regularly lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent “mass humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.

What they won’t tell you about are the fancy new restaurants and swimming pools of Gaza, or about the wind surfing competitions on Gaza beaches, or the Strip’s crowded shops and markets. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn’t fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write.

Here, courtesy of the Palestinian Ma’an news agency, is a report on Gaza’s new Olympic-sized swimming pool . (Most Israeli towns don’t have Olympic-size swimming pools. One wonders how an area that claims to be starved of water and building materials and depends on humanitarian aid builds an Olympic size swimming pool and creates a luxury lifestyle for some while others are forced to live in abject poverty as political pawn refugees?)

If you pop into the Roots Club in Gaza, according to the Lonely Planet guidebook, you can “dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu”.

The restaurant’s website in Arabic gives a window into middle class dining and the lifestyle of Hamas officials in Gaza. And here it is in English, for all the journalists, UN types and NGO staff who regularly frequent this and other nice Gaza restaurants (but don’t tell their readers about them).

And here is a promotional video of the club restaurant . In case anyone doubts the authenticity of this video, I just called the club in Gaza City and had a nice chat with the manager who proudly confirmed business is booming and many Palestinians and international guests are dining there.

In a piece for The Wall Street Journal last year, I documented the “after effects” of a previous “emergency Gaza boat flotilla,” when the arrivals were seen afterwards purchasing souvenirs in well-stocked shops. (You can also scroll down here for more pictures of Gaza’s “impoverished” shops.)

But the mainstream liberal international media won’t report on any of this. Playing the manipulative game of the BBC is easy: if we had their vast taxpayer funded resources, we too could produce reports about parts of London, Manchester and Glasgow and make it look as though there is a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the UK. We could produce the same effect by selectively filming seedy parts of Paris and Rome and New York and Los Angeles too.

Of course there is poverty in Gaza. There is poverty in parts of Israel too. (When was the last time a foreign journalist based in Israel left the pampered lounge bars and restaurants of the King David and American Colony hotels in Jerusalem and went to check out the slum-like areas of southern Tel Aviv? Or the hard-hit Negev towns of Netivot or Rahat?)

But the way that many prominent Western news media are deliberately misleading global audiences and systematically creating the false impression that people are somehow starving in Gaza, and that it is all Israel’s fault, can only serve to increase hatred for the Jewish state – which one suspects was the goal of many of the editors and reporters involved in the first place.

National Post

Tom Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News.

When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror

Filed under: Lies and more Lies, Progressives — Tags: , , — - @ 6:40 pm

Source:Big Journalism

Bob Parks
Posted by Bob Parks

When Searching for Racists, Democrats Should Back Off Rand Paul and Look In the Mirror

Let me preface this by saying I’m not fan of the Paulies and some of their rude, pushy tendencies. With that, the recent email blast from MoveOn’s Steven Biel must be addressed as the deliberate race-baiting trash it is.

In recent weeks, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has repeatedly criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying that private businesses should not be banned from discriminating on the basis of race.

While his campaign spokesman said Paul believes the government should be able to ban racial discrimination, many observers are finding it impossible to draw that conclusion from statements made by Paul himself.


Now is a good time to either question Biel’s grasp of American history or his willingness to carry on the Democrat Party’s shameful tradition of pitting one race against the other for political gain.

I say MoveOn’s Biel may be ignorant of civil rights history because his Democrat Party is the last group of people who should be lecturing anyone on support of the 1964 Act:

It’s one thing for a single candidate to espouse such backward views. It’s something else for the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate to embrace them as well. We need to call Mitch McConnell out.

Can you sign the petition calling on Sen. Mitch McConnell to publicly reject Rand Paul’s criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Hopefully Rand Paul has shed his naïveté when it comes to appearing on bear trap programs like the Rachel Maddow show where a followup blog entry on the segment in question is entitled, “Rand Paul on ‘Maddow’ fallout begins”. This implies the liberals were handed a gotcha on a question that would never be asked of Democrats (and with good reason).


When asked about whether he would have signed the 1964 Act, Paul responded

“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race,” Paul said on Maddow’s program. But when pressed on whether he supported aspects of what the Civil Rights law did, including desegregating lunch counters in privately owned restaurants, Paul gave a dodge-y answer: “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”

A valid question. Should a 7-11 be able to deny people with no shirt or shoes to enter their stores? Can an employer deny a job at Hooters to an overweight woman? Does a person who worked hard to create a competitive business have the right to hire who he or she wants or does the government control that decision?

Obviously Rand Paul wasn’t talking about racial exclusion which the Act addressed, but give a liberal an opportunity to smear a Republican as a racist, he or she will every time while they have no claim to the passage of most civil rights legislation in this nation’s history.

June 9, 1964 – Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D, W. Va.), who still serves in the Senate

June 10, 1964 – Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R, Ill.) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore, Sr. (D, Tenn.) Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.

LBJ,  Sen. DirksenLBJ, Sen. Dirksen

August 4, 1965 – Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

Democrats would allow blacks to vote for them even though they weren’t considered worthy enough to sit at a restaurant counter with them later.

Most liberals under the MoveOn umbrella are ignorant of American history because it’s been successfully whitewashed by revisionist progressive professors, and just because the left can successfully and racially ambush Rand Paul, doesn’t mean Klan-creating, sufferage-opposing, literacy-testing, poll-taxing, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment-opposing, black-coding, Jim Crow Democrats ever had the moral high ground in this discussion.

Liberal Democrats can’t claim to be racially tolerant when they continue to lie to an entire people about their history. Steven Biel’s attempt to fund-raise based on a manufactured race controversy is something we’ve unfortunately come to expect of Democrats and

Just don’t expect it to go unanswered.

NYC Community Board Oks Ground Zero Mosque Plans

Source: Newsmax

NYC Community Board Oks Ground Zero Mosque Plans

Wednesday, 26 May 2010 06:55 AM

After hours of contentious public comment, a New York City community board voted late Tuesday to support a plan to build a mosque and cultural center near ground zero.

“It’s a seed of peace,” board member Rob Townley said. “We believe that this is significant step in the Muslim community to counteract the hate and fanaticism in the minority of the community.”

The vote was 29-to-1 in favor of the plan, with 10 abstentions. The move by the Manhattan Community Board 1, while not necessary for the building’s owners to move forward with the project, is seen as key to obtaining residents’ support.

Some board members wanted to postpone a vote until the next meeting to gather more information about the project and the organizations sponsoring it. But the motion failed.

The meeting was unruly, with project opponents jeering at speakers and yelling comments such as “You’re building over a Christian cemetery!” while holding signs that read, “Show respect for 3000,” among other things.

Many said they were not opposed to a mosque — just not one that’s two blocks from ground zero.

The families of Sept. 11 victims “would be wounded by erecting a mega mosque so close to the place where their loved ones were massacred,” said Viviana Hernandez, a chaplain. “Even though they may have altruistic reasons, the real terrorists will see it as a win on their side.”

Tea party activist Mark Williams has called the proposed center a monument to the terror attacks.

The organizations sponsoring the project said they are trying to establish a vibrant and inclusive-world class facility.

Plans for the Cordoba House include a performing arts center, swimming pool, culinary school, child care facilities and worship space.

It would provide 150 full-time jobs, 500 part-time jobs and an investment in more than $100 million in infrastructure in the city’s financial district, according to Daisy Khan, spokeswoman for the Cordoba House.

Khan’s husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, (See information below about the Imam, then tell those of 9/11 this is a peaceful Imam.) executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, one of the project’s sponsors, said he understood the pain that people have about 9/11. But he said his community and congregation were among those that died in the attacks.

“We have condemned the terror of 9/11,” he said. “We have worked to ensure that our mosques are not recruiting grounds for terrorists.”

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in a statement that by supporting the multi-faith community and cultural center, the board “sent a clear message that our city is one that promotes diversity and tolerance.”

Stringer has been the target of disparaging remarks by Williams for supporting the plans and has defended his position and denounced offensive speech directed at him or at Muslims.

He said before the vote that he understood the sensitivities of the families of 9/11 victims.

“I don’t think anybody wants to do anything to disrespect those families. They made the ultimate sacrifice,” he said. “At the same time, we have to balance diversity and look for opportunities to bring different groups together.”

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said there were no security concerns about building a mosque in the area.

The American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative have said that they bought the building in 2009 and planned to break ground later this year. It could take up to three years to build the Cordoba House. A Friday prayer service has been held at the building since September 2009.

Besides the political and social opposition to the project, city officials say the plan also could be hindered by a decades-old proposal to give landmark status to a building that would be replaced by the mosque and center.

City officials say the current building, constructed between 1857 and 1858 in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style, is historically and architecturally significant.

Bruce Wallace, who lost a nephew on 9/11, said the center can change the misperceptions about Islam.

“The moderate Muslim voice has been squashed in America,” he said. “Here is a chance to allow moderate Muslims to teach people that not all Muslims are terrorists.”

Who is Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf?

Discover The Networks

Born in Kuwait in 1948, Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Imam of Masjid al-Farah, a New York City mosque. He holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from Columbia University and a master’s degree from the Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey. His father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004), was an Egyptian contemporary of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The elder Rauf was a professor at Al-Azhar University until 1948; in 1965 he moved to New York, where he purchased – with $1.3 million in funding from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Libya – a plot of Manhattan real estate to serve as a site for a large Islamic cultural center whose construction was bankroled by sources in 46 Islamic nations.

In 1990 Feisal Abdul Rauf opened al-Farah Mosque in lower Manhattan. Seven years later, he established the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), a New-York based nonprofit organization which has been run by Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, since 2005.

In a 60 Minutes interview that aired on September 30, 2001, Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.” “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” Rauf elaborated, “but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauf further stated that “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,” it could be said that “[i]n fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

Rauf, who has been entrusted with the task of conducting post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI, contends that Muslims have been unfairly targeted by law-enforcement authorities in recent years. “There’s no doubt we’ve been profiled since 9/11,” he said in 2005. “The Patriot Act has kind of made Muslims — there’s a sense of ‘guilty till proven innocent’ rather than the other way around.”

In the summer of 2002, Rauf began lecturing on Islam at the 750-acre campus of Chautauqua Institution, located in western New York State. Around that time, he also befriended Karen Armstrong, who later wrote the foreword for Rauf’s 2004 book, What’s Right with Islam. In that foreword, Armstrong lauds Rauf as “a Muslim who can speak to Western people in a way they can understand.”

Rauf’s book suggests that the “American Constitution and system of governance uphold the core principles of Islamic law” (i.e., sharia). The author concludes, therefore, that the “American political structure is sharia-compliant.” In December 2007 Rauf promoted What’s Right with Islam at a Malaysia gathering of Hizb ut Tahrir, which seeks to impose sharia on the United States and other countries worldwide.

Rauf depicts jihad as the Islamic world’s defensive reaction to Western provocations, rather than as a seminal Islamic tradition of aggression that long predated any Muslim interactions with the West. In March 2004 the Sydney Morning Herald described Rauf as someone who believed that “the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end.” The Herald then quoted Rauf as having said: “The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.” In one particularly significant passage, the Herald article stated: “Imam Feisal … said there could be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. President gave an ‘America Culpa’ speech to the Muslim world.”

In a June 2005 interview, Rauf was asked whether non-Muslims should be troubled by the Qur’an’s assertion that, as the host phrased it, “people … from other religions should either be beheaded … killed, tortured, [or] murdered.” Rauf replied that “many of these verses were revealed in certain contexts where the Prophet [Muhammad] and his followers were not allowed to practice their religion,” and thus “permission was granted to the Muslims to fight those who fought them for that reason.” “The vast history of Islam through the 14 centuries of history,” Rauf added, “has proven that except for certain moments in history, the predominant attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims, especially to Jews and Christians, was one of friendship, was one of engagement.” In 2009, Rauf took up this theme again, writing: “Religious freedom is at the core of Islam.”

Rauf believes that Muslim charities have been subject to undue scrutiny since 9/11. In 2005 an interviewer asked him to comment on the fact that “some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties.” Rauf replied: “We believe that a certain portion of every [Islamic] charity has been legitimate. To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It’s like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism? It’s that type of logic.”

In 2008 Rauf revisited the question of whether sharia could be effectively incorporated into Western legal and political systems. He hailed Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for the “forward thinking” that had led Williams to advocate on behalf of “plural jurisdiction,” which would permit Muslim enclaves in Britain to be governed by a separate set of laws consistent with sharia. In March 2009, Rauf said that “Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common,” and he claimed that sharia’s endorsement of “political justice” and “economic justice … for the weak and impoverished” is a creed that “sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence.”

Rauf contends that authentic Islam is highly respectful of women’s rights and freedoms. In a 2009 piece he penned for the Huffington Post, Rauf stated: “The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. … Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.”

In a May 7, 2010 sermon he delivered in New York City, Rauf seemed to suggest that the perpetrators of 9/11 may not actually have been Muslims. “Some people say it was Muslims who attacked [the U.S.] on 9/11,” he said, before drifting into another topic.

In recent years, Rauf and ASMA have pursued a project known as the Cordoba Initiative, whose mission is to recapture an “atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect” in “Muslim-West relations.” Funded by numerous countries that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, this Initiative aims to build a 13-story, $100 million mosque just 600 feet from Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

In addition to his work with ASMA, the New York-based Rauf teaches Islam and Sufism at the Center for Religious Inquiry at St. Bartholomew’s Church. He also is a member of the World Economic Forum Council of 100 Leaders (Islamic West dialogue); sits on the board of trustees of the Islamic Center of New York; and serves as an adviser to the Interfaith Center of New York.


The Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Muslim Brotherhood Roots, Radical Dreams
By Alyssa A.Lappen
May 14, 2010

Overthrow Obama? A Compendium

Filed under: Free Speech, Lies and more Lies, Obama, Progressives — - @ 4:20 am

Source: American Daughter

permalinkOverthrow Obama? A Compendium

By Nancy Matthis |  Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 at 8:29 pm

Contemplation of non-electoral removal of the Obama administration has been fermenting for over a year. Until now, it has remained fairly hidden below the surface of the public discourse. This week, it has virtually erupted due to a viral email.

On September 29, 2009, Newsmax published an article discussing overthrow of the Obama regime. The piece was a thoughtful discussion of the situation, written by a highly qualified former presidential adviser, and most definitely NOT incitement or advocacy. Nevertheless, Newsmax quickly removed the post from their website when a firestorm of criticism assailed them from the left.

The article remained available, however, as Google cache and in a mirror image captured by Talking Points Memo. Within the last few days, its circulation has exploded by email, and it has been reproduced in full on several websites such as and Fellowship of the Minds. It can no longer be ignored. It has become a legitimate subject for discussion in the Blogosphere. Here is the original article:

Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By John L. Perry

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”

# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.

# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.

# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.

# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.

So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?

Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?

Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?

What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

In a rare display of journalistic cowardice, Newsmax pulled not only the article, but also the author’s biographical information, but not before Libertarian Leanings copied it in part. The author served two Democratic presidents and an ultra-liberal think tank.

Perry also has had a distinguished career in public policy. He served President Lyndon B. Johnson as deputy under secretary of commerce and was a White House speech writer and race-relations trouble-shooter for President Johnson.

In the Jimmy Carter administration, he was executive assistant to the under secretary of Housing and Urban Development and was interim director of public information for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.


Perry was also assistant to the president of the National Association of Broadcasters, a member of the top-management team and director of public relations for the 1982 World’s Fair in Knoxville, Tenn., and an academic fellow at the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, Calif.

That summarizes the current buzz. Let’s take a look at the evolution of this topic on the Internet.

First Mentions

February 3, 2009 — The question appeared on Answers.Yahoo! as Under the constitution we have the right to overthrow the government…how do you do that? in today’s world.?:

Do you think the colonists had that right when they broke off from England? Yes, we do have the right, and we should really think about using it.

The first step would be declaring our rejection of the current government, along with a list of all the ways they have ignored the Constitution and abused their powers. Obviously, once we did that, they would try to stop us, and there would be a fight….

Actually the mention of overthrowing the government is found in the Declaration of Independence — a document in which several men explained why they were pledging their lives in support of an armed revolution.

April 29, 2009 — Someone posted a question on asking Would it be possible for a military dictator to overthrow Obama? The preferred answer was:

Nope. Not at all possible.

but there were some caveats, as well as thirteen other opinions. One commenter referred to an actual coup attempt against Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933. The movie Seven Days in May, in which US military leaders plot to overthrow the US president, was also cited.

The question continues to be asked:

If Americans went to war to overthrow Obama whose side do you think your allies would take?

Does the Constitution allow the military to overthrow the Obama administration and the Democratic Party?

Is it too late to overthrow the Obama regime?

Do you think Barack Obama is guilty of treason and should be impeached?

How can freedom-loving Americans overthrow the corrupt government we now have in Washington?

Does the U.S.A. Military support Obama’s ruination of the U.S. Constitution?

Blogging from the Left

August 1, 2009 — The idea was broached on the Huffington Post by left-wing blogger Danny Schechter in Could Obama Be Overthrown?:

The tide of public opinion may be turning against the President. Pollsters report growing skepticism about health care reform, and more active hostility on racial matters, thanks to that “uncalibrated” expression of opinion on the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. That remark turned him, in the eyes of some, from a small b black President into a militant Black Panther, or at least someone who can stereotyped as such.

These are the new controversial issues with no one right answer, and a noisy debate everywhere, but something else is also going on….

….The next thing you know, the type of removal of a democratically elected President that worked in Honduras might be attempted here at home. Don’t say it can’t happen here…. Some of us are still humming “We Shall Overcome” when our adversaries are chanting “We Shall Overthrow.”

Note that this was published on a major website almost two full months before the Perry article appeared, and there was at that time no outcry from the left about public discussion of the topic.

Online Fantasy Game

October, 2009 — Looking backward, it is hard to pinpoint the day this came online, but sometime last October the website United States of Earth published the multi-player browser strategy game 2011: Obama’s Coup Fails. Modeled on World of Warcraft, the game was produced by eight libertarian programmers working at a secret location in Brooklyn, NY. Forty-year-old team leader Michael Russotto intends to develop the site as a for-profit venture. Elementary game play is free, but enhancements can be purchased.

From Mother JonesThe Obama Coup:

Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:02 AM PDT

Glenn Beck mysteriously killed. The GOP driven out of Congress. Obama proclaims himself the “Lost Imam.” An online game exploits right-wing paranoia. — By David Corn

From Wired2011: Obama’s Coup Fails Injects Politics Into Strategy Game:

November 10, 2009

Foes of President Barack Obama and his policies can vent their frustrations by engaging in fictional warfare, thanks to a new online strategy game with a heavy political component.

The satirical game 2011: Obama’s Coup Fails, launched last month by a group of Ron Paul supporters that call themselves The Founders, throws players into combat against the crumbling Marxist forces of Obama’s loyalist Black Tigers, the Islamic fundamentalist Nation of Malsi and The Cong — a group of deposed Democratic congressional leaders. …the game mixes strategy, trivia questions and community elements but has no particular ax to grind with Obama, according to Mike Lodispoto, one of the game’s Libertarian founders. In fact, the next United States of Earth game will target President George W. Bush.

“We detest Republicans and Democrats alike,” Lodispoto told in an e-mail interview. The site was cooked up by Libertarians, but Lodispoto says United States of Earth employees are both Republicans and Democrats….

From MediaiteThis Exists: Overthrow Futuristic Dictator Obama In This Online Game:

by Robert Quigley | 1:30 pm, November 19th, 2009

Wow. Online strategy gamers who wish to lead militias against Obama (?) can finally do so… Of course, the game is not very violent. No one in the Obama administration is killed or assassinated, the game’s creator explains; they are merely “captured” by patriotic citizen armies.

Last November, Russia Today actually scored an in-person interview, in part videotaped. That footage was incorporated into several newscasts at the time, as below:

Misprison of Felony and Writ of Mandamus

March 13, 2010 — Life on Sleepy Creek notes possible legal remedy:

It is our duty to arrest, charge and try these evil beasts in Washington and this is how we have to do it…. This is how we empower ourselves. Here is the weapon. Spread this to your lists and make it go viral before it’s too late.

Two legal tools are cited. From The ‘Lectric Law Library we have the following definitions…:

MISPRISION — In its larger sense, this word is used to signify every considerable misdemeanor, which has not a certain name given to it in the law; and it is said that a misprision is contained in every treason or felony whatever. In its narrower sense it is the concealment of a crime. Misprision of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely passive for if any assistance be given, to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no accessories in treason. It is the duty of every good citizen, knowing of a treason or felony having been committed; to inform a magistrate. Silently to observe the commission of a felony, without using any endeavors to apprehend the offender, is a misprision. Misprisions which are merely positive, are denominated contempts or high misdemeanors; as, for example, dissuading a witness from giving evidence.

MISPRISION OF FELONY — Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the U.S., conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the U.S. 18 USC Misprision of felony, is the like concealment of felony, without giving any degree of maintenance to the felon for if any aid be given him, the party becomes an accessory after the fact.

…and also this:

MANDAMUS — The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command.It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ.This writ was introduced io prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy.The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void.The circuit courts of the United States may also issue writs of mandamus, but their power in this particular is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

While many bloggers seem to see some remedy in this approach, my personal opinion is that this is not strong enough to do the job. Only the Supreme Court would have the oversight to issue a writ against an administration, and the conflict between the Sept. 24, 1789 act of Congress and the Constitution would have to be resolved in a time-consuming legal wrangle. However, I am totally sympathetic to the blogger’s premise. The quasi-legal destruction of the founding fathers’ vision would be most ideally countered through legal channels.

Argument Against Trusting Elections

There are two major arguments against putting faith in an electoral remedy. First, Obama usurped the census from the Commerce Department and arbitrarily moved it under White House jurisdiction. Then he enlisted his left-wing crony organizations, such as ACORN, to do the legwork. This is seen by many as an attempt to influence districting and representation.

Second, the Democrats in Congress are moving aggressively right now to obtain amnesty, and possibly voting rights, for all the illegal aliens currently in the country, which would add 12 million more votes for the socialist agenda. On April 5 one commenter on an Examiner article put it this way:

I am beginning to think a violent take over is the only way out of the mess this Marxist and his enablers are getting us into. With ACORN and SEIU conducting the next census and the counting of illegal aliens [Obama] will forever change the landscape for ALL of us.

Eric Massa’s Secret

May 24, 2010 — On Monday, Esquire magazine broke the story of Eric Massa’s secret. Titillatingly titled Eric Massa on David Petraeus Military Coup in the source code, which renders this teaser in Google search blurbs, the actual story is tamer. Former (and now disgraced) Congressman Eric Massa had met with the editors a month ago to divulge a secret he claimed to have been harboring.

Long before the Eric Massa scandal broke, the congressman carried the lonely burden of another secret that, if revealed, would turn his world upside down. An extraordinary look inside the mind of a man in the crisis of his lifetime…. He had told no one — no one on his congressional staff or in his family, not his parents, not even his wife….

Petraeus, the commander of United States Central Command, whose portfolio contains the worst trouble spots on the globe, including Iraq and Afghanistan, had recently met with Cheney — twice — and Cheney was trying to recruit him to run in 2012. Were he to be the nominee, Massa said, Petraeus would be in the unprecedented position of a military man running for president against his own commander in chief….

The increasingly irrational and emotional Massa described this as treason, as a “coup” and military overthrow. In fact, it could be done with complete legitimacy. Petraeus would have to retire first, and then he would be in no different stance than George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower, Wesley Clark, and other candidates with military background. And his professional dignity and record of military service certainly render him a credible candidate.

Current Blog Posts

Today, this article appeared — A Country on the Brink:

This occupant of the White House (it is just too painful and too much of a show of respect to call him president) has done more to undermine the Constitution, democracy and the economy of this country than any of his predecessors. Since his inauguration he has shown nothing but contempt for our laws and the people of this country in order to lead the United States down the dark and crater-filled road to socialism….


Memorial Day is approaching, and this president who does not salute the flag plans to blow off the observance and take a family vacation to Chicago. Recall the famous lines from the poem In Flanders Fields?

….We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Few who understand the vision of our founding fathers can doubt that this President — who goes abroad apoligizing for our country, who bends the knee to foreign heads of state, who snubs our traditional allies and embraces socialist dictators — has broken faith. If the time of reckoning should come, perhaps even the unquiet dead will align against him.

Older Posts »