The American Kafir

2012/06/27

The Evils of the Muslim Brotherhood: Evidence Keeps Mounting

Egypt’s longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood—the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda—has just won the nation’s presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of subversive Muslim apologists in the West who portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists”—forgetting that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be “Islamist,” to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate. Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as “largely secular” and “pluralistic.”

Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to “infidels” (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:

Anti-Infidel:

At a major conference supporting Muhammad Morsi—standing on a platform with a big picture of Morsi smiling behind him and with any number of leading Brotherhood figures, including Khairat el-Shater, sitting alongside—a sheikh went on a harangue, quoting Koran 9:12, a favorite of all jihadis, and calling all those Egyptians who do not vote for Morsi—the other half of Egypt, the secularists and Copts who voted for Shafiq—”resisters of the Sharia of Allah,” and “infidel leaders” whom true Muslims must “fight” and subjugate.

The video of this sheikh was shown on the talk show of Egyptian commentator Hala Sarhan, who proceeded to exclaim “This is unbelievable! How is this talk related to the campaign of Morsi?!” A guest on her show correctly elaborated: “Note his [the sheikh’s] use of the word ‘fight’—’fight the infidel leaders’ [Koran 9:12]; this is open incitement to commit violence against anyone who disagrees with them…. how can such a radical sheikh speak such words, even as [Brotherhood leaders like] Khairat el-Shater just sits there?” Nor did the Brotherhood denounce or distance itself from this sheikh’s calls to jihad.

Anti-Christian:

It is precisely because of these sporadic outbursts of anti-infidel rhetoric that it is not farfetched to believe that Morsi himself, as some maintain, earlier boasted that he would “achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya.”

Speaking of Christians, specifically the minority Copts of Egypt, in an article titled “The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!” secularist writer Khaled Montasser, examining the Brotherhood’s own official documents and fatwas, shows exactly why. According to Montasser, in the Brotherhood publication “The Call [da’wa],” issue #56 published in December 1980, prominent Brotherhood figure Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah al-Khatib decreed several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying unclean Christian “infidels” anywhere near Muslim graves. Once again, this view was never retracted by the Brotherhood. As Montasser concludes, “After such fatwas, Dr. Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues ask and wonder—”Why are the Copts afraid?!”

Lying, Stealing, and Cheating to Victory:

Read it all at Investigative Project On Terrorism

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Advertisements

2012/04/12

Vetting Obama – Live Birth Abortion Survivor Law – Erosion of Individual Rights

Vetting Obama – Live Birth Abortion Survivor Law – Erosion of Individual Rights

By Walt Long

This year voting for a President of the United States, it is vital we know more about  Barack Hussein Obama. One of the issues that struck me was the attitude of the President concerning a law that would protect an infant that is born after it was aborted from the Mother. Obama refused to sign a law protecting a human life. All the pertinent articles and law are posted below. This should not be a Republican vs Democrat issue, we are talking about a human life,an innocent victim left on a cold slab to die. Obama gave orders to the Doctors and Nurses that they were not to administer to the life of this child…the baby would be left to die;Obama being the dictator of life or death.

We ,the American Citizen, have come to expect losing our individual rights at the hands of Obama and this administration. Our government, such as National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which gives the U.S. government authority to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. If it has been suggested Conservatives are blowing this out of proportion I suggest reading… NDAA a Dangerous Precedent, Even With the Signing Statement.

Another individual right being taken away is the assassination of a United States Citizen without due process of the law, the only hearing allowed is not the Court of Law …but the court of Barack Hussein Obama’s law, with  Attorney General Eric Holder defending the decision.  I am talking about the assassination of, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both United States citizens,  by a CIA drone attack in Yemen on September 30 2011, authorized by Eric Holder,,Barack Hussein Obama, and a secretive government committee. Anwar al-Awlaki’s used Islam for terrorist incitements, yes he was a very evil man, however,  by being a United States citizen he should have been allowed his Constitutional rights by a trial before the Court of Law and his peers. If our government can kill two citizens then what would stop them from killing more? It is a very  dangerous precedence allowing the assassination of a United States Citizen by any secretive panel of senior government officials,



Documents show Obama cover-up on born-alive survivors bill

Source JillStanek

UPDATE, 4:30p: Ben Smith of The Politico has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 4p: Concerned Women for America has audio of an interview with me on this here.

UPDATE, 10:22a:Michelle Malkin has linked to this post.

UPDATE, 9:50a: Kathryn Lopez of National Review Online is covering the story.

Last week Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee drew my attention to a previously unnoticed January 2008 article by Terence Jeffrey stating Barack Obama actually did vote against a version of the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act that was identical to the federal version, contrary to multiple public statements Obama or his surrogates have made to rationalize his opposition to the IL bill for the past 4 years.

Since then we have found 2 separate documents proving Barack Obama has been misrepresenting facts.

In fact, Barack Obama is more liberal than any U.S. senator, voting against identical language of a bill that body passed unanimously, 98-0. In fact, Barack Obama condones infanticide if it would otherwise interfere with abortion.

Here is the statement with documentation released by NRLC this morning…

New documents just obtained by NRLC, and linked below, prove that Senator [Barack] Obama has for the past four years blatantly misrepresented his actions on the IL Born-Alive Infants Protection bill.

Summary and comment by NRLC spokesman Douglas Johnson:

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion – even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 – denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions – were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose.

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal “person” for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a “neutrality clause” was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth.

(The “neutrality” clause read, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.”)

The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Continue reading the rest of the article Click Here

View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd
View this document on Scribd

2012/03/25

In His Own Words- Dividing Not Uniting

In His Own Words- Dividing Not Uniting

Written By Walt Long

Over the years I have always expected  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan to pimp for media attention (Mainstream media is always glad to help) and their racist remarks thus stirring up hate and division in America. The Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan‘s of the world have become the Judge and Executioner when someone is of a lighter skin does something to someone of the darker skin.  BUT, to come from the President of the United States really shows his bigotry for White America, and does nothing more than divide our great country. I have to ask where are Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan and Barack Hussein Obama when Black Teens Douse 13 Year Old With Gasoline, Set Him on Fire Or this news item from Barack Hussein Obama, Jessee Jackson and Louis Farrakhan town of Chicago Total bloodbath in Chicago: 10 dead, 40 wounded, below is a video about the bloodbath and a picture of the little girl, but then maybe it is because she looks to white for all of these so called leaders, (Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan).

Photo of Aliyah Shell murdered by Chicago, IL Gangbangers

Video

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or * antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

This statement by Obama concerning rural America, small town people from the midwest and Pennsylvania are racist, by the definition of antipathy, most of the rural area of Pennsylvania and the Midwest are white. This statement clearly shows who really is the bigot, and it sure isn’t all of small town USA…

*an·tip·a·thy

[an-tip-uh-thee] Show IPA

noun, plural -thies.

1.

a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2.

an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3.

an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.
Origin:
1595–1605;  < Latin antipathīa  < Greek antipátheia. See anti-, -pathy

Related forms

an·tip·a·thist, noun

Synonyms
1.  disgust, abhorrence, detestation, hatred.

After the arrest of Henry Louis Gates , a black professor and long time friend of Obama’s who verbally abused the police.

“Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home,”

Obama’s most recent comment concerning the Trayyon incident in Sanford FL

“When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” he said. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative to investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together – federal, state and local – to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are gonna take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Related article’s Witness counters Trayvon Martin media narrative   and    Zimmerman was on the ground being punched when he shot Trayvon Martin

Just in case you think I am taking any of these atrocities lightly you are wrong, anytime there is murder they all should be looked at as equal and not what color of their skin was, as well as we should not allow the Trial by Media interfere with the TRUTH of the whole mishap in it entirety. Walt

2011/12/08

The Obama Doctrine Defined

Source Article Link: Commentary Magazine

The Obama Doctrine Defined

By Douglas J. Feith & Seth Cropsey

The words “vacillating” and “aimless” are commonly used by both left and right to describe President Barack Obama​’s approach to the Libya war. His political friends and foes alike lament that he has no clear goal in Libya—and that, by failing to articulate one, he is revealing his unease at having been dragged into the fight to oust the regime of Muammar Qaddafi.

Democratic Senator James Webb of Virginia issued a press release on March 21, 2011, noting that the U.S. mission in Libya “lacks clarity.” Former Republican Senator Slade Gorton wrote in the Washington Post: “We should never enter a war halfway and with an indecisive goal. Regrettably, that is where we stand today.”

The criticism has some validity, but it misses an important point: the administration’s approach has logic and coherence in the service of strategic considerations that extend far beyond Libya.

Since his campaign in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama has declared that he wants to transform America’s role in world affairs. And now,in the third year of his term, we can see how he is bringing about that transformation. The United States under Barack Obama is less assertive, less dominant, less power-minded, less focused on the American people’s particular interests, and less concerned about preserving U.S. freedom of action. It is true that he did not simply pull the plug on the war in Iraq, as he promised he would do, and that he increased the commitment of troops in Afghanistan. But those compromises reflect the president’s pragmatic judgment about the art of the possible, not his conviction about what kind of country America should ultimately become.

Obama determined early on, as the Libyan revolt developed, that no outcome would be more important to him than keeping the United States within the bounds set by the United Nations Security Council. He refused to act on Libya until the Arab League and the UNSC gave approval. He immediately renounced U.S. leadership of the military intervention—and when, due to default by U.S. allies, his own commanders had to take charge at the outset, he insisted they promptly pass the mission to NATO, which they did.

Having accused his predecessor of being too ready to resort to regime change by force, President Obama made sure that the Security Council resolution on Libya authorized military action only to protect civilians, not to oust dictator Muammar Qaddafi. American and allied commanders admitted publicly that their mission might end with Qaddafi still in power. In an April 26 press briefing, a journalist asked Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the NATO commander of the Libya intervention force, if he saw the mission “ending with Qaddafi still in power.” Bouchard replied: “This mission comes to an end for me when the violence stops.”

If Qaddafi remains in power, however, Libyan civilians will remain in danger, so the intervention force might have to continue its mission indefinitely. Obama admitted as much in a CBS television interview that aired March 30, but he nonetheless opposes using military means to remove him. Meanwhile, even the narrowly scoped NATO mission is in trouble. The alliance lacks aircraft, munitions, and other resources that the United States has but is withholding. And, lacking U.S. leadership, the allies continue to quarrel about strategy. Yet, President Obama says that success in Libya is necessary to protect global peace and security.

Under the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that critics complain about incoherence. But the administration’s Libya policy makes sense in light of Obama’s intention to alter America’s place and function in the world. His ambition is novel and grand, though often couched in language that implies support for longstanding policies. It can be seen as a new doctrine—the Obama Doctrine.

And as the American approach to countering the Soviet menace came to be known as the “doctrine of containment,” the Obama Doctrine may come to be known as the “doctrine of self-containment.” Or, perhaps more fitting, given the echo of the foreign-policy approach that governed the Cold War​, the “doctrine of constrainment.”

_____________

The Obama doctrine emerges from the conviction that in the new post-Cold War, post-9/11, post–George W. Bush​ world, the United States cannot and should not exercise the kind of boldness and independence characteristic of its foreign policy in the decades after World War II. That view runs roughly as follows: traditional ideas of American leadership serving American interests abroad are not a proper guide for future conduct. They have spawned crimes and blunders—in Iran in the early 1950s, then in Vietnam, and recently in Iraq, for example. To prevent further calamities, the United States should drop its obsession with its own national interests and concentrate on working for the world’s general good on an equal footing with other countries, recognizing that it is multinational bodies that grant legitimacy on the world stage.

Two large ideas animate the Obama Doctrine. The first is that America’s role in world affairs for more than a century has been, more often than not, aggressive rather than constrained, wasteful rather than communal, and arrogant in promoting democracy, despite our own democratic shortcomings. Accordingly, America has much to apologize for, including failure to understand others, refusal to defer sufficiently to others, selfishness in pursuing U.S. interests as opposed to global interests, and showing far too much concern for U.S. sovereignty, independence, and freedom of action. The second idea is that multilateral institutions offer the best hope for restraining U.S. power and moderating our national assertiveness.

President Obama promoted this perspective of American history in his June 2009 speech in Cairo, which remains his presidency’s most important foreign-policy pronouncement. In that carefully crafted discourse, Obama explained the poor relations between America and Muslims generally by citing “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.” He contrasted his own all-encompassing view of humanity with the parochialism of his countrymen in general, lamenting: “Some in my country view Islam as inevitably hostile…to human rights.” Americans’ response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Obama noted apologetically, “led us to act contrary to our ideals.” Suggesting that long-standing American efforts to establish standards of acceptable international behavior amount to no more than a self-interested and doomed attempt to impose our will on others, he proclaimed that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.” He was here condemning what he perceives as overweening and unrestricted American power and declaring independence from America’s record of bad behavior.

Obama cited a significant example of that bad behavior: “For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” This implies that the hostility between the countries was the result of American action in 1953 in helping to overthrow a leftist Iranian politician whom the Iranian clergy generally despised. This reading of history (concentrating on events that predate by more than a quarter century the revolution that brought to power the ayatollahs who view America as “the great Satan”) served his purposes because it depicted the United States as ultimately culpable for the major, long-running problem of Iran’s anti-Americanism. It became an argument for constraining American power.

A telling passage in the Cairo speech was the quotation from a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson after his second presidential term in 1815: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be.” Obama took the quote out of context. Jefferson wrote those somewhat paradoxical words only after, in the same letter, stating his hope that Napoleon would “wear down the maritime power of England to limitable and safe dimensions.” Jefferson put his faith in naval power, not wisdom or restraint, to protect America from British forces. Jefferson was, after all, one of the fathers of the U.S. Navy and the man who ordered it to carry the Marines into action against pirates on “the shores of Tripoli” (in modern-day Libya, as it happens)—pirates who demanded that the American people convert to Islam. Indifferent to the irony of Jeffersonian policy, however, Obama invoked Jefferson to support the notion that America should act with less power in the world.

The main ideas in the Cairo speech were foreshadowed in an article Obama wrote for Foreign Affairs in 2007. He associated the words “freedom” and “democracy” with Bush administration rhetoric: “People around the world have heard a great deal of late about freedom on the march. Tragically, many have come to associate this with war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change.” Fighting terrorism, Obama said, requires “more than lectures on democracy.”

Obama expostulated that America “can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission.” And so he called for a strategy against terrorists that “draws on the full range of American power, not just our military might.” Reform of multinational institutions, he declared, “will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation.” What is more, “when we do use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others.”

Promising to couple U.S. foreign assistance with an insistence on reforms to combat corruption, he added: “I will do so not in the spirit of a patron but in the spirit of a partner—a partner mindful of his own imperfections.” The essence of these comments is so noncontroversial as to be banal. What is remarkable is the way they are formulated to portray the United States as a militaristic, patronizing bully.

In promoting that image of the United States, Obama and members of his national-security team are drawing on the large body of literature produced by politically progressive American academics and thinkers who have harshly criticized America’s national-security policy—and not just that of the George W. Bush administration.

One such thinker, Samantha Power, is now a special assistant to President Obama. In a 2003 article for the New Republic, Power argued that since “international institutions certainly could not restrain American will,” American unilateralism was the force giving rise to the anti-Americanism commonplace in intellectual circles abroad. “The U.S,” she wrote, “came to be seen less as it sees itself (the cop protecting the world from rogue nations) than as the very runaway state international law needs to contain.” But hers were not criticisms only of the Bush administration. The actions she regretted occurred during the Clinton administration as well and included the refusal to pay United Nations dues and being opposed to the International Criminal Court​ treaty, the Kyoto Protocol on the environment, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the land mines ban, the Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty, “and other international treaties.”

Power wrote that America’s record in world affairs had been so harmful to the freedoms of people around the world that the United States could remedy the problem only through profound self-criticism and the wholesale adoption of new policies. Acknowledging that President Bush was correct in saying that “some America-bashers” hate the American people’s freedoms, Ms. Power stated that much anti-Americanism derives from the role that U.S. power “has played in denying such freedoms to others” and concluded:

U.S. foreign policy has to be rethought. It needs not tweaking but overhauling….Instituting a doctrine of mea culpa would enhance our credibility by showing that American decision-makers do not endorse the sins of their predecessors. When [then German Chancellor​] Willie [sic] Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany. Would such an approach be futile for the United States?

Thus, even at the beginning of the Bush presidency, Power saw Brandt’s apology for the Nazis’ destruction of European Jewry as the model for an American leader to seek pardon for the sins of U.S. foreign policy.

Anne-Marie Slaughter​, of Princeton University, whom President Obama would later appoint as the State Department​’s head of policy planning, likewise exhorted whomever would succeed President Bush to apologize for America’s role in the world. In a February 2008 article in Commonweal entitled “Good Reasons to be Humble,” she wrote:

[I]t will be time for a new president to show humility rather than just talk about it. The president must ask Americans to acknowledge to ourselves and to the world that we have made serious, even tragic, mistakes in the aftermath of September 11—in invading Iraq, in condoning torture and flouting international law, and in denying the very existence of global warming until a hurricane destroyed one of our most beloved cities….

[W]e should make clear that our hubris, as in the old Greek myths, has diminished us and led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

All this helps explain the remorseful tone of the Cairo speech. It also sheds light on Obama’s determination to set precedents and create institutional and legal constraints on the ability of the United States to take international action assertively, independently, and in its own particular interests. Without reference to this severely jaundiced view of American history, one cannot make any sense of the hesitation and meekness, the extreme deference to the Security Council and shyness about encouraging opponents of hostile dictators that have characterized the Obama administration’s policy toward Libya—and, for that matter, toward the anti-Assad-regime upheaval in Syria and, in 2009, toward the Green Movement anti-regime demonstrations in Iran.

In a 2007 article in Harper’s, Slaughter argued against traditional conceptions of American international leadership and against the importance of American freedom of action. She promoted a theory that detaches power from influence in the world. She asserted that America is “more powerful than ever…and never more reviled.”

Stressing that “force has its limits” and that diplomacy “is a game of suasion, not coercion,” Slaughter predicted: “The more that America is respected and admired in the world, the greater will our diplomatic powers be.” That may be true in some cases, but Slaughter effectively turned the idea of leadership on its head. She argued a paradox: that leadership means not leading. In other words, by not putting itself out front on matters, America can be more effective as a leader, if leadership is understood as asking for others’ consent in advance and accepting constraints. This reasoning underlies the widely noted statement by an unnamed senior administration official in Ryan Lizza​’s May 2, 2011, New Yorker article that Obama’s policy in Libya demonstrates the innovative principle of “leading from behind.”

The key to respect and admiration, in this view, has nothing to do with military capability, strategic vision, courage, effectiveness, economic strength, willingness to defend one’s own interests, or taking risks. Rather, the key lies in the virtues of “equality” and “humility.” Slaughter made the case that America can be a leader only if it is “the country I know and love” that “flies its flag alongside other nations, not above them”,  “negotiates rather than dictates,” and “leads through self-restraint rather than by proclaiming itself free of all constraints.”

Especially noteworthy here is her implication that it is selfish and unproductive for the United States to protect its right and ability to act unilaterally to advance its national interests. She deprecated the idea by saying the U.S. was “proclaiming itself free of all constraints.” This was part and parcel of an argument that the United States should become party to additional treaties and international organizations and arrangements—including the International Criminal Court, climate-change forums, and nuclear-disarmament initiatives—and should strive to increase the voting power and influence therein not of the United States, but of other nations.

At the end of the day, the United States would have less of a voice and less freedom of action. This would be worthwhile, however, in Slaughter’s words, because of “the paradox of American foreign policy”—namely, by reducing its own profile and limiting its own sovereignty, America would gain respect around the world and thereby increase its success in winning other nations’ cooperation for efforts in the common interest.

Slaughter warned that “an entire generation of citizens around the world is being reared with no memory of the role the United States played in World War II and the Cold War but with plenty of evidence that the world’s lone superpower is arrogant, incompetent, and indifferent.” She cited a Voice of America broadcaster named William Harlan Hale, who, in 1947, described the postwar world as one “in which the United States—the greatest military and economic power and the unchallenged victor of World War II—was in danger of being seen as arrogant and imperialist.”

“Does this sound familiar?” she asked. America—as she presented it—had not fallen into international disrepute during the Bush administration. It had teetered on the edge of contemptible arrogance and imperialism since at least the end of World War II.

The ideas of Anne-Marie Slaughter and Samantha Power are in no way considered radical or daring at leading American universities. In fact, their highly critical perspective on American history is the predominant one. Their community is Barack Obama’s community. These are the people with whom he studied and with whom he worked as a faculty colleague. He drew heavily on his fellow progressive academics to fill top jobs in his administration, and it is evident they have helped shape his understanding of American history, his perception of international affairs, and his strategy for transforming America’s purpose and role in the world.

Putting a strategy into action is a difficult and messy challenge for a president. It is never easy to achieve interagency cooperation, and political pressures often force presidents to bend or violate their preferences. Obama’s national-security policies seem to be an ideological hodgepodge—sometimes philosophically “realist” (emphasizing power and practical interests) and sometimes “idealist” (supporting the spread of freedom). Sometimes he acts tough, as with his Predator strikes against terrorist targets and the courageous raid to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, and sometimes he acts weak, as when he withheld encouragement to the anti-Ahmadinejad demonstrators in Iran in June 2009, lest he offend the clerical regime and jeopardize diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear program. Sometimes his rhetoric is humble, bordering on the abject, as in his Cairo speech, and sometimes he touts the importance of American leadership.

When Obama looks indecisive or inconsistent, the cause generally is not a clash of ideas, but a clash between his ideas and his political requirements. Obama embraces his ideas with conviction, but he is intent on political success and realizes that his unconventional strategic ambitions can be realized only if he preserves his carefully cultivated political persona as a nonideological figure, a moderate who bridges the old liberal-conservative divide. Accordingly, he is willing at times to conform to the conventional expectations of Congress and the public. Obama’s famous pragmatism—demonstrated most notably in the prosecution of the Iraq war, which he had harshly denounced as an utter failure, and in the continued operation of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, which he had characterized as a disgrace and promised to shut down without delay—shows that he is sensitive to the political risks of his strategy to constrain America.

President Obama is skilled in handling criticism by addressing complaints head-on and claiming (sometimes misleadingly) that he largely agrees with his critics. The way he has dealt with the chief complaints about his Libya policy illustrates this point.

First, because of his early inaction and his statement that America would not take charge, Obama was criticized for opposing U.S. leadership. As the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen put it: “Amazingly, the White House wants to wait on nearly everyone to do almost anything—the United Nations, NATO, ‘multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships,’ in the words of [White House official Benjamin] Rhodes. This is a highfalutin way of saying that first we’re gonna have a meeting and then break into committees and then report back here sometime soon…the good Lord willin’.”

Effectively acknowledging the criticism, President Obama then declared, “American leadership is essential.” He explained that “real leadership” means creating the conditions for others to step up. The explanation has in it an element of truth, but the term “leadership” usually refers to the act of taking initiative to drive an effort toward a valuable goal. Obama used the term to refer to ensuring a process in which other states would take on various responsibilities, whether or not they would produce a useful result. Obama thus endorsed the paradox highlighted by Anne-Marie Slaughter: American leadership requires our refusing to lead.

This corkscrew approach allows Obama to make the politically popular point that he champions American leadership in the world while remaining true to his goal of a more constrained America. In the case of Libya, it allows him to boast of his own leadership for having created a vacuum that others have attempted, albeit wholly inadequately, to fill.

And because he adamantly refused to act before the Security Council gave its permission, even at the risk of the complete annihilation of the rebel force, President Obama came under critical assault even from those who generally support him. Typical was the slap by CNN television host Eliot Spitzer​, the former Democratic governor of New York: “Secretary of State Clinton reiterated that a United Nations resolution was necessary. We are hostage to the United Nations Security Council and the threat of Russian and Chinese vetoes. We have made our foreign policy dependent on the Russians and Chinese.” Obama responded to the point, offering reassurance that he “will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary.” There is political benefit and little downside in his accepting unilateral action in principle while his administration does whatever it can to discredit and preclude it.

The key to impeding U.S. “unilateralism”—and to implementing Obama’s strategic vision generally—comes through deepening American involvement with multinational institutions. That is how Obama can bind the United States beyond his own term. He favors cooperation with the International Criminal Court and pledges “rededication” to the United Nations organization. He champions progressive treaties and has declared it a priority to win Senate approval of the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the UN treaty on the rights of women.

Obama is also committed to legitimating the “transnational law” movement, a vehicle for political progressives to constrain the power of democratically elected government officials. The movement works to circumvent legislatures by arguing that government administrators and judges should adopt its ideas as “rights.” The new rights—regarding the laws of war, arms control, the death penalty, and other matters—are grounded not in national constitutions or domestic statutes but in protean notions of international “norms,” “customary” law, and “consensus” among groups of scholars, activists, and jurists. The movement creatively responds to frustrations among progressive activists that democratic legislatures often refuse to support their ideas.

A leading champion of this movement, Harold Koh​, former dean of Yale Law School, has written voluminously on how “transnational norm entrepreneurs, governmental norm sponsors, transnational issue networks, and interpretive communities” can overcome political majorities in what he calls “resisting nation-states.” In a Penn State International Law Review article in 2006, he contrasted the views of transnationalists and their critics, whom he designates “nationalists”:

Generally speaking, the trans-nationalists tend to emphasize the interdependence between the United States and the rest of the world, while the nationalists tend instead to focus more on preserving American autonomy. The transnationalists believe in and promote the blending of international and domestic law, while nationalists continue to maintain a rigid separation of domestic from foreign law. The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law, while nationalists argue instead that only the political branches can internalize international law. The transnationalists believe that U.S. courts can and should use their interpretive powers to promote the development of a global legal system, while the nationalists tend to claim that U.S. courts should limit their attention to the development of a national system. Finally, the transnationalists urge that the power of the executive branch should be constrained by judicial review and the concept of international comity, while the nationalists tend to believe that federal courts should give extraordinarily broad deference to executive power in foreign affairs.

Two points are notable here. The first is that judges should use the concept of “international comity” to constrain the power of the executive branch. It is a vague and open-ended notion that allows judges to legislate undemocratically from the bench.

The second point to note is the disapproving reference to “preserving American autonomy.” Traditional American policy, with long-standing bipartisan support, has been to safeguard the president’s authority and ability to act independently to defend the country’s national-security interests. It was a Democratic president, Harry Truman, who ensured that the United Nations Charter gave the United States a veto over resolutions of the Security Council, the only UN body that can make legally binding decisions. He favored international cooperation but not at the expense of American freedom of action or of the president’s constitutional authority to act as he or she sees fit to defend the country or advance its interests. John F. Kennedy did not seek UN permission to “quarantine” Cuba, nor did President Bill Clinton​ obtain UN authorization for the U.S.-led intervention in Kosovo. Harold Koh, however, writes of American autonomy as a problem to be solved rather than a principle to be preserved.

Obama appointed Koh as the top lawyer at the State Department, where he has been instrumental in interpreting the laws of war and leads the U.S. delegation to multinational meetings on the International Criminal Court treaty.

_____________

In the seven decades following World War II, when America achieved the dominant position in world affairs, realists and idealists have agreed on a number of fundamental ideas about U.S. national security. They are these: American interests, rather than global interests, should predominate in U.S. policymaking. American leadership, as traditionally defined, is indispensible to promoting the interests of the United States and our key partners, who are our fellow democracies. American power is generally a force for good in the world. And, as important as international cooperation can be, the U.S. president should cherish American sovereignty and defend his ability to act independently to protect the American people and their interests.

As we have seen, President Obama and his advisory team are skeptical of all these ideas, or have rejected them outright.

Ideas matter, and especially to intellectuals like President Obama. He is not a rigid ideologue and is capable of flexible maneuvering. But his interpretation of history, his attitude toward sovereignty, and his confidence in multilateral institutions have shaped his views of American power and of American leadership in ways that distinguish him from previous presidents. On Libya, his deference to the UN Security Council and refusal to serve as coalition leader show that he cares more about restraining America than about accomplishing any particular result in Libya. He views Libya and the whole Arab Spring as relatively small distractions from his broader strategy for breaking with the history of U.S. foreign policy as it developed in the last century. The critics who accuse Obama of being adrift in foreign policy are mistaken. He has clear ideas of where he wants to go. The problem for him is that, if his strategy is set forth plainly, most Americans will not want to follow him.

About the Authors

Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey are senior fellows at the Hudson Institute​. Feith served as under-secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005 and is the author of War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism (Harper). Cropsey served as a naval officer from 1985 to 2004 and as deputy undersecretary of the Navy in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

2011/12/07

The End of Religious Freedom

The End of Religious Freedom

“In an age when the persecution of Egypt’s Coptic Christians is more bloody than ever the bill to continue funding the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was held up by just one man, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill).”

By Phyllis Chesler

Time has run out for the cause of worldwide religious freedom. On November 18, 2011, America chose not to extend any further lifeline to persecuted religious minorities around the planet. On that day, the U.S. government shut down the work of an important and unique American effort: the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

Oddly enough, the mainstream media does not seem to have covered this story. I certainly did not know about it. Did you? The only article about this appeared at CNS News.

In 1998, the U.S. government passed the Religious Freedom Act and this commission was one of the results. Since then, it has sent delegations abroad to meet with minority religious leaders in Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia, and released reports about their work. In 2011, their Annual Report (PDF copy provided below) covered countries such as Afghanistan, Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, and Iran.

In 2011, Nina Shea, the head commissioner, presented testimony before members of Congress about Christian minorities under attack in Iraq and Egypt. In this hearing, Shea reported:

USCIRF has found serious, widespread, and longstanding human rights violations against religious minorities as well as disfavored Muslims. Confronted by these violations, the Egyptian government has failed to take the necessary steps to halt the discrimination and repression against Christians and other minorities. Too often, it has failed to punish the violators.

Shea discussed the New Year’s Day bombing in Alexandria, which led to the worst attack targeting Christians in a decade. Carefully, without saying that Muslims or the Egyptian Muslim police were the perpetrators, she refered to the “Coptic Christmas shooting that killed six innocent Christians in Naga Hammadi.” Over the last two years, the Egyptian government, media, and network of mosques have systematically engaged in violence and in the coverup of that violence against Christians.

In an interview with PJ Media, Shea said,

With the onslaught of the Arab Winter and the threat of  newly politically empowered Islamists suppressing the freedoms of religious minorities and even carrying out religious cleansing campaigns against them, USCIRF is needed more than ever. Its voice carries official weight and it has vigorously and consistently raised it within and outside the government on behalf of a broad array of persecuted minorities and individuals around the world. At this time, USCIRF is winding down its work, as it is legally bound to do, since its authorization ends on December 16. As reported in the Congressional Quarterly, Senator Durbin of Illinois has blocked the USCIRF reauthorization for several months, reportedly in order to get an earmark to fund a prison in his state. He has been intractable. President Obama — who served with Mr. Durbin in the Senate before becoming president and who has expressed an interest in using the prison at issue for holding detainees from Guantanamo Bay – must speak up, if USCIRF is to continue.  President Obama can make this happen and I appeal to him to do so.

Why would the American government shut down USCIRF now? Some might say that we are in an economic recession and must care fo our own before we can help others. Some secular Americans might simply want freedom from religion rather than of religion. They may not care about the choice to practice one’s religion or whether or not people are being persecuted for doing so. And some Americans may agree with the UN view that Muslims and Islam are not to be criticized and that any accurate portrayal of Muslim behavior may be treated as a crime.

Next: The USCIRF’s opponent still pursues its totalitarian aims with the blessing of the global community…

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Durban Follies, constitutes a permanent delegation to the UN. The OIC was established in 1969. Its position is as follows: it seeks to

pursue as a matter of priority a common policy aimed at prevented defamation of Islam perpetrated under the pretext and justification of the freedom of expression in particular through media and internet.

In 2011, the 38th Conference, held in Kazakhstan, stated “deep concern over any activities carried out by certain governmental and non-governmental organizations supported by governments in order to attack OIC member states for political purposes and to further their foreign policy objectives in international forums.” The conference also denounced “media campaigns and fabrications made by some quarters in non-member states regarding the mistreatment of non-Muslim minorities and communities in the OIC member states under the slogans of religious freedoms and so on.”

In other words, attempting to help a Christian escape genocide in Egypt, Iraq, or Pakistan would be outlawed as would all work that reports on religious persecution. What I’m writing here would be criminalized. The Muslims who drafted this document want to do their gender cleansing without being exposed, stopped, or held liable for it. That’s the OIC at the UN.

The United States, to its credit, shunned the UN’s Durban III conference. However, in 2009, the Obama administration eliminated the phrases “Islamic extremism,” “Islamic terrorism,” and “terrorism” from national security strategy documents. We have also seen a quantum increase in fears about a non-existent “Islamophobia” and a similar quantum decrease in “official” fears about an escalating anti-Semitism which in the Middle East is potentially genocidal.

Many European politically correct/anti-racist governments agree with the OIC Conference. For example, European governments have prosecuted “thought crimes” which involve criticism of Islam or any objective presentation of Islam (honor killing, honor related violence, forced marriage, daughter and wife beating, etc.) that some Muslim somewhere finds offensive — in Holland, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Iceland etc. I myself have called this the death of free speech in Europe.

Recently, I was involved in the case of a Pakistani apostate, Khalid Saheed, who sought and was denied political asylum in Sweden. Predictably, he and his family have received death threats from Islamic fundamentalists. If Saheed and his family are sent back to Pakistan, they will be murdered for leaving Islam. This is the true state of religious tolerance in the Muslim world. There is no such freedom and USCRIF has boldly exposed and published this truth.

Finally: What does Dick Durbin have to do with the death of the USCRIF?

Read the entire article at PJMedia

View this document on Scribd

2011/12/05

Video-Obama – The Anti-Israel President

Filed under: Israel, Lies and more Lies, National Security, Obama — - @ 6:11 pm

Obama – The Anti-Israel President

2011/12/01

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

Source Article Link: FrontPageMag

Obama Administration Bans Knowledge of Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

The Obama administration’s censoring of photographs of the late Osama bin Laden, lest they “offend” Muslims, is one thing; but what about censoring words, especially those pivotal to U.S. security?

Weeks earlier, the Daily Caller revealed that “the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.”

The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial.  In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim PublicAffairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.  Maintaining the training materials in their current state “will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community,” al-Marayati wrote.  Multiple online sources detail MPAC’s close alignment with CAIR.  In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community” and “establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials.”

Accordingly, after discussing the matter with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for.  They will not be tolerated.”

Even before these Muslim complaints and threats, President Obama alluded to censoring words when he said soon after taking office: “Words matter … because one of the ways we’re going to win this struggle [“war on terror”] is through the battle of [Muslims’] hearts and minds” (followed by oddities like commissioning NASA to make Muslims “feel good” about themselves).

As if there were not already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies—including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College—the administration’s more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters.  Last year’s QDR, a strategic document, does not mention anything remotely related to Islam—even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an “accelerant of instability and conflict” around the world.

This attempt to whitewash Islam certainly has precedents, such as a 2008 government memo that not only warned against “offending,” “insulting,” or being “confrontational” to Muslims, but tried to justify such censorship as follows:

Never use the terms “jihadist”  or “mujahideen” in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means “striving in the path of God” and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions [emphasis added].

Aside from the fact that the above definitions are highly misleading, the notion that the words we use can ever have an impact on what is and is not legitimate for Muslims is ludicrous:  Muslims are not waiting around for Americans or their government—that is, the misguided, the deluded, in a word, the infidel—to define Islam for them. For Muslims, only Sharia determines right and wrong.

The U.S. government needs to worry less about which words appease Muslims and worry more about providing its intelligence community—not to mention its own citizenry—with accurate knowledge concerning the nature of the threat.

Without words related to Islam, how are analysts to make sense of the current conflict?  What are the goals and motivations of the “jihadists”?  What are their methods?  Who might be “radicalizing” them?  Whom are they affiliated to?  Who supports them?  These and a host of other questions are unintelligible without free use of words related to Islam.

Knowledge is inextricably linked to language. The more generic the language, the less precise the knowledge; conversely, the more precise the language, the more precise the knowledge. In the current conflict, to acquire accurate knowledge, which is essential to victory, we need to begin with accurate language.

This means U.S. intelligence analysts and policymakers need to be able to use, and fully appreciate the significance of, words related to Islam—starting with the word “Islam” itself, i.e., submission to a worldview based on Sharia, a code of law antithetical to Western common law. It means the U.S. military needs to begin expounding and studying Islamic war doctrine—without fear of reprisal, such as when counter-terrorism strategist Stephen Coughlin was fired by the Pentagon for focusing on Islamic doctrine and therefore being politically incorrect. In short, it means America’s leadership needs to take that ancient dictum—“Know thy enemy”—seriously.

Videos-Nazi Collaborators: Islam and The Third Reich

 

Nazi Collaborators The Grand Mufti, Islam and The Third Reich (Part 1)

Nazi Collaborators- The Grand Mufti, Islam and The Third Reich (Part 2)

2011/11/30

Obama Administration Seals Court Records Of Border Patrol’s Murder

Below is an article concerning the Murder of U.S. Border Guard Brian Terry during the Obama Administrations Operation Fast and Furious. Barack Obama has now chose to seal the Court Records in order to hide the murder of Brian Terry. If the Obama Administration is as innocent as they claim then why hide the records? Included with the Court Record Seal article are several articles outlining the history of this murder. Walt

Source Article Link: Judicial Watch

Barack Obama Seals Court Records Of Border Patrol’s Murder

The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.

This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.

Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of more than 1,000 guns which have been used in numerous crimes. In Terry’s case, five illegal immigrants armed with at least two semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and Terry got hit.

We know this only because Washington D.C.’s conservative newspaper , (copy right below this article) the Washington Times, got ahold of the court documents before the government suddenly made them off limits. The now-sealed federal grand jury indictment tells the frightening story of how Terry was gunned down by Mexican drug smugglers patrolling the rugged desert with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

You can see why the administration wants to keep this information from the public and the media, considering the smugglers were essentially armed by the U.S. government. Truth is, no one will know the reason for the confiscation of public court records in this case because the judge’s decision to seal it was also sealed, according to the news story. That means the public or media won’t have access to any new or old evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

A number of high-ranking Border Patrol officials are questioning how the case is being handled. For instance, they wonder why the defendant (Manuel Osorio-Arellanes) hasn’t been tried even though it’s been almost a year since Terry’s murder. They also have concerns about the lack of transparency in the investigation, not to mention the recent sealing of the court case.

Osorio-Arellanes is charged with second-degree murder. The four other drug smugglers fled the scene and their names were blacked out in the indictment. In 2006 Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix of felony aggravated assault and in 2010 he was twice detained for being in the U.S. illegally.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this month to address the flawed gun-tracking program, Attorney General Eric Holder said it’s not fair to assume that mistakes in Operation Fast and Furious led to Terry’s death. Holder also expressed regret to the federal agent’s family, saying that he can only imagine their pain.


Source Article Link: Washington Times

Armed illegals stalked Border Patrol

Mexicans were ‘patrolling’ when agent was slain, indictment says

By Jerry Seper

Five illegal immigrants armed with at least two AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole known as Mesquite Seep just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and one U.S. agent was killed, records show.

A now-sealed federal grand jury indictment in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry says the Mexican nationals were “patrolling” the rugged desert area of Peck Canyon at about 11:15 p.m. on Dec. 14 with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

At least two of the Mexicans carried their assault rifles “at the ready position,” one of several details about the attack showing that Mexican smugglers are becoming more aggressive on the U.S. side of the border.

According to the indictment, the Mexicans were “patrolling the area in single-file formation” a dozen miles northwest of the border town of Nogales and — in the darkness of the Arizona night — opened fire on four Border Patrol agents after the agents identified themselves in Spanish as police officers.

Two AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene came from the failed Fast and Furious operation.

Using thermal binoculars, one of the agents determined that at least two of the Mexicans were carrying rifles, but according to an affidavit in the case by FBI agent Scott Hunter, when the Mexicans did not drop their weapons as ordered, two agents used their shotguns to fire “less than lethal” beanbags at them.

At least one of the Mexicans opened fire and, according to the affidavit, Terry, a 40-year-old former U.S. Marine, was shot in the back. A Border Patrol shooting-incident report said that Terry called out, “I’m hit,” and then fell to the ground, a bullet having pierced his aorta. “I can’t feel my legs,” Terry told one of the agents who cradled him. “I think I’m paralyzed.”

Bleeding profusely, he died at the scene.

After the initial shots, two agents returned fire, hitting Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, 33, in the abdomen and leg. The others fled. The FBI affidavit said Osorio-Arellanes admitted during an interview that all five of the Mexicans were armed.

Peck Canyon is a notorious drug-smuggling corridor.

Osorio-Arellanes initially was charged with illegal entry, but that case was dismissed when the indictment was handed up. It named Osorio-Arellanes on a charge of second-degree murder, but did not identify him as the likely shooter, saying only that Osorio-Arellanes and others whose names were blacked out “did unlawfully kill with malice aforethought United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while Agent Terry was engaged in … his official duties.”

The indictment also noted that Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix in 2006 of felony aggravated assault, had been detained twice in 2010 as an illegal immigrant, and had been returned to Mexico repeatedly.

Bill Brooks, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acting southwest border field branch chief, referred inquiries to the FBI, which is conducting the investigation. The FBI declined to comment.

The case against Osorio-Arellanes and others involved in the shooting has since been sealed, meaning that neither the public nor the media has access to any evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which is prosecuting the case, would confirm only that it was sealed. Also sealed was the judge’s reason for sealing the case.

The indictment lists the names of other suspects in the shooting, but they are redacted.

In the Terry killing, two Romanian-built AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene were identified as having been purchased in a Glendale, Ariz., gun shop as part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) failed Fast and Furious investigation.

A number of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents have questioned why the case has not gone to trial, nearly a year after Terry’s killing. Several also have concerns about the lack of transparency in the investigation, compounded now by the fact that the court case has been sealed.

Shawn P. Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 nonsupervisory agents, said it is rare for illegal immigrants or drug smugglers to engage agents in the desert, saying they usually “drop their loads and take off south.”

“The Brian Terry murder was a real wake-up call,” Mr. Moran said. “It emphasizes the failed state of security on the U.S. border, which poses more of a threat to us than either Iraq or Afghanistan. We have terrorism going on right on the other side of the fence, and we’re arming the drug cartels.

“My biggest fear is that someday a cartel member is going to go berserk, stick a rifle through the fence and kill as many Border Patrol agents as he can,” he said.

Mr. Moran said he understood the “rationale of working things up the food chain,” as suggested in the Fast and Furious probe, but had no idea how ATF planned to arrest cartel members who ultimately purchased the weapons since the agency lacks jurisdiction south of the border and never advised Mexican authorities about the operation.

“It was a ridiculous idea from the beginning, and it baffles us on how it was ever approved,” he said.

Mr. Moran also challenged the use of less-than-lethal s in the shooting incident, saying field agents have been “strong-armed” by the agency’s leadership to use nonlethal weapons. He said they were not appropriate for the incident in which Terry was killed.

“That was no place for beanbag rounds,” he said, noting that the encounter was at least 12 miles inside the U.S. and was carried out by armed men looking specifically to target Border Patrol agents.

CBP has said Terry and the agents with him carried fully loaded sidearms, along with two additional magazines, and were not under orders to use nonlethal ammunition first.

Mr. Moran, himself a veteran Border Patrol agent, said he also was “surprised” that the suspected Mexican gunmen were carrying their weapons at the ready position, meaning that the butts of the weapons were placed firmly in the pocket of the shoulder with the barrels pointed down at a 45-degree angle. He said this probably meant they had some level of military training.

More than 250 incursions by Mexican military personnel into the United States have been documented over the past several years.

The Border Patrol has warned agents in Arizona that many of the intruders were “trained to escape, evade and counter-ambush” if detected. The agency cautioned agents to keep “a low profile,” to use “cover and concealment” in approaching the Mexican units, to employ “shadows and camouflage” to conceal themselves and to “stay as quiet as possible.”

Several of the incursions occurred in the same area where Terry was killed, including a 2005 incident in which two agents were shot and wounded by assailants dressed in black commando-type clothing in what law-enforcement authorities said was a planned ambush. More than 50 rounds were fired at the agents after they spotted the suspected gunmen.


Source Link: Tucson Weekly

The Brothers Arellanes

The man held in connection with the murder of Agent Brian Terry has a crime-ridden past—and so does at least one relative

by Leo W. Banks

Daniel Osorio-Arellanes was formally deported from the U.S. on Oct 18, 2005. - Courtesy Mesa Police Department

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, who has a lengthy criminal record, was wounded in a gunfight with Border Patrol agents the night of Brian Terry's murder. - Courtesy Mesa Police Department

Rito Osorio-Arellanes, believed to be Manuel's brother, was arrested near Rio Rico two days before Brian Terry's murder. - Courtesy Mesa Police Department

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s border strategy is to push as much of the illicit traffic as possible out of towns and settled areas, and into the backcountry.

Out of sight, out of mind. With the smugglers high up in the mountains and in remote canyons, she gains enough political cover to stand up and say the border is largely secure, so let’s move on to comprehensive immigration reform.

But the strategy hasn’t stopped the traffic; it’s only moved it—into the neighborhoods of rural Southern Arizonans, which explains why these folks push back so loudly and so emotionally against the government spin.

Everything is on the line for them—their property, their families and their lives, as they try to stay away from dangerous smugglers crossing their land. They believe one of them killed rancher Rob Krentz in March 2010, and another murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry along the Peck Canyon smuggling corridor, northwest of Nogales, on Dec. 14, 2010.

In the latter case, four men were arrested following the Terry incident—all illegal aliens. Three were judged not to be involved and were deported. The fourth, 34-year-old Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, is still being held for trial, now scheduled for May 10, on a felony charge of re-entry after deportation.

If you live along a smuggling corridor in the remote borderlands, or work for the Border Patrol and police those areas, men like Arellanes are your worst nightmare.

He was one of five armed men—part of a “rip crew” of border bandits who refused to drop their weapons when ordered to do so by agents from Border Patrol’s elite BORTAC unit. In the deadly shootout that followed, Arellanes was wounded. He admitted carrying a rifle, according to an FBI search warrant, but claimed he did not fire when he realized the men they’d encountered were Border Patrol agents.

Arellanes’ criminal past includes domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and violence against police, according to records in Maricopa County. Moreover, Arellanes might’ve been working the Peck Corridor with Rito Osorio-Arellanes, who is believed to be Manuel’s brother.

Rito was arrested in the same area two days before Terry’s murder.

Federal court records show that Rito—whose name, like Manuel’s, is spelled in multiple ways in public documents—was taken into custody on Dec. 12 near Rio Rico. Smugglers, bandits and illegal aliens often enter and exit the Peck corridor at Rio Rico, which is close to Peck Well, the area of the Coronado National Forest where the murder occurred on Dec. 14.

After his arrest in Mesa on March 16, 2004, for selling $20 worth of crack cocaine to an undercover detective in Pioneer Park, Rito said if released, he would go live with his brother in Mesa. Rito was a transient at the time. Manuel was also was living in Mesa then, and in court records, both gave their address as Pasadena Street.

Rito also had a criminal record in this country, and he told a Maricopa County probation officer in 2004 that he had done time in Mexico for homicide. In a pre-sentencing report, the probation officer wrote that he did not verify that statement.

Rito’s lawyer, Daniel Anderson, says he heard that Rito’s brother had been shot by Border Patrol agents, but knew nothing more about it. As for Rito’s past in Mexico, Anderson said he was unaware of it—and couldn’t talk about it even if he were.

The Tucson Weekly tried to confirm Rito’s statement through the Mexican Foreign Ministry in Washington, D.C., but was unsuccessful as of our press time.

Were Manuel and Rito working together in Peck Canyon? Were they part of the same crew that was assaulting, raping and robbing illegals and rival drug mules using that corridor?

Court records also detail the border-area arrests of another man with the same last name: Daniel Osorio-Arellanes, 35. Like Rito, Daniel is from Sinaloa, Mexico.

Border Patrol arrested him on Oct. 20, 2008, near the border town of Sasabe, Ariz. Although the record is unclear, he was likely voluntarily returned to Mexico, which basically means he was pushed back across the line.

But the next day, he was arrested again, this time in Amado, near Interstate 10 and Arivaca Road. Court records show he had been deported three years earlier, on Oct. 18, 2005. The government dismissed the felony charge of re-entry after deportation, and Daniel pleaded guilty to misdemeanor entry without inspection. He served 180 days in jail.

Prior to all of this, on Oct. 7, 2008, Mexican police arrested Daniel in Altar, Sonora, just south of Sasabe, for possession of methamphetamine, according to information from Mexico’s attorney general.

Meth is commonly used by coyotes and drug-smugglers for the energy boost it provides. Coyotes give it to the people they’re guiding to keep them walking through the night, a dangerous tactic that can accelerate dehydration.

Meth has played a key role in the criminal histories of Manuel and Rito as well. Both also have multiple deportations—but the open border allows them to keep returning to this country.

Manuel was detained in Mesa on Nov. 17, 2003, for resisting arrest. According to the Mesa police report, when officers responded to a call about a man looking into backyards and “possibly casing houses,” they found Manuel yelling in Spanish at a woman waiting in her car for her daughter outside of New Horizon elementary school.

Manuel refused commands to move away from the car, and when police tried to arrest him, Manuel “spun away from our grasp and attempted to run,” the report said. He continued to struggle after being handcuffed.

To get him into a patrol car, officers had to wrestle him to the street twice and Taser him twice, to minimal effect. At the Mesa jail, he fought officers again, after which paramedics were called to take him to the hospital due to a rapid heartbeat.

Manuel, a day laborer in the country illegally, admitted that he used marijuana, cocaine and meth, according to a pre-sentencing report by a Maricopa County probation officer.

He said he began smoking marijuana frequently at age 13. He began using meth “one or two times per month” at 26, and had last used the drug two weeks before his arrest.

He pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and was sentenced to 18 months of supervised probation.

After a period during which Manuel seemed to do well, passing all court-ordered urinalysis tests, he was arrested again on May 21, 2006, for aggravated assault on a police officer.

Officers were summoned to his house in Mesa on a domestic-violence call after his wife reported that Manuel was drunk and causing a disturbance. Police had been to the house several times in previous months for the same trouble.

As an officer approached him, Manuel said, “Don’t arrest me.” When the officer attempted to handcuff him, Manuel punched the policeman in the face, causing a bloody cut on his left cheek and a bloody lip.

Court papers in Maricopa County state that Manuel admitted using cocaine the day of the arrest. He also said that in the three months prior to his arrest, he’d been using meth, and it had made him “very paranoid,” according to the pre-sentencing report.

The report also noted that the officer with whom Manuel fought had been to the house before, on a domestic call during which Arellanes had “smacked up his wife pretty good.”

The report provides a glimpse into Manuel’s life. He admitted coming to the country illegally in 1999. He said he was married and had two stepdaughters.

Beginning in March 2003, he worked as an $11-per-hour tile-setter for a company in Gilbert. In a letter to the court, his boss said he was pleased to have Manuel on his staff, because he was “a very dependable and reliable worker.”

But in a phone interview with the Weekly, company owner Slobadan Daki said that “was on the days when he showed up.”

Manuel pleaded guilty to felony aggravated assault on a police officer and got 60 days in jail, followed by three years of probation. He also was ordered to undergo domestic-violence and anger-management counseling, and submit to DNA testing for law-enforcement purposes.

Court records show that Manuel’s next arrest occurred six months before the Terry murder, on June 8, 2010, when Border Patrol agents found him after he had entered the country illegally near Nogales. He pleaded guilty to that crime and was deported on June 14—his last known appearance in the country before his re-entry in December.

Clay Hernandez, Manuel’s lawyer, did not return a phone call to talk about his client.

Manuel has not been charged in the Terry murder, presumably because the FBI is unable to link the AK-47 he carried to the killing. FBI spokesman Manuel Johnson declined to comment on the ongoing investigation.

Multiple media sources have reported that two AK-47s were recovered at the scene. The guns have been traced to a three-gun cash purchase from the Lone Wolf Trading Company gun shop in Glendale, Ariz., on Jan. 16, 2010, according to a federal indictment.

A law enforcement source with knowledge of the matter said the third AK-47 from that buy, possibly the murder weapon, has never been located and is a key component of the FBI’s effort to identify a killer.

As for Rito, now 40 years old, he pleaded guilty to his 2004 crack-cocaine arrest, serving 100 days in jail and getting three years of probation. He told police he was selling drugs to buy food. He acknowledged needing help for his addictions, saying he’d been drinking six to 12 beers a day prior to his arrest and smoking meth daily for two years.

While still on probation, on March 24, 2006, Rito was again arrested in Pioneer Park, for possession of crack cocaine. He gave police a false name and date of birth.

Rito explained to court officials that following his earlier deportation, he returned illegally to the United States again around January 2005 out of economic necessity. He supported himself by waiting on street corners two or three mornings per week to get day-labor jobs that paid $50 to $60 in cash per day.

He admitted to using $60 a day worth of meth or crack, in addition to drinking one to two six-packs of beer a day. He pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and spent 30 days in jail, which was followed by three years of probation.

Court records show Rito was deported through Nogales on Feb. 11, 2010. After that, he disappeared from public view until two days before the Terry murder, when Border Patrol arrested him at Rio Rico. He is scheduled to stand trial in federal court in Tucson on June 14 on a felony charge of re-entry after deportation.


Source Article Link: The Tucson Weekly

The Border’s Revolving Door

The indictment issued involving the murder of Agent Brian Terry raises as many questions as it answers

by Leo W. Banks

The May 6 unsealing of a federal indictment against Manuel Osorio-Arellanes revealed new details about the night of Dec. 14, 2010, when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered on Coronado National Forest land northwest of Nogales.

Terry’s elite, four-man tactical unit was conducting operations at Mesquite Seep, along the dangerous Peck Canyon smuggling corridor, when they encountered armed bandits “patrolling in single file formation,” at least two of them carrying 7.62-by-39mm Romanian AK-47 assault rifles.

The bandits carried the rifles “at the ‘ready’ position when they encountered the Border Patrol agents,” the indictment said. At least two of the defendants shot at Border Patrol agents after the agents identified themselves as police.

As has been previously reported, the firefight began with one of the Border Patrol agents firing two rounds from a nonlethal beanbag shotgun. This same agent then fired “an unknown number of rounds from his service-issued sidearm,” according to a Border Patrol report.

Another agent fired at the men with his M4 rifle. Terry, shot in the back, “called out that he was hit and couldn’t feel his legs,” and soon lost consciousness.

Arellanes, 34, originally from El Fuerte, Mexico, and in the U.S. illegally, was wounded in the gun battle. He was one of four men arrested that night, and in a statement to the FBI, he admitted carrying a rifle. He said “he had raised his weapon towards the Border Patrol agents, but did not fire because he had realized that they were Border Patrol agents. At this time, he was shot,” according to a search warrant filed with the court.

The indictment confirms Arellanes, also known as Paye, was one of the men carrying an AK-47, along with 25 rounds of ammunition. It isn’t clear from the wording whether investigators believe Arellanes fired his weapon, but sources say he did not.

The indictment says the gunman who fired the fatal shot fled and is being sought.

In addition to second-degree murder, the 14-count indictment includes weapons and conspiracy charges. It includes at least two fugitive co-defendants whose identities remain under seal.

Arellanes’ trial is set for U.S. District Court in Tucson on June 17. A conviction on second-degree murder carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

The indictment also raised the question about a possible link between the three other men arrested that night—and later deported—and the rip crew involved in Terry’s death.

Court records show that two of them—Francisco Rosario Camacho-Alameda, or Almeda, and Jose Angel-Camacho—had been previously deported at Nogales on Feb. 26, 2010. One of the unnamed fugitives now being sought had been previously deported at Nogales at practically the same time—”on or about Feb 25, 2010,” according to the indictment.

The three men—the third being Jesus Soria-Ruiz—were all illegal aliens. They were held for two months, initially on charges of re-entry after deportation, a felony carrying the possibility of two years in jail.

In February, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that an “extensive investigation” had yielded no evidence linking the three to the Terry shooting. The felony charges against them were reduced to misdemeanors; all three pleaded guilty and were sent back to Mexico.

Robbie Sherwood, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, says there is no link between the fugitive named in the indictment and any of the men taken into custody that night. “They’re all different people,” he says. “We did not release people suspected of murder.”

But the deportation dates for Camacho-Alameda and Angel-Camacho, and their arrests on the night of the murder, mark two occasions when they were in relative proximity, in geography or timing, to the bandits who killed Terry.

“It’s certainly a world of extreme coincidence,” says Ron Colburn, who recently retired as national deputy chief of the Border Patrol.

He initially believed, along with others in the Border Patrol, that all four men arrested the night of the murder were involved. Now living in Arizona, Colburn is a founder of the BORTAC tactical unit, of which Terry was a part, and he keeps in close touch with the group. That includes the Border Patrolmen involved in the hunt for Terry’s killer.

In the first 48 hours after the murder, he kept getting calls from agents saying, ‘Ron, we think there were five, and we’re chasing one now, because we’ve already captured three, plus one is in the hospital.’ The agents hunting the killer firmly believed all of the men arrested that night were in one pack, connected somehow to the rip crew.

No fifth suspect was ever found, says Sherwood.

Colburn says he was having lunch with Matt Allen, the special agent in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Arizona, the day that word got out that the three men would be sent back to Mexico. Colburn felt “emotionally pulled toward trying to do something rather than just letting them walk.”

He felt so strongly that he appealed to Allen to intervene. But Allen said it wasn’t his case. Colburn describes Allen shrugging, as if to say, “What can I do?”

After the U.S. Attorney’s strong denial, Colburn—who has led BORTAC missions in the Peck Canyon Corridor—says he is willing to believe the three deportees were not involved in the Terry episode. But their pattern of behavior indicates they weren’t ordinary illegal aliens. “I suspect they may have been connected with drug- or people-smuggling, or they were part of some rip crew,” he says.

In an e-mail, former U.S. Attorney Bates Butler, now a criminal defense lawyer in Tucson, tells the Tucson Weekly that he has spoken to a lawyer with knowledge of the matter who also stated that the three were not involved.

“The three others were found about one mile from the shooting, along the same trail used by the shooters, which I suppose accounts for the agents believing that they had tracked the shooters back to the three,” Butler’s e-mail says. “Apparently the trail was oftentimes used by many.” He declined to reveal the lawyer’s name.

In a phone conversation, Butler speculated that Arellanes began cooperating with investigators, and the information he provided about that night—and the others in the crew—led to the indictment. “I’m not surprised Arellanes got charged with second-degree if he is cooperating,” says Butler.

As the Weekly reported on April 21 (see “The Brothers Arellanes”), Arellanes has a criminal past in Maricopa County that includes domestic abuse and assault on a police officer. He also has been a heavy meth user, the drug of choice among smugglers and coyotes because of the boost it gives to keep them walking.

As in many cases of border violence, the issue of illegals re-entering the country after being deported following earlier crimes plays a central role in the Terry murder. Arellanes had been previously removed at Nogales on June 14, 2010. Another unnamed co-defendant had been previously deported at Nogales on Oct. 19, 2010, the indictment says.

Jesus Soria-Ruiz, one of the men arrested the night of Terry’s murder who was later deported, has a lengthy record. Court records show he was arrested near Nogales on Jan. 29, 2006, and again near Nogales on July 14, 2010.

A man believed to be Manuel Arellanes’ brother, Rito Osorio-Arellanes, was arrested two days before the Terry murder in Rio Rico, near the Peck Corridor. He has a criminal record in this country and told a Maricopa County probation officer in 2004 that he had done time in Mexico for homicide.

Rito is still being held on a charge of re-entry after deportation. He, too, had been previously deported through Nogales, on Feb. 11, 2010. If the pattern holds, he will plead to a misdemeanor, get time served and be deported again, rather than being tried and given substantial jail time—which means Border Patrol agents would risk encountering him again in the canyons, and Peck Corridor residents will risk encountering him in their backyards.

The same applies to many prior deports and explains why smuggling corridors such as the one through Peck Canyon are so out of control. Consequences are minimal; the law does not deter.

Butler cautions, however, that a solution would require more prisons, prosecutors and judges, and he doesn’t think people are prepared to pay the taxes necessary to hold jury trials for, and then jail, all of those offenders convicted on felony re-entry.

But one fact is undeniable: The border along these smuggling corridors is largely open, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s claim of a secure border is laughable.


View this document on Scribd

Mufti Husseini and Hitler

H/T Internet Haganah

Mufti Husseini and Hitler

2011/11/25

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

Source Link: Family Security Matters

“All-American Muslim”: A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie

By Clare M. Lopez

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan. The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community…” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself. That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah. On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

America’s answer to the Canadian CBC TV series, “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” premiered at The Learning Channel (TLC) on 13 November 201l: “All-American Muslim” is airing as an 8-part series styled as a kind of faux-reality show and follows members of five Shi’ite Muslim families of Lebanese descent in Dearborn, Michigan.

The idea is to show that these Muslims are just like any other Americans and to dispel what TLC terms “misconceptions, conflicts and differences they face outside — and within — their own community. . . .” Misconceptions about Islam do, in fact, abound; but it is not likely that “All-American Muslim” will do much to clarify how Islamic supremacism and violence against non-believers derive directly from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam itself.

That every Muslim believer does not behave in conformance with such fundamental tenets of the faith is obvious and to be acknowledged with relief. Unfortunately, though, television shows that gloss over the reality of Islamic ideology not only obscure the full truth about Islam from non-Muslims who then remain unprepared to defend against its hostile elements, but also leave no space for Muslims who themselves oppose jihadist terrorism, inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, misogyny, honor killings, the apostasy death penalty, and vicious hudud punishments. This is why the new TLC series might more accurately be called “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie.” Taqiyya, of course, is the sanctioned Islamic practice of deceit and dissimulation to defend or promote Islam.

Part of the whitewash at “All-American Muslim” involves some of the program stars themselves. One of the American-born leads, Suehaila Amen, is a devout Shi’ite Muslim who wears the hijab and, just days after the 9/11 attacks, wrote a letter to a Lebanese newspaper, declaring Lebanon her “homeland” and America as a place where “everyone is your enemy.” It is unclear whether Amen knew at the time of the deep involvement of the Iranian terror proxy, Lebanese Hizballah, in the 9/11 attacks. Amen serves as 1st Vice President of the Lebanese American Heritage Club of Dearborn, MI, which has sponsored openly antisemitic, anti-Israel, and pro-Hizballah rallies and whose founder, Ali Jawad, was fired from the 2008 John McCain presidential campaign because of his alleged ties to Hizballah.

On 21 June 2011, the Club held a boisterous rally in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, even as that dictator’s security forces were gunning down unarmed protestors in the streets. Club members also rallied against former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and cheered his ouster in February 2011, an event that cleared the way for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to power there. Amen also organized fundraising banquets in 2010 and 2011 for the Michigan Chapter of the CAIR Action Network; according to the U.S. Department of Justice, CAIR is the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization, itself an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

The Imam featured in the series, Husham Al- Husainy, who marries Jeff, the Catholic who converted to Islam, and Shadia Amen was actually featured on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News back in 2007. Al-Husainy is a radical Muslim who refused to answer Hannity’s questions regarding Hisballah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and instead went on an angry ranting spree.

The program’s story line is also problematic on multiple levels. It at once promotes the all-American image of Islam that TLC is looking for and yet subtly reinforces basic Islamic fundamentals. For instance, one of the main characters is the former Roman Catholic, Jeff McDermott, who converts to Islam so that he can marry Shadia Amen, Suehaila’s sister and daughter of one of the five families featured in the program. Not made clear is whether McDermott actually understands that his new faith commands him to wage jihad against his former one. Nor does the program address what would happen to him if he ever has second thoughts about his conversion or decides he’s made a mistake and wants to return to the Catholic faith. Islamic law (shariah) prescribes the death penalty for apostates.

The show’s setting in Dearborn, MI is meant to depict one of the largest Muslim communities in the U.S. and the site of the largest mosque in the country in an unrealistically rosy light. What the producers take care not to divulge to their viewers is the reality that Dearborn is a hotbed of Islamic jihadist support, where in 2009 the FBI shot it out on the streets with jihadis involved in a plot to overthrow the U.S. government, shouts of “Allahu Akbar” are hurled at Christians, and shariah is gaining ground. This is how taqiyya works to obscure what Islam would prefer not be publicized while the air-brushed version gets all the reviews. “A Little Taqiyya on the Prairie” would be a much more accurate name for a show that falls so far short, as this one does, of presenting a truly honest depiction of Islam in America.

Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.

2011/11/10

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Source Link: Family Security Matters

Media Attempt to Cover Up Obama Comments on Israel

Written By Roger Aronoff

The incident involving a live microphone that took place last week at the G20 summit in Cannes, France involving President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was an important revelation on several levels.

First, it revealed the true feelings that Obama and Sarkozy have toward Netanyahu, which is quite different from their public pronouncements and actions. No big surprise in either case. But the bigger story is how corrupt the media are to go along with the attempted deception.

What occurred is that the two presidents were speaking in what they thought was a private conversation. But what they overlooked was that the mics they were wearing were live, and a simultaneous translation of their conversation was being broadcast to the journalists outside the room. Those journalists were not to be given headphones until the session resumed, but a number of them had their own and were listening as a translator repeated the comments of the two men.

Initially, in the conversation, Obama was critical of Sarkozy for not letting him know in advance that France would be voting to allow the Palestinians membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). After they were voted in to the organization, the U.S. Congress voted to cut off its portion of the funding for UNESCO, as it is required by law to do if Palestine is admitted as a member of any international organization before it reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Obama, whose spokesmen have made clear that he once again will ignore Congress and do what he can to help UNESCO, was also reported to have asked Sarkozy to try to help persuade the Palestinians to stop their bid to gain full UN recognition as a state.

Sarkozy then said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear him, he’s a liar.” To which President Obama reportedly said, “You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

A number of journalists heard this, but did not report on it after staffers from Sarkozy’s office went to the journalists and told them the comments were meant to be private. According to reports, French media tradition requires journalists to honor that privacy, and in keeping with that tradition, they were asked to sign agreements to that effect. Apparently many of them complied, “due to the sensitivity of the issue.” But it was a French website, Arret sur images, that first reported the conversation. Reporters from Reuters and the Associated Press confirmed the account of the conversation. Sarkozy’s and Obama’s offices have refused to comment.

There are a couple of excellent articles about this, though not much in the mainstream media. One is by Arnold Ahlert in Jewish World Review, in which he writes that “it is hard to decide which part of this story is more revealing: the incident itself, or the subsequent reaction by the Fourth Estaters whose commitment to the standards of journalistic integrity—or perhaps more accurately JournO-listic integrity—seemingly never reach the bottom of an apparently bottomless barrel.” And to the issue of reporters agreeing, after the fact, to keep this quiet, Ahlert writes, “What reporter in his right mind would sign anything that prevents him from reporting on a story made available, not by subterfuge or anything else resembling illegality, but by the carelessness of two world leaders? Since when did a legitimate ‘gotcha’ moment become off limits to the press?”

In a piece on FrontPageMag.com, Joseph Klein discusses some of the history between Obama and Israel that makes Obama’s comments unsurprising: “…we all know what Obama really thinks. This is a president who has gone out of his way to visit Muslim countries in the same region as Israel, but has yet to visit Israel itself since taking office. Obama had no trouble bowing to the Saudi king, while insulting the Israeli prime minister at every turn.”

Added Klein, “Obama’s latest blast at Netanyahu recalls his snub of Netanyahu during the prime minister’s first visit to the Obama White House in March 2010. Obama presented Netanyahu with a list of demands, including a halt to all settlement construction in East Jerusalem. When Netanyahu resisted Obama’s charms, Obama picked up his marbles. He stormed out of the meeting and declared, ‘I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.’ Obama also refused the normal protocol of a joint photograph with the Israeli leader.”

As I detailed in a recent AIM Report, Obama has made the situation much worse through his heavy-handed demands, and an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more distant as a result. Obama raised the stakes enormously when he came to office in 2009 by demanding that Israel freeze all building of settlements, something they had never done before, and which had not been a pre-condition of the Palestinians. Then Obama pushed the 1967 borders issue, to make that a starting point for negotiations rather than one of many issues to be resolved through direct negotiations. And add to Obama’s missteps the so-called Arab Spring; Iran’s continuing efforts to possess nuclear weapons and to threaten Israel, both directly and through surrogates including both Hamas and Hezbollah; and the participation in the Palestinian government of Hamas, which controls Gaza. It is clear that Israel is less secure than at any time in recent years.

The timing of this incident has been bad for Obama. After barely a year in office, in April of 2009, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama, after having won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. He has slowly won some of that support back by trying to convince Jewish voters that he really does support Israel. A key test in that process came in September when he reluctantly made it clear that the U.S. would veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood.

But this recent “live mic” revelation will clearly set back the Obama PR campaign to win over more Jewish voters.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Roger Aronoff is a media analyst with Accuracy in Media, and is the writer/director of the award-winning documentary “Confronting Iraq: Conflict and Hope.” He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org.

With friends like these

Filed under: France, Israel, Lies and more Lies, Netanyahu, Obama, Sarkozy — - @ 11:13 am

Source Link: CarolineGlick.com

With friends like these

Written By Caroline Glick

Obama Sarkozy cartoon.jpeg

The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week’s G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.

Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, “I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar.”

Obama responded by whining, “You’re fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”

These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents’ characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.

To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s report about Iran’s nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel – Netanyahu included – has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.

Since Iran’s nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran’s malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government – Obama included – has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran’s intentions.

Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.

Perhaps Obama was relying on the US’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week’s IAEA report proves, it was the NIE – which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 – not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.

Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.

So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don’t they want to speak with him anymore? Could it be they don’t like the way he is managing their beloved “peace process” with the Palestinians? The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.

Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.

And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.

THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West’s favorite Palestinian “moderate,” Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Dream TV on October 23, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.'” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

Acknowledging this, on Tuesday Netanyahu reportedly told his colleagues that through their recent actions, the Palestinians have abrogated the foundations of the peace process. As he put it, “By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations [to achieve independent statehood], they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo.”

That tenet, which formed the basis of the Oslo peace process, was “land for peace.”

As Netanyahu explained, Israel gave up land within the framework of the Oslo Accords. In exchange the Palestinians committed to resolve their conflict with Israel through direct negotiations that would lead to peace. Their UN gambit, like Abbas’s statement to Egyptian television, shows that the Palestinians – not Israel – have been lying all along. They pocketed Israel’s territorial concessions and refused to make peace.

So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he “a liar?” Why don’t they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis? The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel rather than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy.

And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.

In an ugly diatribe against Netanyahu at his Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Clinton insisted that the PA under Abbas was “pro-peace” and that the only real obstacle to a deal was Netanyahu. Ironically, at the same time Clinton was attacking Israel’s leader for killing the peace process, Abbas was at the UN asking the Security Council to accept as a full member an independent Palestine in a de facto state of war with Israel.

So, too, while Clinton was blaming him for the failure of the peace process, Netanyahu was at the UN using his speech to the General Assembly to issue yet another plea to Abbas to renew peace talks with Israel.

Clinton didn’t exhaust his ammunition on Netanyahu. He saved plenty for the Israeli people as well. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Palestinians freely elected Hamas to lead them, Clinton provided his audience with a bigoted taxonomy of the Israeli public through which he differentiated the good, “pro-peace Israelis,” from the bad, “anti-peace,” Israelis.

As he put it, “The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazis of longstanding, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding.”

As for the bad Israelis, in the view of the former president, “The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

BY RANKING the worthiness of Israel’s citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel’s “friends” in places such as Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy.

On Wednesday we saw this practice put into play by British Ambassador Matthew Gould. This week the Knesset began deliberations on a bill that would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 to Israeli nongovernmental organizations. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis with Netanyahu’s support.

According to Haaretz, Gould issued a thinly veiled threat to Okunis related to the bill. Gould reportedly said that if the bill is passed, it would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.

Last month, Makor Rishon published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”

The document showed that in 2010, outside of Iraq, the British government gave a total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.

In contrast to Britain’s miserly attitude towards Arab civil society organizations, Her Majesty’s Government gave more than £600,000 pounds to farleftist Israeli NGOs. These Israeli groups included the Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha. All of these groups are far beyond Israeli mainstream opinion.

All seek to use international pressure on Israel to force the government to adopt policies rejected by the vast majority of the public.

So for every pound Britain forked out to cultivate democracy in 20 Arab non-democracies, it spent £6 to undermine democracy in Israel – the region’s only democracy.

And the British couldn’t be more pleased with the return on their investment. Speaking to Parliament last year, Britain’s Minister of Middle East Affairs Alistair Burt said the money has successfully changed Israeli policies. As he put it, “Since we began supporting these programs some significant changes have been made in the Israeli justice system, both civilian and military, and in the decisions they make. They have also raised a significant debate about these matters and we believe these activities will strengthen democracy in Israel.”

In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, “strengthening democracy” in Israel means tipping the scales in favor of marginal groups with no noticeable domestic constituency.

These shockingly hostile statements echo one made by then-presidential candidate Obama from the campaign trail in February 2008. At the time Obama said, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a[n] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”

Scarcely a day goes by when some foreign leader, commentator or activist doesn’t say that being pro-Israel doesn’t mean being pro-Israeli government. And like Obama’s campaign-trail statement, Clinton’s diatribe, Sarkozy and Obama’s vile gossip about Netanyahu and Britain’s self-congratulatory declarations and veiled threats, those who make a distinction between the Israeli people and the Israeli government ignore two important facts.

First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel’s elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public.

And this makes you anti-Israel.

The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US’s and Europe’s stalwart ally. If Sarkozy and Obama had said what they said about Netanyahu in a conversation about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or if Netanyahu had made similar statements about Obama or Sarkozy, the revelation of the statements would have sparked international outcries of indignation and been roundly condemned from all quarters.

And this brings us to the other troubling aspect of Sarkozy and Obama’s nasty exchange about Netanyahu. Their views reflect a wider anti-Israel climate.

Outside the Jewish world, Sarkozy’s and Obama’s hateful, false statements about their ally provoked no outrage. Indeed, it took the media three days to even report their conversation. This indicates that Obama and Sarkozy aren’t alone in holding Israel to a double standard. They aren’t the only ones blaming Israel for the Palestinians’ bad behavior.

The Western media also holds Israel to a separate standard. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel and its elected leaders for the Palestinians’ duplicity. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel for failing to make their peace fantasies come true.

And that is the real message of the Obama- Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies’ behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

2011/09/30

Assassin-in-Chief

Assassin-in-Chief

By Kevin D. Williamson

Here are two facts: (1) Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and an al-Qaeda propagandist. (2) Pres. Barack Obama proposes to assassinate him. Between the first fact and the second falls the shadow.

The Awlaki case has led many conservatives into dangerous error, as has the War on Terror more generally. That conservatives are for the most part either offering mute consent or cheering as the Obama administration draws up a list of U.S. citizens to be assassinated suggests not only that have we gone awry in our thinking about national security, limitations on state power, and the role of the president in our republic, but also that we still do not understand all of the implications of our country’s confrontation with Islamic radicalism. The trauma of 9/11 has deposited far too much emotional residue upon our thinking, and the Awlaki case provides occasion for a necessary scouring.

Contra present conservative dogma, the Constitution has relatively little to say about the role of the president in matters of what we now call national security, which is not synonymous with combat operations. What the Constitution says is this: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” That is all. Upon this sandy foundation, conservative security and legal thinkers have constructed a fortress of a presidency that is nearly unlimited or actually unlimited in its power to define and pursue national-security objectives. But a commander-in-chief is not a freelance warlord, and his titular powers do not extend over everything that touches upon national security. The FBI’s counterterrorism work, for example, is critical to national security, but its management does not fall under the duties of a commander-in-chief; it is police work, like many of the needful things undertaken in the War on Terror. The law-enforcement approach to counterterrorism is much maligned in conservative circles where martial rhetoric is preferred, but the work of the DOJ, FBI, NYPD, etc., is critical. It is not, however, warfare.

A commander-in-chief does not have unilateral authority to invade foreign countries or to name belligerents, and it is clear that the Founders did not intend to give the president that kind of unchecked war-making power, much less to compound it with unchecked domestic police and surveillance powers, which is why the power to declare war resides with Congress rather than with the president. Our Constitution, as in all things, relies upon checks and balances when it comes to the conduct of war. It is significant that the final powers — to declare war, to ratify a peace treaty, to punish treason — do not rest with the president, but with Congress.

Congress deploys its checks and balances through passing laws, but many conservatives now argue that the president need not follow them. It is no exaggeration to write that a key plank in their platform is the belief that the law does not apply to the president or to his employees. Being a co-equal branch of government, conservatives argue, the executive is not bound by what my colleague Andrew C. McCarthy habitually refers to as mere “congressional statute” — i.e., the law — when pursuing its constitutional national-security duties. I do not wish to exaggerate Mr. McCarthy’s position, so I will let him speak for himself. For example, he acknowledges that “Bush’s ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ did not comply with the letter of a congressional statute, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” but maintains that the administration was not obliged to follow the law in this case, because of a superseding constitutional investiture. Mr. McCarthy dismisses the notion that “the president acts illegally whenever he transgresses a statute” and argues that Congress “violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles” merely by issuing subpoenas to White House staffers in the course of a criminal investigation. He argues that in national-security matters, the president’s conduct is “more a political matter than a legal one.” For a great many conservatives, President Nixon’s most cracked assertion — “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal” — is now an article of faith, but President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations is a dead letter.

Running with the ball we passed him, Obama and his administration now insist on the president’s right not only to order the assassination of U.S. citizens, but to do so in secret, without oversight from Congress, the public, or anybody else. Barack Obama today claims powers that would have made Julius Caesar blush.

An assassination may have military consequences, but it is not mainly a military act — war and assassination are different and distinct branches of politics. That does not mean that the law does not come into play: Mr. McCarthy may believe the president can set aside mere statutes, but he frequently justifies our detentions of al-Qaeda suspects as necessary prophylactics against “war criminals,” and the legal contortions that have been used to justify what we’re still calling with mostly straight faces the “enhanced interrogation” program have been a thing of wonder to meditate upon. The necessary thing to remember, these conservatives insist, is that since 9/11 the nation has been at war. In truth, we’ve been inching our way toward carrying out assassinations since well before the terrorist attacks of 2001. Clinton-administration officials told the Washington Post in 1998 that targeting Saddam Hussein was one possible contingency in case of hostilities with Iraq. Killing a hostile head of state as a prelude to combat operations is probably defensible; the slippery slope to assassinating American citizens was lubricated by the grief and rage of 9/11. There was remarkably little discussion given to it, the War on Terror having brought out the destructive strains of American exceptionalism. It is impossible to imagine that the United States would accept that the King of Sweden or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg has the legitimate right to conduct assassinations in the United States on the theory that we might be harboring enemies who wish them ill; to say the words is to appreciate their inherent preposterousness. But our own president is empowered to target our own citizens, wherever they may be found, without even so much as congressional oversight.

Among other intolerable consequences, this line of thinking means that if the president starts assassinating U.S. citizens helter-skelter, then the law is powerless to stop him, Congress is powerless to stop him (short of impeachment), and we’ll just have to wait for the next election. That is what is meant by “political limits” on executive power, as opposed to legal limits. It is an inadequate control.

These beliefs are relatively new to conservatives, being for the most part an artifact of the Bush years. One needn’t roll the clock back very far to discover a time when conservatives took a starkly different view of executive powers. After the fiasco at the Branch Davidian cult compound near Waco, Texas, the Right not only was willing to see executive-branch personnel subjected to the indignity of answering a subpoena but was in fact insistent that “mere statute” be used to put some of them in prison. Elliott Abrams, writing in National Review, called for investigations, arguing that “the balance between energetic law enforcement and limits on excessive government power will not be maintained if the Justice Department does not seek vigorously to maintain it.” On National Review Online, Deroy Murdock lamented the “maddening culture of impunity in which few officials face serious consequences for violating the law. This double standard, in which federal badges become licenses for lawlessness, typified the Clinton-Reno years.” He added that federal actions “involved an unlawfully extreme indifference to human life. Such misconduct often yields second-degree murder charges. But not at Waco.” Or for the would-be assassins of Awlaki. The Clinton administration was enough to make a limited-executive man, at least for a little while, out of John Ashcroft, who wrote: “The Clinton administration’s paranoid and prurient interest in international e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration’s track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal or immoral intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications.” John Ashcroft felt differently after 9/11, as we all did. But John Ashcroft’s feelings are not what govern the United States.

The evolution of conservatives’ attitudes toward unchecked executive power is cautionary: If some of us who have historically been skeptical of the state and its pretenses are so quickly seduced by the outside observation of absolute power, how much more alluring must the prospect prove to the men who actually employ that power? Conservatives ought to admit that the presence of one of our own in the White House made us much more amenable to executive arrogations, and that the antiwar movement that tormented the Bush administration brings out a kind of Pavlovian response in us: Whichever side of the barricades the placard-carrying hippies and ANSWER dirtbags are on, we want to be on the other. That’s a salubrious instinct, but it can distort our thinking, inasmuch as the civil libertarians are not always wrong about everything. And we should appreciate that the Obama administration has intentionally made this matter public, leaking the details to the Washington Post: This is not a covert operation, but the establishment of a precedent. It is time to restore our ancestral suspicion of executive power.

But we have failed to do so, and now we are enduring the consequences as the Obama administration draws up a list of American citizens to be targeted for premeditated, extrajudicial killing that is part of no conventional military campaign, which brings us to two destructive illusions that must be shed: First, the War on Terror is not a war — not in the conventional sense of that word. Like the War on Drugs (but infinitely more serious and more important), it is a metaphorical war that sometimes has the characteristics of a real war. Awlaki is not a soldier or a man at arms: He is an author of invective and a preacher of sermons — it was not until the administration had been castigated for its assassination plans that it retroactively promoted the hateful homilist to “commander.” His crimes are real, and there is precedent for punishing them — we hanged Der Stürmer editor Julius Streicher at Nuremberg, but felt the need to conduct a trial first: Even a Nazi got more due process than we today are willing to extend to U.S. citizens. Awlaki is a traitor, to be sure, but hanging American traitors is a job for the American federal courts, not for assassins.

Second, and equally important: We are not going to win. Neither is al-Qaeda. Here, Mr. McCarthy is dead on: “There will be no treaty, no terms of surrender, no conquering enemy territory. Instead, there is only vigilance.” The War on Terror is not a military campaign, but a risk-mitigation project — a dangerous, bloody, and often thankless one. Jihad is and will be a constant low-level menace that may from time to time produce a spectacular attack. Al-Qaeda and its sympathizers will try to kill Americans, and we will try to stop them. If Awlaki happens to find himself on the wrong side of an American munition during the course of combat, he will not be missed.

But combat is a different thing from assassination, and regular combat is increasingly rare in the War on Terror, now that the actual war part — in Iraq and Afghanistan — has mostly wrapped up. And that is why the war model, and all of the lawlessness that flows from it, is defective: When the war is a metaphor, the battlefield is everywhere, and the timeline of operations is history’s horizon, we invite the creation of a state of “permanent emergency” by acquiescing to the growth and glorification of the state in arms. The defect in our pre-9/11 antiterrorism program was not that it was based on a law-enforcement model or that it lacked sufficient martial vigor, but that it was incompetently executed, a low-level, back-burner priority for a fat and happy nation cruising toward the millennium with very little on its mind beyond investment returns and Bill Clinton’s sexual shenanigans. That much changed on 9/11, but this did not: Decent governments do not assassinate their own citizens.

— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, just published by Regnery. You can buy an autographed copy through National Review Online here.

Article Source Link: National Review Online

Hizb ut-Tahrir Emerges in America

Hizb ut-Tahrir Emerges in America

Source Link: ADL

Introduction

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), an international organization that seeks to establish a worldwide Islamic theocracy, is increasing its efforts to spread its message and recruit members in the U.S.

The American branch of HT convened its 2011 Khilafah Conference, titled, “Revolution in the Muslim World: From Tyranny to Triumph,” on June 26, 2011, in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois.

Messages at the conference primarily centered on promoting the organization’s vision of establishing worldwide Caliphate and how the revolutions in the Middle East affect the movement’s goals.

HT held its first major event in the U.S., a conference entitled “Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam,” at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, Illinois, on July 19, 2009. Although HT America’s Web site states that the group “does not work in the West to change the system of government,” speakers at the conference focused on HT’s larger agenda of establishing a global Islamic caliphate, which entails ousting existing governments.

While HT has operated as a predominately clandestine organization in the U.S., the Oak Lawn conference marked the group’s emergence onto the public stage in America.

HT is increasingly using the Internet to organize meetings in the U.S. and distribute materials, and has become active on social networking sites like YouTube and Facebook, which it used to advertise both of its conferences.

A closer look at the group’s ideology and international activity reveals that HT not only promotes Islam as a way of life, but is also fundamentally opposed to capitalism and democracy and is explicitly hostile toward Israel and Jews. These basic tenets, along with its record of advocating violence, contradict the group’s attempt to portray itself as a political party seeking change through nonviolent means.

Khilafah Conference 2011

Hizb ut-Tahrir’s American branch convened its second Khilafah conference in the Chicago suburb of Oak Brook, Illinois, on June 26, 2011. The conference, which was not advertised as broadly as it first conference in 2009, was attended by approximately 250 people.

Messages at the 2011 conference, titled “Revolution in the Muslim World: From Tyranny to Triumph,” primarily centered on promoting the organization’s vision of establishing worldwide Caliphate and how the revolutions in the Middle East affect the movement’s goals.

One session at the conference, titled “Breaking the Shackles,” gave voice to the organization’s idea that capitalist and nationalist systems of the West are “enemies to Islam,” and the only solution is for a unified Islamic state to replace such systems with “the rule of Allah,” Sharia, and the Sunnah. The speaker at this session, indentified as Brother Abu Saib, offered the February 2011 ousting of the Mubarak regime in Egypt as evidence of the Islamic nation awakening and starting on a path toward establishing a Caliphate.

Another session, “The Meaning of Real Change,” was accompanied by a follow-up question and answer with a panel of HT representatives in the U.S. The session addressed practical steps the Muslim community can take to bring forth the Caliphate and to prevent another dictator from seizing power in newly liberated Arab countries, like Egypt . Panelists in the Q&A session emphasized that HT was “working with the Ummah [Muslim community] in Egypt ,” and that a Muslim’s duty is to “get the West out of our lands.”

The last two sessions, “Shaking the Thrones” and “Life Under the Khilafah,” examined the state of suffering the Ummah and Islam have fallen into since the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate, and how everyday life will be governed once Islamic law is implemented worldwide with the rise of a new Caliphate. One of the speakers, identified as Abu Atallah, emphasized that the rise of the Caliphate would mean that borders become obsolete, nationalist ideology would be abandoned and Muslims would control the military.

The meeting ended with organizers stressing the importance of pushing forward for a unified Islamic state, and that the “Qur’an is a message for all mankind and a solution to all of man’s problems.” This was detailed in a pamphlet, “Khilafah State Structure: Introduction to the Constitution,” that was handed out during the conference.

The constitution provides a detailed look at the structure, laws, and methods of governance the global Caliphate is expected to embody once it is established. The source of the Caliphate’s authority and sovereignty will be derived from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which will help the Caliph “adopt certain rules […] and obliges the people to act according to them.” This pamphlet was designed to be “studied by Muslims while they are working to establish the Islamic State that will carry the Islamic daw’ah to the world.”

Some key points mentioned in the draft constitution:

  • Article 1 states that ‘aqeedah (Islamic creed) will be the sole basis of the State’s foundation. The government’s structure in its entirety can only exist if it is from the Islamic ‘aqeeda.
  • Article 7 describes that the State will be charged with implementing “divine law”, therefore those “guilty of apostasy (murtad) from Islam are to be executed according to the rule of apostasy…”
  • Article 23 details the eight institutions of the Caliphate system, which includes an Amir of Jihad (war). The Amir of Jihad will oversee all war-related activities in the government.
  • In the “Army” section, Article 56 states, “Jihad is a compulsory duty (fard) on all Muslims. Military training is therefore compulsory. Thus, every male Muslim, fifteen years and over, is obliged to undergo military training in readiness for jihad.
  • The social system of the Caliphate would strictly enforce gender segregation between the two sexes, and while women will have the same rights and obligations as men, a woman’s primary role “is that of a mother and wife,” and she may not hold any positions of power within the structure of governance. (Articles 108-118)
  • In reference to trade with foreign nations, Article 157 states that “Any country we have real war between us and its citizens (such as Israel) is excluded” from trading with the Caliphate and its citizens.
  • Article 194, Section 3, describes “imperialist states” like the UK, U.S., France, and Russia as potentially belligerent states that do not have a treaty with the Caliphate.*

*With regards to Israel and the Caliphate’s policy toward the Jewish state, Section 4 states that there can be no peace, and that “a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dispositions with them. They must be dealt with as if a rear war existed between us – whether an armistice exists or not.”

Khilafah Conference 2009

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) held its first ever Khilafah (Arabic for “caliphate”) conference in the U.S. on July 19, 2009, at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, Illinois. The conference, entitled the “Fall of Capitalism and Rise of Islam,” advocated for the implementation of an Islamic financial system and promoted the organization’s larger agenda of establishing a global Islamic caliphate, or Islamic rule worldwide, which entails ousting existing governments.

Speakers addressed a crowd of approximately 400 men and women on a range of issues, including the “Islamic economic system,” “suffering under capitalism” and the rise of Islam in the United States.

Mohammad Malkawi, an HT spokesperson and computer engineer from Chicago, argued that capitalism is responsible for the world’s poverty, hunger and war. “It is time to deliver the world to Islam, an idea whose time has come,” he said.

Another speaker from Chicago, Jaleel Abdul-Adil, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Illinois – Chicago, spoke about the role of Muslims in the U.S., arguing that every Muslim should utilize his skills in the struggle for an Islamic caliphate. Abdul-Adil, who has reportedly appeared at past HT conventions in Britain, declared that “Every home and every community and every masjid [mosque] must contribute to the struggle.”

Abdul-Adil also urged the audience to never “stop calling for Islam as a complete way of life…unless and until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt.”  During a question and answer session following his presentation, Abdul-Adil was asked if shari’a, or Islamic law, would trump the U.S. Constitution. “Yes, it would be gone,” Abdul-Adil replied.

Another speaker, identified only as Abuatallah, outlined how capitalism has failed America, and African-Americans in particular. “Making a black man president will not stop this systemic oppression, will not stop what we see in the urban ghettos,” he said. “Making Obama president is only a scheme, a plot, designed to quiet us.”

In a session on “The Global Rise of Islam,” Burhan Hanif, a member of HT in Britain, criticized Western governments and values and called for Muslims to “work for khilafah,” or the establishment of Islamic rule worldwide.  “Freedom and democracy has become an opium of the masses,” Hanif claimed. “We see how the call of Islam resonates in the increased desperate measures in governments around the world… they are destined to fail.”

HT presented several videos at the conference, including a recruitment video showing HT conferences and demonstrations around the world. “Now it is your turn,” the video says, “Join Hizb ut-Tahrir America.”

A pamphlet entitled “Islamic Reformation: Exposing the Battle for Hearts and Minds,” was reportedly distributed at the conference.  The pamphlet, written by Adnan Khan, an HT member in Britain, calls for the death penalty for those “in the khilafah [who] openly leave Islam.” The pamphlet is also critical of the West, where “crime, sexual promiscuity, individualism and civil disorder is rife.”

The Aqsa School in Bridgeview, Illinois, which was originally scheduled to host the event, cancelled two weeks before the conference, claiming that the group did not disclose the true nature of HT or the conference.

Hizb ut-Tahrir Background

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), Arabic for “Party of Liberation,” is an international organization that seeks to establish a global Islamic caliphate.  Established in Jerusalem in 1953, HT claims to be a political organization “whose ideology is Islam.”

HT maintains an extensive international following; it is currently active in more than 45 countries, and its August 2007 convention in Indonesia drew approximately 100,000 delegates.

HT’s strategy to establish a global Islamic caliphate consists of three stages. In the first, the group seeks to recruit “people who believe in the idea and the method of the Party.”  This stage mimics that of the prophet Muhammad, who “gathered together secretly those who believed in him on the basis of this ideology,” according to HT’s Web site.

In the second stage, HT seeks to educate the larger Muslim community about its interpretation of Islam so that the community can work “to establish it in the affairs of life.”  This stage consists of approaching the masses through “lessons, lectures, and talks in the mosques, centers, and common gathering places, and through the press, books and leaflets.”

The third and final stage entails replacing all governments and implementing a global Islamic caliphate.

HT conferences around the world suggest that the group is currently in the second stage of its goal of establishing a global Islamic government. In commemoration of the anniversary of the abolishment of the Islamic caliphate 85 years ago, HT held worldwide events throughout the summer of 2009, calling “on Muslims around the world to mobilize to re-establish the Islamic Khilafah.”  In addition to the July 19 conference in Oak Lawn, Illinois, events took place in Ukraine, Mauritius, Lebanon, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Britain, Indonesia, Sudan and Turkey, among other places.

HT claims that it does not engage in violent activities and generally espouses a policy of nonviolence.  However, in a January 2010 press release, HT called for violence against U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.  The group accused “US crusaders” of killing nine school children and injuring 85 others in Afghanistan.  “Such incidents,” HT said in the press release “has to be answered by sharp swords of Muslim united armies under a true Muslim leader (Imam/K), not by few words of condemnations, rallies and demonstrations or submissions of list of demands to the UN’s or Human Rights, which are the protector of these crusaders, not us.”

Its position on nonviolence is complicated by its admission that “jihad” is compulsory for Muslims in an Islamic country to fight their perceived enemies. According to the group’s Web site, “the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir in that country are a part of the Muslims and it is obligatory upon them as it is upon other Muslims, in their capacity as Muslims, to fight the enemy and repel them.” HT’s statements in response to the Israeli naval operation to stop a flotilla of ships en route to Gaza, which called on Muslim armies to “fight the Jews” and “blow ‘Israel’ off the map,” further demonstrate the group’s acceptance of violence.

The radicalization of HT members who adhere to the group’s extremist ideology can also lead to violent acts.  In 2007, German police arrested three men on suspicion of plotting to bomb military and civilian airports, restaurants and nightclubs. Two of the men were allegedly Uzbek members of the HT splinter cell Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), which carried out a terrorist attack against the American and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan in July 2004.

Two British HT members were also allegedly involved in terrorist activities. One of the men was among those responsible for the 2003 suicide bombing at Mike’s Place, a bar in Tel Aviv.  Another HT member was suspected of joining Al Qaeda and plotting to attack several New York-Based financial targets.  He was arrested in 2004 by British authorities.

Some observers have suggested that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda in Iraq’s former leader, were also members of HT.

In 2003, Germany banned HT for allegedly spreading anti-Semitic propaganda.  Russia declared the group a terrorist organization that same year after reportedly detecting links between HT and Chechen terrorists.  The group had previously been banned in Russia in 1999 for being a criminal organization.  HT has similarly been banned in several Arab and Central Asian countries as well.

Several other European countries, including the United Kingdom, have considered banning HT.  The British government sought to ban the group after allegations that it was linked to the London bombings in July 2005.

HT also has a growing presence in the West Bank, which stands in opposition to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and rejects the legitimacy of both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.  In 2007, the group held a conference in Ramallah that reportedly drew approximately 20,000 supporters.  That same year, HT marched through Ramallah in opposition to the “Zionist provocation” against the Al Aqsa mosque.  Palestinian officials banned HT from holding a July 2009 rally opposing both Fatah and Hamas and the concept of a modern nation-state.

On Israel and Jews

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) claims that Islam is in conflict with the existence of Israel, which it says harms both Islam and Muslims, and has a history of encouraging followers to eliminate Israel and the Jews as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  This long record of hostility toward Israel and the Jews belies HT’s claim that it does not espouse or condone violence, and, according to the U.S. State Department, can yield violent acts against the U.S. and its allies and generate support for terrorism.

A press release dated May 31, 2010, was posted on HT America’s Web site in response to the Israeli naval operation to stop a flotilla of ships en route to Gaza on the same day. “O people: indeed Hizb ut-Tahrir strengthens your determination… there is no solution except to mobilize armies, gathering the capable soldiers and fight the Jews,” the statement declared.  The release also calls on Pakistan and Iran to attack Israel, saying “O you possessors of the missiles that you boast can blow ‘Israel’ off the map, so where are you now, O Pakistan and Iran’s rulers?!”

In another press release in response to the flotilla incident, the Pakistani branch of HT issued a statement calling on the Pakistani army to “prepare nuclear bombs and other weapons for Jihad… fight under this command to annihilate Israel.” The Bangladeshi branch of HT also condoned violence in a press release that called upon Muslim armies to “eradicate Israel and purify the earth of Jewish filth.”

In March 2008, HT posted a press release on its Web site in response to Israel’s retaliatory military action in Gaza, which was employed to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns.  “There is only one and uniquely one solution,” the statement declared, “and that is to exterminate the entity of the Jews from existence.”  In another press release that month, HT called on Pakistan and Iran to attack Israel as “the only option that the state of Jews deserves.”  The statement also urged Muslims to “direct your anger at the armed forces so that they stir up fighting the Jews.”

In addition to the inflammatory pronouncements on its Web site, HT America has also condoned violence and jihad during their monthly online discussions. In April 2010, an HT America leader asserted, “When the Muslim land is occupied, jihad is the obligation to those who are attacked by the kufar [non-Muslims].”

Leaders of HT America also produce a monthly newsletter, titled “The Shield,” which has condemned Israel.  In the May 2010 newsletter, an editorial claimed, “Israel was created by the West in order to ensure the Ummah remains divided and continually occupied in an endless struggle with a Western proxy.”

HT has also distributed virulently anti-Israel leaflets. In 2007, HT Australia reportedly promoted a conference in Sydney with a leaflet that depicted a dagger plunged into a map of the Middle East with the words “‘Israel’ is an illegal state” written in blood.

HT Denmark’s spokesman Fadi Abdelatif was convicted in Copenhagen in 2002, and again in 2005, for inciting young Muslims to kill Jews, first in an Internet posting and later in a leaflet.  The leaflet, which called Jews “a people of slander…a treacherous people,” made threats against Jews and called on Muslims to “kill them all, wherever you find them.” The leaflet, which was available on HT’s Web site, encouraged suicide bombings in Israel as “legitimate” acts of “martyrdom.”

HT has also been prosecuted elsewhere in Europe for distributing anti-Semitic publications.  Germany banned the group in 2003 for “spreading hate and violence” in leaflets that called for the killing of Jews, according to German officials. In 2005, the National Union of Students barred HT from universities in the UK after accusations of anti-Semitism.  The group does, however, still operate legally in the UK.

HT’s leadership has also publicly expressed opposition to Jews and Israel.  In an April 2002 response to Israel’s military operations at the Jenin refugee camp, HT in Sudan released a press statement on its Web site condemning the “miserable brethren of pigs and monkeys” of carrying out “brutal massacres.”  “Recognition and negotiation with the Jews,” the press release continued, “is a betrayal of Allah.”

In a 2000 interview with the Central Asia Caucasus Institute at John Hopkins University, an unidentified HT Central Asian leader openly stated, “We are very much opposed to the Jews and Israel… The United States is the enemy of Islam with the Jews.”

HT’s former global leader, Sheikh Abdul Qadeem Zalloom, reportedly declared an injunction in 1988, saying, “If the plane belongs to a country at war with Muslims, like Israel, it is allowed to hijack it, for there is no sanctity for Israel nor for the Jews in it.”

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

2011/09/18

Christians in Somalia bear the brunt of Al-Shabaab’s terror

Christians in Somalia bear the brunt of Al-Shabaab’s terror

By: Fernando Perez
WEA-RLC
Saturday, 17 September 2011

The decapitated body of a Christian man, Juma Nuradin Kamil, was found in Bakool region of southwestern Somalia on Sept. 2. The killing, one of the numerous such incidents in recent years, comes at a time when tens of thousands of Somalis have died, and about 750,000 more are at risk of death, some of them Christians who are being denied aid, in the wake of the 21st century’s worst drought in the Horn of Africa.

The Christian, whose head was severed and put on his chest, was killed by the Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (Mujahideen Youth Movement), commonly known as al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda-linked terror group that controls and runs a de facto “government” in most of southern Somalia. The group is also restricting international aid from reaching the starving population in territories under their control, especially to the Christians, WEA-RLC has learnt.

The al-Shabaab splintered from a now defunct group of Sharia courts, the Islamic Courts Union. It is fighting to overthrow the Transitional Federal Government, created in 2004 backed by the African Union, the United Nations and the United States. Since the outbreak of the 1991 civil war which overthrew President Siad Barre’s regime, most parts of Somalia have had no formal government. The transitional government controls only a small part of the country.

The al-Shabaab, which generally wages war against “enemies of Islam,” was created after the Islamic Courts Union was ousted by forces from neighboring Ethiopia in 2006. It had the backing of Iran, Libya, Egypt and others in the Persian Gulf region, according to a UN report. And after Ethiopia withdrew from Somalia in 2009, the al-Shabaab grew stronger and turned even more extremist.

Somalia tops the Failed States Index 2011 by Foreign Policy magazine.

The al-Shabaab imposes an extremely strict version of Sharia, or Islamic law, in southern parts under its control. In 2008, a 13-year-old girl accused of adultery, but actually gang-raped, was buried up to her neck in the field of a soccer stadium packed with spectators, and then stoned to death, according to an article in The New Yorker.

Recently, African Union forces were able to “drive out” al-Shabaab from the capital city of Mogadishu, but reports suggest that the militants’ moving out was a tactical decision to bring about a greater destruction.

There are roughly 10 million people in Somalia, mostly Sunni Muslim. It is estimated that the country has little more than 1,000 Christians, most of them from the Bantu ethnic group. The country has no church building; Christians meet for worship underground, especially in southern parts.

The al-Shabaab particularly hates the minority followers of Sufism, which it finds “heretic,” and the miniscule Christians, who it labels as “agents of Ethiopian intelligence agencies.” The Christian-majority Ethiopia supports the interim government, although it had troubled relations with Somalia.

Agence France-Presse recently quoted an al-Shabaab spokesman, Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, as saying that providing aid during calamities was a “strategy” of the United Nations to “transport them [Somalis] abroad, especially in Christian countries like Ethiopia and Kenya, so that their faith can be destroyed and that they could be staff and soldiers for the Christians.”

Al-Shabaab’s hatred for Christians surpasses its concern for the lives of over four million people, the majority of them Muslim, who are affected with the drought. The group is distributing aid as per its limited capacity, but no one who is a Christian, or suspected to be one, is receiving any aid, some Christian groups have reported.

The famine has also hit the al-Shabaab, as hundreds of thousands of people who pay protection taxes to the outfit have fled its territories to Kenya and Ethiopia. And many, even within the terror group’s leadership and powerful local clan leaders, are holding the al-Shabaab responsible for the crisis, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

However, the crisis may not lead to a temporary ceasefire or lifting of the ban on international aid agencies, which could also eventually help human rights groups to discuss protection of minorities. Since the al-Shabaab is no longer a group with a centralized power and there are many factions, intervention by an outside force is extremely difficult in the absence of a true representative of the group.

While the style of functioning of one faction in one territory may be different from that of another faction in another territory, each faction is known to be equally brutal in implementing Sharia and enforcing compliance from the residents.

While there are some Sufi armed groups under the banner of Ahlu Sunna Waljama’a to fight al-Shabaab militants, Christians in Somalia have no voice or protection at all. Christians complain that even the Transitional Federal Government does not treat them well. President Sheikh Sharif Sheik Ahmed, who heads the internationally recognized government, has also adopted Sharia law with death for apostasy.

The international community is rightly being blamed for the current crisis, at least partially, in terms of the response to the unprecedented drought. The same is true in case of the rising Christian persecution in Somalia.

Like there were early signs of the drought worsening in the region that once used to be the bread basket of the country, international Christian groups had been reporting on killings, rape and torture of members of the country’s most vulnerable minority. But little was done to avert either of the crises.

Despite sanctions imposed on Eritrea by the UN Security Council, it reportedly continues to supply arms to the al-Shabaab, according to a 2010 report by the UN International Monitoring Group. If the sanctions have not proven to be effective, an alternative must be formulated.

In addition, it is widely believed that the military and police of the transitional government – though trained by the European Union, Ethiopia, Uganda and Kenya – are weak and inefficient, and the administration corrupt. The government relies heavily on the roughly 8,000 troops of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).

Moreover, the Transitional Federal Government occupies Somalia’s seat in the United Nations, maintains embassies in 19 countries, and has fairly good relations with the West, and yet it could not be prevented from enacting laws that violate international law or encouraged to show respect for religious freedom.

Concerning the al-Shabaab, it is extremely difficult to deal with the group. But inaction is definitely not the correct response it requires. Perhaps, efforts should be made to reach out to the militants, or their various factions, for the sake of the innocent people living in the territories under its control, even if that involves making some concessions initially. Or else, a strategy should be made to gain control over al-Shabaab territories.

World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) sponsors this WEA-RLC Research & Analysis Report to help individuals and groups pray for and act on religious liberty issues around the world. WEA has a consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council.

Source Link: Christian Today

2011/09/14

Obama And Israel

OBAMA AND ISRAEL
Barack Obama’s views regarding Israel are reflected in the actions he has taken, the words he has spoken, and the associations he has cultivated throughout the course of his adult life — and most importantly, throughout his political career. Below are some of the more noteworthy examples, starting in the early 1990s and continuing through the present day:

Obama’s longtime association with the rabidly anti-Semitic Jeremiah Wright:

For nearly two decades, Barack Obama was a member of Rev. Jeremiah Wright‘s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama described Wright as his “spiritual advisor,” his “mentor,” and “one of the greatest preachers in America.” Moreover, Obama contributed large sums of money to Wright’s church, and he chose Wright to perform his wedding ceremony and to baptize his two young daughters.

Wright has long been a vocal critic of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for inflicting “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinian people. According to Wright, Zionism contains an element of “white racism.” Likening Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era, Wright advocates divestment campaigns targeting companies that conduct any business in, or with, Israel. He has referred to Israel as a “dirty word,” asserting that “ethnic cleansing [by] the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity.”

On December 4, 2007, Wright was named as a member of the Obama presidential campaign’s newly created African American Religious Leadership Committee. But Wright was compelled to step down from the Committee three months later, after videotapes of his many hate-filled sermons had ignited fierce public debate and criticism. For further information about Wright and his anti-Semitism, click here.

Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi and the the Arab American Action Network:

During his Illinois state senate years in the mid- to late 1990s, Obama was a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, where he became friendly with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Hyde Park home. In 1995 Khalidi and his wife Mona had founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), noted for its contention that Israel’s creation in 1948 was a “catastrophe” for Arab people. In 2001 and again in 2002, the Woods Fund of Chicago, with Obama serving on its board, made grants totaling $75,000 to AAAN.

In 2003 Obama attended a farewell party in Khalidi’s honor when the latter was preparing to leave Chicago to embark on a new position at Columbia University. At this event, Obama paid public tribute to Khalidi as someone whose insights had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases … It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.” Khalidi then returned the compliments, telling the largely pro-Palestinian attendees that Obama deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat, stating, “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances.”

Obama’s ties to Ali Abunimah, former vice president of the Arab American Action Network:

Onetime AAAN vice president Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada (a website that, like AAAN, refers to Israel’s creation as a “catastrophe”) once told interviewer Amy Goodman: “I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator — when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”

In June 2007 Abunimah recalled: “When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel’s security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the ‘Israeli-Palestinian’ situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: ‘The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this administration in brokering peace,’ Obama was quoted as saying.”

In March 2007 Abunimah said: “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and U.S. policy, ‘Keep up the good work!’”

Candidate Obama publicly criticizes Israel’s conservative Likud Party:

In February 2008, then-U.S. Senator (and presidential candidate) Barack Obama told an audience in Cleveland: “There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel.” When Obama made that assertion, Likud had already been out of power for two years, and the country was being led by the centrist Kadima government (of Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, and Shimon Peres) which had been pursuing territorial compromise of unprecedented magnitude. Moreover, as the Wall Street Journal points out: “It was under Likud that Israel made its largest territorial compromises—withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza.”

Obama expresses willingness to meet with hostile governments “without preconditions”:

During a February 2008 debate with rival presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Obama announced that, unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would be willing to meet with hostile governments “without preconditions.” He justified this position by asserting that it was critical for the United States to “talk to its enemies.”

President Obama’s first call to a foreign leader was to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas:

Two days after his inauguration, President Obama made his first phone call to a foreign leader — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Candidate Obama’s reluctance to publicly refer to terrorism against Israel:

When running for President, then-Senator Obama referred, in his July 2008 Berlin speech, to the need to “dismantle the [terrorist] networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York.” He made no mention of Israel.

President-elect Obama chooses the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated group to recite a prayer during his January 2009 inauguration:

Obama chose Ingrid Mattson — then-president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood-linked group that had previously been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-funding case — to recite a prayer during his inauguration ceremonies in January 2009. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological forebear of both Hamas and al Qaeda, openly promotes the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate and is bitterly hostile towards Israel. Not only did Obama fail to ask Mattson to explain ISNA’s links to the Brotherhood and Hamas, but he sent his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention later that year.

Obama’s ties to the International Crisis Group, and their implications for Israel:

President Obama has long had a high regard for the political acumen of Robert Malley, Mideast Director of the International Crisis Group (ICG). Over the years, Malley has penned numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. In 2007 Malley, a Harvard-trained lawyer, became a foreign-policy advisor to the Obama presidential campaign. But in mid-2008, the Obama campaign was forced — out of political necessity — to sever its ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that he had secretly been in regular contact with Hamas leaders as part of his work for ICG.

Notwithstanding Malley’s fall from grace, Obama’s foreign policies have been, from the outset of his presidency, very much aligned with the recommendations of the ICG. For one, Obama has often emphasized his willingness to negotiate with even the most unyielding enemies of the United States, and has sought to persuade Israel to take that same approach. Six days after his inauguration, for instance, Obama granted his first television interview as U.S. President to Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based network, where he stated: “[A]ll too often the United States starts by dictating … and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen.” He subsequently called on Israel to drop its “preconceptions” and to negotiate for peace with Hamas, the terrorist organization whose founding charter remains irrevocably committed to the permanent destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews. Obama further signaled an eagerness to conduct “unconditional talks” on nuclear matters with Iran — even as as that nation was actively supplying high-tech weaponry to Hamas and Hezbollah, and even after its president had repeatedly declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Obama’s ties to J Street:

President Obama has also demonstrated an ideological compatibility with J Street, an organization which believes that peace between Arabs and Israelis depends wholly upon the development of “a new direction for American policy in the Middle East,” a direction that recognizes “the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own”—where Palestine and Israel exist “side-by-side in peace and security.” Toward this end, J Street supports “diplomatic solutions over military ones,” “multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution,” and “dialogue over confrontation.” Israel’s partner in such a dialogue would necessarily be Hamas, which holds the reins of political power in Gaza and steadfastly denies Israel’s right to exist. Yet J Street has cautioned Israel not to be too combative against Hamas, on grounds that the latter “has been the government, law and order, and service provider since it won the [Palestinian] elections in January 2006 and especially since June 2007 when it took complete control.” In the final analysis, J Street traces the Mideast conflict chiefly to the notion that “Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories have, for over forty years, been an obstacle to peace.”

The foregoing J Street positions are largely indistinguishable from those of President Obama, who likewise favors a two-state solution whereby Israel and “a sovereign Palestine” would live “side by side—in peace.” To achieve such a resolution, he says, initiatives to construct additional Israeli settlements in the West Bank “have to be stopped.” In October 2009, Obama signaled his support for J Street’s agendas when he sent national-security advisor James Jones to deliver the keynote address at a J Street conference.

Obama appoints a DHS official with ties to Islamic extremists:

In April 2009, President Obama appointed Los Angeles deputy mayor Arif Alikhan as assistant secretary for policy development at the Department of Homeland Security. Two weeks before he received this appointment, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”) had participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which, like ISNA, is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Obama appoints a pro-Sharia adviser:

Also during the early part of his presidency, Obama appointed Dalia Mogahed — a pro-Sharia Muslim — as his chief adviser on Islamic affairs.

Obama Goes to Cairo to Address the Muslim World:

On June 4, 2009, President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt to deliver a much-anticipated address to the Muslim world. During the weeks prior to the speech, he made sure to invite Muslim Brotherhood leaders to attend.  During the speech itself, the President stated that “anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.” But he made no mention of the Arab anti-Semitism of the World War II era (and beyond), even though he was speaking in the very nation that had made a national hero of Grand Mufti Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, who spent the war years in Berlin as Hitler’s guest, helping the fuehrer facilitate the Final Solution. Nor did Obama once mention the word “terrorism.”

Drawing a moral equivalence between the historical experiences of the Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs, Obama said: “The Jewish people were persecuted.… [A]nti-Semitism … culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust…. Six million Jews were killed…. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

Obama also made reference to the “pain” of the “dislocation” experienced by some 600,000 Arabs during the 1948 war (which began when five Arab armies united to attack Israel in an effort to destroy the nascent Jewish state on the very day of its birth), but said nothing of the 800,000 Jewish refugees who were forcibly expelled from regions all over the Arab Middle East, where they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds, even thousands, of years.

“There has been a stalemate,” Obama elaborated. “Two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history…. It’s easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks.”

Professor and Hudson Institute fellow Anne Bayefsky observed:

“Calling the Israeli-Arab conflict a ‘stalemate’ represents an abysmal failure to acknowledge historical reality. The modern state of Israel emerged after an internationally approved partition plan of November 1947 that would have created two states, one Jewish and one Arab; this plan was accepted by Jews and rejected by Arabs. One people has always been prepared to live in peace, and the other has chosen war in 1948 and 1956 and 1967 and 1973 and 1982, and renewed terrorism after its every loss.”

Added Bayefsky:

“Obama [in the Cairo speech] analogized Palestinian ‘daily humiliations …that come with occupation’ to the ‘humiliation of segregation’ of black slaves in America and the ‘moral authority’ of ‘people from South Africa.’ His Arab audience understood that the president of the United States had just given a nod to the single most potent defamation of the Jewish state today — the allegation that Israel is a racist, apartheid state.”

Obama urges Jewish leaders to put “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel:

In July 2009, President Obama hosted American Jewish leaders at the White House and informed them that he sought to put “daylight” between America and Israel. “For eight years [i.e., during the Bush administration], there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished,” Obama said. In that same meeting, the President told those in attendance that Israel would need “to engage in serious self-reflection.”

Obama’s first address to the UN General Assembly:

In his first address to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, President Obama devoted five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In his remarks, Obama boasted that under his administration, the U.S. had already joined the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). He did not mention that, as of that point in time, the UNHRC had adopted more resolutions and decisions against Israel than against all the other 191 UN member states combined.

Regarding the Mideast conflict, the President drew a moral equivalence between the suffering of the Israelis and of the Palestinians. Most notably, he rejected the legitimacy of Israeli “settlements” and he referred to Israel as an “occup[ier]” of Palestinian territory:

  • “We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel. And we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”
  • “The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues, security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security; a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”
  • “The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel’s legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security.”

Obama neglects to acknowledge Israel’s contribution to earthquake-relief efforts in Haiti:

When Haiti was struck by a calamitous earthquake in January 2010, Israel’s relief efforts were exceptional, matched only by those of the United States. However, in praising the relief efforts of various countries, Obama omitted any mention of Israel, saying only that “help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.”

Obama laments that Israel has been unwilling to make any “bold gestures” for peace:

In a January 2010 interview, President Obama said — despite Israel’s acceptance-in-principle of a Palestinian state, its readiness to negotiate, and its commitment to an unprecedented ten-month Jewish construction freeze in Judea and Samaria — that Israel theretofore had made no “bold gestures” for peace.

Obama opposes Israel’s plan to build houses in a settlement near Jerusalem:

In November 2009, President Obama expressed displeasure over Israel’s approval of a plan to build 900 new homes in Gilo, a settlement of 40,000 Israelis situated in a part of the West Bank that Israel had captured in 1967 and annexed to Jerusalem. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged to limit new construction in West Bank settlements, he stated that the Jerusalem municipality would be excluded from any settlement limits sought by Washington. Said Obama: “I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbours. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous.”

The Obama administration again criticizes Israeli settlements:

During Vice President Joe Biden‘s visit to Israel in March 2010, a Jerusalem municipal office announced plans to build some 1,600 housing units for Jews in a section of that city. In response, Biden reportedly told Prime Minister Netanyahu: “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.” The Wall Street Journal describes what happened next:

“The president launched an unprecedented weeks-long offensive against Israel. Mr. Biden very publicly departed Israel.

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a now-infamous 45-minute phone call, telling him that Israel had ‘harmed the bilateral relationship.’ (The State Department triumphantly shared details of the call with the press.) The Israeli ambassador was dressed-down at the State Department, Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy canceled his trip to Israel, and the U.S. joined the European condemnation of Israel.

“Moments after Mr. Biden concluded his visit to the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority held a ceremony to honor Dalal Mughrabi, who led one of the deadliest Palestinian terror attacks in history: the so-called Coastal Road Massacre that killed 38, including 13 children and an American. The Obama administration was silent. But that same day, on ABC, [Obama adviser David] Axelrod called Israel’s planned construction of apartments in its own capital an ‘insult’ and an ‘affront’ to the United States. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went on Fox News to accuse Mr. Netanyahu of ‘weakening trust’ between the two countries.

“Ten days later, Mr. Netanyahu traveled to Washington to mend fences but was snubbed at a White House meeting with President Obama—no photo op, no joint statement, and he was sent out through a side door.”

Washington Post columnist and Middl East expert Jackson Diehl wrote that “Netanyahu is be treated [by Obama] as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator.”

Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, received “the same message of American disapproval and outrage” from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—it being clear by now that the anger was being “managed” from the top, that is, by President Obama himself. Ambassador Oren called the incident “the worst [for Israel] with the U.S. in 35 years.”

But contrary to the Obama administration’s insistence that Israel was jeopardizing peace by encroaching on negotiable terrain, the construction site in Jerusalem was anything but disputed territory. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital and the construction site was in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood where housing construction had been underway since the early 1990s. By its insistence that Israel cease all building in East Jerusalem, it was the Obama administration, and not Israel, that was breaking with precedent.

Obama refuses to intervene in an Israeli dispute with Turkey and Egypt:

In April 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu withdrew from an Obama-sponsored Washington summit on nuclear proliferation after it became apparent that Turkey and Egypt intended to use the occasion to denounce Israel’s nuclear program; Obama chose not to intervene in this dispute.

Obama chooses not to explicitly make reference to an act of murderous Islamic terrorism against an American:

In May 2010, when President Obama signed the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, he did not mention that Pearl, the late Wall Street Journal reporter, had been beheaded by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew. Nor did the President mention that Pearl had been forced to state specifically in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew. Instead, Obama merely referred to Pearl’s “loss.”

The Obama administration’s response to Israel’s interception of a terrorist-laden flotilla headed for Gaza:

In early 2010, a Turkish organization known as the IHH — which has known ties to Hamas, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood — collaborated with the Free Gaza Movement to organize a six-ship flotilla of Muslim and anti-Israel activists who would sail (from various points in the Mediterranean region) to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel’s naval blockade (which had been established to prevent Hamas from importing weaponry from Iran and other allies abroad).

IHH owned and operated the Mavi Marmara, the flotilla’s lead ship. The flotilla embarked on its journey toward Gaza in late May of 2010. For several days, Israel issued warnings that the ships would not be permitted to reach Gaza without first submitting to an inspection of their cargoes. But the crews of the vessels refused to comply; thus Israeli commandos intercepted the flotilla in the early morning hours of May 31. The IHH-affiliated activists responded violently, attacking the commandos with knives, clubs and pistol fire. In the melee that ensued, nine activists were killed and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded.

MSNBC reported the Obama administration’s response:

“The Obama administration believes Israel’s blockade of Gaza is untenable and wants to see a new approach that would allow more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area while guaranteeing Israel’s security, The New York Times reported Thursday…. White House officials said that the [Israeli] raid gave strength to a growing consensus within the administration that U.S. and Israeli policy toward Gaza must change, the Times said.

“’There is no question that we need a new approach to Gaza,’ one official told the newspaper, which said he spoke on the condition of anonymity because the policy shift was still in the early stages. However, the paper said he was reflecting a broadly held view in the upper reaches of the administration….

“In a separate statement, White House officials said they had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to use ‘caution and restraint’ before the raid on the aid convoy….

“Obama administration officials made it clear to the newspaper that the deaths Monday had given a new urgency to changing the policy toward the narrow strip of sand dunes and refugee camps that are home to 1.5 million people…. Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that the administration is trying to sway the Israeli government on the issue of Gaza. He agreed that Israel had a right to inspect the cargo … [but said], ‘We have put as much pressure and as much cajoling on Israel as we can to allow them [the Palestinians] to get building materials’ and other designated humanitarian aid into Gaza, he added.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported a Security Council statement condemning the “acts” that had cost the lives of the pro-Palestinian activists off the Gaza coast. And while U.S. officials did not formally blame Israel or the Free Gaza activists for the bloodshed, Mrs. Clinton called on Israel to allow greater access for humanitarian relief supplies, “including reconstruction and building supplies.” She added that the situation in Gaza, which was controlled by Hamas and was under an Israeli blockade, was “unsustainable and unacceptable.”

$400 Million in aid for Palestinians:

On June 9, 2010, President Obama offered to send $400 million for “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians in the West Bank (which is controlled by the Palestinian Authority) and the Gaza Strip (an area controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas). In remarks made as he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Obama urged Israel to put a stop to its settlement activity and called on the Palestinians to avoid inciting further confrontation. He also called on Israel to reassess its blockade on Gaza, while conceding that “[t]here should be means by which we will be able to stop flow of arms that endanger Israel’s security.” Added Obama: “If we can get a new conceptual framework, we should be able to take what is a tragedy [the recent flotilla incident] and create an opportunity so the lives of people of Gaza are improved. But in the long run, the way to solve this problem is creation of the Palestinian state and ensuring Israel’s security.”

The Obama administration allows the Palestinian flag to fly at the PLO office in DC:On July 25, 2010, JTA News reported the following:

“The Obama administration will allow the PLO office in Washington to fly the Palestinian flag and assume the title of ‘delegation.’  The change in status comes with no enhancement in diplomatic status, U.S. officials said.

“The new privileges for the Palestine Liberation Organization office do not mean the representation has ‘any diplomatic privileges or immunities,’ State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said last Friday. ‘At the request of the PLO representative, which we have granted given the improvement in the relations between the United States and Palestinians, they have requested permission to fly the Palestinian flag,’ he said. ‘And they have requested permission to call themselves the General Delegation of the PLO, which is a name that conforms to how they describe their missions in Europe, Canada, and several Latin American countries.’

“Crowley said the steps have symbolic value and reflect improved relations between the United States and Palestinians, but they have no meaning under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. A White House spokesman suggested the changes would help spur the Palestinians toward direct peace talks with Israel, a key demand of the Israeli and U.S. governments….

“PLO representation in Washington was made illegal under a number of laws in the mid 1980s, when the group was widely regarded as terrorist. Since 1993, at the launch of the Oslo peace process, U.S. presidents have exercised their prerogative to waive the ban every six months.”

A stark contrast between Obama’s holiday messages to Jews and to Muslims:

In his Rosh Hashanah message in 2010, President Obama only once referred to “Jews”; made no reference at all to “Judaism’; promoted a Palestinian state; and never mentioned the monumental contributions Jews had made to the United States.

By contrast, in his August 2010 Ramadan Message, Obama referred to “Muslims” six times and to “Islam” twice; he stated that “American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country”; and he praised “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings … a faith known for great diversity and racial equality.” Moreover, the President made no reference to what Muslims needed to do differently in order to achieve peace with Israel.

Obama criticizes Israeli settlements yet again:

On November 9, 2010, The New York Times issued the following report regarding the increasingly strained relations between the U.S. and Israel:

“President Obama’s criticism of new Israeli housing plans for East Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s even sharper retort, have thrown the Middle East peace talks into jeopardy, with the dispute over Jewish settlements looming as a seemingly insuperable hurdle…. [T]he brusque exchange between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu reflected again the gulf between Israel and the United States over settlements — an issue Mr. Obama initially made the centerpiece of his Middle East diplomacy….

“When asked in about Israel’s plans for 1,000 housing units for a contested part of East Jerusalem, Mr. Obama said, ‘This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.’ … A few hours later, Mr. Netanyahu’s office responded with a statement, saying that ‘Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.'”

Obama and the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt:

In early 2011, as masses of Egyptian protesters forced their longtime president Hosni Mubarak to step down from power, Barack Obama declared that all opposition groups should have some representation in the next Egyptian government. He made no mention of the fact that such a development would essentially ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood — Egypt’s largest opposition group — would be in a position to steer the new regime toward adopting Sharia Law and increasing its hostility toward the U.S. and Israel.

Throughout the weeks of Egyptian rioting, the Obama administration repeatedly shifted its posture, initially expressing confidence in Mubarak’s government, later threatening to withhold U.S. aid, and finally pressing Mubarak to immediately loosen his grip on power. “We want to see free, fair and credible elections,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on February 2. “The sooner that can happen, the better.”

Obama and his administration took the foregoing positions even though the Muslim Brotherhood had made it explicitly clear that it favored the dissolution of the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel; the Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, had stated that his organization would never recognize Israel’s legitimate right to exist; and Muhammad Ghannem, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, had told the Iranian news network Al-Alam that “the people [of Egypt] should be prepared for war against Israel.”

On February 3, 2011, Israeli lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who until recently had been a Cabinet minister, criticized President Obama for having called on Mubarak to allow open elections in his country, a prospect that undoubtedly would spell the end of his long reign — a reign which, despite all its faults, was reliably pro-West. Stating that Obama was repeating the mistakes of predecessors whose calls for human rights and democracy in the Middle East had backfired by bringing anti-West regimes to power, Ben-Eliezer said:

“I don’t think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into. If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament. It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam.”

Three decades earlier, President Jimmy Carter had urged another staunch American ally — the Shah of Iran — to loosen his grip on power, only to see his autocratic regime replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini‘s Islamic Republic. More recently, U.S.-supported elections had strengthened such groups as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and anti-American radicals in Iran.

“Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran,'” analyst Aluf Benn wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz. “Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu similarly warned that “if extremist forces are allowed to exploit democratic processes to come to power to advance anti-democratic goals — as has happened in Iran and elsewhere — the outcome will be bad for peace and bad for democracy.”

Obama expresses his belief that the Palestinians sincerely want peace with Israel: In a March 2011 meeting with Jewish leaders, Obama contended that “Israel’s [Palestinian] partner is sincere in wanting a peaceful settlement,” while asking his Jewish interlocutors to “speak to your Israeli friends and relatives and search your souls to determine how badly do you really want peace … Israelis think this peace process is overrated.”

Implying that Jerusalem is not part of Israel:

In May 2011, the Obama State Department issued a press release declaring that its No. 2 official, James Steinberg, would be visiting “Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank” — thereby implying that Jerusalem was not part of Israel.

Obama calls for an Arab-Israeli land swap based on pre-1967 borders:

On May 19, 2011 — just a few hours before Prime Minister Netanyahu flew from Israel to Washington — President Obama delivered his “Arab Spring” speech at the State Department. After saying that “Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist,” he called for the establishment of a Palestinian state — even though neither Hamas nor Fatah had ever acknowledged Israel’s right to exist; nor did Obama make such an acknowledgment a precondition of the establishment of a Palestinian state. Obama also urged Israel to understand that it would never be able to achieve genuine peace if it persisted in seeking “permanent occupation.”

In issuing his call for the existence of “two states,” Obama said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He was referring to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

Obama was not calling for a return to the 1967 borders per se; rather, he advocated the creation of a “sovereign and contiguous state” for the Palestinian Arabs — not precisely along the 1967 lines, but along new borders “based on the 1967 lines.” But as Islam scholar Robert Spencer pointed out:

“There were … no 1967 lines in which Palestinian Arab territory was contiguous. For the territory of Palestine to be contiguous, that of Israel will have to be substantially reduced. Israel’s 1967 borders were indefensible, and Obama is calling for Israel to be reduced even further so that a contiguous Palestinian state can be established.

“What’s more, Obama specified that the new Palestinian state should have ‘borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,’ while Israel should have ‘borders with Palestine.’ The implication was that Israel, in Obama’s vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt — only on ‘Palestine.’ Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt. Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.”

In response to Obama’s speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state based on the borders of 1967 would leave the Jewish state “indefensible.” “The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” the Israeli leader said.

Obama chooses not to make public reference to terrorism directed against Israel:
In early September 2011, the Obama administration issued talking points for the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In those talking points, the administration referred to the many victims of terrorism around the world, “whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.” Conspicuously absent were the names of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem or Sderot, which had been hit by Islamist terrorists innumerable times.

Source Link: Discover The Networks

RESOURCES:
Obama and the War Against the Jews
By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin
2010

Are President Obama’s Actions Hostile to Jews and Israel?
By Morton A. Klein and Dr. Daniel Mandel
September 12, 2011

2011/08/23

Popular Resistance Committees – Trained and funded by Hamas

Source Link: IDF

Popular Resistance Committees – Trained and funded by Hamas

Hamas uses PRC as means of continuing “resistance” against Israel

Date: 22/08/2011, 4:27 PM Author: IDF Website

The Popular Resistance Committees was responsible for the terrorist attacks on Thursday (August 18) in which eight Israelis were killed and dozens more wounded.

The PRC is an independent terrorist organization in the Gaza Strip that is supported, subsidized and trained by the Hamas terrorist organization.

The organization was founded in September 2000 following the outbreak of the Second Intifada, during which over 1,000 Israelis were killed. The PRC operates in coordination with Iranian authorities and the Hezbollah terrorist organization and has conducted multiple terrorist activities against Israeli civilians and IDF soldiers.

The PRC carries out direct attacks against Israel from the Gaza Strip, without any clear national, ideological or religious affiliation in the Gaza political arena.

The PRC is directly supported by the Hamas terrorist organization that controls Gaza.

Hamas allows the PRC to act independently. Hamas views the PRC as a means of continuing “resistance” against Israel while being able to claim that it is not involved in the PRC’s terrorist activities. According to intelligence information, Hamas is directly involved in funding and training the PRC terrorists.

In the past few years, the PRC led several terrorist operations against Israel.

In June 2006, the PRC, in cooperation with Hamas, attacked an IDF post in the Kerem Shalom area, during which IDF soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped.

Around the same time, the PRC took responsibility for the murder of Israeli civilian Eliyahu Ashri in Judea and Samaria.

Last Thursday (August 18), the PRC led the terrorist attacks on the Israel-Egypt border near Eilat, killing eight Israelis.

A number of PRC terrorists, including senior operatives, were killed in IDF operations since Thursday’s attacks.

The PRC has taken responsibility for dozens of rockets launched at southern Israel over the past few days.

2011/08/20

Islamic Persecution of Christianity.

Written By Walt Long

This morning I was reading another article concerning Christian Persecution by Muslims. This posting is an attempt to bring to sunlight the many atrocities, as in many infections, sunlight helps in the disinfecting, not only on flesh, but in society as a whole. Most of these atrocities are being swept under the rug by the Mainstream Media. If you click on the title it will take you to the actual article, I have only included what I personally felt was the highlight of the article. With the many persecutions of Christianity I will be updating the article from time to time.

Before I start with the various headlines and highlights of the articles in order to mute many of the Progressive Liberal’s of the Left and atheist’s, I would like to post a great article titled Comparing Islam With Other Faiths, written by an Iranian Ali Sina when he was being questioned by a fellow Iranian, I skipped to questions 3 and 4 with Ali Sina’s response.

3. I must say i am really sorry for saying this but i think you are very wrong for thinking that christianity and judaism ares better than islam….judaism have pedophilia, christianity does and islam….three of the religions have killings…..how come only islam is bad and the rest are good?

4. Why do you never criticize christianity or judaism? they have scientific errors, encourage killing and have peadophilia in them

There is no comparison between Islam and Judaism or Christianity.  Just look at the followers of these religions. One has to really twist the meaning of the New Testament to commit crime in the name of God, as some Christians do. If one follows the spirit of the teachings of Jesus one becomes a better person. The example of a good Christian is Mother Theresa. The example of a good Muslim is Khomeini, Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden.

You can distinguish between a good tree and a bad tree by their fruits.  Look at Muslims and compare them to Christians, Jews or the followers of other religions. Muslims as a norm are angry hateful people. Those Muslims who are good people are often nominal Muslims who do not practice Islam. This can’t be said about the followers of other faiths.  There are bad apples everywhere, but they are exceptions.  Among Muslims, it is an exception to find good people.

This is not something we have to argue about. All one has to do is watch the news and read the history. Muslims behave as a less evolved sub species of human race. This is not genetic. It is all the nefarious influence of Islam on them.

Call to pray for Pakistan’s besieged Christians

Police are seeking to whitewash the assassination of Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, says Elizabeth Kendal

By: Elizabeth Kendal, Religious Libert Prayer Bulletin
ASSIST News Service
Saturday, 27 August 2011

Sharia Law prohibits Christians testifying against Muslims in court. Consequently, in an Islamic state Muslims are essentially guaranteed impunity for crimes committed against Christians.

As would be expected, impunity and legal discrimination then fuels further persecution. The resulting profound insecurity is doubtless the most devastating aspect of dhimmitude (subjugation under Islam).

Furthermore, as Islamic fundamentalism rises in constitutionally secular Muslim-majority states, Sharia provisions are increasingly being enforced to appease politically powerful hardline Islamists, even though these provisions conflict with the law of the land. Weak and fearful governments are increasingly opting for ‘reconciliation’ and ‘harmony’ over justice.

As the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) recently noted, ‘Legal discrimination against religious minorities and the failure of Pakistan’s federal and provincial governments to address religious persecution by Islamist groups, effectively enables atrocities against these groups and others who are vulnerable.’

The police are now seeking to whitewash the 2 March 2011 assassination of Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti (a Christian) by shifting the blame from those who claimed responsibility – militants linked to the Tehrik-i-Taliban – to Bhatti’s Christian relatives.

Bhatti died because he was defending Asia Bibi, a Christian woman jailed in June 2009 on a charge of blasphemy. Asia has been languishing on death row since her conviction in November 2010. Her refusal to convert to Islam had earned the hatred of her Muslim co-labourers. One day they refused to drink the water she delivered, claiming it was contaminated because Asia was an infidel. Asia responded that her Jesus was the Son of God while their Muhammad was no prophet.

After her arrest, a local Muslim leader offered to pay US$6000 to anyone who killed her. Two of the three MPs who have risen to defend Asia have been assassinated, leaving the remaining MP, Sherry Rehman, fearing for her life. Not safe even in the local jail, Asia has been transferred to Multan Prison. Her husband, Ashiq, and five children have been driven into hiding.

Mukhtar Masih is an ordained pastor of the Full Gospel Assemblies of Pakistan. While running a small fellowship from his house in Gloria Colony, Sheikhupura, Punjab, he also established and ran the Good Shepherd High School. Islamic fundamentalists complained about the school’s Christian activities whilst other Muslims coveted the school’s land.

Eventually these hostile forces used Islamic militants to threaten and terrorise Mukhtar Masih until he fled Pakistan for his life, taking his daughter Mary with him. Mukhtar’s sons, Samuel and Emmanuel, and his brother Araf Masih then took on running the school.

Directed by Muslim lawyer Muhammad Ashraf, the Islamic militants eventually forced Mukhtar’s relatives to sign over the property and make the Muslims shareholders in the business. Mukhtar’s relatives have also had to sell their homes to meet the Muslims’ extortion demands. Muhammad Ashraf has occupied the school and changed its name to Focus School System.

The National Director of the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), Joseph Francis, brought the case before the local court, which cancelled the agreement and ordered the return of the property.

Muhammad Ashraf responded by sending armed militants to kill Mukhtar’s relatives, who fortunately managed to escape. Now he has started filing false charges against the Christians, including robbery and murder. From experience, the great danger is that they will be accused of blasphemy also, an emotive charge that carries a mandatory death sentence.

Please pray specifically that:

God will anoint more Pakistani MPs, lawyers, writers and artists to speak up for justice to great effect for the sake of Pakistan’s besieged Church.

‘Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped . . .to open doors before him . . . I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me . . . I equip you, though you do not know me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD, and there is no other.’ (From Isaiah 45:1-6 ESV)

the Holy Spirit will draw all the Church in Pakistan to rely on God who raises the dead and delivers his people in answer to prayer (2 Corinthians 1:8-11).

God will provide all the needs of Asia Bibi, Mukhtar Masih and their families and deliver them from evil; may the Lord’s ‘own arm’ deliver justice against the wicked and recompense for the persecuted.

Say to those who have an anxious heart, ‘Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.’ (Isaiah 35:4 ESV)

Muslim Extremists from Niger Help Kill Christians in Nigeria

Boy, 10, and security guard for local official among those slain.

KADUNA, Nigeria, August 31 (CDN) — Armed Muslims from Niger entered Nigeria’s Kaduna state this month to help Islamists there invade Christian communities, where they killed two Christians, including a 10-year-old boy, area sources said.

In the early morning hours of Aug. 21, the Muslim extremists entered Fadiya Bakut village in Bajju district of the Zango-Kataf Local Government Area, and attacked the home of Andrew Allahmagani, the district head in Fadiya, Allahmagani told Compass by telephone.

Allahmagani said he was sleeping that morning when he suddenly heard gunshots near his residence.

“They [the attackers] later moved around the house shooting into windows and doors, including that of my wife,” he said. “Afterward, they moved to the quarters of my brother, where they shot and killed my nephew, Fidelis Ishaku, who was 10 years old, and shot and injured my mother, who is 70.”

A Christian security guard at the house, 52-year-old Zaman Kaki, was also killed in the attack by about 10 assailants armed with guns, cutlasses and other dangerous weapons, Allahmagani said. Kaki leaves behind a wife and four children.

The slain boy’s grandmother, Laraba Ishaku, received a life-threatening wound in the thigh but survived after receiving treatment at Zonkwa Medical Center, he said. Also receiving hospital treatment for wounds was Bartholomew Ishaku, 20, and 31-year-old Clement Yohanna, he said.

Eyewitness Danjuma Sarki told Compass that about 30 spent shells were recovered from the scene of the attack, which kept many Christians from meeting for church services that day.

Read it all here

Muslims Beat Christian With Rods for Refusing Islam

Angry Muslims
Two Christian men were seriously injured by young Muslim men this month in Karachi when they refused to convert to Islam, a family member told Compass.

Liaqat Munawar, a resident of Essa Nagri in Karachi, told Compass by telephone that his brother, Ishfaq Munawar, and another young Christian man, Naeem Masih, were returning home after an early morning prayer service at their church in Sohrab Goth on Aug. 14, Pakistan’s Independence Day, when ethnic Pashtun youths near Sea View harassed and later attacked them.

“Ishfaq and Naeem were riding a motorcycle when six Pashtun youths signaled them to stop,” Liaqat Munawar said. “They asked the two boys to identify themselves. Ishfaq told them that they were Christians returning from their church after a special prayer service.”

The Muslims asked them why they were in Sea View, and they replied that they had made a brief stopover to participate in Independence Day celebrations at the beach, he said.

“The Pashtun youths then started questioning them about their faith and later tried to force them to recite the Kalma [Islamic conversion creed] and become Muslims, telling them that this was the only way they could live peacefully in the city,” Liaqat Munawar said. “They also offered monetary incentives and ‘protection’ to Ishfaq and Naeem, but the two refused to renounce Christianity.”

After cajoling the two Christians for some time, the Pashtuns sat in a white car parked nearby and eventually drove away. Ishfaq Munawar and Masih got back onto their motorcycle and were about to start it, Liaqat Munawar said, when suddenly the young Muslims reversed their car and rammed it into the Christians.

“The Muslims got out of the car armed with iron rods and attacked Ishfaq and Naeem, shouting that they should either recite the Kalma or be prepared to die,” Liaqat Munawar said.

He said the Pashtuns severely beat the two Christians, fracturing Ishfaq Munawar’s jaw and breaking five teeth, and seriously injuring Masih. He added that the two Christians fell unconscious, and the young Muslim men left assuming they had killed them.

Liaqat Munawar said his brother underwent jaw surgery at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and is now recovering. He said the family had not registered a case with police, fearing reprisal by the Muslims, but were now considering filing a formal complaint.

This was not the first time Liaqat Munawar’s family has witnessed religious violence, he said, as Pashtun Muslims last year attacked his cousin, Eric Sarwar, founder and executive director of the Tehillim School of Church Music and Worship, which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church of Pakistan.

Liaqat Munawar also spoke of an incident in which Muslim Pashtuns shot at a Christian funeral passing through their area without any reason, injuring six Christians.

Elvis Steven, a Christian rights activist in Karachi, told Compass that he was in contact with the Munawar family, and that although he had yet to speak with the victims directly, he would attempt all possible means to have the assailants arrested.

“The situation is not that bad for Christians living in areas controlled by the Muttahida Qaumi Movement [MQM], but those living in areas dominated by the Pashtuns are under constant threat,” Steven said. “The Pashtuns are extremist in their beliefs. They have a militant mindset, and there have been several incidents of religious violence involving the Pashtuns in Karachi.”

While this violence was clearly religiously motivated, Karachi, Pakistan’s financial hub, has been roiled by ethnic violence this year. Ethnic gangs backed by political parties have reportedly ratcheted up their turf wars, with the MQM, said to represent the majority ethnic Mohajirs, increasingly assailed by Pashtun and ethnic Baloch gangs.

Political parties representing all three groups, including the MQM, are fighting over rights to extort money from businesses and homes in Karachi, violence that some have falsely portrayed as religiously motivated violence.

Christians make up only 2.45 percent of Pakistan’s population, which is more than 95 percent Muslim, according to Operation World.

Christian Genocide in Somalia

In 2008, al Shabab members sliced the head off of Mansuur Mohammed, a 25 year-old convert to Christianity. According to witnesses, the insurgents took a video of the slaughter and circulated it in Somalia purportedly to instill fear among those contemplating conversion from Islam to Christianity.

In July 2009, al Shabab beheaded seven prisoners it accused of abandoning the Muslim faith; in August 2009 four Somali Christian women working for an NGO orphanage were beheaded after refusing to renounce their faith; and in July 2009 a 40-year-old Christian mother of 10 and her 23-year-old daughter, who was six months pregnant at the time, were both raped and held captive for five days before the terrorists left them for dead.

In July 2010, Muhammad Guul Hashim Idiris, a Christian convert from Islam, was taken by al Shabab members to a makeshift soccer stadium, attended by hundreds, and executed. A statement from Sheik Adan Yare, the al Shabab governor of the Bakol region, read: “Our holy warriors have today…executed in front of angry Muslim witnesses a young man who insulted our beloved prophet.”

In September 2010 al Shabab members broke into the home of Osman Abdullah Fataho, an active participant in the underground Christian community, and shot him dead in front of his wife and four children. The terrorists then took Fataho’s children as recruits to be trained as child soldiers in its organization.

In January 2011 insurgents slit the throat of Asha Mberwa, a recent convert to Christianity and mother of four; in March 2011 al Shabab insurgents shot Madobe Abdi to death. Abdi’s alleged crime was not that he was a convert from Islam but rather was an orphan raised as a Christian.

Finally, in May 2011 militants shot and killed Yusuf Ali Nur on suspicion he was a Christian as well as killing 21-year old Christian convert Hassan Adawe Adan, dragging Adan outside and shooting him several times before shouting Allahu Akbar (“God is great”).

African Jihad Gathers Pace: Muslims Burn Down Zanzibar Church!

Muslims on Saturday (July 30) burned down a church building on Zanzibar island off the coast of Tanzania, church leaders said, just three days after another congregation’s facility on the island was reduced to ashes.

In Kianga, about 10 kilometers (six miles) from Zanzibar town, another church building was burned down on Wednesday (July 27) at about 2 a.m., said Pastor George Frank Dunia of Free Evangelical Pentecostal Church in Africa.

On neighboring Pemba island, suspected Muslim extremists in Konde on June 17 razed a Seventh-day Adventist Church building, a witness said.

“It was at 1 a.m. when I saw the church burning,” said a neighbor who requested anonymity. “There have been issues that the Muslims have been raising about the existence of the church.”

The Seventh-day church owns a large property near Chake-Chake town but has been unable to erect a building due to hostility from Muslims, sources said.

“If we do not stop the growth of the churches here in Pemba, then soon we are going to lose our people to Christianity, especially the children,” Sheikh Ibrahim Abdalla of Chake-Chake Mosque reportedly said.

Charred corpses line road after Nigeria vote riots.

On the outskirts of Kaduna, burned out minibuses and cars littered the highways, and at least six charred bodies could be seen. Skull caps and sandals were strewn nearby, left behind by those who frantically fled amid the chaos.

Authorities and aid groups have hesitated to release tolls following the riots across northern Nigeria for fear of inciting reprisal attacks, but the National Emergency Management Agency confirmed there had been fatalities. The Nigerian Red Cross said Tuesday that nearly 400 people had been wounded.

Horrific photo of what muslims are doing to christians sent by a BNI reader in Nigeria

Violence Erupts in Nigeria After Christian President Elected

What sparked the violence? The election of a Christian president. Nigerian citizens voted in Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian politician from the People’s Democratic Party. But Muslims are lashing out. The violence comes as no surprise, considering the pre-election violence.

The violence is erputing in predominantly Muslim states, including Adamawa, Bauchi, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Sokoto, Gombe, Yobe and Katsina. There are reports of rampaging youths taking to the streets in protest against the President Jonathan’s victory.

Indeed, the backlash is growing worse. According to Open Doors, more than 60 churches were torched, thousands of houses belonging to Christians were destroyed, and both pastors and church workers killed. Christians in the villages were not spared. Many Christians were seen fleeing, abandoning their homes for fear of attack.

“Last year there were more martyrs in Nigeria–approximately 2,000 Christians killed in the northern part–than in any other country in the world,” says Open Doors USA President and CEO Dr. Carl Moeller.

No Big Deal, Just Some People in Africa, Right?

Christians are killed by the hundreds for no reason other than they are Christian. Where is the world outcry and at what point will someone we know be next?

It’s a shame that people in this country don’t believe those of us who warn about creeping Sharia and Islam.

Would it make the headlines if over a thousand Christians had been killed in, say, a South Carolina town for no other reason than they are simply Christian? Well, per capita, that is exactly what is happening in Nigeria. Funny how, when I do see a story on it, it is usually buried somewhere inside the paper or it’s just a small 30-second story on the television news.

The stories are horrifying, the pictures are stomach wrenching – men, women and babies, yes, babies being hacked into pieces by machetes.

“Dogo Nahawa is a Christian community,” the Christian leaders said in a statement. “Eyewitnesses say the Hausa Fulani Muslim militants were chanting ‘Allah Akbar,’ broke into houses, cutting human beings, including children and women with their knives and cutlasses.”

Well, there you have it yet again. “Allah Akbar.” It seems to be a recurring theme and I for one am sick of it. I am tired of writing week after week and month after month, but not many Americans seem to be moved by the catastrophe around us. Do we need another worldwide holocaust to occur before we stop worrying about our petty problems and wake up? What happened to the caring, concerned America I remember?

(all emphasis added by me)

Killing Christians in Somalia, and burning Bibles in Pakistan

while the “trendy brigade” and “political correct” pat themselves on the back about supporting the Islamic faith and showing how tolerant “our Western societies are.” They remain mainly silent about reports which highlight the rape of Christian females in Egypt and the forced conversion of these Christian females by their Muslim rapists. Sadly the same brutal method of rape against Christian and Hindu females in Pakistan by Muslims is also a disturbing reality but you have no demonstrations nor is the mass media “sinking their teeth” into issues like this.

Therefore, we have a strange “mirror” which is being told by the majority of the mass media. On the one hand we are told that Islam means peace but we know that all apostates face death in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Maldives, and a few other nations. Even in so-called moderate nations like Egypt, prison awaits the apostate from Islam and the family court system in Egypt clearly discriminates against all Christians in divorce cases involving children.

The sad reality is simple and it applies to the “dhimmis” bending over backwards in order to appease the Islamic agenda of stealth jihad. After all, Muslims are free to build their mosques all over America, India, the United Kingdom, and in other democratic nations.

Christian pastors have been beheaded in Nigeria; Hindu and Christian females have been raped in Pakistan; apostates to Christianity are being killed in Somalia; the Christian community in Iraq is under siege; Buddhists are killed and persecuted in southern Thailand; the Ahmadiyya suffer systematic persecution in Pakistan; the Baha’is reside in fear in Iran; and the list is endless.

Priests among 46 Christians killed in Iraq hostage drama

Grieving Catholics in Baghdad marked All Saints Day in mourning on Monday for 46 Christians killed during a hostage drama with Al-Qaeda gunmen that ended in an assault by Iraqi forces backed by US troops.

The rescue drama on Sunday night, two months after US forces formally concluded combat operations in Iraq, ended with two priests among at least 46 slain worshippers.

“It was carnage,” said Monsignor Pius Kasha, whose Syriac Catholic church was targeted by the militants. Witnesses said the assailants were armed with automatic rifles and suicide belts.

Photos:

33613_10150313020700652_806905651_15457653_7082160_n

34407_10150313021875652_806905651_15457660_7085901_n

72526_10150313020600652_806905651_15457650_1407159_n

71948_492052986755_560606755_7136054_841776_n

73086_10150313021100652_806905651_15457657_3002515_n

73802_452209175815_505155815_5358612_2492110_n

74308_10150313022650652_806905651_15457665_4469650_n

Warning: Please Do Not Have Children Around When Viewing

Videos

2011/03/31

America: Beware Giving in to the False Concept of Islamophobia

Source INN
Written By Dr. Phyllis Chesler

We are drowning in anti-Israel propaganda, and still it never stops coming.

Simultaneously, the “Palestinian narrative” appears to us as if in a dream, over and over again, always slightly surreal and yet overly familiar. By now the “Palestinian narrative” is a brand and we have all been hypnotized.  This is not surprising.

For more than 40 years, the Soviet, Arab, and Saudi Lobbies, eventually joined by the Iranian Lobby, have funded the demonization of Israel and the popularization of Palestine. The condemnation of Israel for crimes it has never committed (“ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “apartheid”) and the call for a Palestinian one-state solution is echoed, similarly, in films, books, poems, academic papers and lectures; we see and hear this on television, at conferences, at campus demonstrations, in the halls of the United Nations, the European Union, in Parliaments, and, of course, in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

By now, the “Palestinian narrative” has effectively rendered Jews unsafe and unwelcome in Europe. Jews who look “Jewish” or “religious” are not safe on the streets of certain European countries such as England, France, Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia. European pagan, Christian, and Nazi-era Judeophobia has found a new outlet in the obsessive demonization of Israel, the only Jewish state. This is also the way Europeans hope to appease Muslim immigrants who live in Europe but in parallel universes, who are hostile to the Western enterprise, and who demand the right to be brutally intolerant as a Western civil right.

This same false Palestinian narrative has morphed into a belief that all Muslims—who are, themselves, the largest practitioners of religious apartheid in the world, and who persecute all non-Muslims—are, as Muslims, being persecuted in the West. This may be because Islam is not (yet) dominant in the West.

In my opinion, the success of the “Palestinian” narrative is what has led to the unquestioning acceptance of the false concept of “Islamophobia.”

Those Europeans who have challenged the idea of “Islamophobia” and who have told the truth about Islam in Europe—or who have chosen to leave the Religion of Peace—have put themselves in harm’s way. Either they are sued for blasphemy or defamation—or they must live in exile and with bodyguards. Some have been murdered, even butchered.

What about America? Surely that is not true here.

In 2008, America’s FBI found that 66.1% of religious hate crimes targeted Jews, but only 7.5% of religious hate crimes targeted Muslims. On March 29, 2011, The Center for Security Policy released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims — Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization. (I have provided a PDF Copy of this study at the bottom of this article) It is based on annual FBI statistics and contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased in America and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia.” In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes — also known as hate crimes — against Muslim Americans, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.

According to the Center’s analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.”

Nevertheless, American Muslims have alleged rampant “Islamophobia” in America. Countless number of Talking Heads have taken this allegation seriously.

Thus, it is not surprising that CNN just aired a documentary which was titled Not Welcome: The Muslims Next Door.

On camera, the Muslims are all so very…peaceful. There is not one angry or hate-filled Muslim man on camera. Not one. Despite the fact that we have seen hundreds, possibly thousands of angry, frightening, violent Muslim demonstrations, including prayer services, all across America and across the Islamic world, and many hate-filled captured Islamic and Palestinian terrorists on camera, CNN’s chosen Muslim-American men of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, including the Sheikh of the planned Islamic Center, are all soft-spoken, emotional, tearful, non-violent. Except for the Sheikh’s American wifewho converted to Islam, the Muslims on camera are all innocent, good, non-white people.

Soledad O’Brien, CNN’s special anchor, likes them, and, as someone with Afro-Cuban as well as Caucasian Australian parents, perhaps she even identifies with them. In any event, O’Brien questions them very politely, sympathetically.

However, the white, Christian-Americans on camera—all of them, without exception—are portrayed as hateful, cruel, insidious, dislikable, selfish, phobic, and no doubt racist. O’Brien interviews them with barely disguised hostility and contempt.

At issue, according to CNN’s website are America’s post-9/11 fears about radical Islam, terrorism, and “Sharia Law.”  As CNN sees it:

“Murfreesboro, Tennessee has just over 100,000 people, 140+ churches, and one mosque. For decades, Muslims have lived and prayed in Murfreesboro without incident, but last May, when the Muslim community gained county approval to build a new 52,000 square foot Islamic center in town, hundreds of Murfreesboro residents took to the streets in protest…. O’Brien chronicles the dramatic fight to block the mosque project in Murfreesboro and the fight over religious freedom; a fight that would ultimately include protests, vandalism, arson and an explosive lawsuit that would involve the U.S. Department of Justice.”

What’s wrong with Murfreesboro is that it is too damn Christian and too damn white. It is not diverse enough.It is not Middle Eastern enough.

O’Brien, herself a Harvard graduate, dresses as a modern American woman. She has absolutely no comment to make about the fact that most of the adult Muslim women on camera are all wearing long, shapeless dresses and severe hijab—while the Muslim men are all dressed in modern, American style. The Sheikh’s wife insists that women are not “oppressed” under Sharia Law, that she is not oppressed, that no Muslim woman she knows has ever been oppressed, etc.

Interestingly enough, the Sheikh has a foreign accent. One wonders why so many Sheiks have been imported from the Middle East to America. Asra Nomani is a religious Muslim feministwho was born in India and raised in America. Her father founded the mosque of Morgantown, West Virginia. Nomani tried to persuade her mosque to become more woman-friendly. She failed. In a PBSdocumentary about this story, Nomani claimed that when Arab Muslims joined her mosque, her battle to bring it into the 21st century failed. On camera, she says:

“Extremists — mainly Arabs — led by one rather physically and verbally violent Egyptian, Hany Ammar, took over. At that point, I began hearing really scary sermons. An unchaste woman is worthless. The West is on a bad path. We must hate those who hate us. Women should be silent in a mosque. Jews are descendants of apes and pigs.”

Incredibly, on camera, Ammar says: “I pray to Allah that you be punished. May Allah get revenge for Ammar.” Ammar is also heard, but not seen, physically attacking a young moderate Muslim man. Ammar’s wife Mona is even more conservative, more aggressive than he is. She minces no words in expressing her contempt, even hatred for Nomani. Like certain kinds of religious women, she is even more zealous in upholding the patriarchal status quo, more aggressively empowered to strike down any other woman who dares challenge male supremacy or Islamic gender apartheid.

Ultimately, Ammar tries to ban Nomani from the mosque. Eventually, both she and her family leave.

Why do I even bring this in? Because Murfreesboro’s Sheikh Ossama Mohamed Bahloul is also a foreign-born Arab Muslim. All this means is that he may (or may not) be a religious Muslim supremacist or an Islamist. Bahloul is an Egyptian-born graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Imam of the Islamic Society of Southern Texas, in Corpus Christi, and then the visiting Imam for the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas.

Sheikh Bahloul is not a terrorist, nor did he have anything to do with the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization which raised money for Hamas and was based in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. However, he was summoned from Egypt to work in Texas, and left for Murfreesboro a year after the Holy Land trial began. Texas is known as a hotbed of increasingly fundamentalist Islam. Perhaps Bahloul was chosen for his radical beliefs and for his ability to mask them as something else. After all, his wife is dressed as if they live in Cairo, not in America.

To me, this is a sign and signal of a desire to live in a parallel universe, one in which Muslims are taught that they are superior to non-Muslims; one in which Muslims are taught to hate Jews and other infidels;one in which Muslims are taught that Sharia Law is, indeed, superior to American law. That is why CNN invites Harvard Professor Noah Feldman on. He assures people that “Our constitution prohibits any religion from becoming the law of the land.”

It does. But look at how Sharia law and/or Islamic custom has usurped the law of the land both in Europe and in America, where female genital mutilation, child arranged marriage, polygamy, the burqa and honor killings are pandemic.

An Egyptian father killed his two American daughters in Irving, Texas. Yaser Said came from Egypt, married his American-born wife when she was fifteen years old, honor murdered their daughters in 2008, and then fled. He has yet to be found.

A series of attacks were perpetrated against the building of the mosque. “Not Welcome” was spray painted on the sign which announced the mosque opening, arson was perpetrated, a lawsuit was brought. The graffiti and the arson are unacceptable. But no one who opposes the mosque is given a fair hearing or the slightest respect on camera. And, Sheikh Bahloul may be as clever as he is soft-spoken. In a very emotional but determined voice, pitched precisely to gain sympathy for his causehe says:  “This is America. This is too much.”

Ah, so the Egyptian-born Sheikh understands America and fully knows what his rights are here. Funny, he only arrived here post 9/11. Actually, for all I know, he could have arrived here sooneror more recently. None of his many biographies and interviews share this information with us.

Is he, perhaps, asecret lover of Zion, an admirer of the American way of life, a Sufi-style peaceful Sunni Muslim? He graduated from the most prominent school of Islamic learning in the Sunni world. If he is really a man for the 21st century, he will have to take some very prominent and public stands which prove that this is so.



Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at City University of New York. She is an author, psychotherapist and an expert courtroom witness. She has lectured and organized political, legal, religious and human rights campaigns in the United States and in Canada, Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.

Dr. Chesler’s thirteen books and thousands of articles and speeches have inspired people on many diverse issues. Her books include: Women and Madness; Women, Money and Power; About Men; With Child: A Diary of Motherhood; Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody; Sacred Bond: The Legacy of Baby M; Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness; Feminist Foremothers in Women’s Studies, Psychology, and Mental Health; Letters to a Young Feminist; Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman; Women of the Wall: Claiming Sacred Ground at Judaism’s Holy Site; The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It; and The Death of Feminism. What’s Next in the Struggle for Women’s Freedom.

To subscribe to the Phyllis Chesler mailing list, go to http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/list_subscribe.php


View this document on Scribd
Older Posts »