Iran: "Volunteer student suicide groups ... are determined to go to Gaza"
Martyrdom can be attained via mass murder.
Back when I was in school, we had volunteer service groups -- you know, to clean up the school grounds, take care of handicapped students, etc. In Iran, volunteer student groups are a bit different. They're hoping to gain Paradise by murdering Israeli civilians: "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs in return is the garden of Paradise: they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain..." -- Qur'an 9:111.
"Volunteer suicide bombers seek to attack Israel," by Ali Akbar Dareini for Associated Press, December 31 (thanks to James):
TEHRAN, Iran – Hard-line Iranian student groups have asked the government to authorize volunteers to go carry out suicide bombings in Israel in response to the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had not responded to the call by Wednesday. Five hard-line student groups and a conservative clerical group launched a registration drive on Monday, seeking volunteers to carry out suicide attacks against Israel.
"Conservative." Yes, conservatives regularly blow themselves up in order to murder their enemies in quantity.
In an open letter to Ahmadinjead, the students said "volunteer student suicide groups ... are determined to go to Gaza. You are expected to issue orders to the relevant authorities in order to pave the way for such action." A copy of the letter was made available to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Volunteer suicide groups have made similar requests in the past and the government never responded to their calls. Some hard-liners have claimed previously they succeeded in secretly sending bombers to Israel, but their claims have never been verified, and there has not been any sign of Iranians carrying out suicide attacks in Israel — raising the likelihood the groups' activities are mainly for propaganda purposes....
"We desire death as you desire life."
The UN announcement that 51 civilians have died in the conflict in Gaza must be understood in the context of Hamas's declared ideology to use civilians as human shields for Hamas fighters. Indeed, Hamas continues to emphasize and promote the religious ideology that death for Allah is an ideal to be actively pursued.
The goal is to convince Palestinians, including women and children, not to fear death but even to face it at the front to protect Hamas fighters. Hamas's placement of its military installations and fighters among civilians reflects this ideology, and has led to these 51 deaths.
A Hamas representative in the PA legislative council this year expressed pride in the fact that women and children are used as human shields in fighting Israel. He described it as part of a "death industry" at which Palestinians excel, and explained that the Palestinians "desire death" with the same intensity that Israelis "desire life."
The following is the full text of the comments by Hamas representative Fathi Hamad: "For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly [Palestinians] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life."
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Beheading And Burning Through Pakistan
Taliban "beheading and burning their way" through Pakistan's Swat valley
The Taliban's paradise is taking shape in the Swat valley and beyond: Among other things, polio has resurfaced, and the girls' schools have to close in less than three weeks. They must be so proud of their "progress."
"Scenic Pakistani valley falls to Taliban militants," by Nahal Toosi for the Associated Press, December 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Taliban militants are beheading and burning their way through Pakistan's picturesque Swat Valley, and residents say the insurgents now control most of the mountainous region far from the lawless tribal areas where jihadists thrive.
The deteriorating situation in the former tourist haven comes despite an army offensive that began in 2007 and an attempted peace deal. It is especially worrisome to Pakistani officials because the valley lies outside the areas where al-Qaida and Taliban militants have traditionally operated and where the military is staging a separate offensive.
"You can't imagine how bad it is," said Muzaffar ul-Mulk, a federal lawmaker whose home in Swat was attacked by bomb-toting assailants in mid-December, weeks after he left. "It's worse day by day."
The Taliban activity in northwest Pakistan also comes as the country shifts forces east to the Indian border because of tensions over last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, potentially giving insurgents more space to maneuver along the Afghan frontier.
Militants began preying on Swat's lush mountain ranges about two years ago, and it is now too dangerous for foreign and Pakistani journalists to visit. Interviews with residents, lawmakers and officials who have fled the region paint a dire picture.
A suicide blast killed 40 people Sunday at a polling station in Buner, an area bordering Swat that had been relatively peaceful. The attack underscored fears that even so-called "settled" regions presumptively under government control are increasingly unsafe.
The 3,500-square-mile Swat Valley lies less than 100 miles from the capital, Islamabad.
A senior government official said he feared there could be a spillover effect if the government lost control of Swat and allowed the insurgency to infect other areas. Like nearly everyone interviewed, the official requested anonymity for fear of reprisal by militants. [...]
Swat's militants are led by Maulana Fazlullah, a cleric who rose to prominence through radio broadcasts demanding the imposition of a harsh brand of Islamic law. His appeal tapped into widespread frustration with the area's inefficient judicial system. [...]
In some places, just a handful of insurgents can control a village. They rule by fear: beheading government sympathizers, blowing up bridges and demanding women wear all-encompassing burqas. [...]
A lawmaker and the senior Swat government official said business and landowners had been told to give two-thirds of their income to the militants. Some local media reported last week that the militants have pronounced effective in mid-January.
Several people interviewed said the regional government made a mistake in May when it struck a peace deal with the militants. The agreement fell apart within two months but let the insurgents regroup....
The Taliban's paradise is taking shape in the Swat valley and beyond: Among other things, polio has resurfaced, and the girls' schools have to close in less than three weeks. They must be so proud of their "progress."
"Scenic Pakistani valley falls to Taliban militants," by Nahal Toosi for the Associated Press, December 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Taliban militants are beheading and burning their way through Pakistan's picturesque Swat Valley, and residents say the insurgents now control most of the mountainous region far from the lawless tribal areas where jihadists thrive.
The deteriorating situation in the former tourist haven comes despite an army offensive that began in 2007 and an attempted peace deal. It is especially worrisome to Pakistani officials because the valley lies outside the areas where al-Qaida and Taliban militants have traditionally operated and where the military is staging a separate offensive.
"You can't imagine how bad it is," said Muzaffar ul-Mulk, a federal lawmaker whose home in Swat was attacked by bomb-toting assailants in mid-December, weeks after he left. "It's worse day by day."
The Taliban activity in northwest Pakistan also comes as the country shifts forces east to the Indian border because of tensions over last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, potentially giving insurgents more space to maneuver along the Afghan frontier.
Militants began preying on Swat's lush mountain ranges about two years ago, and it is now too dangerous for foreign and Pakistani journalists to visit. Interviews with residents, lawmakers and officials who have fled the region paint a dire picture.
A suicide blast killed 40 people Sunday at a polling station in Buner, an area bordering Swat that had been relatively peaceful. The attack underscored fears that even so-called "settled" regions presumptively under government control are increasingly unsafe.
The 3,500-square-mile Swat Valley lies less than 100 miles from the capital, Islamabad.
A senior government official said he feared there could be a spillover effect if the government lost control of Swat and allowed the insurgency to infect other areas. Like nearly everyone interviewed, the official requested anonymity for fear of reprisal by militants. [...]
Swat's militants are led by Maulana Fazlullah, a cleric who rose to prominence through radio broadcasts demanding the imposition of a harsh brand of Islamic law. His appeal tapped into widespread frustration with the area's inefficient judicial system. [...]
In some places, just a handful of insurgents can control a village. They rule by fear: beheading government sympathizers, blowing up bridges and demanding women wear all-encompassing burqas. [...]
A lawmaker and the senior Swat government official said business and landowners had been told to give two-thirds of their income to the militants. Some local media reported last week that the militants have pronounced effective in mid-January.
Several people interviewed said the regional government made a mistake in May when it struck a peace deal with the militants. The agreement fell apart within two months but let the insurgents regroup....
Shari'a Finance At The Fed
Hugging Shari'a Finance at the Fed
By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/10/2008
The first market day after President-elect Obama announced plans to appoint Federal Reserve Bank of New York president Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, U.S. equities rose 6.5%. Pundits praised his experience handling crises and understanding of the troubled economy. But possibly, the market hoopla was premature, or even unwarranted. Some analysts seek his retirement.
As turmoil built, Geithner criticized Wall Street's self-regulatory system, negative incentives and market forces, sought tighter supervision and berated insufficient “derivative securities” regulation and “credit-default” swaps allowing investors to “insure” against loses---only to fail. The Treasury Department's former attaché to the International Monetary Fund had overseen U.S. responses to the 1990s Mexican, Indonesian and Korean bailouts. But at the Fed, Geithner did not use regulatory powers to check abuses, or advocate for more regulation, impartial supervision or new laws. He even concluded that markets were improving---and after Bear Stearns' collapse confessed, nobody “understands [the causes] yet.”
Worst of all, since Nov. 2003, Geithner let dangerous new Islamic and shari'a-based securities, markets and financial institutions gain business currency---despite the Fed's role in U.S. monetary policy, currency distribution, government securities markets, legal supervision, regulatory enforcement, bank and capital markets investigation, foreign accounts and a payments mechanism handling over $4 trillion daily in funds and securities transfers. Not to mention Fed officials' admitted lack of understanding.
On July 1, 2004, eight months after Geithner assumed command, the New York Fed hosted Asim Ghanfoor (sic), AG Group founder and managing director, to address its Seventh Annual Global Economic Forum on “ABCs of Islamic Financing” and Islam's increasing global financial role. A month later, a href="http://www.globalterroralert.com/faisalgillletter.pdf">Senators Charles Grassley and John Kyl identified Ghafoor as a representative of Boston's terror-funding Boston's Care International, the Global Relief Foundation (GRF) and the Al Harimain Islamic Foundation, which the U.S. Treasury specially designated a terrorist organization in September 2004 and again in June 2008. Given Ghafoor's connections, how could the Fed have featured him, much less warmly accepted Islamic finance?
In fairness, the New York Fed began authorizing obscure shari'a banking institutions, structured shari'a issues, and opaque Islamic securities trading long before Geithner arrived. “Islamic bankers have been quite ingenious in developing financial transactions that suit their needs,” New York Fed first vice president Ernest T. Patrikis told an Islamic Finance conference in May 1996. “We bank supervisors, too, can be ingenious and will want to work with any of you should you decide that you want to engage in Islamic banking” in the U.S.
The dangers of Islamic finance should have been apparent. From 1996 on, all 12 Federal Reserve banks received, and were charged to enforce many Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control circulars designating Islamic groups and banks as terrorist-financing institutions, organizations and individuals. In 1998, OFAC warned the Fed against transactions with Osama bin Laden and his affiliates, in 1999 froze Taliban assets, in 2002 reminded banks to check customers against known terrorist lists and in 2003 warned against trading with any unnamed counter-party.
Meanwhile, had the Fed only noticed, there were warning signs elsewhere too. In 1999, Saudi scholar Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi proposed at Harvard that banning interest would “cure the ills of contemporary finance,” “create a safer, saner financial world,” incorporate the “institution of waqf [Islamic trust]” in economics and create “morally inspired” behavior. In 2001, Siddiqi openly labeled shari'a finance a revolution-driver---an “universal endeavor” to replace “excesses of capitalism.”
Alarm bells should have gone off at a New York Fed event on Nov. 21, 2002, furthermore, where shari'a banking proponent Wafiq Fannoun described Islam as “Peace through submission to Allah (God), however, “revelation-based [the Qur'an, Hadith] ... complete way of life” --- that is, a system of religious law proscribed by the U.S. Constitution from inclusion in secular legislation or regulatory systems. Equally at odds with Constitutional law and Western capitalism are other Islamic notions he described---namely that Allah is both creator and “owner” of all material things, and that “individuals” may not possess “natural resources important to society.” as “alternative financing for Muslims” and others recognizing individual ownership rights.
True, most of that happened before Geithner ran the New York Fed. But after he took the helm in November 2003, the bank missed several still more critical red flags on Islamic banking.
First came Basel II Capital Accord, supposedly designed to strengthen the “regulatory capital framework” for big international banks. Authorities increasingly expected to trust banks to internally assess their own credit and operational risks. However, in July 2004 Switzerland's Bank for International Settlements (BIS) reported, 53% of Middle Eastern bank supervisory staffs lacked the necessary training to meet Basel II's December 2007 deadline. Middle Eastern banks originated and still predominate in Islamic banking. Nevertheless, by 2007, they still needed historical data to fashion reliable risk models but instead counted on “heavy” collateral and “exceptional” economic conditions to eliminate risks.
Islamic institutions had manufactured “special purpose entities” (SPEs)---renamed, “special-purpose vehicles (SPVs)”--- such as coincidentally helped destroy Enron. These legal devices restructured “interest-bearing debt, collecting interest [as] rent or [a] price mark-up,” Rice University Islamic economics chairman Mahmoud el-Gamal warned in May 2007. “Interest-based” Islamic finance equaled “shari'a arbitrage,” concerned only “religious identity” and merely employed Western securitization methods to transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid, opaque assets.
Shari'a banking, though, had far fewer regulatory and accounting protections than sub-prime mortgages---and like “portfolio insurance” in 1987, mortgage-backed bonds in 1994, and sub-prime mortgages in 2008, could also cause huge market declines. Islamic banking purveyors admitted shari'a regulations could “override commercial decisions;” didn't “standardize” documentation; and used complex “inter-creditor agreements” and “off-balance sheet financing.”
Even hosting hosting Islamic financier Asim Ghafoor, a representative to three terror-funding organizations, on July 1, 2004 apparently gave no one inside Geithner's Fed reason to pause from its rush to further accommodate shari'a banking.
In March 2005, New York Fed general counsel Thomas C. Baxter Jr. asserted the Constitutional “wall of separation between church and state” Thomas Jefferson had described was “not absolute.” Chief Justice Warren Burger had in 1984 suggested that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions,” Baxter told an Islamic financial industry “Legal Issues” seminar. “[S]ecular law should ... accommodate differing religious practices,” he indicated, apparently even if that meant specially excepting Islamic banking from secular laws and regulations.
In April 2005, New York Fed executive vice president William Rutledge admitted that the bank was “in no position to take a stance on shari'a interpretation.” He also claimed the bank would hold Islamic finance to “the same high licensing and supervision standards” as conventional banks.
Despite the New York Fed's role as a legal supervisor of Islamic banking, neither Rutledge nor Geithner noticed, however, that shari'a banking, a 20th century “tradition” invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, can't be severed from Islamic law---statutes that Mohammed initiated, which caliphs, scholars and jurists developed over the last 1,400 years. They hold that shari'a grants Muslims (the ummah) supremacy over all others---along with all land and property to hold in trust for Allah. Thus as Fannoun effectively told the Fed in Nov. 2002, land or property, once conquered or acquired by Muslims (or for Allah), can't generally revert to their original owners. Shari'a commands Muslims to wage jihad warfare until they subdue all “infidels” under universal Muslim rule, as Ibn Khaldun avowed in the Muqaddimah (trans., Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Univ. Press, 9th printing, 1989, p. 183).
Confiscating possessions from non-believers exacts “revenge,” wrote jurist Abul Hasan al Mawardi (d. 1058). Qur'an 57:2 argued, “To Him belongs all dominions of the heavens and earth.” Qur'an 59:7 echoed, “That which Allah giveth as spoil [war booty] unto his Messenger…” Allah authorized 2nd Islamic Caliph, Umar Ibn Khattab, to confiscate property by force, fulfilling an Islamic trust, or ruling under Allah’s law. It was thereby just to take anything from nonbelievers, (The Laws of Islamic Governance, Taha Publishing, 1996, pp. 207-251) including all territories Islam ever controlled.
Apparently, Fed officials also neglected to investigate the alliances and beliefs of shari'a advisors and their affiliates in the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) and Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB) standards agencies.
The shari'a-based Islamic Development Bank established the AAOIFI in 1990 to set Islamic finance standards. Its trustees include executives of Kuwait Finance House, Saudi Arabia's Dallah al Baraka Group and al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation---all implicated in al-Qa’ida and other terror-funding---and Sudanese (and until recently Iranian) officials, both U.S. Treasury-sanctioned countries.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir in 2002 christened IFSB “a universal Islamic banking system” and “a jihad worth pursuing….” Its board members include the terror-funding Iranian, Sudanese and Syrian central banks and Palestinian Monetary Authority.
Yusuf Qaradawi, an U.S.-designated foreign terrorist barred entry since 1999 for example, supports wife-beating, suicide bombings, murder of American military forces and female suicide “martyr operations.” A large shareholder of Al Taqwa Bank, Qaradawi also chairs the recently designated terrorist-funding Union of Good “charity,” Qatar National Bank, its al-Islami subsidiary, Qatar Islamic Bank, and Qatar International Islamic Bank---and follows AAOIFI standards he helped create.
Similarly, Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes (DJIM) shari'a board uses “stringent and published” methods to determine “compliance of index-eligible companies.” But its industry screens, financial ratios and biographies omit advisors’ affiliations or beliefs. Dow Jones Citigroup Sukuk Index (DJCSI)’s shari'a board certifies Islamic asset-backed bonds if structures meet “AAOIFI standards” and shari'a principles, but don't mention AAOIFI history or governance.
Until July 2008, shari'a banks, the Dow Jones Islamic Index board and an North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) fund also employed a 20-year veteran of Pakistan’s Shari'a Supreme Court, former judge Taqi Usmani, who taught at the Taliban spawning ground, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi, headed the AAOIFI religious board, endorsed suicide bombing, and in 2007 advised U.K. Muslims to impose shari'a when their numbers suffice.
Shari'a finance advisor Muslim Brother Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo advised Pakistan's tyrannical Zia ul-Haq from 1981 to 1984, and ran the Virginia Islamic Saudi Academy educational program cited in 2008 for using hateful Islamic texts. Trained at Karachi's terror-espousing Jamia Al Alomia Al Islamia, he served the Muslim Brotherhood International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and from 1989, was secretary to the MB's Fiqh Council of North America.
Perhaps Treasury Secretary-designate Geithner seriously meant to keep Rutledge's promise to grant Islamic financiers no special favors. But allowing shari'a finance to exist at all is itself a special favor.
Moreover, on November 23, 2008 Geithner, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed to add another $20 billion taxpayer-gilded bailout to Citibank's previous $25 billion bailout---and offer $306 billion in new loans to cover Citi's losses on soured real estate debts and securities.
Only three days earlier Citigroup uber-shareolder Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a godfather of Islamic finance, had announced plans to up his stake in America's largest (failing and “underpriced”) bank from 4% to 5%. On March 20, 2006, the Saudi Kingdom Holding Co. CEO was “honored for humanitarian contribution to Islam” at a “glittering gala to celebrate excellence in Islamic Finance” that also featured terror-financier and Dallah al-Baraka founder and president Saleh Abdullah Kamel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa A. Lappen is a former Senior Fellow of the American Center for Democracy, former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and former Associate Editor of Forbes. Her website is www.AlyssaaLappen.org. Hugging Shari'a Finance at the Fed
By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/10/2008
The first market day after President-elect Obama announced plans to appoint Federal Reserve Bank of New York president Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, U.S. equities rose 6.5%. Pundits praised his experience handling crises and understanding of the troubled economy. But possibly, the market hoopla was premature, or even unwarranted. Some analysts seek his retirement.
As turmoil built, Geithner criticized Wall Street's self-regulatory system, negative incentives and market forces, sought tighter supervision and berated insufficient “derivative securities” regulation and “credit-default” swaps allowing investors to “insure” against loses---only to fail. The Treasury Department's former attaché to the International Monetary Fund had overseen U.S. responses to the 1990s Mexican, Indonesian and Korean bailouts. But at the Fed, Geithner did not use regulatory powers to check abuses, or advocate for more regulation, impartial supervision or new laws. He even concluded that markets were improving---and after Bear Stearns' collapse confessed, nobody “understands [the causes] yet.”
Worst of all, since Nov. 2003, Geithner let dangerous new Islamic and shari'a-based securities, markets and financial institutions gain business currency---despite the Fed's role in U.S. monetary policy, currency distribution, government securities markets, legal supervision, regulatory enforcement, bank and capital markets investigation, foreign accounts and a payments mechanism handling over $4 trillion daily in funds and securities transfers. Not to mention Fed officials' admitted lack of understanding.
On July 1, 2004, eight months after Geithner assumed command, the New York Fed hosted Asim Ghanfoor (sic), AG Group founder and managing director, to address its Seventh Annual Global Economic Forum on “ABCs of Islamic Financing” and Islam's increasing global financial role. A month later, a href="http://www.globalterroralert.com/faisalgillletter.pdf">Senators Charles Grassley and John Kyl identified Ghafoor as a representative of Boston's terror-funding Boston's Care International, the Global Relief Foundation (GRF) and the Al Harimain Islamic Foundation, which the U.S. Treasury specially designated a terrorist organization in September 2004 and again in June 2008. Given Ghafoor's connections, how could the Fed have featured him, much less warmly accepted Islamic finance?
In fairness, the New York Fed began authorizing obscure shari'a banking institutions, structured shari'a issues, and opaque Islamic securities trading long before Geithner arrived. “Islamic bankers have been quite ingenious in developing financial transactions that suit their needs,” New York Fed first vice president Ernest T. Patrikis told an Islamic Finance conference in May 1996. “We bank supervisors, too, can be ingenious and will want to work with any of you should you decide that you want to engage in Islamic banking” in the U.S.
The dangers of Islamic finance should have been apparent. From 1996 on, all 12 Federal Reserve banks received, and were charged to enforce many Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control circulars designating Islamic groups and banks as terrorist-financing institutions, organizations and individuals. In 1998, OFAC warned the Fed against transactions with Osama bin Laden and his affiliates, in 1999 froze Taliban assets, in 2002 reminded banks to check customers against known terrorist lists and in 2003 warned against trading with any unnamed counter-party.
Meanwhile, had the Fed only noticed, there were warning signs elsewhere too. In 1999, Saudi scholar Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi proposed at Harvard that banning interest would “cure the ills of contemporary finance,” “create a safer, saner financial world,” incorporate the “institution of waqf [Islamic trust]” in economics and create “morally inspired” behavior. In 2001, Siddiqi openly labeled shari'a finance a revolution-driver---an “universal endeavor” to replace “excesses of capitalism.”
Alarm bells should have gone off at a New York Fed event on Nov. 21, 2002, furthermore, where shari'a banking proponent Wafiq Fannoun described Islam as “Peace through submission to Allah (God), however, “revelation-based [the Qur'an, Hadith] ... complete way of life” --- that is, a system of religious law proscribed by the U.S. Constitution from inclusion in secular legislation or regulatory systems. Equally at odds with Constitutional law and Western capitalism are other Islamic notions he described---namely that Allah is both creator and “owner” of all material things, and that “individuals” may not possess “natural resources important to society.” as “alternative financing for Muslims” and others recognizing individual ownership rights.
True, most of that happened before Geithner ran the New York Fed. But after he took the helm in November 2003, the bank missed several still more critical red flags on Islamic banking.
First came Basel II Capital Accord, supposedly designed to strengthen the “regulatory capital framework” for big international banks. Authorities increasingly expected to trust banks to internally assess their own credit and operational risks. However, in July 2004 Switzerland's Bank for International Settlements (BIS) reported, 53% of Middle Eastern bank supervisory staffs lacked the necessary training to meet Basel II's December 2007 deadline. Middle Eastern banks originated and still predominate in Islamic banking. Nevertheless, by 2007, they still needed historical data to fashion reliable risk models but instead counted on “heavy” collateral and “exceptional” economic conditions to eliminate risks.
Islamic institutions had manufactured “special purpose entities” (SPEs)---renamed, “special-purpose vehicles (SPVs)”--- such as coincidentally helped destroy Enron. These legal devices restructured “interest-bearing debt, collecting interest [as] rent or [a] price mark-up,” Rice University Islamic economics chairman Mahmoud el-Gamal warned in May 2007. “Interest-based” Islamic finance equaled “shari'a arbitrage,” concerned only “religious identity” and merely employed Western securitization methods to transform liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid, opaque assets.
Shari'a banking, though, had far fewer regulatory and accounting protections than sub-prime mortgages---and like “portfolio insurance” in 1987, mortgage-backed bonds in 1994, and sub-prime mortgages in 2008, could also cause huge market declines. Islamic banking purveyors admitted shari'a regulations could “override commercial decisions;” didn't “standardize” documentation; and used complex “inter-creditor agreements” and “off-balance sheet financing.”
Even hosting hosting Islamic financier Asim Ghafoor, a representative to three terror-funding organizations, on July 1, 2004 apparently gave no one inside Geithner's Fed reason to pause from its rush to further accommodate shari'a banking.
In March 2005, New York Fed general counsel Thomas C. Baxter Jr. asserted the Constitutional “wall of separation between church and state” Thomas Jefferson had described was “not absolute.” Chief Justice Warren Burger had in 1984 suggested that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions,” Baxter told an Islamic financial industry “Legal Issues” seminar. “[S]ecular law should ... accommodate differing religious practices,” he indicated, apparently even if that meant specially excepting Islamic banking from secular laws and regulations.
In April 2005, New York Fed executive vice president William Rutledge admitted that the bank was “in no position to take a stance on shari'a interpretation.” He also claimed the bank would hold Islamic finance to “the same high licensing and supervision standards” as conventional banks.
Despite the New York Fed's role as a legal supervisor of Islamic banking, neither Rutledge nor Geithner noticed, however, that shari'a banking, a 20th century “tradition” invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, can't be severed from Islamic law---statutes that Mohammed initiated, which caliphs, scholars and jurists developed over the last 1,400 years. They hold that shari'a grants Muslims (the ummah) supremacy over all others---along with all land and property to hold in trust for Allah. Thus as Fannoun effectively told the Fed in Nov. 2002, land or property, once conquered or acquired by Muslims (or for Allah), can't generally revert to their original owners. Shari'a commands Muslims to wage jihad warfare until they subdue all “infidels” under universal Muslim rule, as Ibn Khaldun avowed in the Muqaddimah (trans., Franz Rosenthal, Princeton Univ. Press, 9th printing, 1989, p. 183).
Confiscating possessions from non-believers exacts “revenge,” wrote jurist Abul Hasan al Mawardi (d. 1058). Qur'an 57:2 argued, “To Him belongs all dominions of the heavens and earth.” Qur'an 59:7 echoed, “That which Allah giveth as spoil [war booty] unto his Messenger…” Allah authorized 2nd Islamic Caliph, Umar Ibn Khattab, to confiscate property by force, fulfilling an Islamic trust, or ruling under Allah’s law. It was thereby just to take anything from nonbelievers, (The Laws of Islamic Governance, Taha Publishing, 1996, pp. 207-251) including all territories Islam ever controlled.
Apparently, Fed officials also neglected to investigate the alliances and beliefs of shari'a advisors and their affiliates in the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) and Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB) standards agencies.
The shari'a-based Islamic Development Bank established the AAOIFI in 1990 to set Islamic finance standards. Its trustees include executives of Kuwait Finance House, Saudi Arabia's Dallah al Baraka Group and al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation---all implicated in al-Qa’ida and other terror-funding---and Sudanese (and until recently Iranian) officials, both U.S. Treasury-sanctioned countries.
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir in 2002 christened IFSB “a universal Islamic banking system” and “a jihad worth pursuing….” Its board members include the terror-funding Iranian, Sudanese and Syrian central banks and Palestinian Monetary Authority.
Yusuf Qaradawi, an U.S.-designated foreign terrorist barred entry since 1999 for example, supports wife-beating, suicide bombings, murder of American military forces and female suicide “martyr operations.” A large shareholder of Al Taqwa Bank, Qaradawi also chairs the recently designated terrorist-funding Union of Good “charity,” Qatar National Bank, its al-Islami subsidiary, Qatar Islamic Bank, and Qatar International Islamic Bank---and follows AAOIFI standards he helped create.
Similarly, Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes (DJIM) shari'a board uses “stringent and published” methods to determine “compliance of index-eligible companies.” But its industry screens, financial ratios and biographies omit advisors’ affiliations or beliefs. Dow Jones Citigroup Sukuk Index (DJCSI)’s shari'a board certifies Islamic asset-backed bonds if structures meet “AAOIFI standards” and shari'a principles, but don't mention AAOIFI history or governance.
Until July 2008, shari'a banks, the Dow Jones Islamic Index board and an North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) fund also employed a 20-year veteran of Pakistan’s Shari'a Supreme Court, former judge Taqi Usmani, who taught at the Taliban spawning ground, Jamia Darul Uloom Karachi, headed the AAOIFI religious board, endorsed suicide bombing, and in 2007 advised U.K. Muslims to impose shari'a when their numbers suffice.
Shari'a finance advisor Muslim Brother Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo advised Pakistan's tyrannical Zia ul-Haq from 1981 to 1984, and ran the Virginia Islamic Saudi Academy educational program cited in 2008 for using hateful Islamic texts. Trained at Karachi's terror-espousing Jamia Al Alomia Al Islamia, he served the Muslim Brotherhood International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and from 1989, was secretary to the MB's Fiqh Council of North America.
Perhaps Treasury Secretary-designate Geithner seriously meant to keep Rutledge's promise to grant Islamic financiers no special favors. But allowing shari'a finance to exist at all is itself a special favor.
Moreover, on November 23, 2008 Geithner, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke agreed to add another $20 billion taxpayer-gilded bailout to Citibank's previous $25 billion bailout---and offer $306 billion in new loans to cover Citi's losses on soured real estate debts and securities.
Only three days earlier Citigroup uber-shareolder Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a godfather of Islamic finance, had announced plans to up his stake in America's largest (failing and “underpriced”) bank from 4% to 5%. On March 20, 2006, the Saudi Kingdom Holding Co. CEO was “honored for humanitarian contribution to Islam” at a “glittering gala to celebrate excellence in Islamic Finance” that also featured terror-financier and Dallah al-Baraka founder and president Saleh Abdullah Kamel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa A. Lappen is a former Senior Fellow of the American Center for Democracy, former Senior Editor of Institutional Investor, Working Woman and Corporate Finance, and former Associate Editor of Forbes. Her website is www.AlyssaaLappen.org. Hugging Shari'a Finance at the Fed
Monday, December 29, 2008
Pardon Ramos And Compean!
President Pardons Scores of Convicted Criminals, But Not Border Patrol Agents
Click below to send a FedEx to Bush to Pardon Ramos & Compean NOW:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
ALERT: What do drug dealers, carjackers, moonshiners, embezzlers, bootleggers, tax evaders, counterfeiters, union bombers, army deserters, bank robbers, and arsonists have in common?
They've ALL been pardoned by President George W. Bush, under the authority granted to him in Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.
BUT... he still refuses to pardon two wrongly convicted Border Patrol heroes, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean!
The list of people that Bush has pardoned as president is daunting, and full of almost every manner of criminal imaginable. I've only mentioned a very few of them -- there's actually nearly 200 people that he's granted full pardons to...
But NOT Agents Ramos and Compean!
Even with the mountain of evidence that these two innocent Border Patrol agents were wrongfully convicted, President Bush isn't going to give them the full pardon that they deserve before he leaves office -- unless WE, the people, demand that it happen!
As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has noted, "Unjustly convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are currently serving 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for shooting and wounding an admitted illegal alien drug smuggler whom they interdicted while he was smuggling $1 million worth of drugs into the United States. Inexplicably, Western district of Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton took the word of the drug smuggler and decided to throw the book at the Border Patrol agents, turning procedural mistakes into felonies."
President Bush has openly stated to the media that he's "not going to promise" to issue a pardon for Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, who were wrongly convicted simply because they were actually doing their jobs protecting our borders from illegal aliens and drug smugglers.
You know that there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with our "justice" system when a Mexican drug smuggler is given immunity from prosecution for trying to smuggle drugs the day he was shot -- and is then arrested AGAIN for smuggling MORE drugs!
Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders. But the danger shouldn't come from our own government!
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
According to news reports, in 2005, agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean spotted Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, in his van near the Rio Grande, near Fabens, Texas, about 30 miles southeast of El Paso. Ramos gave chase while Compean circled around to head off the suspect. When Mr. Aldrete-Davila jumped out of the van and ran south to the river, he was confronted by Compean, who was thrown to the ground as the two men fought. Ramos said that when he arrived, he saw Compean on the ground and chased Mr. Aldrete-Davila to the river, where the suspect suddenly turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.
Ramos said he fired at the fleeing suspect but did not think he had been hit after watching him run through the bush, jump into an awaiting van in Mexico and speed off. Nearly 800 pounds of marijuana, worth $1 million, was found in the van that he abandoned at the river's edge.
A job well done, right? After all, that's what the Border Patrol is supposed to do -- try and stop illegal immigrants, especially the "baddies" running drugs. Right?
Wrong.
An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, which oversees the Border Patrol, tracked down Mr. Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, where he was offered IMMUNITY in exchange for testifying AGAINST the agents!
As a result, a federal jury convicted agents Ramos and Compean of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation. After a two-week trial last year, the two were convicted by a jury on 11 out of 12 counts; they began their sentences of 11 and 12 years' imprisonment, respectively, in January. (Three of the jurors said afterwards they were inclined to deliver a not guilty verdict but had been told by the jury foreman that the judge wanted them to "go along with majority.")
To add insult to injury -- OUR injury -- Aldrete-Davila, the illegal alien drug-runner, also received care at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso. Last month, he was arrested AGAIN for smuggling drugs into the country -- but that hasn't stopped him from suing the government for $5 million for violating his "civil rights"!
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. As patriotic Americans, we MUST do something about this!
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
President Bush has pardoned over 170 people, including a member of the mineworkers union who was convicted for his role in bombings at a West Virginia coal mine, a counterfeiter, a man sentenced for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, and a bootlegger. They're all now free men.
But for agents Ramos and Compean, that's not going to happen -- unless WE, the people, demand that it happen!
The facts in this case do NOT add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts. The arrest, trial and conviction of the two Border Patrol agents had resulted in a chilling effect on others.
These men have been given the equivalent of a murder sentence -- in fact, they were given MORE time than the average convicted murderer. Even if you accept every fact exactly as stated by the prosecuting attorney, the verdict handed out was an extreme injustice.
The questions surrounding this outrageous prosecution are many and the answers from the Bush Administration are few. For several years, members of Congress have repeatedly called on the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to review the troubling aspects of this case -- only to have those concerns dismissed with simple form letters. Congressmen have publicly pleaded with the President to pardon the agents, and his only response has been to reaffirm his relationship with his "dear friend" Johnny Sutton.
In 2006, 53 Members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush's nominee to be attorney general, Michael Mukasey, reiterating their desire for a fair and unbiased review of the Ramos and Compean prosecution. Given the close personal relationships among the prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and President Bush, past requests for such a review have been ignored -- and this one was no different
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on international organizations, human rights and oversight, even introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on Mr. Bush to immediately commute the sentences of these two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot and wounded the fleeing drug suspect. A growing number of Congressmen AND U.S. citizens are asking President Bush to issue a presidential pardon to them. But it won't happen without a HUGE public outcry -- and that's where YOU AND I come in.
When he came to office eight years ago, he wrapped himself in the theme of "compassionate conservatism" -- now is the time for him to PROVE it. He needs to do the right thing, and issue pardons for Agents Ramos and Compean. Click below NOW to send a personalized Federal Express letter to President Bush, demanding he pardon Ramos & Compean:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
P.S.: There's not much time left to get these pardons issued -- President Bush will be gone after January 20th! This month, Rep. Tom Tancredo even asked President-Elect Barack Obama to pardon Ramos and Compean, telling him "These are the kind of men whose government failed and destroyed them -- all while they were serving a cause greater than themselves. These men deserve justice."
As Rep. Rohrabacher stated, President Bush's "heartless ignoring of the fundamental miscarriage of justice in the case of agents Ramos and Compean... is a snub to the families and a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have pleaded with the president to show some mercy." And Rep. Duncan Hunter commented, "By refusing to pardon agents Ramos and Compean, the president has missed yet another opportunity to correct this miscarriage of justice... The fact that the drug dealer, whose testimony sent the agents to jail, has been indicted for running drugs across the border while serving as a federal witness, necessitates a presidential pardon. Agents Ramos and Compean deserve to be pardoned and returned to their families for Christmas."
Aren't our heroes on the border worth MORE than drug dealers, carjackers and moonshiners? It's time for President Bush to act now and right this travesty of justice. He needs to pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, immediately.
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
This outrageous prosecution and sentencing does nothing but tie the hands of the Border Patrol and prevent the agency from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists. It puts the rights of illegal smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing immigration laws. These two agents should NOT be made scapegoats for our government's enforcement failures. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to demand REAL JUSTICE for these two heroic border patrol agents. Thank you!
Click below to send a FedEx to Bush to Pardon Ramos & Compean NOW:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
ALERT: What do drug dealers, carjackers, moonshiners, embezzlers, bootleggers, tax evaders, counterfeiters, union bombers, army deserters, bank robbers, and arsonists have in common?
They've ALL been pardoned by President George W. Bush, under the authority granted to him in Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution.
BUT... he still refuses to pardon two wrongly convicted Border Patrol heroes, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean!
The list of people that Bush has pardoned as president is daunting, and full of almost every manner of criminal imaginable. I've only mentioned a very few of them -- there's actually nearly 200 people that he's granted full pardons to...
But NOT Agents Ramos and Compean!
Even with the mountain of evidence that these two innocent Border Patrol agents were wrongfully convicted, President Bush isn't going to give them the full pardon that they deserve before he leaves office -- unless WE, the people, demand that it happen!
As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has noted, "Unjustly convicted Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are currently serving 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, for shooting and wounding an admitted illegal alien drug smuggler whom they interdicted while he was smuggling $1 million worth of drugs into the United States. Inexplicably, Western district of Texas U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton took the word of the drug smuggler and decided to throw the book at the Border Patrol agents, turning procedural mistakes into felonies."
President Bush has openly stated to the media that he's "not going to promise" to issue a pardon for Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean, who were wrongly convicted simply because they were actually doing their jobs protecting our borders from illegal aliens and drug smugglers.
You know that there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with our "justice" system when a Mexican drug smuggler is given immunity from prosecution for trying to smuggle drugs the day he was shot -- and is then arrested AGAIN for smuggling MORE drugs!
Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders. But the danger shouldn't come from our own government!
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
According to news reports, in 2005, agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean spotted Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, in his van near the Rio Grande, near Fabens, Texas, about 30 miles southeast of El Paso. Ramos gave chase while Compean circled around to head off the suspect. When Mr. Aldrete-Davila jumped out of the van and ran south to the river, he was confronted by Compean, who was thrown to the ground as the two men fought. Ramos said that when he arrived, he saw Compean on the ground and chased Mr. Aldrete-Davila to the river, where the suspect suddenly turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun.
Ramos said he fired at the fleeing suspect but did not think he had been hit after watching him run through the bush, jump into an awaiting van in Mexico and speed off. Nearly 800 pounds of marijuana, worth $1 million, was found in the van that he abandoned at the river's edge.
A job well done, right? After all, that's what the Border Patrol is supposed to do -- try and stop illegal immigrants, especially the "baddies" running drugs. Right?
Wrong.
An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General, which oversees the Border Patrol, tracked down Mr. Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, where he was offered IMMUNITY in exchange for testifying AGAINST the agents!
As a result, a federal jury convicted agents Ramos and Compean of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation. After a two-week trial last year, the two were convicted by a jury on 11 out of 12 counts; they began their sentences of 11 and 12 years' imprisonment, respectively, in January. (Three of the jurors said afterwards they were inclined to deliver a not guilty verdict but had been told by the jury foreman that the judge wanted them to "go along with majority.")
To add insult to injury -- OUR injury -- Aldrete-Davila, the illegal alien drug-runner, also received care at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso. Last month, he was arrested AGAIN for smuggling drugs into the country -- but that hasn't stopped him from suing the government for $5 million for violating his "civil rights"!
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. As patriotic Americans, we MUST do something about this!
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
President Bush has pardoned over 170 people, including a member of the mineworkers union who was convicted for his role in bombings at a West Virginia coal mine, a counterfeiter, a man sentenced for unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, and a bootlegger. They're all now free men.
But for agents Ramos and Compean, that's not going to happen -- unless WE, the people, demand that it happen!
The facts in this case do NOT add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts. The arrest, trial and conviction of the two Border Patrol agents had resulted in a chilling effect on others.
These men have been given the equivalent of a murder sentence -- in fact, they were given MORE time than the average convicted murderer. Even if you accept every fact exactly as stated by the prosecuting attorney, the verdict handed out was an extreme injustice.
The questions surrounding this outrageous prosecution are many and the answers from the Bush Administration are few. For several years, members of Congress have repeatedly called on the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to review the troubling aspects of this case -- only to have those concerns dismissed with simple form letters. Congressmen have publicly pleaded with the President to pardon the agents, and his only response has been to reaffirm his relationship with his "dear friend" Johnny Sutton.
In 2006, 53 Members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush's nominee to be attorney general, Michael Mukasey, reiterating their desire for a fair and unbiased review of the Ramos and Compean prosecution. Given the close personal relationships among the prosecuting U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and President Bush, past requests for such a review have been ignored -- and this one was no different
Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on international organizations, human rights and oversight, even introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on Mr. Bush to immediately commute the sentences of these two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot and wounded the fleeing drug suspect. A growing number of Congressmen AND U.S. citizens are asking President Bush to issue a presidential pardon to them. But it won't happen without a HUGE public outcry -- and that's where YOU AND I come in.
When he came to office eight years ago, he wrapped himself in the theme of "compassionate conservatism" -- now is the time for him to PROVE it. He needs to do the right thing, and issue pardons for Agents Ramos and Compean. Click below NOW to send a personalized Federal Express letter to President Bush, demanding he pardon Ramos & Compean:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com
P.S.: There's not much time left to get these pardons issued -- President Bush will be gone after January 20th! This month, Rep. Tom Tancredo even asked President-Elect Barack Obama to pardon Ramos and Compean, telling him "These are the kind of men whose government failed and destroyed them -- all while they were serving a cause greater than themselves. These men deserve justice."
As Rep. Rohrabacher stated, President Bush's "heartless ignoring of the fundamental miscarriage of justice in the case of agents Ramos and Compean... is a snub to the families and a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have pleaded with the president to show some mercy." And Rep. Duncan Hunter commented, "By refusing to pardon agents Ramos and Compean, the president has missed yet another opportunity to correct this miscarriage of justice... The fact that the drug dealer, whose testimony sent the agents to jail, has been indicted for running drugs across the border while serving as a federal witness, necessitates a presidential pardon. Agents Ramos and Compean deserve to be pardoned and returned to their families for Christmas."
Aren't our heroes on the border worth MORE than drug dealers, carjackers and moonshiners? It's time for President Bush to act now and right this travesty of justice. He needs to pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, immediately.
CLICK HERE TO SEND A PERSONALIZED FEDERAL EXPRESS LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH, DEMANDING HE PARDON RAMOS & COMPEAN:
Pardon Ramos & Compean
This outrageous prosecution and sentencing does nothing but tie the hands of the Border Patrol and prevent the agency from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists. It puts the rights of illegal smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing immigration laws. These two agents should NOT be made scapegoats for our government's enforcement failures. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to demand REAL JUSTICE for these two heroic border patrol agents. Thank you!
UK's Muslim Schools Linked To Extremists
Exclusive: over 60 per cent of Britain's Muslim schools have extremist links, says draft report
Posted By: Damian Thompson at Dec 17, 2008 at 13:05:37 [General]
Britain's Muslim schools have been sharply criticised in a controversial draft report commissioned by a leading think tank which suggests that over 60 per cent of them are linked to potentially dangerous Islamic fundamentalists.
An early version of the report, entitled When Worlds Collide, alleges that of the 133 Muslim primary and secondary schools it surveyed, 82 (61.6 per cent) have connections or direct affiliations to fundamentalists. The 133 schools are in the private sector but supposedly subject to Ofsted inspection.
The report also claims that some of these schools teach "repugnant" beliefs about the wickedness of Western society and Jews.
The claims in the report, written by Denis MacEoin in response to a commission from Civitas, will provoke ritual cries of "Islamophobia" from the Muslim Council of Britain and fellow travellers such as Koran Armstrong. MacEoin has been careful to back up his claims with evidence - in particular, screen captures of links to Islamic hate-mongers, including supporters of Al-Qaeda.
Civitas, however, is not prepared to endorse MacEoin's 61.6 per cent figure, which will not appear in the published version of When Worlds Collide. A spokesman for Civitas explains: "We want to concentrate on claims that are absolutely robust, rather than complicated material, some of it in Arabic, that might unjustly damage someone's reputation."
Perhaps the most alarming finding of the draft I've seen is that so many of these schools (including ones with no connections to political extremism) are bricking up their pupils behind a wall of Koranic injunctions and Sharia law.
The schools known as Darul Ulooms, which base their curriculum on a seventeenth-century Indian teaching system, include very few secular subjects, claims the report. It says: "Their aim is not to prepare pupils for life in the wider world, but to give them the tools for a more limited existence inside the Muslim enclaves."
The consequences for bright Muslim British girls are absolutely dire. Lively intellects are being destroyed and brilliant careers cut off before they can begin. To quote the report again: “Every year, an incalculable number of Muslim teenagers and young women are lost to the wider world that informs their citizenship.”
The numbers are increasing fast, and there is confusion over how many schools exist. The growth of non-Muslim schools, says MacEoin, is “hugely overshadowed by a rapidly growing sector of Muslim institutions. These now number 127 [sic] full-time schools and an estimated 700 part-time madrassas for intense religious instruction [and that doesn’t include the Darul Uloom seminaries] … Many recreate in the UK the style and content of schooling that can be found in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.” Great.
And all this is happening with the implicit consent of the Government, Ofsted – and Christian leaders, who bang on about the threat to “faith schools” (and, in the case of R. Williams, the virtues of Sharia) while shielding their eyes from the evidence that many Muslim faith schools are poisonously anti-Christian.
I've seen many of the extremely damaging screen grabs on which MacEoin bases his claims. Memo to the Muslim Council of Britain: start lining up irate spokesmen now.
Posted By: Damian Thompson at Dec 17, 2008 at 13:05:37 [General]
Britain's Muslim schools have been sharply criticised in a controversial draft report commissioned by a leading think tank which suggests that over 60 per cent of them are linked to potentially dangerous Islamic fundamentalists.
An early version of the report, entitled When Worlds Collide, alleges that of the 133 Muslim primary and secondary schools it surveyed, 82 (61.6 per cent) have connections or direct affiliations to fundamentalists. The 133 schools are in the private sector but supposedly subject to Ofsted inspection.
The report also claims that some of these schools teach "repugnant" beliefs about the wickedness of Western society and Jews.
The claims in the report, written by Denis MacEoin in response to a commission from Civitas, will provoke ritual cries of "Islamophobia" from the Muslim Council of Britain and fellow travellers such as Koran Armstrong. MacEoin has been careful to back up his claims with evidence - in particular, screen captures of links to Islamic hate-mongers, including supporters of Al-Qaeda.
Civitas, however, is not prepared to endorse MacEoin's 61.6 per cent figure, which will not appear in the published version of When Worlds Collide. A spokesman for Civitas explains: "We want to concentrate on claims that are absolutely robust, rather than complicated material, some of it in Arabic, that might unjustly damage someone's reputation."
Perhaps the most alarming finding of the draft I've seen is that so many of these schools (including ones with no connections to political extremism) are bricking up their pupils behind a wall of Koranic injunctions and Sharia law.
The schools known as Darul Ulooms, which base their curriculum on a seventeenth-century Indian teaching system, include very few secular subjects, claims the report. It says: "Their aim is not to prepare pupils for life in the wider world, but to give them the tools for a more limited existence inside the Muslim enclaves."
The consequences for bright Muslim British girls are absolutely dire. Lively intellects are being destroyed and brilliant careers cut off before they can begin. To quote the report again: “Every year, an incalculable number of Muslim teenagers and young women are lost to the wider world that informs their citizenship.”
The numbers are increasing fast, and there is confusion over how many schools exist. The growth of non-Muslim schools, says MacEoin, is “hugely overshadowed by a rapidly growing sector of Muslim institutions. These now number 127 [sic] full-time schools and an estimated 700 part-time madrassas for intense religious instruction [and that doesn’t include the Darul Uloom seminaries] … Many recreate in the UK the style and content of schooling that can be found in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.” Great.
And all this is happening with the implicit consent of the Government, Ofsted – and Christian leaders, who bang on about the threat to “faith schools” (and, in the case of R. Williams, the virtues of Sharia) while shielding their eyes from the evidence that many Muslim faith schools are poisonously anti-Christian.
I've seen many of the extremely damaging screen grabs on which MacEoin bases his claims. Memo to the Muslim Council of Britain: start lining up irate spokesmen now.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Pardon Ramos and Compean
Free Ramos and Compean
President Bush this week added a convicted methamphetamine dealer, a cocaine distributor and two marijuana suppliers to the list of drug operators he's pardoned while in office, bringing his total of drug suppliers who have been pardoned or had their sentences commuted to 36.
U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for shooting and wounding—in the line of duty—an illegal alien drug smuggler trying to bring over 720 pounds of marijuana across the border.
President Bush this week added a convicted methamphetamine dealer, a cocaine distributor and two marijuana suppliers to the list of drug operators he's pardoned while in office, bringing his total of drug suppliers who have been pardoned or had their sentences commuted to 36.
U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for shooting and wounding—in the line of duty—an illegal alien drug smuggler trying to bring over 720 pounds of marijuana across the border.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
I know I speak for millions of other Americans with this letter urging you to pardon or commute the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean - the two Border Patrol agents currently serving prison terms of 12 and 11 years respectively.
Do this, sir, as a merciful act of compassion.
Offering these two men mercy is not an admission of any wrongdoing on your part or on the part of your Justice Department.
It's just the right thing to do.
This letter is not written to reopen old wounds or renew an argument about who was right and who was wrong. It is written to heal wounds and end the arguments.
You have offered dozens of pardons already as your second term winds down. On Jan. 20, 2009, you will hand over the reins of power to a new president. But before you do that, you have absolute, unquestioned authority to make whole the lives of some hurting people. In addition, you can restore confidence in our judicial system in the minds of many Americans who can't sleep at night as they consider the suffering and anguish being experienced by the Ramos and Compean families.
I urge you to do this because the Ramos and Compean sentences are not proportionate.
I urge you to do this because you have compassion in your heart.
I urge you to do this as a way of bringing healing to our country.
I urge you to do this, most of all, for the sake of the wives and children who are punished as severely as the imprisoned agents because of their continued incarceration.
The clock is ticking.
January 20 is right around the corner.
Please find it in your heart to restore officers Ramos and Compean to their wives and children before you leave office.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Children Starved
Children starved to coerce mom to renounce Christ
Report says police assault woman, promise freedom for conversion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 22, 2008
10:12 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Authorities in Egypt are starving children ages 2 and 4 to try to force their mother to abandon Christianity and return to Islam, according to reports from several ministry organizations.
The Egypt for Christ Ministry is reporting the woman, who converted to Christianity about five years ago and was arrested as she tried to leave her home country just days ago, also has been sexually assaulted by police officers.
The woman, identified by the ministry as Martha Samuel, also has been beaten and tortured in effort to force her to return to Islam, with police promises for her release if she accepts, reports are confirming.
The Assyrian International News Agency said Samuel was arrested last week as she, her husband and two sons were trying to leave Cairo for Russia, after her name was placed on a listed of people who are barred from leaving Egypt.
Then reports came today of the assaults on her. AINA said she was subjected to attacks by Egyptian police at El-Nozha police station as well as at the National Security office in Heliopolis.
"The children are not being provided with food deliberately to pressure their mother to return to Islam," the AINA reported.
Her husband, Fadl Thabet, also was in custody.
The report said Samuel formerly was known as Zainab Said Abdel-Aziz and her family was fleeing continuous persecution by her own family and Egyptian police officers.
She faces charges of forging official documents and changing her details after converting from Islam to Christianity and changing her name, officials said.
AINA reported Naguib Gibraeel, chief of the Egyptian Union Human Rights Organization, said he was lodging a complaint over the allegations of abuse at the hands of police.
At Jihad Watch, a report was posted by Robert Spencer about the case. He noted he's been criticized for "not acknowledging Egypt as a 'moderate Muslim country.'"
On his forum, an anonymous contributor wrote, "The whole country of Egypt must be misunderstanders of Islam! Don't they know that there is no compulsion of religion?"
On a similar comment page at Free Republic, another contributor wrote, "Animals."
Egypt is one of the nations where Islamic Shariah law is formally recognized as the source of justice, and Christians have faced persecution in the nation for generations.
The American Center for Law and Justice has participated in a fight to keep one man who fled Egypt from being deported. A recent decision from the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals gave Sameh Khouzam the right to challenge Egypt's "diplomatic assurances" that he would not be tortured on his return to the Middle East nation.
Egypt has been demanding his extradition in a homicide case he alleges is trumped-up. The case has been highlighted by spokesman Sam Grace of Coptic News. He praised U.S. District Judge Thomas Vanaskie's earlier ruling that Khouzam "most assuredly has a right not to be tortured."
Grace earlier told WND Christians in Egypt are hostages.
"We live in a time that is really as bad if not worse than the time of the martyrs," he said as the case progressed. Multitudes of Christians have been attacked, and many killed, yet not one Muslim ever has been convicted in the attacks, he said..
"The why is very simple, because Shariah law says the blood of the Muslim should not be shed for the blood of an unbeliever," he said.
Grace said since Egypt's constitution concludes laws derive from the Quran, persecution of Christians is not only allowed but endorsed by the government.
"In the last 10 years, more than 5,000 Christians have been massacred in Egypt," he told WND. "Hundreds of businesses and homes first have been looted, then burned and destroyed. Churches have been burned and destroyed."
Grace told WND that attacks, lootings and burnings are common in Egypt on Fridays, after the local imam preaches violence against Christians at his mosque.
"The life of a Christian in Egypt is now worth zero. Every Muslim now knows killing a Christian [is not prosecuted]," he said.
A report from the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights concluded Coptic Christians in Egypt have been harassed, tortured and killed by Muslims for 1,400 years.
"They have been subjected to all kinds of hate crimes including, the abduction of young Coptic girls, the killing of Coptic women and children and the destruction of their places of worship," the report concluded.
Report says police assault woman, promise freedom for conversion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 22, 2008
10:12 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Authorities in Egypt are starving children ages 2 and 4 to try to force their mother to abandon Christianity and return to Islam, according to reports from several ministry organizations.
The Egypt for Christ Ministry is reporting the woman, who converted to Christianity about five years ago and was arrested as she tried to leave her home country just days ago, also has been sexually assaulted by police officers.
The woman, identified by the ministry as Martha Samuel, also has been beaten and tortured in effort to force her to return to Islam, with police promises for her release if she accepts, reports are confirming.
The Assyrian International News Agency said Samuel was arrested last week as she, her husband and two sons were trying to leave Cairo for Russia, after her name was placed on a listed of people who are barred from leaving Egypt.
Then reports came today of the assaults on her. AINA said she was subjected to attacks by Egyptian police at El-Nozha police station as well as at the National Security office in Heliopolis.
"The children are not being provided with food deliberately to pressure their mother to return to Islam," the AINA reported.
Her husband, Fadl Thabet, also was in custody.
The report said Samuel formerly was known as Zainab Said Abdel-Aziz and her family was fleeing continuous persecution by her own family and Egyptian police officers.
She faces charges of forging official documents and changing her details after converting from Islam to Christianity and changing her name, officials said.
AINA reported Naguib Gibraeel, chief of the Egyptian Union Human Rights Organization, said he was lodging a complaint over the allegations of abuse at the hands of police.
At Jihad Watch, a report was posted by Robert Spencer about the case. He noted he's been criticized for "not acknowledging Egypt as a 'moderate Muslim country.'"
On his forum, an anonymous contributor wrote, "The whole country of Egypt must be misunderstanders of Islam! Don't they know that there is no compulsion of religion?"
On a similar comment page at Free Republic, another contributor wrote, "Animals."
Egypt is one of the nations where Islamic Shariah law is formally recognized as the source of justice, and Christians have faced persecution in the nation for generations.
The American Center for Law and Justice has participated in a fight to keep one man who fled Egypt from being deported. A recent decision from the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals gave Sameh Khouzam the right to challenge Egypt's "diplomatic assurances" that he would not be tortured on his return to the Middle East nation.
Egypt has been demanding his extradition in a homicide case he alleges is trumped-up. The case has been highlighted by spokesman Sam Grace of Coptic News. He praised U.S. District Judge Thomas Vanaskie's earlier ruling that Khouzam "most assuredly has a right not to be tortured."
Grace earlier told WND Christians in Egypt are hostages.
"We live in a time that is really as bad if not worse than the time of the martyrs," he said as the case progressed. Multitudes of Christians have been attacked, and many killed, yet not one Muslim ever has been convicted in the attacks, he said..
"The why is very simple, because Shariah law says the blood of the Muslim should not be shed for the blood of an unbeliever," he said.
Grace said since Egypt's constitution concludes laws derive from the Quran, persecution of Christians is not only allowed but endorsed by the government.
"In the last 10 years, more than 5,000 Christians have been massacred in Egypt," he told WND. "Hundreds of businesses and homes first have been looted, then burned and destroyed. Churches have been burned and destroyed."
Grace told WND that attacks, lootings and burnings are common in Egypt on Fridays, after the local imam preaches violence against Christians at his mosque.
"The life of a Christian in Egypt is now worth zero. Every Muslim now knows killing a Christian [is not prosecuted]," he said.
A report from the Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights concluded Coptic Christians in Egypt have been harassed, tortured and killed by Muslims for 1,400 years.
"They have been subjected to all kinds of hate crimes including, the abduction of young Coptic girls, the killing of Coptic women and children and the destruction of their places of worship," the report concluded.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Something Of Historic Proportions
SOMETHING OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS IS HAPPENING
by Tim Wood
2008 December 1
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two years. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by any one, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money, yours and mine. And that is three times the 700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not, they now control us.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumb down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents of why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, and school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over proposition 8 that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing un-elected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten.
And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, religion and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course the media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning to a world social government.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the messiah was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department-by-department, person-by-person, bureaucracy-by-bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the indigent, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media; did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and 'CHANGE'. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think that I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years, a shorter time span than just two terms of a U. S. presidency, it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors, all with the best of intentions of course. The road to Hell is always paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another drink, watch another episode of Survivor, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive (everyone thought the same of Noah, until the ships doors were closed and the rain came), or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. Pray with me for the truth, because the truth will set us free.
by Tim Wood
2008 December 1
I am a student of history. Professionally. I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes these exist, but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about ten - fifteen years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two years. We demand and then codify into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people we know they can never pay back? Why?
We learn just days ago that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by any one, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money, yours and mine. And that is three times the 700 billion we all argued about so strenuously just this past September. Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "we the people," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not, they now control us.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why? We have intentionally dumb down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents of why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, and school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over proposition 8 that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing un-elected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, social security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government, our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about) the list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x ten.
And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion, who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so. And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, religion and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course the media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)
Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: change. Why? I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again. And that is only the beginning to a world social government.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the messiah was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then, he was duly elected to office, a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department-by-department, person-by-person, bureaucracy-by-bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the indigent, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media; did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and 'CHANGE'. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think that I am exaggerating. ) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years, a shorter time span than just two terms of a U. S. presidency, it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors, all with the best of intentions of course. The road to Hell is always paved with them.
As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong by closing my eyes, having another drink, watch another episode of Survivor, and ignoring what is transpiring around me.
Some people scoff at me, others laugh, or think I am foolish, naive (everyone thought the same of Noah, until the ships doors were closed and the rain came), or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. Pray with me for the truth, because the truth will set us free.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson Quotes:
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense
of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas
Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control
the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all
property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.'
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense
of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results
from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson Quote
In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas
Jefferson said in 1802:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than
standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control
the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all
property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers
conquered.'
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Guns In America
National Geographic TV Takes Aim At Your Guns
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Gun In
America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided
gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly
more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.
"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one
Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to
limit access that people have to these type of firearms."
That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic
recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady
Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was
filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for
self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a
hope was misplaced.
Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic
know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos
and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National
Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his
private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.
The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational,
unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as
can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the
program:
1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your
home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect
you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady
Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The
factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple
studies claiming that guns are a net liability.(1) But Kellerman has
been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy
of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow"
from his data.(2)
The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners.
Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that
guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which
means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often
to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(3)
Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind
citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice
Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their
agenda.
2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by
unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a
child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can
only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as
"children."
In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children
(ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from
choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that
you feed them.(4) Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to
report on those killer peanuts?
3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of
guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is
quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to
save life than take life). The program does start with a
dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911
call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization
is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related
warfare.
The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.
4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus leaving
the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never
mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community,
they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:
* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for
sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.(5)
* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the
purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of
law-enforcement said no.(6)
* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce
rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already
reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.(7)
It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education
of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being
brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need
supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the
Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.
ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of
National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television
division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from
politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced
program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to
stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their
magazine so famous.
You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since
you will need to select a Topic, please choose "I have a
complaint."
And for "Department," we would suggest selecting
"Factual Questions"
or "General."
---- Pre-written letter ----
Dear Mr. Kelly:
I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine,
because I don't want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda.
Your Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run
several times this month -- was heavily slanted to the gun control
position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting
them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.
For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in
the home
are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as
protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study,
Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as
the National Academy of Sciences), so it's shameful that your channel
would even cite his work.
Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die
by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics
involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a
greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show
in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?
Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many
negative uses
of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth
is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton
Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more
often to save life than take life.
Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus
leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control.
Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police
community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see
the poll results on the website for the National Association of
Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?
The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse
geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's
cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you
that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.
Sincerely,
--------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
(1) Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun
owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those
guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times
more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has
been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)
(2) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . Also, see Charles F.
Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A
Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies,
2004), p. 118.
(3) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
(4) See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control
Fact Sheet (2004) at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
(5) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 20th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States: 2008).
(6) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 15th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States).
(7) Ibid.
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, "Gun In
America." According to the program, there are millions of misguided
gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly
more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.
"As a society, we're totally out of control with weapons," said one
Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. "You need to
limit access that people have to these type of firearms."
That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic
recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady
Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was
filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for
self-defense, the program would cite "facts" to prove that such a
hope was misplaced.
Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic
know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos
and foliage -- images that we normally attribute to National
Geographic's magazine -- and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his
private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.
The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational,
unbiased alternative. But "Guns in America" was hardly unbiased, as
can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the
program:
1. "Guns in America" would have you believe that the guns in your
home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect
you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady
Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The
factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple
studies claiming that guns are a net liability.(1) But Kellerman has
been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy
of Sciences has stated that his "conclusions do not seem to follow"
from his data.(2)
The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners.
Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that
guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which
means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often
to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.(3)
Isn't that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn't mind
citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice
Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn't fit their
agenda.
2. "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die by
unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a
child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can
only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as
"children."
In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children
(ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from
choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that
you feed them.(4) Hmm, why doesn't National Geographic want to
report on those killer peanuts?
3. "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many negative uses of
guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth is
quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to
save life than take life). The program does start with a
dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911
call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization
is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related
warfare.
The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.
4. "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus leaving
the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never
mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community,
they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:
* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for
sport or self defense? -- 93% of law-enforcement said yes.(5)
* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the
purchase of no more than one firearm per month? -- 70.1% of
law-enforcement said no.(6)
* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce
rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already
reflected? -- 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.(7)
It's bad enough that a liberal teacher's union controls the education
of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being
brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don't need
supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the
Brady Campaign's favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.
ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of
National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television
division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from
politics. If the National Geographic Channel can't run a balanced
program -- where they use real statistics -- then they just need to
stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their
magazine so famous.
You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact
to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since
you will need to select a Topic, please choose "I have a
complaint."
And for "Department," we would suggest selecting
"Factual Questions"
or "General."
---- Pre-written letter ----
Dear Mr. Kelly:
I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine,
because I don't want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda.
Your Explorer show entitled "Guns In America" -- which has run
several times this month -- was heavily slanted to the gun control
position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting
them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.
For example, "Guns in America" falsely claimed that guns in
the home
are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as
protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study,
Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as
the National Academy of Sciences), so it's shameful that your channel
would even cite his work.
Second, "Guns in America" overstates the number of children who die
by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics
involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a
greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show
in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?
Third, "Guns in America" portrays twelve times as many
negative uses
of guns as positive uses -- even though in the real world, the truth
is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton
Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more
often to save life than take life.
Finally, "Guns in America" only quotes anti-gun
"authorities," thus
leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control.
Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police
community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see
the poll results on the website for the National Association of
Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?
The National Geographic Society's purpose is "to increase and diffuse
geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world's
cultural, historical, and natural resources." I would submit to you
that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.
Sincerely,
--------------------------------
ENDNOTES:
(1) Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun
owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those
guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times
more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has
been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)
(2) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . Also, see Charles F.
Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A
Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies,
2004), p. 118.
(3) See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
(4) See "Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)," Gun Control
Fact Sheet (2004) at http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
(5) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 20th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States: 2008).
(6) National Association of Chiefs of Police, 15th Annual Survey
Results (Survey questions sent to Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in
the United States).
(7) Ibid.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Happy Hanukkah
Happy Hanukkah to all.
'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHANUKAH...
OY! WHAT A SHOCK!
SOMEBODY OUTSIDE
WAS PICKING OUR LOCK!
AND THERE AT THE DOOR
STOOD A 'ZAYDA' IN BLUE-
AND HE WORE ON HIS KUPP
A BLUE YARMULKA, TOO!
HIS PUNIM WAS SHAIN-
EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE IT!
'ROUND HIS NECK HUNG A CHAIN
WITH A GOLD MOGEN DOVID!
HE WORE SILKEN TSITZES
BENEATH HIS WOOL VEST,
AND A SMALL FLAG OF ISRAEL
WAS DRAPED ON HIS CHEST!
HE SAID: "I'M NO BURGLAR,
SO PLEASE DON'T BE NERVOUS.
I'M THE SPIRIT OF CHANUKAH,
HERE AT OUR SERVICE!"
"MENCHEN ALL CALL ME
'REB' SHALOM SHAPIRO!
WITHOUT ME, THIS YOM-TOV
MIGHT NEED A NEW 'HERO!'"
"I VISIT ALL YIDLACH,
AND BRING - KINNAHORRA-
GOOD FORTUNE AS BRIGHT
AS A GLOWING MENORAH!"
"ICH SHLEPP LOTS OF BLESSINGS
AND CHANUKAH GELT,
AND JOYS THAT ARE TAKKA
THE BEST IN DER VELT!"
"IF YOU KNOW NICE MENCHEN,
I'LL VISIT THEM QUICK,
AND I'LL BRING THEM GEZUNT
AND A HOUSEFUL OF GLICK!"
SO WE SENT HIM TO YOUR HOUSE,
AND SHOOK HANDS AND PARTED.
HE SHOUTED, "SHALOM!"
OUT THE DOORWAY HE DARTED!
HE RAN TO A WAGON
WITH HORSES AHEAD.
HE FED THEM SOME BAGELS,
AND HERE'S WHAT HE SAID:
"LET'S GO, MOISH AND MENDEL!
MAKE QUICK, MOE AND YUSSLE!
PLEASE GIVE A RUSH, MALKAH!
HEY, HYMIE, PLEASE HUSTLE!"
THEN THEY RACED LIKE THE WIND!
AND THEY GALLOPED SO SHNELL,
ALL HIS CLOTHING BLEW OFF,
AND HIS GATKES AS WELL!
SOON HE WAS SO KALT
THAT HIS TUSHIE TURNED BLUISH!
HE MOANED AND HE HOLLERED
IN ENGLISH AND JEWISH!
SO, DON'T ACT EMBARRASSED,
AND PLEASE DON'T BE RUDE
WHEN THAT FROSTBITTEN ZAYDA
ARRIVES IN THE NUDE!
QUICK! WRAP HIM IN BLANKETS!
DON'T BEAT 'ROUND THE BUSH'!
AND TIE A HOT WATER BAG
ON HIS COLD TUSH!
QUICK! FEED HIM SOME CHICHEN SOUP
HEISS AS CAN BE!
AND GIVE HIM SOME SHNAPPS
AND A GLEZ'L HOT TEA!
'CAUSE HE BRINGS YOU A HOUSEFUL
OF CHANUKAH WISHES
AS WARM AND GESHMOCK
AS PLATE OF HOT KNISHES!
AND HE BRINGS THEM FROM OUR HOUSE
SO FRIENDLYAND BRIGHT,
SO YOUR HOUSE WILL KEEP GLOWING
WITH CHANUKAH LIGHT.
PLUS JOY SWEET AS TSUKKER,
AND PEACE AND GOOD-CHEER
AND EVERYTHING FRAYLACH
EACH DAY OF THE YEAR!
AND NONE IN YOUR FAMILY
WILL BE A SHLEMAZEL,
FOR LIFE WILL BRING EACH OF YOU
SIMCHAS AND MAZEL!
AND ALL THROUGH THE FUTURE
YOUR HOPES WILL COME TRUE,
AND HIMMEL WILL BLESS
YOUR MISHPOCHA AND YOU!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHANUKAH...
OY! WHAT A SHOCK!
SOMEBODY OUTSIDE
WAS PICKING OUR LOCK!
AND THERE AT THE DOOR
STOOD A 'ZAYDA' IN BLUE-
AND HE WORE ON HIS KUPP
A BLUE YARMULKA, TOO!
HIS PUNIM WAS SHAIN-
EVERYBODY WOULD LOVE IT!
'ROUND HIS NECK HUNG A CHAIN
WITH A GOLD MOGEN DOVID!
HE WORE SILKEN TSITZES
BENEATH HIS WOOL VEST,
AND A SMALL FLAG OF ISRAEL
WAS DRAPED ON HIS CHEST!
HE SAID: "I'M NO BURGLAR,
SO PLEASE DON'T BE NERVOUS.
I'M THE SPIRIT OF CHANUKAH,
HERE AT OUR SERVICE!"
"MENCHEN ALL CALL ME
'REB' SHALOM SHAPIRO!
WITHOUT ME, THIS YOM-TOV
MIGHT NEED A NEW 'HERO!'"
"I VISIT ALL YIDLACH,
AND BRING - KINNAHORRA-
GOOD FORTUNE AS BRIGHT
AS A GLOWING MENORAH!"
"ICH SHLEPP LOTS OF BLESSINGS
AND CHANUKAH GELT,
AND JOYS THAT ARE TAKKA
THE BEST IN DER VELT!"
"IF YOU KNOW NICE MENCHEN,
I'LL VISIT THEM QUICK,
AND I'LL BRING THEM GEZUNT
AND A HOUSEFUL OF GLICK!"
SO WE SENT HIM TO YOUR HOUSE,
AND SHOOK HANDS AND PARTED.
HE SHOUTED, "SHALOM!"
OUT THE DOORWAY HE DARTED!
HE RAN TO A WAGON
WITH HORSES AHEAD.
HE FED THEM SOME BAGELS,
AND HERE'S WHAT HE SAID:
"LET'S GO, MOISH AND MENDEL!
MAKE QUICK, MOE AND YUSSLE!
PLEASE GIVE A RUSH, MALKAH!
HEY, HYMIE, PLEASE HUSTLE!"
THEN THEY RACED LIKE THE WIND!
AND THEY GALLOPED SO SHNELL,
ALL HIS CLOTHING BLEW OFF,
AND HIS GATKES AS WELL!
SOON HE WAS SO KALT
THAT HIS TUSHIE TURNED BLUISH!
HE MOANED AND HE HOLLERED
IN ENGLISH AND JEWISH!
SO, DON'T ACT EMBARRASSED,
AND PLEASE DON'T BE RUDE
WHEN THAT FROSTBITTEN ZAYDA
ARRIVES IN THE NUDE!
QUICK! WRAP HIM IN BLANKETS!
DON'T BEAT 'ROUND THE BUSH'!
AND TIE A HOT WATER BAG
ON HIS COLD TUSH!
QUICK! FEED HIM SOME CHICHEN SOUP
HEISS AS CAN BE!
AND GIVE HIM SOME SHNAPPS
AND A GLEZ'L HOT TEA!
'CAUSE HE BRINGS YOU A HOUSEFUL
OF CHANUKAH WISHES
AS WARM AND GESHMOCK
AS PLATE OF HOT KNISHES!
AND HE BRINGS THEM FROM OUR HOUSE
SO FRIENDLYAND BRIGHT,
SO YOUR HOUSE WILL KEEP GLOWING
WITH CHANUKAH LIGHT.
PLUS JOY SWEET AS TSUKKER,
AND PEACE AND GOOD-CHEER
AND EVERYTHING FRAYLACH
EACH DAY OF THE YEAR!
AND NONE IN YOUR FAMILY
WILL BE A SHLEMAZEL,
FOR LIFE WILL BRING EACH OF YOU
SIMCHAS AND MAZEL!
AND ALL THROUGH THE FUTURE
YOUR HOPES WILL COME TRUE,
AND HIMMEL WILL BLESS
YOUR MISHPOCHA AND YOU!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuit To Stop AIG Bailout
Contact THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
www.thomasmore.org
FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST TREASURY SECRETARY TO STOP AIG BAILOUT FINANCING OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
ANN ARBOR, MI - A federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law.
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.
www.thomasmore.org
FEDERAL LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST TREASURY SECRETARY TO STOP AIG BAILOUT FINANCING OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES
ANN ARBOR, MI - A federal lawsuit was filed this morning against U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. and the Federal Reserve Board to stop all bailout funds from going to American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). According to the lawsuit, the U.S. government, through its ownership of AIG, is not only violating the Constitution, but also promoting and financing the destruction of America using American tax dollars.
The basis of the lawsuit is that AIG intentionally promotes Shariah-compliant businesses and insurance products, which by necessity must comply with the 1200 year old body of Islamic cannon law based on the Quran, which demands the conversion, subjugation, or destruction of the infidel West, including the United States. To help achieve these objectives and with the aid of federal tax dollars, AIG employs a three-person Shariah Advisory Board, with members from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Pakistan. According to AIG, the role of its Shariah authority "is to review [its] operations, supervise its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products and [its] investments."
Of particular significance is the Pakistani Board member, Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani. Dr. Usmani is the son and devoted disciple of Sheik Mufti Taqi Usmani, the leading authority on Shariah financing who, in 1999, authored a book dedicating an entire chapter on why a Western Muslim must engage in violent jihad against his own country - even if Muslims are given equality and freedom to practice their religion and to proselytize.
The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Kevin J. Murray, a former Marine infantryman who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Murray is represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and David Yerushalmi, an associated attorney who specializes in litigation and is an expert on Shariah law and Shariah compliant financing. Mr. Yerushalmi also serves as general counsel to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C.
According to the lawsuit, use of taxpayer funds to acquire ownership of a business that intentionally promotes, endorses, supports, and funds Shariah-based Islamic religious practices violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This lawsuit not only raises significant constitutional issues, it also shines a light on serious national security issues that our own government has created by direct financial support and ownership of a business that supports anti-American, radical Islamic activities. Make no mistake, there is an internal cultural jihad underway against our great nation, and I fear that many of our political leaders are unwittingly complicit in it."
On September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists, guided by principles of Shariah-mandated jihad against "infidels," attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. went on the offensive by engaging Islamic terrorists overseas in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As in the past when our Nation faced great crisis, American servicemen were called to action, and Kevin Murray answered the call. From March to October 2003, Murray - a U.S. Marine - was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet today, Murray's federal tax dollars are being used to advance the very cause of global jihad he and his fellow servicemen were placed in harm's way to overcome. Shariah explicitly demands the murder of infidels like Kevin Murray and the destruction of the United States, which Murray took an oath to defend. Shariah is the same law that is used to justify beheadings, stonings, and amputation for petty crimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan, which Americans deplore.
Nevertheless, AIG acknowledges and boasts its promotion of Shariah law and Shariah-based business practices. AIG itself describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on the Quran and the teachings of the Prophet [Mohammed]."
In further support of the federal government's endorsement of Shariah, the U.S. Treasury department co-sponsored a seminar in November of this year entitled "Islamic Financing 101" to promote Shariah financing among American institutions. The Seminar was jointly sponsored by Harvard University, one of the many American universities and colleges receiving millions of dollars from oil-producing countries to influence their Middle East programs, which are often staffed with professors who are anti-American, anti-Israeli, and pro-Islamic.
"It is clear," said Thompson, "oil money is purchasing the sovereignty of the United States and whatever loyalty to America these greedy financial institutions, corporations, and universities have left. It's up to the American people to take back their country from those who so easily betray its interests."
The federal lawsuit challenges that portion of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" that appropriated $40 billion in taxpayer money to fund and financially support the United States government's majority ownership interest in AIG, which engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities that are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-American.
According to the lawsuit, through the use of taxpayer funds, the U.S. government acquired a majority (79.9%) ownership interest in AIG, and as part of the bailout, Congress appropriated and expended an additional $40 billion of taxpayer money to fund and financially support AIG and its financial activities. AIG, which is now a government owned company, engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic religion. This specifically includes any profits or interest obtained through such financial activities.
An important element of Shariah-compliant financing is a form of obligatory charitable contribution called zakat, which is a religious tax for assisting those that "struggle [jihad] for Allah." The amount of this tax is between 2.5% and 20%, depending upon the source of the wealth. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities," some of which have ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the United States and all other "infidels," which includes Christians and Jews.
The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, recently convicted for providing material support to Islamic terrorist organizations, is an example of an Islamic "charity" that qualifies for receipt of the zakat. Thus, as a direct consequence of the taxpayer funds appropriated and expended to purchase and financially support AIG, the U.S. government is now the owner of a corporation engaged in the business of collecting religious taxes to fund interests adverse to the United States, Christians, Jews, and all other "infidels" under Islamic law.
Continued Thompson, "This lawsuit is as much about protecting constitutional principles as it is about protecting our national security and preventing another 9/11 - whether it be overt through flying planes into buildings or covert through appropriating taxpayer money to fund an Islamic cultural jihad."
The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the taxpayer funding of AIG and its Islamic-based businesses and activities.
The Thomas More Law Center has been involved in several cases dealing with the insidious threat of radical Islam. Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who is handling this case involving AIG, is also one of the Law Center's attorneys defending LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the senior officer charged in the so-called "Haditha Massacre" case. Those charges were dismissed by a military judge, and the government has appealed that ruling. Muise is also representing former Marine Jesse Nieto, whose anti-Islamic terrorism message was recently banned by military authorities at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune because of some unknown complaints.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Guantanamo's Jihad
Guantanamo’s Jihad: The Show Begins…
Walid Phares December 8, 2008
Al Qaeda’s great moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted it would when I wrote about this in June. The Guantanamo trials will provide leading figures in the 9/11 massacre their “moment” to deliver a blow to America’s psyche, image and legal system.
As predicted, almost to the letter in my analysis in June, the men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks have declared their readiness to make confessions. According to the Associated Press the military judge assigned to their war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay read aloud a letter in which the five co-defendants said they request an immediate hearing session “to announce our confessions.” The AP report added that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM) has already told interrogators he was the mastermind of the attacks. “Now he’s telling the judge that he and the others want to make confessions at the trial.” The judge at the pre-trial hearing, Army Col. Stephen Henley, is asking each defendant if they are prepared to enter a plea. Three have agreed to do so.
So, is there an Al Qaeda plan being put into motion on the inside? Most likely there is as our knowledge of Al Qaeda training instructions has shown. –Both the government and media of the United States are ill-prepared for this type of jihadi propaganda warfare. Seven years after the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror,” the enemy’s ideology, strategies and methods still haven’t been officially identified. It is like using a Word War I mind set to fight World War II terror strategies.
Here is what the jihadists, both on the inside and the outside of the Guantanamo detention center are planning for:
First, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his comrades will use the so-called confessions deal to build a psychological environment for a martyrdom case: “istishaad.” They aren’t interested in saving their lives (at first, although they think they could) but in providing a maximum damage to their enemy through the tribunal proceedings. They will claim the court is not legitimate, the entire Guantanamo process as illegal and that they are ready to die as Jihadis in the path to Allah. Their first target is to grant themselves, in the eyes of millions of militants around the world the status of “Shuhada,” martyrs, even though they could survive it.
The “confessions” turned declaration of victory will be picked up by Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups and transformed into vital material for propaganda: videos, audio and texts. The “show” inside court will be used for indoctrination purpose around the world. A myth will be set in motion and emotional reactions to the “story” will be mutated into future revenge operations.
From there on, leave it to the architects of jihadi propaganda: statements made by the defendants will be used by operatives online, in the chat rooms but also on Al Jazeera (by callers and guests), and in other medium to widen the radicalization of youth in the Arab and Muslim world and within the West as well. An Al Qaeda “control room” will use the feed from the Guantanamo trials to produce a victory in their war of ideas against democracies. The fate of the 9/11 detainees isn’t the issue to Al Qaeda. By pledging loyalty to the “mission” through the so-called “confessions” or statements they have already sacrificed themselves ideologically. What KSM and his comrades are offering to their “brothers” around the world is an unbeatable series of images, footage and audio — pure gold for Al Qaeda propagandists and ideologues.
Ironically, during this time of transition between the two administrations in both the Bush and Obama teams may find they overlook the direct goals of Al Qaeda’s plan. As national security teams meet and wrestle over future options in the War on Terror (will some possibly end up just calling it a “war”?) the other side is waging its own war methodically, relentlessly and unstoppably. Every inch of room to maneuver is used to the maximum to weaken the enemy, even from within the walls of the detention centers. And that is only at Guantanamo that the defendants are openly admitting their responsibilities in spreading terror. Wait until the processing of jihadists hits our U.S. courts here on the mainland. What we see now is just the beginning.
******
Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.
******
Walid Phares December 8, 2008
Al Qaeda’s great moment for propaganda has arrived, just as I predicted it would when I wrote about this in June. The Guantanamo trials will provide leading figures in the 9/11 massacre their “moment” to deliver a blow to America’s psyche, image and legal system.
As predicted, almost to the letter in my analysis in June, the men charged with plotting the September 11 attacks have declared their readiness to make confessions. According to the Associated Press the military judge assigned to their war crimes trial at Guantanamo Bay read aloud a letter in which the five co-defendants said they request an immediate hearing session “to announce our confessions.” The AP report added that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (aka KSM) has already told interrogators he was the mastermind of the attacks. “Now he’s telling the judge that he and the others want to make confessions at the trial.” The judge at the pre-trial hearing, Army Col. Stephen Henley, is asking each defendant if they are prepared to enter a plea. Three have agreed to do so.
So, is there an Al Qaeda plan being put into motion on the inside? Most likely there is as our knowledge of Al Qaeda training instructions has shown. –Both the government and media of the United States are ill-prepared for this type of jihadi propaganda warfare. Seven years after the beginning of the so-called “War on Terror,” the enemy’s ideology, strategies and methods still haven’t been officially identified. It is like using a Word War I mind set to fight World War II terror strategies.
Here is what the jihadists, both on the inside and the outside of the Guantanamo detention center are planning for:
First, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his comrades will use the so-called confessions deal to build a psychological environment for a martyrdom case: “istishaad.” They aren’t interested in saving their lives (at first, although they think they could) but in providing a maximum damage to their enemy through the tribunal proceedings. They will claim the court is not legitimate, the entire Guantanamo process as illegal and that they are ready to die as Jihadis in the path to Allah. Their first target is to grant themselves, in the eyes of millions of militants around the world the status of “Shuhada,” martyrs, even though they could survive it.
The “confessions” turned declaration of victory will be picked up by Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups and transformed into vital material for propaganda: videos, audio and texts. The “show” inside court will be used for indoctrination purpose around the world. A myth will be set in motion and emotional reactions to the “story” will be mutated into future revenge operations.
From there on, leave it to the architects of jihadi propaganda: statements made by the defendants will be used by operatives online, in the chat rooms but also on Al Jazeera (by callers and guests), and in other medium to widen the radicalization of youth in the Arab and Muslim world and within the West as well. An Al Qaeda “control room” will use the feed from the Guantanamo trials to produce a victory in their war of ideas against democracies. The fate of the 9/11 detainees isn’t the issue to Al Qaeda. By pledging loyalty to the “mission” through the so-called “confessions” or statements they have already sacrificed themselves ideologically. What KSM and his comrades are offering to their “brothers” around the world is an unbeatable series of images, footage and audio — pure gold for Al Qaeda propagandists and ideologues.
Ironically, during this time of transition between the two administrations in both the Bush and Obama teams may find they overlook the direct goals of Al Qaeda’s plan. As national security teams meet and wrestle over future options in the War on Terror (will some possibly end up just calling it a “war”?) the other side is waging its own war methodically, relentlessly and unstoppably. Every inch of room to maneuver is used to the maximum to weaken the enemy, even from within the walls of the detention centers. And that is only at Guantanamo that the defendants are openly admitting their responsibilities in spreading terror. Wait until the processing of jihadists hits our U.S. courts here on the mainland. What we see now is just the beginning.
Dr. Walid Phares is Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Buying Guns Just In Time
Buying Guns Just in Time?
Pick up the morning newspaper or turn on the evening newscast and the story that you're bound to see is that America is facing an economic recession of historic proportions. Consumer spending is down and unemployment is up, but there is one item that Americans are rushing to buy -- guns.
Why? Well, as NRA-certified instructor Joel Rosenberg told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "It's the Obama effect."
Gun sales have skyrocketed ever since it became clear that Barack Obama was going to win the White House and be able to govern with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
The FBI reported that, during election week, background checks used to approve gun purchases soared 49 percent compared to the same week in the previous year. And ever since the election, both empirical data and anecdotal accounts show that Americans' interest in buying firearms has continued.
For example, the Illinois State Police conducted 39 percent more "background checks for gun purchases in November" than the agency conducted during that month in both 2006 and 2007, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Those background checks led to purchases since "gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year," the Sun-Times noted, citing a report from the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Similarly, in Florida, the Tampa Tribune covered not one, but two gun shows that were held last weekend, leaving the reporters competing for superlatives to describe the large crowds browsing amidst hundreds of firearms dealers. One reporter observed that the Hernando County Fairgrounds gun show was "packed," while another reporter wrote that "throngs of people" came to the Florida State Fairgrounds gun show, providing "a steady stream of patrons."
Indeed, stories from across the country are reporting that Americans attending gun shows and browsing gun shops are openly worrying that the new President and Congress will pass laws taxing, restricting or even banning firearms and ammunition. As Stephen Lyons, who attended the Florida State Fairgrounds gun show, told the Tampa Tribune: "People are hedging their bets against the possibility that law-abiding citizens won't be able to buy guns or ammunition to protect themselves."
These concerns are not without some historic basis. Americans remember what happened the last time the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress -- namely, the enactment of major gun-control legislation, including both the so-called federal assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. The same could happen again because Obama's words and actions haven't instilled confidence that he respects gun rights.
While the President-elect has continued to insist that he believes in the Second Amendment, he tellingly made infamous off-the-cuff remarks during his campaign that denigrated "small towns" as being filled with "bitter" Americans who "cling to their guns." That slip in saying what he apparently really believes combined with Obama's one-sided voting record against gun rights -- not to mention his now-disowned answer to a 1996 candidate questionnaire stating his support for a handgun ban -- has Americans wondering how long it will be before the new administration goes after guns.
What's worse, the gun- control lobby is just waiting for January 20 so that they can push restrictions, if not outright bans, on firearms.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, talked up the President-elect in The Hill this week, stating "[w]e've been very impressed with Obama's record in the past on the gun issue." The story went on to report that "Helmke told The Hill that Obama has been 'consistent' in his beliefs on gun control, specifically in approval of an assault weapons ban and improved background checks, including closing the so-called gun show loophole."
Indeed, news reports like the one in The Hill have made it clear that the gun-control lobby thinks it is not whether, but when the new administration will attempt to enact gun restrictions.
All of this has, and should, worry Americans, especially since their future ability to fully and freely exercise their constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms" faces greater uncertainty than it has for more than a decade.
Luckily, Americans aren't stupid, and they have realized that, regardless of the impending political changes in the weeks ahead, they can still go out and buy a gun now -- before inauguration day. The fact that they are doing so in droves should inform our new President and Congress just how important it is not to use their new political power to impose an old anti-gun agenda.
Only time will tell whether many Americans bought their guns just in time.
Pick up the morning newspaper or turn on the evening newscast and the story that you're bound to see is that America is facing an economic recession of historic proportions. Consumer spending is down and unemployment is up, but there is one item that Americans are rushing to buy -- guns.
Why? Well, as NRA-certified instructor Joel Rosenberg told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "It's the Obama effect."
Gun sales have skyrocketed ever since it became clear that Barack Obama was going to win the White House and be able to govern with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
The FBI reported that, during election week, background checks used to approve gun purchases soared 49 percent compared to the same week in the previous year. And ever since the election, both empirical data and anecdotal accounts show that Americans' interest in buying firearms has continued.
For example, the Illinois State Police conducted 39 percent more "background checks for gun purchases in November" than the agency conducted during that month in both 2006 and 2007, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Those background checks led to purchases since "gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year," the Sun-Times noted, citing a report from the Illinois State Rifle Association.
Similarly, in Florida, the Tampa Tribune covered not one, but two gun shows that were held last weekend, leaving the reporters competing for superlatives to describe the large crowds browsing amidst hundreds of firearms dealers. One reporter observed that the Hernando County Fairgrounds gun show was "packed," while another reporter wrote that "throngs of people" came to the Florida State Fairgrounds gun show, providing "a steady stream of patrons."
Indeed, stories from across the country are reporting that Americans attending gun shows and browsing gun shops are openly worrying that the new President and Congress will pass laws taxing, restricting or even banning firearms and ammunition. As Stephen Lyons, who attended the Florida State Fairgrounds gun show, told the Tampa Tribune: "People are hedging their bets against the possibility that law-abiding citizens won't be able to buy guns or ammunition to protect themselves."
These concerns are not without some historic basis. Americans remember what happened the last time the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress -- namely, the enactment of major gun-control legislation, including both the so-called federal assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill. The same could happen again because Obama's words and actions haven't instilled confidence that he respects gun rights.
While the President-elect has continued to insist that he believes in the Second Amendment, he tellingly made infamous off-the-cuff remarks during his campaign that denigrated "small towns" as being filled with "bitter" Americans who "cling to their guns." That slip in saying what he apparently really believes combined with Obama's one-sided voting record against gun rights -- not to mention his now-disowned answer to a 1996 candidate questionnaire stating his support for a handgun ban -- has Americans wondering how long it will be before the new administration goes after guns.
What's worse, the gun- control lobby is just waiting for January 20 so that they can push restrictions, if not outright bans, on firearms.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, talked up the President-elect in The Hill this week, stating "[w]e've been very impressed with Obama's record in the past on the gun issue." The story went on to report that "Helmke told The Hill that Obama has been 'consistent' in his beliefs on gun control, specifically in approval of an assault weapons ban and improved background checks, including closing the so-called gun show loophole."
Indeed, news reports like the one in The Hill have made it clear that the gun-control lobby thinks it is not whether, but when the new administration will attempt to enact gun restrictions.
All of this has, and should, worry Americans, especially since their future ability to fully and freely exercise their constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms" faces greater uncertainty than it has for more than a decade.
Luckily, Americans aren't stupid, and they have realized that, regardless of the impending political changes in the weeks ahead, they can still go out and buy a gun now -- before inauguration day. The fact that they are doing so in droves should inform our new President and Congress just how important it is not to use their new political power to impose an old anti-gun agenda.
Only time will tell whether many Americans bought their guns just in time.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Jews Get Killed, Muslims Whine
STEYN: JEWS GET KILLED, MUSLIMS WHINE
Steyn puts the HOLY WAR: ISLAM'S GENOCIDE AGAINST THE JEWS and the media's happy complicity into a searing editorial and states the obvious. Steyn nails it and says what everyone else is afraid to. It is a stunning indictment of the media the political elites and the international submission to I-slam.
Righteous gentiles. Shame on the Jewicidals that go along with this genocidal death speak.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, December 06, 2008
Steyn puts the HOLY WAR: ISLAM'S GENOCIDE AGAINST THE JEWS and the media's happy complicity into a searing editorial and states the obvious. Steyn nails it and says what everyone else is afraid to. It is a stunning indictment of the media the political elites and the international submission to I-slam.
Righteous gentiles. Shame on the Jewicidals that go along with this genocidal death speak.
Mark Steyn: Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable (hat tip Larwyn)
Greater Mumbai forms one of the world's five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An "accidental hostage scene" that one of the "practitioners" just happened to stumble upon? "I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?"
Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for "going after the wrong people" and inflaming moderates, and "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster" in Mumbai.
Really? The inflammation just "appears"? Like a bad pimple? The "fairer" we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as "ultra-Orthodox," "ultra-" in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for "strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn't have been over there in the first place."
Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two "inflamed moderates" entered the Chabad House, shouted "Allahu Akbar!," tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young rabbi's pregnant wife. Their 2-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mowed down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.
The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an "accidental" hostage opportunity – and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it's not a hostage situation, it's a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving "militant" revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they're any more important than the Indians, Britons and Americans targeted in the attack, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.
In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the "militants" nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city's poor in a nondescript building. If they were just "teenage gunmen" or "militants" in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: "Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous."
And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani "militants" in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying "Islamic" or "Muslim" or "terrorist," we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.
We are enjoined to be "understanding," and we're doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there's a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what's the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that's not "too big to fail," what is?
Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel "vulnerable." Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They're the world's fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he's feeling "vulnerable," he's doing a terrific job of covering it up.
We are told that the "vast majority" of the 1.6 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra's estimate) are "moderate." Maybe so, but they're also quiet. And, as the AIDS activists used to say, "Silence=Acceptance." It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush's foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam – "Allahu Akbar."
I wrote in my book, "America Alone," that "reforming" Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Quran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there'll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there'll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Mumbai in the name of Allah, and that's just business as usual. And, if it is somehow "understandable" that for the first time in history it's no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, "worry about image." Not enough.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, December 06, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Religious Head Incites Mumbai Attack
Religious head incited killers
Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | December 01, 2008
Article from: The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
THE al-Qa'ida-linked Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists suspected over the Mumbai massacre were trained in Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, and were incited by speeches from their leader in Lahore.
As the sole surviving terrorist was interrogated in Mumbai, security sources told The Australian that 10 terrorists were picked by LET for the suicide mission.
They were ordered to "kill until your last breath" and murder up to 5000 people.
They did so after provocative speeches by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed last month in Lahore, capital of the Punjab.
Saeed, described as LET's supreme religious and political head, declared in one speech: "The only language India understands is that of force, and that is the language it must be talked to in."
The email claiming responsibility for the Mumbai attack minutes after it started last Wednesday was generated on a computer based in Pakistan.
And a satellite telephone captured from the terrorists revealed calls made to numbers in Pakistan during the attacks, reports said.
Officials said the terrorists' route to Mumbai had been recorded on GPS co-ordinates contained in the satellite phones.
Sources said the 10 terrorists -- most of whom were believed to be Pakistanis -- were ordered to undergo training to attack Mumbai.
The captured gunman, Ajmal Amir Kamal, 21, reportedly told intelligence sources the group had trained openly in Muzaffarabad before heading to the nearby Mangala dam for lessons in marine commando techniques.
The group then visited Rawalpindi, which adjoins Islamabad, the Pakistan capital and site of the Pakistan army headquarters.
From there, the group took a train to the port city of Karachi, where, heavily armed, they boarded a freighter for the trip to Mumbai. Along the way, they became nervous about Indian coastguard activity and almost aborted the mission.
They "dragooned" a less conspicuous, passing fishing boat into service, shooting dead four of its crew members. The skipper of the fishing boat and another crew member took them closer to Mumbai before they, too, were killed. One was decapitated and the other had his throat slit.
Close to shore, they transferred to small speedboats for the run into the two landing points they had selected in Mumbai - Sassoon Docks and Badhwar Park, on Cuff Parade.
Conflicting evidence obtained by intelligence agencies suggests that the group may have had local support, and that one or more of its members may have been staying locally, possibly even in the Taj Mahal hotel.
A British link to the attacks was raised over the weekend when a senior Indian official claimed that Britons were among the militants.
Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, in which Mumbai lies, was quoted on an Indian television station as saying that British citizens had been detained.
British MP Patrick Mercer, a former Tory security spokesman, said he had been given information that at least two of the terrorists had credit cards and other identifying documents that linked them to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, in northeast England.
The claims, however, were not substantiated by official British sources, who said there was no evidence "at this stage" that Britons had taken part in the attacks, although they acknowledged that events were "moving fast" and more information was emerging about the nationality of the terrorists.
MI5 and British counter-terrorist police are keeping in close touch with their counterparts in India and are alert to the possibility that Britons with Pakistani origins might have been involved. Significant numbers of young British Pakistanis have taken part in terrorist training in Pakistan.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that there was no evidence of Britons being involved, and the Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "We obviously will want to work very closely with the Indians but it is too early to say whether or not any of them are British."
Malaysian police are investigating reports that Malaysian-issued credit cards were found in the belongings of the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Malaysia had no links with the terrorists, responding to an Indian report that nine of the gunmen claimed to be Malaysian students when they travelled to Mumbai several months ago.
Terror analyst Praveen Swami said that at a meeting of key LET leaders in Lahore on October 19, LET leader Saeed, who insists he is only head of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa welfare organisation, made plain his view of Pakistan's neighbour.
"India, he claimed, was building dams in (Indian-controlled) Jammu and Kashmir to choke Pakistan's water supplies and cripple its agriculture," Mr Swami reported Saeed as saying.
"Earlier, in an October 6 speech, Saeed claimed that India had 'made a deal with the United States to send 150,000 Indian troops to Afghanistan' and that it agreed to support the US in its existential war against Islam.
"Finally, in a sermon to a congregation at the Jamia Masjid al-Qudsia (mosque) in Lahore at the end of October, Saeed proclaimed that there was an 'ongoing war in the world between Islam and its enemies'.
"He claimed that 'crusaders of the East and West have united in a cohesive onslaught against Muslims'."
Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | December 01, 2008
Article from: The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
THE al-Qa'ida-linked Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists suspected over the Mumbai massacre were trained in Muzaffarabad, capital of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, and were incited by speeches from their leader in Lahore.
As the sole surviving terrorist was interrogated in Mumbai, security sources told The Australian that 10 terrorists were picked by LET for the suicide mission.
They were ordered to "kill until your last breath" and murder up to 5000 people.
They did so after provocative speeches by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed last month in Lahore, capital of the Punjab.
Saeed, described as LET's supreme religious and political head, declared in one speech: "The only language India understands is that of force, and that is the language it must be talked to in."
The email claiming responsibility for the Mumbai attack minutes after it started last Wednesday was generated on a computer based in Pakistan.
And a satellite telephone captured from the terrorists revealed calls made to numbers in Pakistan during the attacks, reports said.
Officials said the terrorists' route to Mumbai had been recorded on GPS co-ordinates contained in the satellite phones.
Sources said the 10 terrorists -- most of whom were believed to be Pakistanis -- were ordered to undergo training to attack Mumbai.
The captured gunman, Ajmal Amir Kamal, 21, reportedly told intelligence sources the group had trained openly in Muzaffarabad before heading to the nearby Mangala dam for lessons in marine commando techniques.
The group then visited Rawalpindi, which adjoins Islamabad, the Pakistan capital and site of the Pakistan army headquarters.
From there, the group took a train to the port city of Karachi, where, heavily armed, they boarded a freighter for the trip to Mumbai. Along the way, they became nervous about Indian coastguard activity and almost aborted the mission.
They "dragooned" a less conspicuous, passing fishing boat into service, shooting dead four of its crew members. The skipper of the fishing boat and another crew member took them closer to Mumbai before they, too, were killed. One was decapitated and the other had his throat slit.
Close to shore, they transferred to small speedboats for the run into the two landing points they had selected in Mumbai - Sassoon Docks and Badhwar Park, on Cuff Parade.
Conflicting evidence obtained by intelligence agencies suggests that the group may have had local support, and that one or more of its members may have been staying locally, possibly even in the Taj Mahal hotel.
A British link to the attacks was raised over the weekend when a senior Indian official claimed that Britons were among the militants.
Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, in which Mumbai lies, was quoted on an Indian television station as saying that British citizens had been detained.
British MP Patrick Mercer, a former Tory security spokesman, said he had been given information that at least two of the terrorists had credit cards and other identifying documents that linked them to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, in northeast England.
The claims, however, were not substantiated by official British sources, who said there was no evidence "at this stage" that Britons had taken part in the attacks, although they acknowledged that events were "moving fast" and more information was emerging about the nationality of the terrorists.
MI5 and British counter-terrorist police are keeping in close touch with their counterparts in India and are alert to the possibility that Britons with Pakistani origins might have been involved. Significant numbers of young British Pakistanis have taken part in terrorist training in Pakistan.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that there was no evidence of Britons being involved, and the Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "We obviously will want to work very closely with the Indians but it is too early to say whether or not any of them are British."
Malaysian police are investigating reports that Malaysian-issued credit cards were found in the belongings of the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said Malaysia had no links with the terrorists, responding to an Indian report that nine of the gunmen claimed to be Malaysian students when they travelled to Mumbai several months ago.
Terror analyst Praveen Swami said that at a meeting of key LET leaders in Lahore on October 19, LET leader Saeed, who insists he is only head of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa welfare organisation, made plain his view of Pakistan's neighbour.
"India, he claimed, was building dams in (Indian-controlled) Jammu and Kashmir to choke Pakistan's water supplies and cripple its agriculture," Mr Swami reported Saeed as saying.
"Earlier, in an October 6 speech, Saeed claimed that India had 'made a deal with the United States to send 150,000 Indian troops to Afghanistan' and that it agreed to support the US in its existential war against Islam.
"Finally, in a sermon to a congregation at the Jamia Masjid al-Qudsia (mosque) in Lahore at the end of October, Saeed proclaimed that there was an 'ongoing war in the world between Islam and its enemies'.
"He claimed that 'crusaders of the East and West have united in a cohesive onslaught against Muslims'."
Monday, December 01, 2008
Mumbai To Minneapolis
From Mumbai to Minneapolis, WHY it WILL happen here
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
1 December 2008: I hope everyone takes a really deep, hard look at what happened last week in Mumbai, India, and at the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. And I hope this is done quickly, with a high degree of intellectual honesty and without the encumbrance of political correctness. The safety of every American, Canadian, Australian, and all Westerners, in fact depends on it, as does the security of our respective nations.
If recent history provides us any insight, however, we will fall woefully short in our official analysis of this event, and fail to learn the lessons of Mumbai. We’ve already demonstrated this pattern of failure in the many instances since 2001. Although there is enough blame to go around, I will place special blame squarely at the feet of a select few: members within our current administration, who have succumbed to the pressures and influences of such special interest groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations to needlessly convolute the facts about Islamic terrorism; the corporate media, for their failure to call an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist; some nationally syndicated political right-wing talk radio show hosts who have a platform and vast audience, but fail to use their programs to provide you with the whole truth, and many of you, who strive to be so liberal and open minded that quite simply, your brains spill to the floor.
Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn wrote last Friday that Mumbai could happen just about anywhere. He’s correct, and be forewarned, it will happen in America. It will happen in Canada. It will happen in Australia and just about any Western country you can name.
I have the ability, authority and have earned the right to make such a statement because I’ve personally investigated potential terrorists who are in this country that appear to be training for just such scenarios. I’ve published my investigative findings, complete with photographs, only to be called an alarmist, racist, bigoted, and religiously intolerant. I’ve seen my findings skewed by the media, who complain that they cannot find corroborating witnesses as they point cameras and shine lights on sources that fear for their safety. And I've garnered the wrath of a top Pakistani terror kingpin for exposing the activities of his followers here in the U.S. and Canada.
My investigative findings into one such Pakistani terrorist group, (Pakistan now suddenly being important, considering all of the dead bodies in Mumbai) Jamaat ul Fuqra, have been cited by the Regional Organized Crime Information Center in their 2006 special research report. Prolific author and researcher of Islamic terrorism, Dr. Paul Williams, devoted nearly an entire chapter to my findings in his recent book The Day of Islam.
Despite the evidence presented, there is an incredible disconnect from reality by otherwise rational and reasonable individuals, people in leadership, and some at higher levels in our own law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Why else would one treat with sickening malaise the existence of a bullet-ridden school bus situated on the grounds of a private Islamic commune located at the base of the Catskill Mountains in New York State? This would be the same Islamic compound “of Qu’ranic study” that is outfitted with a firing range, where area residents often hear the sounds of automatic and semi-automatic weapons fire.
How was this group dealt with by local community leaders? Not with the slightest scintilla of suspicion or even curiosity, but with a parade. An actual parade, through the streets of Binghamton, NY, to celebrate interfaith dialogue. What about law enforcement? Well, they consider this commune “good residents,” mostly because they have not had to respond to any “trouble calls” to that location.
The fact is this: there are well armed Muslim men and young boys who are training for urban combat terrorist scenarios inside the United States and Canada, as India continues the process of identifying their dead. I have seen them, and have documented their activities.
They don’t wear nametags that identify them with any particular Islamic terrorist organization, and are not limited to groups like LeT and Jamaat ul Fuqra, but make no mistake: they all adhere to the same philosophy and ideology taught by fundamentalist Islam, and their training is derived directly from the texts, manuals, and videos authored and published by al Qaeda.
Such groups here are well funded, in many cases by receiving money from Saudi Arabia through mosques and Islamic Centers. In cases like Jamaat ul Fuqra, they establish charities, and send their money to top terrorist leader Sheikh Mubarek ali Gilani, who in turn uses those funds to recruit, equip and expand his terrorist network.
Westerners in general, and Americans specifically have a serious case of memory deficit disorder. This disorder will continue until the hallways of the Waldorf Astoria in New York, and the concourses at the Mall of America, for example, run with the blood of innocent men, women and children who have died because we have failed properly and unapologetically deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism within this country.
For economic and political reasons, we are being lied to everyday about the actual threat level that exists in this country and in Canada. And without asking even the most basic questions, the major media in this country perpetuate the lies of those in leadership who successfully hoodwink the masses by the carefully constructed use of catch-phrases like “no specific threat,” unsubstantiated threat, “no specific intelligence,” and my personal favorite, “no connection to terrorism” to nauseating extremes.
Now, the war in which we are engaged is being moved from the battlefield and relegated to U.S. courtrooms. This tactic started long before the Bush administration, but one that received his active support. It’s disingenuous and even silly to think that we can fight a war through our court system and expect to win. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions since 9/11, and in a number of significant previous instances.
Now, it looks like we are about to turn our country over to “President-elect Barrack Hussein Obama,” a man who has unprecedented terrorist connections himself, and who has the full backing and support of numerous Muslim organizations that tacitly, if not actively condone the actions of Islamic terrorists. A mere seven years after the worst attacks on U.S. soil, Americans have chosen a man who might not even be eligible to serve as President. Since August, Obama has spent nearly one million dollars fighting at least 17 lawsuits to keep a single piece of paper – his birth certificate – under wraps.
One of his legal point men fighting at least one of the lawsuits also happens to be a lawyer for (and active member of) the aforementioned Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group having a very special hand in formulating federal, state and local law enforcement policies, with the grace of our current administration. Coincidence? I think not.
To hell with the U.S. Constitution in that case, apparently. It only applies to the constitutional rights of Islamic terrorists, not the political elite. Apply constitutional requirements to the treatment of the Islamic terrorists who have killed, and want to kill us here in America, but dare not apply the requirements of that document to the manufactured "messiah."
Meanwhile, it appears that Obama will be the man selected to inherit the already fatally flawed war doctrine of the Bush administration and either by accident or design, will further endanger our national security, and the safety and security of every man, woman and child of the West.
Instead of a local parade celebrating interfaith dialogue on Main Street in Binghamton, NY, you can now expect one to be held on Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead of war prisoners being held in war prisons and tried as war criminals, you can now expect them to be thrust into the already overburdened criminal justice system.
There is something else you can expect, too. Expect to experience the carnage of Mumbai on any street in America, Canada, or Australia.
By Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
1 December 2008: I hope everyone takes a really deep, hard look at what happened last week in Mumbai, India, and at the terrorists who perpetrated the attack. And I hope this is done quickly, with a high degree of intellectual honesty and without the encumbrance of political correctness. The safety of every American, Canadian, Australian, and all Westerners, in fact depends on it, as does the security of our respective nations.
If recent history provides us any insight, however, we will fall woefully short in our official analysis of this event, and fail to learn the lessons of Mumbai. We’ve already demonstrated this pattern of failure in the many instances since 2001. Although there is enough blame to go around, I will place special blame squarely at the feet of a select few: members within our current administration, who have succumbed to the pressures and influences of such special interest groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations to needlessly convolute the facts about Islamic terrorism; the corporate media, for their failure to call an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist; some nationally syndicated political right-wing talk radio show hosts who have a platform and vast audience, but fail to use their programs to provide you with the whole truth, and many of you, who strive to be so liberal and open minded that quite simply, your brains spill to the floor.
Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn wrote last Friday that Mumbai could happen just about anywhere. He’s correct, and be forewarned, it will happen in America. It will happen in Canada. It will happen in Australia and just about any Western country you can name.
I have the ability, authority and have earned the right to make such a statement because I’ve personally investigated potential terrorists who are in this country that appear to be training for just such scenarios. I’ve published my investigative findings, complete with photographs, only to be called an alarmist, racist, bigoted, and religiously intolerant. I’ve seen my findings skewed by the media, who complain that they cannot find corroborating witnesses as they point cameras and shine lights on sources that fear for their safety. And I've garnered the wrath of a top Pakistani terror kingpin for exposing the activities of his followers here in the U.S. and Canada.
My investigative findings into one such Pakistani terrorist group, (Pakistan now suddenly being important, considering all of the dead bodies in Mumbai) Jamaat ul Fuqra, have been cited by the Regional Organized Crime Information Center in their 2006 special research report. Prolific author and researcher of Islamic terrorism, Dr. Paul Williams, devoted nearly an entire chapter to my findings in his recent book The Day of Islam.
Despite the evidence presented, there is an incredible disconnect from reality by otherwise rational and reasonable individuals, people in leadership, and some at higher levels in our own law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Why else would one treat with sickening malaise the existence of a bullet-ridden school bus situated on the grounds of a private Islamic commune located at the base of the Catskill Mountains in New York State? This would be the same Islamic compound “of Qu’ranic study” that is outfitted with a firing range, where area residents often hear the sounds of automatic and semi-automatic weapons fire.
How was this group dealt with by local community leaders? Not with the slightest scintilla of suspicion or even curiosity, but with a parade. An actual parade, through the streets of Binghamton, NY, to celebrate interfaith dialogue. What about law enforcement? Well, they consider this commune “good residents,” mostly because they have not had to respond to any “trouble calls” to that location.
The fact is this: there are well armed Muslim men and young boys who are training for urban combat terrorist scenarios inside the United States and Canada, as India continues the process of identifying their dead. I have seen them, and have documented their activities.
They don’t wear nametags that identify them with any particular Islamic terrorist organization, and are not limited to groups like LeT and Jamaat ul Fuqra, but make no mistake: they all adhere to the same philosophy and ideology taught by fundamentalist Islam, and their training is derived directly from the texts, manuals, and videos authored and published by al Qaeda.
Such groups here are well funded, in many cases by receiving money from Saudi Arabia through mosques and Islamic Centers. In cases like Jamaat ul Fuqra, they establish charities, and send their money to top terrorist leader Sheikh Mubarek ali Gilani, who in turn uses those funds to recruit, equip and expand his terrorist network.
Westerners in general, and Americans specifically have a serious case of memory deficit disorder. This disorder will continue until the hallways of the Waldorf Astoria in New York, and the concourses at the Mall of America, for example, run with the blood of innocent men, women and children who have died because we have failed properly and unapologetically deal with the threat of Islamic terrorism within this country.
For economic and political reasons, we are being lied to everyday about the actual threat level that exists in this country and in Canada. And without asking even the most basic questions, the major media in this country perpetuate the lies of those in leadership who successfully hoodwink the masses by the carefully constructed use of catch-phrases like “no specific threat,” unsubstantiated threat, “no specific intelligence,” and my personal favorite, “no connection to terrorism” to nauseating extremes.
Now, the war in which we are engaged is being moved from the battlefield and relegated to U.S. courtrooms. This tactic started long before the Bush administration, but one that received his active support. It’s disingenuous and even silly to think that we can fight a war through our court system and expect to win. This has been demonstrated on numerous occasions since 9/11, and in a number of significant previous instances.
Now, it looks like we are about to turn our country over to “President-elect Barrack Hussein Obama,” a man who has unprecedented terrorist connections himself, and who has the full backing and support of numerous Muslim organizations that tacitly, if not actively condone the actions of Islamic terrorists. A mere seven years after the worst attacks on U.S. soil, Americans have chosen a man who might not even be eligible to serve as President. Since August, Obama has spent nearly one million dollars fighting at least 17 lawsuits to keep a single piece of paper – his birth certificate – under wraps.
One of his legal point men fighting at least one of the lawsuits also happens to be a lawyer for (and active member of) the aforementioned Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group having a very special hand in formulating federal, state and local law enforcement policies, with the grace of our current administration. Coincidence? I think not.
To hell with the U.S. Constitution in that case, apparently. It only applies to the constitutional rights of Islamic terrorists, not the political elite. Apply constitutional requirements to the treatment of the Islamic terrorists who have killed, and want to kill us here in America, but dare not apply the requirements of that document to the manufactured "messiah."
Meanwhile, it appears that Obama will be the man selected to inherit the already fatally flawed war doctrine of the Bush administration and either by accident or design, will further endanger our national security, and the safety and security of every man, woman and child of the West.
Instead of a local parade celebrating interfaith dialogue on Main Street in Binghamton, NY, you can now expect one to be held on Pennsylvania Avenue. Instead of war prisoners being held in war prisons and tried as war criminals, you can now expect them to be thrust into the already overburdened criminal justice system.
There is something else you can expect, too. Expect to experience the carnage of Mumbai on any street in America, Canada, or Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)