WikiLeaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King
November 29, 2010
Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, said late Sunday that the unauthorized release of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, some with sensitive and embarrassing information related to foreign allies, was worse than a terror or military attack and should be dealt with accordingly.
That's saying something coming from King who many in the media view as one of the nation's leading political voices for a region that was intimately affected by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
King, who represents a Long Island district, is also expected to chair the House Homeland Security Committee when Republicans take over the lower chamber in January which will give him a highly visible perch from which to press his views.
King expressed his opinion on New York City's all-news radio stations Sunday.
An excerpt from an Associated Press/WINS radio report:
“This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it’s worse than a military attack,” King said.
King has written letters to both U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking for swift action to be taken against WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange.
King wants Holder to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act and has also called on Clinton to determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
“By doing that we will be able to seize their funds and go after anyone who provides them with any help or contributions or assistance whatsoever,” King said.
“The Attorney General and I don’t always agree on different issues. But I believe on this one, he and I strongly agree that there should be a criminal prosecution,” King told WCBS 880.
King reiterated his views Monday morning on NBC's Today Show.
King's statements indicate the kind of pressure the Obama Administration is likely to come under to use the full extent of executive power against Assange.
Anything short of that could leave the administration open to further charges that it is relatively weak on national security matters. That could allow the administration's critics to build on attacks they made after Obama announced his plans, since frustrated, to close the Guantanamo prison facility and his administration's controversial decision to have civilian trials for some admitted or suspected terrorists.
Both President Obama and Secretary State Hillary Clinton are due to make statements Monday morning to talk about the WikiLeaks release.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
WikiLeaks, Terrorist Group?
Lawmakers Call on Administration to Prosecute WikiLeaks, Designate as Terror Group
Published November 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
A top Republican congressman is calling on the State Department to designate WikiLeaks a "foreign terrorist organization," as he and several other lawmakers demand the Obama administration find a way to prosecute founder Julian Assange in the wake of the group's latest document dump.
WikiLeaks' weekend release of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents has outraged Washington officials. The spilling of secrets this time deals with a trove of candid diplomatic cables and other missives spanning everything from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea and could jeopardize the United States' sensitive foreign policy dealings.
Combined with the organization's prior mega-leaks of Iraq and Afghanistan war documents, the latest release is putting American lives in danger and breaking down the trust between the United States and its allies, lawmakers said. They urged the Obama administration to treat Assange and his operation severely.
New York Rep. Peter King, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, urged Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Assange and urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to designate his group a foreign terrorist organization, in letters sent out over the weekend.
"This is extremely damaging to U.S. troops, U.S. interests and U.S. intelligence," King told MyFox New York on Monday.
"They are engaged in terrorist activity. What they're doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups," King said. "Either we're serious about this or we're not."
Though Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is already being held in connection with a prior leak, King urged Holder in a letter Sunday to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.
Holder said Monday that the Justice Department is conducting an "active, ongoing, criminal investigation" into the situation. He condemned the leak and said it put national security at risk.
"To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described they will be held responsible, they will be held accountable," Holder said.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined the call for tough legal action to be taken, though it's unclear whether the United States could win the cooperation of foreign governments to pull that off.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called the release "an attack on the national security of the United States." In a written statement released Monday, he said those behind the leak will have "blood on their hands" and recommended legal action.
"I also urge the Obama administration -- both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world -- to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables," he said.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," urged the administration to go after the leakers "with the force of law."
"If you can prosecute them, let's try," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
The State Department document leak has triggered an administration review of how classified documents are kept and accessed. The leaked information did not so much drop any single bombshell as it did lay out in agonizing detail the behind-the-scenes discussions and observations beneath U.S. foreign policy. The documents showed U.S. allies speaking bluntly about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program as well as some trash talk about German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It detailed U.S. concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the horse-trading involved with shipping Guantanamo Bay detainees abroad.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the leak puts U.S. foreign policy in danger.
"Sometimes politics gets to be pretty ugly. These releases show the art of getting to an agreement and moving a policy forward," he told ABC's "Good Morning America." "These folks that we now deal with now may don't have the trust when they're dealing with the United States, what's done in secret will actually stay in secret."
Published November 29, 2010 | FoxNews.com
A top Republican congressman is calling on the State Department to designate WikiLeaks a "foreign terrorist organization," as he and several other lawmakers demand the Obama administration find a way to prosecute founder Julian Assange in the wake of the group's latest document dump.
WikiLeaks' weekend release of more than 250,000 classified State Department documents has outraged Washington officials. The spilling of secrets this time deals with a trove of candid diplomatic cables and other missives spanning everything from Pakistan to Iran to North Korea and could jeopardize the United States' sensitive foreign policy dealings.
Combined with the organization's prior mega-leaks of Iraq and Afghanistan war documents, the latest release is putting American lives in danger and breaking down the trust between the United States and its allies, lawmakers said. They urged the Obama administration to treat Assange and his operation severely.
New York Rep. Peter King, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, urged Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute Assange and urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to designate his group a foreign terrorist organization, in letters sent out over the weekend.
"This is extremely damaging to U.S. troops, U.S. interests and U.S. intelligence," King told MyFox New York on Monday.
"They are engaged in terrorist activity. What they're doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups," King said. "Either we're serious about this or we're not."
Though Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is already being held in connection with a prior leak, King urged Holder in a letter Sunday to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act.
Holder said Monday that the Justice Department is conducting an "active, ongoing, criminal investigation" into the situation. He condemned the leak and said it put national security at risk.
"To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described they will be held responsible, they will be held accountable," Holder said.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle joined the call for tough legal action to be taken, though it's unclear whether the United States could win the cooperation of foreign governments to pull that off.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called the release "an attack on the national security of the United States." In a written statement released Monday, he said those behind the leak will have "blood on their hands" and recommended legal action.
"I also urge the Obama administration -- both on its own and in cooperation with other responsible governments around the world -- to use all legal means necessary to shut down WikiLeaks before it can do more damage by releasing additional cables," he said.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," urged the administration to go after the leakers "with the force of law."
"If you can prosecute them, let's try," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said.
The State Department document leak has triggered an administration review of how classified documents are kept and accessed. The leaked information did not so much drop any single bombshell as it did lay out in agonizing detail the behind-the-scenes discussions and observations beneath U.S. foreign policy. The documents showed U.S. allies speaking bluntly about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program as well as some trash talk about German Chancellor Angela Merkel. It detailed U.S. concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the horse-trading involved with shipping Guantanamo Bay detainees abroad.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said the leak puts U.S. foreign policy in danger.
"Sometimes politics gets to be pretty ugly. These releases show the art of getting to an agreement and moving a policy forward," he told ABC's "Good Morning America." "These folks that we now deal with now may don't have the trust when they're dealing with the United States, what's done in secret will actually stay in secret."
Ground Zero Mosque Seeks Federal Funding
Islamic community center developer seeks federal funding
By Allan Chernoff, CNN Senior Correspondent
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
New York (CNN) -- The developer behind the controversial Islamic community center and mosque planned for Lower Manhattan has requested federal funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to support the project known as Park51.
The funding would come from money the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated to help rebuild the neighborhood after the 9/11 attacks.
"Park51 has applied for a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation grant," said Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of SOHO Properties, the developer behind the Islamic center. In a statement, El-Gamal said the money would "in part fund social service programs such as domestic violence programs, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services."
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation received more than 265 applications seeking more than $175 million for community and cultural programs, though the LMDC has only $17 million of federal funding to allocate.
"We are now turning to the challenging but important task of sorting through the applications to identify those that address long-standing community and cultural needs," said Avi Schick, chairman of LMDC.
The grants will range from $100,000 to $1 million, according to Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1 and a member of the LMDC board. Among the criteria used to judge applications, Menin said, are financial viability, job creation, revitalizing the community and a track record of service in Lower Manhattan.
"We have funded museums, public schools, programs to help small businesses hurt after 9/11," said Menin.
An online report said Park51 had requested $5 million, but neither the developer nor LMDC board members would confirm that amount.
The LMDC plans to decide how to allocate the $17 million "towards the end of the first quarter of next year," said Menin.
Park51 has yet to raise significant funds for the community center located two blocks north of Ground Zero, a project that could cost $100-million.
"Park51 has not launched a formal fundraising program and is currently in the process of expanding its Board of Directors to plan, manage and oversee such efforts," said El-Gamal, adding that the project has not yet applied for federal tax-exempt status, but plans to do so "in the coming weeks."
Read More Here
By Allan Chernoff, CNN Senior Correspondent
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
New York (CNN) -- The developer behind the controversial Islamic community center and mosque planned for Lower Manhattan has requested federal funding through the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to support the project known as Park51.
The funding would come from money the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocated to help rebuild the neighborhood after the 9/11 attacks.
"Park51 has applied for a Lower Manhattan Development Corporation grant," said Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of SOHO Properties, the developer behind the Islamic center. In a statement, El-Gamal said the money would "in part fund social service programs such as domestic violence programs, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural art exhibits and immigration services."
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation received more than 265 applications seeking more than $175 million for community and cultural programs, though the LMDC has only $17 million of federal funding to allocate.
"We are now turning to the challenging but important task of sorting through the applications to identify those that address long-standing community and cultural needs," said Avi Schick, chairman of LMDC.
The grants will range from $100,000 to $1 million, according to Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1 and a member of the LMDC board. Among the criteria used to judge applications, Menin said, are financial viability, job creation, revitalizing the community and a track record of service in Lower Manhattan.
"We have funded museums, public schools, programs to help small businesses hurt after 9/11," said Menin.
An online report said Park51 had requested $5 million, but neither the developer nor LMDC board members would confirm that amount.
The LMDC plans to decide how to allocate the $17 million "towards the end of the first quarter of next year," said Menin.
Park51 has yet to raise significant funds for the community center located two blocks north of Ground Zero, a project that could cost $100-million.
"Park51 has not launched a formal fundraising program and is currently in the process of expanding its Board of Directors to plan, manage and oversee such efforts," said El-Gamal, adding that the project has not yet applied for federal tax-exempt status, but plans to do so "in the coming weeks."
Read More Here
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Why Are Jews So Powerful?
Islamic columnist on Jews
By: Dr Farrukh Saleem.
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist
Why are Jews so powerful?
There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas , five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa . For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims.
Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together.
Ever wondered why?
Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.
Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew.
Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew.
So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.
Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole humanity:
Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle.
Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine.
Albert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine.
Gertrude Elion gave us a leukemia fighting drug.
Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B.
Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease).
Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.
Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission.
Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism) .
Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias).
Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill.
George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye.
Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development) .
Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.
Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).
Why are Jews so powerful?
Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip.
Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor;
Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable;
Charles Adler, traffic lights;
Benno Strauss, Stainless steel;
Isador Kisee, sound movies;
Emile Berliner, telephone microphone;
Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.
Famous financiers in the business world who belong to Jewish faith include
Ralph Lauren (Polo),
Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans),
Howard Schultz (Starbuck's) ,
Sergey Brin (Google),
Michael Dell (Dell Computers),
Larry Ellison (Oracle),
Donna Karan (DKNY),
Irv Robbins (Baskins & ; Robbins) and
Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).
Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (Fed chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush), Joseph Lieberman (US Senator), Madeleine Albright (American secretary of state), Casper Weinberger (American secretary of defense), Maxim Litvinov ( USSR foreign Minister), David Marshal ( Singapore 's first chief minister), Issac Isaacs (governor-general of Australia ), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian PM), Barry Goldwater (US Senator), Jorge Sampaio (president of Portugal ), John Deutsch (CIA director), Herb Gray (Canadian deputy PM), Pierre Mendes (French PM), Michael Howard (British home secretary), Bruno Kreisky (chancellor of Austria ) and Robert Rubin (American secretary of treasury).
In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (editor-in-chief Time), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).
Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world?
The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world.
Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.
At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by winning seven gold medals.
Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker (Tennis) are all Jewish.
Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Bil! ly Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, Goldie Hawn, Cary Grant, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish?
As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling ( Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo 1/2/3), Michael Man (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The thief of Baghdad ) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.
To be certain, Washington DC is the capital that matters and in Washington DC , the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
Washington knows that if Israeli PM Ehud Olmert were to discover " that the earth is flat ", AIPAC will make the US 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his " discovery ".
William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?
So, why are Jews so powerful?
Answer: Education.
Why are Muslims so powerless?
There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas .
Every fifth human being is a Muslim;
for every single H indu there are two Muslims,
for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and
for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?
Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims.
The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.
In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' , and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims.
The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.
In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs. (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).
Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.
Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.
Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
In Pakistan , there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.
Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application.
Pakistan 's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent.
The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent;
Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent,
while Singapore is at 58 per cent.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.
Why are Muslims powerless?
.....Because we aren't producing knowledge,
.....Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.,
.....Because we aren't applying knowledge.
And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.
America , just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion;
China $8 trillion,
Japan $3.8 trillion and
Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).
Oil rich Saudi Arabia , UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collective! ly produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;
Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion,
Catholic Poland $489 billion and
Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.
..... ( Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining ).
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.
All we do is shout to Allah the whole day !!! and
blame everyone else for our multiple failures!!!!!
By: Dr Farrukh Saleem.
The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist
Why are Jews so powerful?
There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas , five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa . For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims.
Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together.
Ever wondered why?
Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.
Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew.
Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew.
So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.
Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has enriched the whole humanity:
Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle.
Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine.
Albert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine.
Gertrude Elion gave us a leukemia fighting drug.
Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B.
Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease).
Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.
Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission.
Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism) .
Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias).
Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill.
George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye.
Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development) .
Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.
Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims (other than Peace Prizes).
Why are Jews so powerful?
Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip.
Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor;
Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable;
Charles Adler, traffic lights;
Benno Strauss, Stainless steel;
Isador Kisee, sound movies;
Emile Berliner, telephone microphone;
Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.
Famous financiers in the business world who belong to Jewish faith include
Ralph Lauren (Polo),
Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans),
Howard Schultz (Starbuck's) ,
Sergey Brin (Google),
Michael Dell (Dell Computers),
Larry Ellison (Oracle),
Donna Karan (DKNY),
Irv Robbins (Baskins & ; Robbins) and
Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).
Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew. So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Alan Greenspan (Fed chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush), Joseph Lieberman (US Senator), Madeleine Albright (American secretary of state), Casper Weinberger (American secretary of defense), Maxim Litvinov ( USSR foreign Minister), David Marshal ( Singapore 's first chief minister), Issac Isaacs (governor-general of Australia ), Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author), Yevgeny Primakov (Russian PM), Barry Goldwater (US Senator), Jorge Sampaio (president of Portugal ), John Deutsch (CIA director), Herb Gray (Canadian deputy PM), Pierre Mendes (French PM), Michael Howard (British home secretary), Bruno Kreisky (chancellor of Austria ) and Robert Rubin (American secretary of treasury).
In the media, famous Jews include Wolf Blitzer (CNN), Barbara Walters (ABC News), Eugene Meyer (Washington Post), Henry Grunwald (editor-in-chief Time), Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post), Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive editor, The New York Times), and Max Frankel (New York Times).
Can you name the most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world?
The name is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world.
Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.
At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by winning seven gold medals.
Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker (Tennis) are all Jewish.
Did you know that Harrison Ford, George Burns, Tony Curtis, Charles Bronson, Sandra Bullock, Bil! ly Crystal, Woody Allen, Paul Newman, Peter Sellers, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Ben Kingsley, Kirk Douglas, Goldie Hawn, Cary Grant, William Shatner, Jerry Lewis and Peter Falk are all Jewish?
As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers, Steven Spielberg, Mel Brooks, Oliver Stone, Aaron Spelling ( Beverly Hills 90210), Neil Simon (The Odd Couple), Andrew Vaina (Rambo 1/2/3), Michael Man (Starsky and Hutch), Milos Forman (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest), Douglas Fairbanks (The thief of Baghdad ) and Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.
To be certain, Washington DC is the capital that matters and in Washington DC , the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.
Washington knows that if Israeli PM Ehud Olmert were to discover " that the earth is flat ", AIPAC will make the US 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his " discovery ".
William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?
So, why are Jews so powerful?
Answer: Education.
Why are Muslims so powerless?
There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas .
Every fifth human being is a Muslim;
for every single H indu there are two Muslims,
for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and
for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?
Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around 500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims.
The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.
In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' , and intriguingly, not one university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.
Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.
Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims.
The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.
In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs. (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).
Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.
Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.
Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
In Pakistan , there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.
Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application.
Pakistan 's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent.
The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent;
Kuwait , Morocco , and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent,
while Singapore is at 58 per cent.
Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.
Why are Muslims powerless?
.....Because we aren't producing knowledge,
.....Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.,
.....Because we aren't applying knowledge.
And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion.
America , just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion;
China $8 trillion,
Japan $3.8 trillion and
Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).
Oil rich Saudi Arabia , UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collective! ly produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion;
Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion,
Catholic Poland $489 billion and
Buddhist Thailand $545 billion.
..... ( Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining ).
So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.
All we do is shout to Allah the whole day !!! and
blame everyone else for our multiple failures!!!!!
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Manchurian President
Investigation: Obama likely not eligible
Authors dissected 'natural born' qualification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2010
9:47 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
As the Supreme Court discusses arguments related to President Obama's eligibility, it may be instructive to note a recent best-seller investigated the issue in question, finding Obama may not fit the constitutional requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president.
The Supreme Court conferred yesterday on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of a case entitled Kerchner v. Obama, which debates whether the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were both American citizens.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," investigated the issue. The tome was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."
The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".
A "citizen" is defined as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.
There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.
Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.
'Natural born' defined
The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.
"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."
On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.
The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
Supreme Court casts doubt
Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.
But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.
Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."
The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."
"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.
"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Obama called 'Manchurian President'
Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.
Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":
Read The Book
Authors dissected 'natural born' qualification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2010
9:47 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
As the Supreme Court discusses arguments related to President Obama's eligibility, it may be instructive to note a recent best-seller investigated the issue in question, finding Obama may not fit the constitutional requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president.
The Supreme Court conferred yesterday on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of a case entitled Kerchner v. Obama, which debates whether the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were both American citizens.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," investigated the issue. The tome was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."
The clause states: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".
A "citizen" is defined as: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.
There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.
Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.
'Natural born' defined
The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.
"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."
On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.
The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
Supreme Court casts doubt
Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.
But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.
Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."
The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."
"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.
"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Obama called 'Manchurian President'
Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.
Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":
- A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill;
- Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers;
- Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds;
- Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed;
- Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed;
- Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented;
- Obama's associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects;
- Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.
Read The Book
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Full Body Scans No Deterrent
Expert: TSA scans would let al-Qaida duplicate 9/11
Brigitte Gabriel warns unless U.S. starts profiling, nation is vulnerable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2010
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Read Article Here
Brigitte Gabriel
A terrorism expert says the invasive screening procedures demanded by the Obama-run Transportation Security Administration would do almost nothing to stop a determined terrorist because they already are experimenting with inserting explosives in a body cavity or even surgically implanting the destructive charges.
The comments come from Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder of Act! For America, a 150,000-strong group that works to warn Americans against the dangers of militant Islam and the Muslims who follow it.
She also is a member of the board of advisers for the Intelligence Summit, and she lectures internationally on global terrorism.
Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
The issue has hit a flashpoint in the last few days as newly installed TSA procedures demand that airline passengers submit to a full-body scanning machine that generates an essentially nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to see, or a full-body pat-down that includes what critics have called "groping" of private parts of the body.
"These procedures are not effective at all with terrorists," Gabriel told WND in an interview today. "If a true terrorist wants to go blow up an airplane, these machines will not detect it."
She said like drug dealers already have proven, substances hidden inside body cavities or even embedded surgically remain undetected by any or all of the TSA's procedures.
"If al-Qaida is planning against the U.S. multiple attacks in a day, in multiple airplanes, it could duplicate 9/11," she told WND. "Al-Qaida is testing inserting breast implants, stuffing breast implants with explosives."
She said a woman then could go into an airplane restroom and use a syringe similar to those used by diabetic patients to trigger an explosion that would disintegrate a modern jet.
"This is what al-Qaida is resorting to, and they're exploring surgery for men," she warned. "They want to implant explosives inside the body.
"Terrorists are conditioned and trained to blow themselves up, to become suicide bombers," she said. "They are ready to die to go to heaven to meet Allah."
It was last February that the special intelligence report Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin documented the same circumstances Gabriel described.
At that time, it was revealed in the special report that intelligence agents for Britain's MI5 service found that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals had returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives.
The report documented that women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida were known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.
The report said similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.
The report at the time quoted Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, saying, "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."
Experts confirmed in the report that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in a jet airliner, guaranteeing a crash.
Gabriel, who has addressed former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of Congress, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the FBI and members of the British Parliament, said the only accurate way to spot terrorists is to use the profiling techniques used in Israel, which despite being a major target for terrorism, has a substantially safe airline industry.
"They know how to profile, ask the right questions. This is what it's going to take," she said. "We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs. This is the time for the public to rise up and demand public officials to come up with ways to identity the threats by name."
Gabriel, who is author of the New York Times best-seller "Because they hate: A survivor of Islamic terror warns America," and "They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it," was a news anchor for "World News," the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon.
She moved to the U.S. in 1989 and founded a television production company that worked with "The Today Show," "Oprah," "Dr. Phil" and others.
She told WND in Israel, terror experts are trained to watch for eye movements, breathing rates and other physical indicators that a "passenger" is more than just that.
Even something as simple as a cologne or perfume can be an indicator, she said, because terrorists essentially are preparing themselves to enter heaven.
Those factors can pinpoint a potential terrorist whether they are dark-skinned and named Mohammed or they are six-foot-tall, blue-eyed, blonde holders of American passports, she said.
The current TSA demands "insult our intelligence," she said. "It's nothing more than window dressing. … The American public must come together and revolt against these procedures. The Obama administration has failed in identifying our problem. The administration is not paying attention to terrorism."
She called out Obama even for his decisions to eradicate references such as "Islamic terrorist," "jihad" and "Islamic radicals" from the speech of the government.
"How on earth can we win against the jihadists if we are afraid to identify them by name," she said.
Brigitte Gabriel warns unless U.S. starts profiling, nation is vulnerable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 18, 2010
12:10 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Read Article Here
Brigitte Gabriel
A terrorism expert says the invasive screening procedures demanded by the Obama-run Transportation Security Administration would do almost nothing to stop a determined terrorist because they already are experimenting with inserting explosives in a body cavity or even surgically implanting the destructive charges.
The comments come from Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder of Act! For America, a 150,000-strong group that works to warn Americans against the dangers of militant Islam and the Muslims who follow it.
She also is a member of the board of advisers for the Intelligence Summit, and she lectures internationally on global terrorism.
Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue.
The issue has hit a flashpoint in the last few days as newly installed TSA procedures demand that airline passengers submit to a full-body scanning machine that generates an essentially nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to see, or a full-body pat-down that includes what critics have called "groping" of private parts of the body.
"These procedures are not effective at all with terrorists," Gabriel told WND in an interview today. "If a true terrorist wants to go blow up an airplane, these machines will not detect it."
She said like drug dealers already have proven, substances hidden inside body cavities or even embedded surgically remain undetected by any or all of the TSA's procedures.
"If al-Qaida is planning against the U.S. multiple attacks in a day, in multiple airplanes, it could duplicate 9/11," she told WND. "Al-Qaida is testing inserting breast implants, stuffing breast implants with explosives."
She said a woman then could go into an airplane restroom and use a syringe similar to those used by diabetic patients to trigger an explosion that would disintegrate a modern jet.
"This is what al-Qaida is resorting to, and they're exploring surgery for men," she warned. "They want to implant explosives inside the body.
"Terrorists are conditioned and trained to blow themselves up, to become suicide bombers," she said. "They are ready to die to go to heaven to meet Allah."
It was last February that the special intelligence report Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin documented the same circumstances Gabriel described.
At that time, it was revealed in the special report that intelligence agents for Britain's MI5 service found that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals had returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives.
The report documented that women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida were known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up.
The report said similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs.
The report at the time quoted Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, saying, "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."
Experts confirmed in the report that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in a jet airliner, guaranteeing a crash.
Gabriel, who has addressed former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of Congress, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the FBI and members of the British Parliament, said the only accurate way to spot terrorists is to use the profiling techniques used in Israel, which despite being a major target for terrorism, has a substantially safe airline industry.
"They know how to profile, ask the right questions. This is what it's going to take," she said. "We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs. This is the time for the public to rise up and demand public officials to come up with ways to identity the threats by name."
Gabriel, who is author of the New York Times best-seller "Because they hate: A survivor of Islamic terror warns America," and "They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it," was a news anchor for "World News," the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon.
She moved to the U.S. in 1989 and founded a television production company that worked with "The Today Show," "Oprah," "Dr. Phil" and others.
She told WND in Israel, terror experts are trained to watch for eye movements, breathing rates and other physical indicators that a "passenger" is more than just that.
Even something as simple as a cologne or perfume can be an indicator, she said, because terrorists essentially are preparing themselves to enter heaven.
Those factors can pinpoint a potential terrorist whether they are dark-skinned and named Mohammed or they are six-foot-tall, blue-eyed, blonde holders of American passports, she said.
The current TSA demands "insult our intelligence," she said. "It's nothing more than window dressing. … The American public must come together and revolt against these procedures. The Obama administration has failed in identifying our problem. The administration is not paying attention to terrorism."
She called out Obama even for his decisions to eradicate references such as "Islamic terrorist," "jihad" and "Islamic radicals" from the speech of the government.
"How on earth can we win against the jihadists if we are afraid to identify them by name," she said.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Reid Vows To Pass Lame Duck DREAM Act
Reid Vows To Pass Lame Duck DREAM Act!
ALERT: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells Univision TV reporter Jorge Ramos he promises to bring up the Amnesty DREAM Act again for a vote in Congressional "Lame Duck" session.
Reid went on to say that it did not matter if he won or lost his Senate seat in Nevada, he was "going to get this passed." I guess the will of the American people also doesn't matter to Harry Reid, only the socialist agenda does.
Obama too has not veered from his liberal socialist agenda at all and is pressing on, ignoring the election results with the Spanish-language media as he lobbied last week for Amnesty, saying he was a "big supporter of the DREAM Act!"
The DREAM Act is a bill that Reid has been working on that will allow illegal aliens to expunge their criminal records AND obtain citizenship if they only serve for two years in the military or attend college. It is an outlandish idea that we take illegal aliens, who are lawbreakers and often associates of international criminal syndicates, and pay for them to learn how to fight and kill, pay for their food, pay for their education and then just forget about their criminal pasts and simply set them loose in America to do whatever they want. This is just another pathetic ploy by the Left to buy votes for a political party that apparently cannot get them any other way.
They are spending YOUR money to buy votes, give away precious U.S. rights and citizenship, and to put people in power that don't care a thing about you, your safety, or the security, sovereignty and prosperity of America. They only want to steal your money and give it to their cronies and supporters -- bought and paid for.
However, the worst part is that Reid shouldn't even "dream" of cramming this corrupted bill down the throats of the American people during a lame duck session. The American people have once again spoken out in defiance and in disgust of the liberal agenda. But the Washington Left just keeps on doing whatever they want. They don't care that they have lost the majority in the House of Representatives -- they have "been fired" in a resounding rejection of their agenda, but they say it is because we are too stupid to understand all the wonderful things they have done for us. Your opinion means nothing to them, they are going to go ahead and vote for this atrocious bill, and probably others before their replacements come into town and start to "clean House."
It is unethical for them to be allowed to vote after their constituents have declared that they do NOT want them as their Representative. But like scheming snakes, in Washington they just are looking for another opening to strike against YOU, and the sore losers and the hard Left-wing see this lame duck session as their last chance to get away with murder against those of us who still stand for the Constitution. They know you don't want Amnesty, they know they can't pass it after the new Representatives are sworn in. So what do they do? They say, "Screw you, America!"
At every turn they minimize your voice. They squelch your vote. They care nothing for democracy, honor, or ethics. All they care about is themselves. Any politician who was defeated at the polls who votes on any bill during a lame duck session should be jailed. No questions asked. It should be made illegal. Once you have been voted out that is it, your term is up. Leaving a door open and a loophole like this is far too easy for corrupt practices, payoffs and pay-backs, and every kind of sore-loserism to rear their ugly heads. And we all know that if you give these politicians an inch, they will take a mile.
Stop corruption, stop the criminals, drug dealers, and rapists from flowing over the border and stop the DREAM Act. Tell your TRUE representatives, the NEW ones being sworn into the NEW Congress that any bill passed during a lame duck session needs to be repealed and those who voted for it need to be jailed for violating our Constitutional guarantee to a republican form of government!
Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office before the election. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.
Well, time's been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security "beef-up" bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal - who have passed a unanimous "Vote of No Confidence" in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama's biggest action has been in retreat - in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next, where innocent American tourists have been attacked and brutally murdered on the border! Gov. Perry says that Texas will have to act alone to defend herself against the invasion -- when he pressed the Feds to step up regarding the latest killings, the Obama administration basically told him to "take a hike."
AZ and TX need your help - do not leave them to defend the border alone!
Gov. Brewer has stated, "We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers." Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years - and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:
We Say, "Defend AMERICA" - Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!
The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.
The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!
Why is Washington's response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona's proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!
Support Governors Brewer and Perry -- DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.
Enough is enough! The line has to be drawn! The invasion of America has to end! Justice has to be done for all the good, honest, Americans who have been killed, raped, kidnapped, stolen from, and abused by criminal illegal immigrants! American sovereign territory must be DEFENDED and HELD SECURE!!
It is a dark time in America; it seems as if our voices aren't being heard. WE MUST NOT BACK DOWN! The most powerful things you have as a citizen is your voice and your ballot, even if so far in Washington, they REFUSE to listen. THE HOUR IS LATE, MAKE THEM HEAR US -- it is the right thing to do!
ALERT: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells Univision TV reporter Jorge Ramos he promises to bring up the Amnesty DREAM Act again for a vote in Congressional "Lame Duck" session.
Reid went on to say that it did not matter if he won or lost his Senate seat in Nevada, he was "going to get this passed." I guess the will of the American people also doesn't matter to Harry Reid, only the socialist agenda does.
Obama too has not veered from his liberal socialist agenda at all and is pressing on, ignoring the election results with the Spanish-language media as he lobbied last week for Amnesty, saying he was a "big supporter of the DREAM Act!"
The DREAM Act is a bill that Reid has been working on that will allow illegal aliens to expunge their criminal records AND obtain citizenship if they only serve for two years in the military or attend college. It is an outlandish idea that we take illegal aliens, who are lawbreakers and often associates of international criminal syndicates, and pay for them to learn how to fight and kill, pay for their food, pay for their education and then just forget about their criminal pasts and simply set them loose in America to do whatever they want. This is just another pathetic ploy by the Left to buy votes for a political party that apparently cannot get them any other way.
They are spending YOUR money to buy votes, give away precious U.S. rights and citizenship, and to put people in power that don't care a thing about you, your safety, or the security, sovereignty and prosperity of America. They only want to steal your money and give it to their cronies and supporters -- bought and paid for.
However, the worst part is that Reid shouldn't even "dream" of cramming this corrupted bill down the throats of the American people during a lame duck session. The American people have once again spoken out in defiance and in disgust of the liberal agenda. But the Washington Left just keeps on doing whatever they want. They don't care that they have lost the majority in the House of Representatives -- they have "been fired" in a resounding rejection of their agenda, but they say it is because we are too stupid to understand all the wonderful things they have done for us. Your opinion means nothing to them, they are going to go ahead and vote for this atrocious bill, and probably others before their replacements come into town and start to "clean House."
It is unethical for them to be allowed to vote after their constituents have declared that they do NOT want them as their Representative. But like scheming snakes, in Washington they just are looking for another opening to strike against YOU, and the sore losers and the hard Left-wing see this lame duck session as their last chance to get away with murder against those of us who still stand for the Constitution. They know you don't want Amnesty, they know they can't pass it after the new Representatives are sworn in. So what do they do? They say, "Screw you, America!"
At every turn they minimize your voice. They squelch your vote. They care nothing for democracy, honor, or ethics. All they care about is themselves. Any politician who was defeated at the polls who votes on any bill during a lame duck session should be jailed. No questions asked. It should be made illegal. Once you have been voted out that is it, your term is up. Leaving a door open and a loophole like this is far too easy for corrupt practices, payoffs and pay-backs, and every kind of sore-loserism to rear their ugly heads. And we all know that if you give these politicians an inch, they will take a mile.
Stop corruption, stop the criminals, drug dealers, and rapists from flowing over the border and stop the DREAM Act. Tell your TRUE representatives, the NEW ones being sworn into the NEW Congress that any bill passed during a lame duck session needs to be repealed and those who voted for it need to be jailed for violating our Constitutional guarantee to a republican form of government!
Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office before the election. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.
Well, time's been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security "beef-up" bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal - who have passed a unanimous "Vote of No Confidence" in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama's biggest action has been in retreat - in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next, where innocent American tourists have been attacked and brutally murdered on the border! Gov. Perry says that Texas will have to act alone to defend herself against the invasion -- when he pressed the Feds to step up regarding the latest killings, the Obama administration basically told him to "take a hike."
AZ and TX need your help - do not leave them to defend the border alone!
Gov. Brewer has stated, "We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers." Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years - and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:
1. National Guard Personnel and Aviation
2. Border Fence
3. Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort
4. Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration
We Say, "Defend AMERICA" - Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!
The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.
The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!
Why is Washington's response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona's proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!
Support Governors Brewer and Perry -- DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.
Enough is enough! The line has to be drawn! The invasion of America has to end! Justice has to be done for all the good, honest, Americans who have been killed, raped, kidnapped, stolen from, and abused by criminal illegal immigrants! American sovereign territory must be DEFENDED and HELD SECURE!!
It is a dark time in America; it seems as if our voices aren't being heard. WE MUST NOT BACK DOWN! The most powerful things you have as a citizen is your voice and your ballot, even if so far in Washington, they REFUSE to listen. THE HOUR IS LATE, MAKE THEM HEAR US -- it is the right thing to do!
Did CAIR Help Our Cause?
Shining A Light On Shariah Creep
Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010
Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists' true anti-American colors.
CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.
But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR's latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.
This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is "a dynamic legal framework" derived from Islamic scripture "and analytical reasoning." In fact, there's nothing reasoned about it. It's a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.
Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan's death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize "Islamophobia," according to the book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."
Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," which authorizes men to hit their wives.
CAIR says it's just a "civil rights advocacy group." But the Justice Department says it's a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.
"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.
U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.
"CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.
Federal courts found "ample evidence" linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it's not a terror front. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
CAIR's leaders don't want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.
CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: "Who better can lead America than Muslims?"
Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a "strategic goal" of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house ... so that Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." The Brotherhood calls its plan a "grand jihad." CAIR argues in its suit that "the Shariah ban's purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff's faith in the public's mind as something foreign and to be feared."
No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.
Thanks to CAIR's lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.
Posted 07:14 PM ET November 10, 2010
Islamofascism: The Council on American-Islamic Relations may wish it never sued to overturn an Oklahoma ban on Shariah law. Now the entire nation will get to see it and other Islamists' true anti-American colors.
CAIR is thumping its chest over persuading a Clinton-appointed federal judge to temporarily block Oklahoma from enacting a state constitutional amendment that prohibits state courts from considering Islamic law when deciding cases. Fully 70% of Oklahoma voters passed the landmark measure.
But CAIR has ignited a legal firestorm that will likely rage all the way to the Supreme Court. Thanks to CAIR's latest bit of lawfare, Americans will get to hear a long overdue debate not just about the constitutionality of such bans on Shariah law but about the constitutionality of Shariah law itself.
This is not a debate CAIR wants to have, since it ultimately will have to defend the indefensible. It claims in a press release that Shariah law is "a dynamic legal framework" derived from Islamic scripture "and analytical reasoning." In fact, there's nothing reasoned about it. It's a medieval legal code that administers cruel and unusual punishments such as stonings, amputations and honor killings. Think the Taliban.
Shariah can be seen in action this week with Pakistan's death sentence on a Christian woman for blasphemy. Between 1986 and 2009, at least 974 people have been charged for defiling the Quran or insulting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
CAIR, which thinks free speech is a one-way street, is working with the Organization of the Islamic Conference on an international blasphemy law that would criminalize "Islamophobia," according to the book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America."
Shariah also permits wife-beating, something CAIR also knows about. Its sister organization, the Islamic Society of North America, condones it in its fatwas (or religious rulings) for Muslim Americans. More, CAIR distributes a book, "The Meaning of the Holy Quran," which authorizes men to hit their wives.
CAIR says it's just a "civil rights advocacy group." But the Justice Department says it's a front group for Hamas and its parent, the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that has a secret plan to impose Shariah law on the U.S.
"From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg in a recent court filing.
U.S. prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal scheme led by the Holy Land Foundation to funnel millions to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.
"CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Jacks, who recently won an award from Attorney General Eric Holder for convicting the Holy Land terrorists.
Federal courts found "ample evidence" linking CAIR to the conspiracy and are expected to unseal the dossier in coming weeks.
The Holy Land revelations prompted the FBI to sever ties with CAIR until it can demonstrate it's not a terror front. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," advised Assistant FBI Director Richard Powers in a 2009 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
CAIR's leaders don't want a ban on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper let it slip out to a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.
CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, wants Shariah law to replace the Constitution. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad is an Islamic supremacist who thinks Muslims should run Washington: "Who better can lead America than Muslims?"
Islamizing America also happens to be the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood the radical, Cairo-based outlaw group the government says CAIR is fronting for. The founding archives of its U.S. branch, seized in an FBI raid and introduced as evidence in the Holy Land trial, reveal a "strategic goal" of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house ... so that Allah's religion is made victorious over all other religions." The Brotherhood calls its plan a "grand jihad." CAIR argues in its suit that "the Shariah ban's purpose is to stigmatize, denigrate and segregate plaintiff's faith in the public's mind as something foreign and to be feared."
No, the goal is to make sure no Oklahoma judge considers Shariah law in rulings on domestic violence, family law, probate, free speech, contracts and other matters, as judges have in other states, to a wider degree in Canada and now on a routine basis in Britain. The ban is to prevent courts from legitimizing a religious legal system antithetical to the U.S. Constitution in the areas of freedom of speech, equality and humane punishment, among other bedrock Western principles.
Thanks to CAIR's lawsuit, all this can now be aired out for the public.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
It's All About Sharia
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39797
NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
11/07/2010
NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.
A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.
In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.
Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?
Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.
The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.
When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.
Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.
Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”
In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.
Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:
"Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”
Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.
It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.
NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law
by Brigitte Gabriel and Guy Rodgers
11/07/2010
NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour. It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.
A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed. Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.
In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.
Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam. After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?
Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law. The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.
The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect. Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam. Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009. And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.
When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred. The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world. The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.
Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise. But there is more here than meets the eye.
Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions. Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”
In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.
Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:
"Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.” Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns. I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence. It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”
Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing. Don’t shut down free speech. Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.
It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam. But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness. As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)