The Beauty of Sunlight

Why CAIR Dropped Its Lawsuit Against Andrew Whitehead

By Joseph Puder
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 26, 2007

Andrew Whitehead, a former serviceman with the U.S. Navy has a website named Anti-CAIR on which Whitehead accused CAIR of partially funding terrorist organizations.  CAIR routinely tries to intimidate the likes of Whitehead in the hope of stifling any criticisms and/or allegations made against it.

 

On March 31, 2004 CAIR filed a lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court demanding $1 million in damages from Whitehead for what it called "libelous defamation."   The lawsuit, scheduled to begin in the summer of 2006 was dismissed in April 2006.

 

Last Thursday, April 12, 2007, the Philadelphia/South Jersey chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) under the leadership of Regional Director Scott Figelstein, hosted a program with Reed Rubinstein, Esq. of the Washington, DC-based law firm of Greenberg Taurig.   The RJC serves as a liaison between the Jewish community and Republican decision makers.

 

Reed Rubinstein, with the backing of his law firm, provided pro-bono counsel for Andrew Whitehead in the CAIR v. Whitehead lawsuit.   Rubinstein is credited with defeating the defamation suit "by an Islamic extremist group against the U.S. Navy enlisted man."

 

[...]

 

The "false and defamatory" statements irking CAIR officials made by Whitehead were: CAIR is a "terrorist front organization that is partially funded by terrorists"; CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow the constitutional government in the U.S"; and,  "Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists…CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the U.S…In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist-supporting countries."

 

Whitehead, not easily intimidated, responded by filing over 300 separate interrogatories, requests of documents and requests for admission.   CAIR then filed an amended "motion for judgement" dropping the allegations regarding CAIR's ties to Hamas and terror were false and defamatory, some discovery answers, and a motion for protective order.    Whitehead then filed a motion to compel, seeking a court order obligating CAIR to answer his information requests.

 

In court, CAIR was asked to admit that "Hamas murdered innocent civilians" to which it replied: "Objection, calls for legal conclusion…"   Questioned as to whether CAIR has had "one or more communications with Abu Musa Marzook?" The Plaintiff's reply was, "To be subject to Plaintiff's motion for Protective Order…", restricting the response to Whitehead's counsel.

 

Called to confirm Article Seven of the Hamas Charter which states that "the Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah's promise whatever time it might take.  The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews, until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"   CAIR again refused to respond by stating: "CAIR objects because the Hamas Charter speaks for itself and because the Plainiff is without means to obtain current, accurate, and reliable copy of the Hamas Charter."

 

Shortly before the court hearing on the motion to compel the case settled.   There was no apology, and no retraction.  The "false and defamatory" allegations remain posted on Whitehead's website.   CAIR simply did not wish to supply the requested documents.

 

[...]

 

Why did CAIR drop its lawsuit against Andrew Whitehead? Apparently it feared exposure that would reveal its leaders connections to terrorist groups like Hamas.   If that is the case, namely, CAIR's fear of exposure, why has the media been silent on this matter?  Rubinstein explained, "CAIR is protected by the mainstream media," which he said, "has studiously ignored a decade of evidence, and has, instead,   adopted a 'see no evil, speak no evil' stance."

Read the whole thing. And then email the link from FrontPage to all of your contacts.

Fighting Shari'a in North Carolina

Via Jihad Watch:

Here's some encouraging news. Bravo, Sue Myrick.

From Investor's Business Daily, with thanks to all who sent this in:

War On Terror: Maintaining a high level of vigilance against an enemy is wearisome business, especially in this war. We salute those who have not succumbed to 9/11 fatigue.

One tireless watchdog is Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., who earlier this year founded the Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus to educate fellow lawmakers and Americans in general about the threat from militant Islam.

"The general public doesn't understand the threats we face from radical jihadists — who they are, what they want and what we can do about the threat," the feisty Myrick says on her Web site. "Americans are not being properly informed about the nature of the jihadist threat and their plans to do us harm."

This is an understatement. The media and academia have whitewashed jihad or ducked the issue entirely, petrified as they are of looking intolerant toward Muslims. Meantime, well-funded apologists such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have gone on the offensive against the few critics who have spoken out, further confusing Americans about the gravity of the threat.

"The jihadists have become incredibly advanced in their public relations efforts," Myrick lamented. And we have limited tools to counteract their propaganda, thanks to institutionalized religious tolerance even for creeds hostile to our way of life.

Read it all.

Shari'a in Tennessee and Other Thoughts

Bacon is the new hate crime. Here come the thought police.

Now that the Left is eating its own, watch for another onslaught against Free Speech.

Cross-posted at Hidden Dragon Politics.

The Words that Cannot Be Spoken

(With a tip of the hat to Ayn Rand)

Scott Ott posts a speech from President Bush that will never see the light of day:

PRESIDENT BUSH:
Lately, some in Congress have attempted to alter the language of our fight. They don’t like the phrase “global war on terror” and prefer to talk of isolated conflicts — of wars in this country or that region.

I can agree with them on one point: ‘Global War on Terror’ is not an adequate phrase, because it fails to name the enemy. The United States of America is not at war with terror any more than we’re at war with the AK-47 assault rifle or the improvised explosive device. We’re at war with people who employ these tools as they attempt to terrify us into submitting to their will.

It’s hard to know what to call these people. They march under the banner of Islam, but some Muslims say the terrorists have twisted the religion of Mohammad to justify their godless thirst for power. And yet there is no concerted effort among the world’s Muslim leaders to stamp out the brush fire of radicalism that threatens to turn their so-called ‘peaceful religion’ into a blazing crusade against the infidels — that means you and me. There is no significant coalition of Islamists working to bring justice to those who have so perverted their religion that a militia operates from a mosque under the blessing and command of the Imam. The failure of so-called moderate Muslims to take action against in their radical brethren is more telling than their infrequent condemnations of terror as a tool to advance their faith.

Our fight is a global war on terror in the sense that terror tactics aim to inspire fear. President Franklin Roosevelt wisely pointed out that our only formidable enemy during the darkest days of World War II was that paralyzing emotion that clouds our vision, wearies our muscles, staggers our steps and waters down our resolve.

In this battle against the principalities of fear, we fight no nation. We aim to conquer no ethnic or religious group. We desire to occupy not one inch of soil beyond our borders.

Some have said that the global war on terror is unwinnable, but I believe that it is unloseable. In other words, we must not lose this war for Western civilization.

And we will not lose, because Divine Providence rules in the affairs of men, because righteousness trumps wickedness, because freedom overshadows slavery, and because — despite all of our faults — the United States of America is the greatest nation the world has ever seen, and the only human hope for humanity. This is not an arrogant statement. It’s a humble recognition that God has seen fit to bless this experiment in citizen-rule with unprecedented prosperity, opportunity, joy and strength.

The enemy longs to strip the people of their God-given rights and power. But we love these treasures more than they hate them. We will guard them. We will not permit them to be plundered, even if it takes our last breath and our last drop of blood. Because to live in the world that our enemies envision is to live not at all.

Calling it the ‘global war on terror’ is accurate in this respect: This is a not a national conflict. It belongs to no country and respects no borders. No legitimate claim to sovereignty exists. When we triumph over the terrorists, no nation of people will be humbled. The losers will be the terrorists. No sensible person in any nation will mourn their loss. And some who now cower in caution, appearing to give tacit approval to the terrorists, will dance with joy on their graves.

Some think that the battle in Iraq is unrelated to the global war on terror. In this, they not only disagree with me, but they’re at odds with the terror leaders themselves who have poured millions of dollars and thousands of lives into the effort to raise the dark flag of fear over the heads of 25 million Iraqis. The terrorists fight in Iraq as if their future depends on it. It does.

They’d like nothing better than for us to view the conflict as a centuries-old civil war among a primitive people that cannot be resolved by any means.

If the attempt by our opponents to reclassify this global battle as a series of unconnected dots is successful, the terror leaders will check off another box on their to-do lists, and celebrate another milestone.

Much of the talk among politicians and pundits of all political stripes reflects an ignorance of history and of warfare.

The crucial element in time of war is not perceived troop morale or somebody’s gut feeling about how things are going. The crucial factor is victory always — and victory alone.

Victory means the enemy must surrender, his ability to wage war must be destroyed, his ambitions definitively denied. His commanders must be tried and punished, or slain on the field, and his troops disarmed. The streets of the war zones must be made safe for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The purpose of waging war is not to keep our troops out of harm’s way or even to bring our troops home. It is to defeat the enemy.

No soldier, Marine, seaman or airman wants to leave the theater of battle without the laurel of victory. No true American will countenance surrender, or anything like it. When our opponents here and abroad speak of anything short of victory, realize that it is nothing but defeat draped in the costume of fine words and empty diplomacy. Viewed in the full light of history, it is little short of treason.

The stakes could not be higher.

When our enemies believe that we don’t have the stomach to fight, they know that they have not only won the war, they have effectively ended the era of the American republic. We have become their colony, subject to their rule, and to their dark vision of a future under their law. We may be allowed to maintain our standing army, to conduct our legislative and judicial activities, but real executive power shall have been transferred to them.

This must never happen. We will not permit it.

Changing the name of the global war on terror does not end the war, anymore than a child covering her eyes makes the scary thing disappear.

May God grant us the wisdom to answer our calling to fight for something greater than our ambitions, and to do so with unshakable resolve toward ultimate victory.

Thank you. God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

That is too bad, I'd love to see this instead of the insipid drivel we get day after day. Unfortunately this is found on a satire site, when nothing could be further from the truth. Where is Ronald Reagan when you need him?

Fatah al Islam to Attack in US

From JihadWatch:

 

TRIPOLI, Lebanon — Deep in a violent and lawless slum just north of this coastal city, 12 men whose faces were shrouded by scarves drilled with Kalashnikovs.

In unison, they lunged in one direction, turned and lunged in another. "Allah-u akbar," the men shouted in praise to God as they fired their machine guns into a wall.

The men belong to a new militant Islamic organization called Fatah al Islam, whose leader, a fugitive Palestinian named Shakir al-Abssi, has set up operations in a refugee camp here where he trains fighters and spreads the ideology of Al Qaeda.

He has solid terrorist credentials. A former associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia who was killed last summer, Mr. Abssi was sentenced to death in absentia along with Mr. Zarqawi in the 2002 assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, Laurence Foley. Just four months after arriving here from Syria, Mr. Abssi has a militia that intelligence officials estimate at 150 men and an arsenal of explosives, rockets and even an antiaircraft gun.

During a recent interview with The New York Times, Mr. Abssi displayed his makeshift training facility and his strident message that America needed to be punished for its presence in the Islamic world. "The only way to achieve our rights is by force ," he said. "This is the way America deals with us. So when the Americans feel that their lives and their economy are threatened, they will know that they should leave."

Mr. Abssi's organization is the image of what intelligence officials have warned is the re-emergence of Al Qaeda. Shattered after 2001, the organization founded by Osama bin Laden is now reforming as an alliance of small groups around the world that share a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam but have developed their own independent terror capabilities, these officials have said. If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has acknowledged directing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and a string of other terror plots, represents the previous generation of Qaeda leaders, Mr. Abssi and others like him represent the new.

[...]

In a 90-minute interview, his first with Western reporters, Mr. Abssi said he shared Al Qaeda's fundamentalist interpretation and endorsed the creation of a global Islamic nation. He said killing American soldiers in Iraq was no longer enough to convince the American public that its government should abandon what many Muslims view as a war against Islam.

"We have every legitimate right to do such acts, for isn't it America that comes to our region and kills innocents and children?" Mr. Abssi said. "It is our right to hit them in their homes the same as they hit us in our homes.

"We are not afraid of being named terrorists," he added. "But I want to ask, is someone who detonates one kilogram a terrorist while someone who detonates tons in Arab and Islamic cities not a terrorist?"

KSM vs America and the West

From OpinionJournal:

 

What his confession says about our enemy--and us. 

In Cairo last year, Deputy Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Habib told us that the 9/11 attacks were "great crimes," but that he doubted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible. It's probably too much to expect that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he "was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z" will sway minds like Mr. Habib's. But for the rest of us, the testimony by bin Laden's top operational lieutenant is a jolting re-education in the enemy we face.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew," he boasted to a U.S. military tribunal on March 10, referring to our colleague Daniel Pearl. "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."

One lesson of his testimony is the scope of his terror success, and his even larger ambition. Among the 31 actual events: The February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, chiefly carried out by his nephew Ramzi Yousef; the October 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali, in which 202 were killed and another 200 injured; the killing of two U.S. GIs in Kuwait the same month; the November 2002 hotel bombings in Kenya, in which 13 Israelis and Kenyans died; and the November 2003 attacks in Istanbul against Jewish and British targets, which killed 57 and wounded 700. That's roughly 3,280 murders.

But even this pales next to what might have happened had the U.S. not arisen from pre-9/11 complacency and gone on offense. By his own admission, KSM also planned attacks on targets in South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Israel, the Straits of Hormuz and Gibraltar, the Panama Canal, Brussels and London. He made extensive plans to assassinate Pope John Paul II during the pope's visit to Manila in 1995. He attempted to destroy an American oil company in Indonesia "owned," as he put it, "by the Jewish former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger."

Among other U.S. targets, there was "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid's failed attempt against American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001, schemes to assassinate Presidents Clinton and Carter, and a "new wave" of attacks after 9/11 targeting skyscrapers in L.A., Chicago and Seattle, New York's suspension bridges and stock exchange, and nuclear power plants in "several U.S. states."

Perhaps most ominously, KSM also admitted to being "directly in charge" of "managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American Soil." Given such a confession, is it too much to ask the FBI to reconsider its dogmatic view that the 2001 anthrax attacks could only have had a domestic source?

No doubt many terror experts will declare that much or all of this is boasting, and perhaps some of it is. We can only hope so. And no doubt the truly credulous will assume it is largely a product of CIA coercion, as if the attacks KSM claims credit for had some other provenance.

But we think KSM's world of war makes clear that, if anything, President Bush understated the danger posed by the 14 "high-value" enemy combatants he transferred to Guantanamo last autumn. And it reveals just how terribly mistaken was the view of those who told us, pre-9/11, that terrorism was merely a law enforcement threat like any other.

That view permeated the CIA, where Paul Pillar helped run the Counterterrorist Center and wrote that "There is no . . . BinLadentern" akin to the old Communist Comintern. He denounced "overheated rhetoric that has spun out ever more frightening and unusual ways in which terrorism might inflict large numbers of casualties." And he deprecated President Clinton for ordering government agencies to examine the plausibility of a biological attack on New York City after he'd read "The Cobra Event," Richard Preston's 1998 novel on the subject.

When the 9/11 Commission concluded that the failure to avert that awful day was above all "a failure of imagination," the Pillar world view is Exhibit A. And we mention it here because now, after five years without a terror attack on U.S. soil, that view is making a comeback in the growing opposition to holding enemy combatants in Guantanamo or to warrantless wiretaps of al Qaeda.

As KSM makes clear, bin Laden and his acolytes declared "war" on the U.S. in his fatwa of 1998, a fact the U.S. only figured out on September 11. He professes to regret the death of women and children, but calls such indiscriminate killing "the language of any war" and justified by his religious motivation.

"For sure, I'm American enemies," said KSM in his broken English. For sure, too, he is a reminder of the evil that still confronts us in this conflict with radical Islam, and one that we underestimate at our existential peril.

Cross-posted at Hidden Dragon Politics

Creeping Sharia

From LGF:

At "The American Muslim," Issa Smith describes the plan to establish shari'a law in the United States—and yes, he is talking about shari'a for everyone: Native American Courts: Precedent for an Islamic arbitral system. (Hat tip: The Gathering Storm.)

This is the violence-deferred front of the global jihad—the attempt to use our own democratic institutions to subvert themselves and institute a Dark Ages legal code, first for themselves, but in the long run for the entire country. It's Islamic supremacism in a Trojan Horse disguise of free speech.

Although the Muslim community in North America is vastly different from the Indian community, I feel that in developing a plan for the implementation of Muslim family law, we can in some ways imitate the paradigm of the tribal court system and its supporting network. In particular, I recommend that as a first step, supporting organizations dealing with Islamic family law be established immediately. A professional association of Muslims in the law field (of whatever specialty) is a must. A law school students' support group should be formed, and Muslim youth should be encouraged to enter this field. A second step would be to establish institutes in the U.S. which can supplement legal education with courses in Islamic family law. At the same time, pressure should be put on law schools to include courses in Shariah taught by Muslims. An idea suggested in several quarters and being developed by the American Muslim Council, is the moot court where students and legal experts can act out Muslim family court scenarios. … The process of implementing Muslim family law will not be accomplished overnight. Changes of their type take place very slowly in American society, and our community is far from being prepared for this task. I commend the continental council of Masajid for organizing this conference, and bringing together so many workers and thinkers. I pray to Allah the real decisions are made here that can be implemented by those ready to work. However, I strongly urge that consideration be given to political realities and the sensitivities of the American public. Such a radical change in American law—allowing Muslims to take control over their family law issues - must be initiated from the indigenous Muslim community here in the United States. To have it seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort.

Note: this article was originally published in 1993, and we've seen the efforts already bearing fruit.

If the US Wins in Iraq, Will the MSM Report it?

From Captain Ed at Frontpage Mag:

 

The Washington Post, among other news outlets, made a stink last week about the lack of a publicly-stated Plan B in the event the surge strategy failed to make a difference in Iraq. However, with preliminary indications showing success, Robert Kagan wonders whether journalists have a Plan B for themselves:

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect. ...

Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."

It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.

The defeatists have received large boosts from journalists all too willing to write about the successes of the insurgents but mostly silent on the successes of the Coalition. This may have been especially true in 2006, which did not go well for the Coalition, but got portrayed as an unmitigated failure in the American media during the 2006 election campaign. It made little difference in the end -- the Republicans did more to ensure their defeat domestically than anything that happened in Iraq -- but the result has left the media screeching like harpies that the mission in Iraq is doomed. Democratic leadership has taken the ball and wants to run with it in Congress, but only if they can do so without actually accepting responsibility for the retreat they demand.

If the surge succeeds, journalists won't be the only people who need a Plan B.

Wars occasionally produce negative, short-term results -- occasionally as in "frequently". The point of a war isn't to win every gun battle and force a surrender within 30 minutes. Iraq is not Grenada, and if it were, it wouldn't matter nearly as much to our national interests and global security.

The mission in Iraq is critical, and failure fatal. The collapse of Iraq would create a terrorist haven exponentially more dangerous than Somalia or Afghanistan, with oil revenues gorging terrorists on the hard currency they need to launch attacks all over the world. That's the reality now, the one we have to face, and that means we have to find ways to defeat the insurgencies and allow the elected, representative Iraqi government to gain enough strength to take control on their own.

Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy seems to be showing remarkable results. Talking about defeat and retreat while we have not finished playing out our hand would represent an unprecedent capitulation by the US to an enemy in the field -- and not an enemy like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the Soviets, with a military that should frighten us -- but an enemy that has so little support and so few combatants that they dare not show their face to American troops in the streets of their own cities.

Plan B should be victory by another means, not defeat by surrender to terrorists. 

The Answer is More Islam

More from Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

 

As I show in The Truth About Muhammad, this is a belief that goes back to the Battle of Badr, the first great victory in Islamic history. And if losses follow, they will not lead to a reexamination of the assumption that faith and victory are tied together, but will be ascribed to lack of faith, and more Islam will be prescribed as the remedy.

From AFP, with thanks to Sr. Soph:

KANDAHAR - Top Taleban commander Mullah Dadullah says faith and popular support will see his men fight off an offensive in southern Afghanistan by NATO and Afghan troops.

The troops Tuesday kicked off what NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) called their biggest offensive yet against the Taleban and their allies, focused on the lawless northern part of Helmand province.

Coalition war planes struck Taleban compounds and armouries and dropped "precision-guided munitions" on a Taleban militant who had been helping move anti-aircraft weapons, military statements said.

Two British soldiers and an unknown number of rebel fighters have died in various clashes.

Dadullah, who is reported to be the Taleban's military operations chief for southern Afghanistan, acknowledged the superior might of ISAF in a telephone interview Saturday with AFP but said he was undaunted.

"No one in the world has better weapons than NATO. They have got better weapons, but we will defeat them with the power of faith and belief," Dadullah told an AFP reporter who has spoken to him several times and knew his voice.

"The entire nation is with us: the people give us food, fruit and money. The people are fed up with infidel, invading troops and their puppets," he said.

He claimed to be in Helmand province.

"We have enough men to fight this battle," he said. "Some foreign mujahedin (holy fighters) are also fighting alongside our mujahedin.

Dadullah said Taleban fighters were being backed by Al Qaeda-linked foreign jihadists, including from Chechnya and the Palestinian territories.

"We have relations with Iraqi mujahedin—we send fighters to them, they send to us," he added.

Hamas Still Seeks Destruction of Israel

From Jihad Watch:

 

GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas rejected on Monday criticism by al Qaeda's second-in-command and said it was still committed to Israel's destruction despite a power-sharing deal with the Fatah faction.

"We will not betray promises we made to God to continue the path of Jihad and resistance until the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine," Hamas said in a statement, in a clear reference to Israel as well as to the occupied West Bank.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet on Sunday, al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri accused Hamas of serving U.S. interests by agreeing to respect past Palestinian peace accords with Israel in a recent Saudi-brokered unity government deal with moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah.

The coalition agreement fell short of meeting demands by the Quartet of peace mediators -- the United States, the European Union, the
United Nations and Russia -- to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing interim peace deals.

Zawahri said the Mecca accord, which calmed weeks of Hamas-Fatah warfare in which more than 90 Palestinians were killed, was part of an attempt by Washington to offset Muslim anger at what he described as its bias toward Israel.

"It is an American scheme to hit the Islamic jihadist resistance against the Crusader-Zionist campaign. America wanted a sham solution to the Palestinian issue to remove the biggest reason for Muslim hatred (of the United States)," he said.

The biggest reason for Muslim hatred of the U.S.? Hmmm. I thought we were supposed to believe that that was Britney Spears and Survivor.

Obama Debunks Madrassa Info via CNN

From Osama-bama's website:

Debunked Insight Magazine and Fox News Smear Campaign

In the past week, many of you have read a now thoroughly-debunked story by Insight Magazine, owned by the Washington Times, which cites unnamed sources close to a political campaign that claim Senator Obama was enrolled for “at least four years” in an Indonesian “Madrassa”. The article says the “sources” believe the Madrassa was “espousing Wahhabism,” a form of radical Islam.

Insight Magazine published these allegations without a single named source, and without doing any independent reporting to confirm or deny the allegations. Fox News quickly parroted the charges, and Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy went so far as to ask, “Why didn’t anybody ever mention that that man right there was raised — spent the first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father — as a Muslim and was educated in a Madrassa?”

All of the claims about Senator Obama raised in the Insight Magazine piece were thoroughly debunked by CNN, which, instead of relying on unnamed sources, sent a reporter to Obama’s former school in Jakarta to check the facts.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

Video: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/22/cnn-obama-debunk/

If Doocy or the staff at Fox and Friends had taken the time to check their facts, or simply made a call to his office, they would have learned that Senator Obama was not educated in a Madrassa, was not raised as a Muslim, and was not raised by his father – an atheist Obama met once in his life before he died.

Later in the day, Fox News host John Gibson again discussed the Insight Magazine story without any attempt to independently confirm the charges.

All of the claims about Senator Obama’s faith and education raised in the Insight Magazine story and repeated on Fox News are false. Senator Obama was raised in a secular household in Indonesia by his stepfather and mother. Obama’s stepfather worked for a U.S. oil company, and sent his stepson to two years of Catholic school, as well as two years of public school. As Obama described it, “Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.” [The Audacity of Hope, p. 274]

To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago. Furthermore, the Indonesian school Obama attended in Jakarta is a public school that is not and never has been a Madrassa.

These malicious, irresponsible charges are precisely the kind of politics the American people have grown tired of, and that Senator Obama is trying to change by focusing on bringing people together to solve our common problems.

So Senator Obama states that he was "raised in a secular household", but if you read the whole article you get this as the very last sentence:

Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.

So, for the record Senator, which is it? A public Indonesian school, or a Muslim school?

From the Examiner.com:

“What your grandfather respected was strength. Discipline,” Obama quoted his grandmother as telling him. “This is also why he rejected the Christian religion, I think.

“For a brief time, he converted, and even changed his name to Johnson. But he could not understand such ideas as mercy towards your enemies, or that this man Jesus could wash away a man’s sins.

“To your grandfather, this was foolish sentiment, something to comfort women,” she added. “And so he converted to Islam — he thought its practices conformed more closely to his beliefs.”

When Obama was 2 years old, his parents divorced and his father moved away from the family’s home in Hawaii. Four years later, his mother married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro, who moved his new wife and stepson to Jakarta.

“During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominately Muslim school,” Obama wrote in “Audacity.” “In our household, the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf.”

Obama’s stepfather was a practicing Muslim.

[...]

Although Obama wrote of “puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin’s call to evening prayer,” he was not raised as a Muslim, according to the senator’s office. Nor was he raised as a Christian by his mother, a white American named Ann Dunham who was deeply skeptical of religion.

“Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones,” Obama wrote. “For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.”

As a result, he said, “I was not raised in a religious household.”

Later in life, however, he was drawn to the writings of an influential American Muslim who served as the spokesman for the militant Nation of Islam.

“Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different,” Obama wrote. “His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”

He added: “Malcolm’s discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation.”

While working as a community organizer for a group of churches in Chicago, Obama was repeatedly asked to join Christian congregations, but begged off.

“I remained a reluctant skeptic, doubtful of my own motives, wary of expedient conversion, having too many quarrels with God to accept a salvation too easily won,” he wrote.

[...]

In “Audacity,” the senator wrote that such believers insist “not only that Christianity is America’s dominant faith, but that a particular, fundamentalist brand of that faith should drive public policy, overriding any alternative source of understanding, whether the writings of liberal theologians, the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, or the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

As for the Democratic Party, Obama observed that “a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular in orientation, and fears — rightly, no doubt — that the agenda of an assertively Christian nation may not make room for them or their life choices.”

Although the overwhelming majority of Americans describe themselves as Christians, Obama does not believe that any one religion should define the United States.

“We are no longer just a Christian nation,” he argues in “Audacity,” which was published last year. “We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

"...may not make room for them or their life choices."

Well, Senator, I have to agree with you on this point. The 'Christian America' (and most other Americans, I would say) is not willing to make room for people whose life choices include suicide bombing, treating women as property, pedophilia, and other sexual deviants who are trying to undermine the fundamental institutions of the traditional Western world.

The Western tradition has created the most vibrant and tolerant civilization in the history of our planet. Yes, there have been mistakes, misunderstandings and conflicts. Power corrupts, you know. But for the most part an earnest Christian is not going to kill you for disagreeing with him. Which is why it is acceptable to continue to call the US a 'Christian Nation'. Because the fundamental principles apply to all people, regardless of their faith. No one is sentenced to death for leaving Christianity and converting to Buddhism, unlike in Islamic states under Shari'a law, where apostasy is punishable by death.

Bag the PC platitudes, Senator, and hold a press conference. Tell us the truth and it will set you free.

The Osama-bama Floodgates are Open

More and more on Barak Hussein Osama-bama is being exposed:

Brookesnews.com ~

The opportunity in this is not accusing him of being a closet Moslem. It requires taking him at his word that he has become a Christian for that means he is an apostate. There is no dispute among either ancient or modern Moslem scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, one who turns his back on Islam, an apostate, must be put to death. Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors deserve to be killed.

Should Obama deny he ever was a Moslem, it will compound the problem in the eyes of Moslems. He was born of a Moslem father, raised by a Moslem stepfather, and received his first education at a Moslem school. That he subsequently went to a Catholic school in Jakarta before living with his mother's parents back in Honolulu makes no difference. In the eyes of Moslems, he originally was a Moslem. How can he not be in those eyes, with a Koranic first name and his middle name that of the grandson of Mohammed? For him to become a Christian means he is, for them, a murtadd, an apostate.

Which provides the perfect opportunity for an enterprising journalist to ask him at a press conference if he is: 1. Afraid of Moslem assassination attempts as punishment for being in Islamic eyes an apostate? 2. Willing to publicly call upon all Moslems around the world to renounce such punishment and declare instead that Moslems are fully free to convert to another religion?

The odds are high that he will answer no to the first and yes to the second. As an oily politician, he will try to squirm out of a clear definitive yes with no wiggle room. But it should not be difficult for a smart journalist to get him to agree without reservation that Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states...

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.

...applies to Muslims

Once Obama condemns the Moslem tradition of death for apostasy, then he can be asked:

The Koran famously quotes Allah as saying in chapter (sura) 2, verse 256 that there should be no compulsion in religion.' Yet numerous sayings of Mohammed known as hadith which form the basis of Islamic Sharia law quote Mohammed as saying If a Moslem discards his religion, kill him.' So are you telling Moslems that Allah was right but Mohammed was misquoted, and their Sharia law tradition on apostasy is wrong?

You can see how much fun there is to be had with this.

Islamonline ~

The Infiltration begins
Posted: Jan 20, 2007 7:56 PM

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia.

Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, he was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

The Google search for "Obama Apostate" yields 65,000 hits. This is not going to go away.

Obama Says Voters Curious on His Faith

There is an article from the AP that admits Osama Obama's Muslim origins:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday he does not think voters have a litmus test on religion, whether evangelical Christianity or his childhood years in the Muslim faith.

"If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I'm a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

[...]

Obama's religious background has come under scrutiny because he attended a Muslim school in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. Obama, who was born in Hawaii, lived in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather from 1967 to 1971 and subsequently returned to Hawaii to live with his maternal grandparents.

So, a Muslim apostate is running for President. This is what Wikipedia says about Islamic Apostasy:

Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, the Comoros and, most likely, Iraq.[10][11] Similarly, blasphemy is punishable by death in Pakistan. In Qatar apostasy is a capital offense, but no executions have been reported for it.[12]

The hadith "Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him", has been used both by supporters of the death penalty as well as critics of Islam. Islamic scholars point out it is important to understand the hadith in proper historical context. The order was at a time when the nascient Muslim community in Medina was fighting for its very life, and there were many schemes, by which the enemies of Islam would try to entice rebellion and discord within the community.[13] Clearly any defection would have serious consequences for the Muslims, and the hadith may well be about treason, rather than just apostasy. It must also be pointed out that under the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned, terms which the Prophet accepted. Despite this historical point Islamic law as currently practiced does not allow the freedom for the individual to choose one's religion.[emphasis mine, ed.]

There are an awful lot of Muslims, all around the world, that believe that apostasy should be punished by death. One must wonder how the leaders of people with that mindset would respond to an apostate American President? Or go back to 2000 and think on Joe Lieberman's candidacy, and how that might be perceived today (post 9/11).

Hmmmmmm.

An Email I Have Received

I am attempting to verify this email, but for now I will post it in
case anyone out there has any information regarding its contents.
Especially the part about attending the madrassa.

Read it with an open mind, and please comment if you have more
information to share.

---

::: Be careful, be very careful. :::

Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein
Obama Sr. (black muslim) of Nyangoma-Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya,
and Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas. (white atheist ).

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father
returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro -- a Muslim --
moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six
months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language Obama spent two
years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school in
Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a
Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that
damning information by saying that for two years he also attended a
Catholic school.

Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was a radical Muslim who
migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia. He met Obama's mother, Ann
Dunhamaea a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas at the University of
Hawaii at Manoa. Obama, Sr. and Dunham divorced when Barack, Jr. was
two.

Obama's spinmeisters are now attempting to make it appear that Obama's
introduction to Islam came from his father and that influence was
temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya
immediately following the divorce and never again had any direct
influence over his son's education. Dunham married another Muslim,
Lolo Soetoro who educated his stepson as a good Muslim by enrolling
him in one of Jakarta's Wahabbi schools. Wahabbism is the radical
teaching that created the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad
on the industrialized world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when you are
seeking political office in the United States, Obama joined the United
Church of Christ to help purge any notion that he is still a Muslim.

---

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Barak Hussein Obama - Sleeper Agent?

This post will begrowing over the next few days, as I compile the evidence that points to the danger of accepting Osama-bama as a legitimate Presidential candidate.

First an article from the Daily Herald in Utah:

Barack Obama has built a solid liberal record

KURT ERICKSON AND ED TIBBETTS - LEE NEWS SERVICE

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama appeals to a cross-section of America as an eloquent speaker with the potential to bridge a political battlefield bloodied by years of fighting.

But underlying the Chicago Democrat's sudden rise to fame over the past two years is a solid liberal record built over 10 years in Springfield, Ill., and Washington, D.C.

It's the kind of record that, no doubt, will help him in such places as Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses should he run for the presidency. But it could leave some people questioning his ability to narrow the partisan divide.

Obama, who objects to ideological labels, wins high marks from progressives on environment, abortion and labor issues, as well as on civil liberties and education, all of which are vital to winning the Democratic Party's presidential nominating process.

[...]

As a member of the Illinois Senate, Obama supported a single-payer health care plan run by the state and voted for an increase in the minimum wage. He also endorsed embryonic stem cell research and, in 2003, co-sponsored legislation that would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He voted against allowing people to claim self-defense if they used a gun in their home. The measure would have affected only residents of towns where local handgun bans were in effect.

So, to review:

• Socialist health care - check
• Crush small business by setting wages - check
• Use "embyos" for research, paid for by taxpayers - check
• Limit the Second Amendment and the Castle Doctrine - check

Well, the Liberal record is right where we expected it to be. Next up, where did Osama-bama go to school in Indonesia?

Fighting the Next World War, Today

From Ynet news.com, a couple of stories that indicate just what we are up against. As if any of the regular readers need reminding. Go ahead and email this link to the mailing list, and let's see if we can't change some minds.

First, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy gives an interview where he sounds an awful lot like President Bush, and many US lawmakers (at least when they were for the war, before they were against it):Former head of Israel's intelligence service tells Portuguese newspaper it would take at least 25 years before battle against fundamentalist terrorism is won; says nuclear strike by Muslim terrorists 'very likely'

'The world does not understand. A person walks through the streets of Tel Aviv, Barcelona or Buenos Aires and doesn’t get the sense that there is a war going on,’ said Halevy who headed Mossad between 1998 and 2003.



‘During World War I and II the entire world felt there was a war. Today no one is conscious of it. From time to time there is a terrorist attack in Madrid, London and New York and then everything stays the same.’



Violence by Islamic militants has already disrupted international travel and trade just as in the previous two world conflicts, he said.

Secondly, the Muslim Terrorists show us once again what they mean by 'truce' and 'negotiations': Palestinian factions agree to tense truce, with Egyptian mediation; nonethless, Palestinians keep dying in Gaza, at least 10 Hamas members kidnapped in Nablus

A 19 year old Palestinian was killed during exchanges of fire between Hamas and Fatah near Khan Younis. A few hours earlier, Sunday afternoon, a member of a Hamas-led police force was shot dead, despite a theoretical mediated a few hours earlier by an Egyptian security delegation between various Palestinian groups. Kidnappings by both sides continued in the West Bank.



Islam Shahwan, a spokesman for the Hamas force, blamed members of Fatah's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades for the shooting, which took place shortly after a top intelligence official loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was abducted.

[...]

Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas called on Palestinians to stop the internal fighting. At the opening of a Palestinian government meeting, he said: "I have asked again and again and again. Stop this war. Stop the violence, preserve national unity."


Haniyeh also appealed to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to order the Palestinians security forces to remove gunmen from the streets and get rid of the barricades currently dotting Gaza roads.

Sure, give these folks a state. They just need more understanding and we need to get to the root causes of the violence. Like US Imperialism? Or maybe Western parochialism? Or maybe the root cause is just something simple, like good old vengeance:

the Hamas gunmen had been firing into the air and proclaiming revenge on those involved in the Friday kidnapping of nine members of Hamas security forces.

Check it out.

Jordan to Go Nuclear!

From jihadwatch.org:

 

JERUSALEM - Jordan wants to develop nuclear power for peaceful means, King Abdullah II said in an interview with Israel’s Haaretz daily published on Friday.

‘The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) are looking at one, and we are actually looking at nuclear power for peaceful and energy purposes. We’ve been discussing it with the West,’ he said.

‘I personally believe that any country that has a nuclear program should conform to international regulations and should have international regulatory bodies that check to make sure that any nuclear program moves in the right direction,’ he told the liberal daily.

‘The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole region. Where I think Jordan was saying, ‘we’d like to have a nuclear-free zone in the area,’ after this summer, everybody’s going for nuclear programs,’ the Jordanian king said.

Nice going, Jimmy Carter.

 

The Second Holocaust is Looming

By Benny Morris at FrontPageMag.com

The Nazis, of course, industrialized mass murder. But still, the perpetrators had one-on-one contact with the victims. They may have dehumanized them, over months and years of appalling debasement and in their minds, before the actual killing. But, still, they were in eye- and ear-contact, sometimes in tactile contact, with their victims. The Germans, along with their non-German helpers, had to round up the men, women and children from their houses and drag and beat them through the streets and mow them down in nearby woods or push and pack them on cattle cars and transport them to the camps, where 'Work makes Free', separate the able-bodied from the completely useless and lure them into 'shower' halls and pour in the gas and then take out, or oversee the extraction of, the bodies and prepare the 'showers' for the next batch.

The second Holocaust will be quite different. One bright morning, in five or ten years' time, perhaps during a regional crisis, perhaps out of the blue, a day or a year or five years after Iran's acquisition of the Bomb, the mullahs in Qom will covoke in secret session, under a portrait of the steely-eyed Ayatollah Khomeini, and give President Ahmedinejad, by then in his second or third term, the go ahead. The orders will go out and the Shihab III and IV missiles will take off for Tel Aviv, Beersheba, Haifa, and Jerusalem, and probably some military sites, including Israel's half dozen air and (reported) nuclear missile bases. Some of the Shihabs will be nuclear-tipped, perhaps even with multiple warheads. Others will be dupes, packed merely with biological or chemical agents, or old newspapers, to draw off or confuse Israel's anti-missile batteries and Home Guard units.

With a country the size and shape of Israel (an elongated 8,000 square miles), probably four or five hits will suffice: No more Israel. A million or more Israelis, in the greater Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem areas, will die immediately. Millions will be seriously irradiated. Israel has about seven million inhabitants. No Iranian will see or touch an Israeli. It will be quite impersonal.

Read the whole thing, I suspect that you will be shocked by the information there. My only suggestion is that I believe that the attack described will come much sooner than 'five to ten years' from now.

God Bless us all.

How French Muslims Celebrated New Years Eve

Hat tip: Little Green Footballs:

January 01, 2007 10:18pm
Article from: Reuters

VANDALS set fire to about 400 cars overnight and police said they arrested more than 250 people, as violence marred France's New Year celebrations.

However, a police spokesman said there were fewer problems than in 2005, when youths attacked trains in the Paris region and southeast of the country.

25,000 police were on duty throughout the country during the night, including 4500 in Paris, where the authorities banned fireworks and firecrackers.

Police said that they had arrested 258 people nationwide by early morning, including two children aged eight and 10 who set fire to dustbins in the eastern city of Strasbourg.

Three children aged between 10 and 12 were arrested in a Paris suburb after they were caught carrying cans of petrol.

In the capital itself, almost 400,000 people welcomed in the New Year on the Champs Elysees and at the foot of the Eiffel Tower, where no serious incidents were reported.

Setting cars on fire has become a regular event in France during New Year's Eve celebrations, especially in the deprived suburbs that ring many cities.[emphasis mine, ed.]

"...the deprived suburbs...", yah, right. Great E.U.phemism for Muslim freeloaders who won't assimilate, learn the language and culture, or get educations or jobs. At least is was better than last year. Maybe for next year they can keep it down to 300 cars.

A Response to Achmananinidoodoo

Political Dishonesty has an open letter to Mahmoud and Iran. Check it out.