July 2-4, 2007
Jul 02 04:48 David Keene To Lecture Us About Islamophobia? Jul 02 22:44 David Keene, Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan & Radical Islam Jul 03 02:36 Commuting Scooter's Sentence: The Quotes (And My Commentary) Jul 03 05:00 God Bless Kirsten Powers Jul 03 16:51 Gaffney Speaks Out Against Muslim Brotherhood (Spot On!!!) Jul 04 03:11 Unilateral Defeat Repeat Jul 04 16:23 Celebrating the Birth of a Great Nation Jul 04 18:18 Cal Thomas Not Intimidated by CAIR's Intimidation Tactics Jul 04 19:18 Mr. Wilson, Subversionist Supreme
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006
David Keene To Lecture Us About Islamophobia?
Don't take my word on it. That's the word according to this CAIR statement:
On Tuesday, July 17, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will host a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., entitled "Attacking Islam: Implications for Social Cohesion and U.S. Relations with the Muslim World."David Keene is part of the realist school within the Republican Party along with Brett Scowcroft, William F. Buckley and Jim Baker. As you see, he's got plenty of company. What sets Mr. Keene apart is that he's the chairman of the ACU, which was prominently listed as participating in the Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice event. Here's what should've tipped Mr. Keene off that the groups assembled didn't like conservatives:
The panel will address the increasing anti-Muslim rhetoric within the conservative movement in the United States, focusing on the negative impact of such views on religious tolerance in America and on relations with the Muslim world.
Presenters:WHEN: Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 9:30 a.m. - 11 p.m.
- David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union
- Parvez Ahmed, Chairman, Council on American-Islamic Relations
WHERE: Holeman Lounge, National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
Refreshments will be served. Admission is free but seating is limited and reservations are required. Please RSVP via e-mail to events@cair.com or call 202-742-6409.
National GroupsIf you think that's bad, you're right. It's worse than bad. It's awful. Other organizations advertising the event include such 'centrist' groups as After Downing Street.org, CivilRights.org, an offshoot of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), The Twin Cities Anti-War Committee and on the website for the Declaration of Peace.
Alliance for Justice
American Friends Service Committee National Criminal Justice Program
American Humanist Association
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Americans for Democratic Action
Arab American Institute
Asian American Justice Center
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Campaign for America's Future
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Center for Constitutional Rights
CODEPINK
Education for Peace in Iraq Center
Episcopal Church
Equal Justice Society
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Global Rights
Hip Hop Caucus
Human Rights First
Human Rights Watch
Immigration Equality
Institute for Policy Studies
Islamic Society of North America
JALSA - the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action
Japanese American Citizens League
League of Women Voters US
LULAC
MoveOn.org
NAACP
National Association of Social Workers
National Organization for Women
NETWORK
No2Torture
Peace Action
People For the American Way
Physicians for Human Rights
Progressive Democrats of America
Public Citizen
Religious Action Center
Rural Organizing Project
Stop Torture Permanently
TASSC International
The Shalom Center
TrueMajority.org
United for Peace and Justice
United States Student Association
US Action
Veterans for Peace
Working Assets Wireless
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Young Democrats of America
Velvet Revolution
Regional Groups
Amnesty International USA - Greater
Philadelphia Area
Amnesty International USA - Puget Sound
Arab American Community Coalition (WA)
Asian Bar Association of Washington
Brandywine Peace Community
CASA Latina (WA)
CAUSA, Oregon's Immigrant Rights Coalition
Community Alliance of Lane County (Oregon)
Council on American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) - PA
Hate Free Zone of Washington
Japanese American Citizens League - Seattle Chapter
King County Asian Pacific Islander Coalition
Lancaster Coalition for Peace and Justice
League of Women Voters - PA
Liberty Center for Survivors of Torture
National Organization for Women - New York State
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
October 22 Coalition
Oregon Peace Works
Peace Action of Central NY
Peace Action WI
Pittsburgh/Western PA Irish American Unity Conference
Philadelphia Physicians for Social
Responsibility
Sound Nonviolent Opponents of War
Syracuse Peace Council
Thomas Merton Center
Washington Peace Center
Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation
The event information on Declaration of Peace's website is particularly revealing:
Local co-sponsors include the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Amnesty International USA-Greater Philadelphia Area, Brandywine Peace Community, Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-PA, Irish American Unity Conference-Pittsburgh Chapter, League of Women Voters-PA, the Liberty Center for Survivors of Torture, the Shalom Center, the Thomas Merton Center, and Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)-U.S. Section.It isn't shocking to find out that the ACLU, CAIR or Amnesty International supports taking action that would blind our intelligence agencies by gutting the Patriot Act. That's old news to most people reading this blog. What's disconcerting is that I didn't expect to find out that the ACU would be a co-sponsor of an event with such America-hating groups like that.
What's also bothersome is something else I found on Amnesty USA's blog:
Sign the America I Believe In pledge to let officials know that the America we believe in does not torture or use cruel, inhumane treatment, does not hold people without charge, without trial, and without hope, and does not rob people of their basic dignity. Here's what the pledge says:
The America I Believe In doesn't torture people or use cruel, inhumane treatment, doesn't hold people without charge, without fair trials, without hope, and without end, doesn't kidnap people off the street and ship them to nations known for their brutality, doesn't condone prisoner abuse and excuse high-ranking government officials from responsibility for that abuse, doesn't justify the use of secret prisons and does not rob people of their basic dignity.In light of Amnesty International's promoting "The America I Believe In" petition, please explain to me why the ACU should be co-sponsoring an event with Amnesty International. In light of the list of participating organizations listed in the ACLU's press release, please explain why the ACU co-sponsored an event with so many liberal, America-hating groups.
I'm joining with Amnesty International USA to restore The America I Believe In. The America I Believe In leads the world on human rights.
I'm committing to tell friends and family about the campaign. I'm also committing to contacting my members of Congress and my local media to tell them that the America I Believe In defends human rights and justice for all.
Check back later today for more posts on this subject. I've just begun to dig into this and I'm already swimming in pertinent data.
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment 1 by Dr. lrving I. Kessler at 03-Jul-07 03:41 PM
It seems that Mr. Keene is waiting for his car to be bombed in Washington by on of his peaceful islamist colleagues !
David Keene, Grover Norquist, Suhail Khan & Radical Islam
Earlier this morning, I posted about David Keene's 'transformation' into a CAIR mouthpiece on Islamophobia. There's more to the story. Much more. According to this post by Christine at Vigilant Freedom, David Keene of the ACU "appointed Suhail Khan to the ACU board." That's why I started digging. What I found out about Suhail Khan is troubling to say the least. First I found a bio of his father, a man named Mahboob Khan. Here's what that bio on Mahboob Khan says:
Dr. Mahboob Khan passed away on April 16, 1999, in Sunnyvale, California. Dr. Khan was born on March 31, 1939, in Madras, India. He was the second child of seven born to Zainab Khatoon and Khader Khan. He was the first of his family to complete his high school diploma, and likewise the first to complete his BS degree from Madras University. He immigrated to Boulder, Colorado, in 1966 to complete his masters and doctorate in solid state physics. He married Malika Begum, also of Madras, India in 1968 and in 1969 they had their first son, Suhail Khan. As a student, Dr. Khan helped establish the Muslim Students Association (MSA) which subsequently became the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). He was the Vice President of MSA, the West Zone Representative, and served on the Majlis Ash-Shura for ISNA.Here's what Frank Gaffney wrote about Mahboob Khan in his FrontPageMag article on Suhail Khan and the ACU:
Suhail Khan's father was the late Mahboob Khan, a PhD in solid-state physics. His biography claims that he helped establish the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while a student in Boulder (presumably, this refers to the MSA chapter at the university as the parent organization was established in 1963). The MSA is present on scores of American campuses and serves to recruit, proselytize and indoctrinate on behalf of Saudi-backed Islamists.[1] It is pro- Hamas ; the MSA at UC Irvine even demanded that its members be allowed to wear Hamas armbands at graduation ; and openly sympathizes with terrorists. Dr. Khan held the post of MSA vice president and Western Zone representative.It's fair to say that there's a few discrepancies between the two bios, though I don't consider the discrepancies to be major discrepancies. That said, Mr. Gaffney's article contains verifiable references to his claims, I'll trust his bio on the elder Khan. Either way, though, both bios reference Dr. Khan's serving "as member of Majlis ash-Shura (the governing council) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and of Dr. Khan's helping "establish the Muslim Student Association (MSA) while a student in Boulder (presumably, this refers to the MSA chapter at the university as the parent organization was established in 1963)."
The elder Khan also served as member of Majlis ash-Shura (the governing council) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which was created by the Muslim Student Association (MSA) in 1977 to promote the Islamist agenda among Muslims and the general population. Another MSA arm is the North American Islamic Trust, the Saudis' vehicle for providing the financing of, by some estimates, as many as 80% of the mosques in America. That financing, and the control arising from holding title for the mosques' real estate, affords the Saudis and their proxies the ability to determine: who will serve as imams in their American mosques; what materials are distributed to the congregations[2] and taught in the madrassas (mosque schools)[3]; to what purpose are the members' obligatory tithes applied; which congregants will be eligible to make the haj pilgrimage to Mecca; etc.
Here's another troubling bit of information in the Gaffney article:
Mahboob Khan founded one such mosque after he moved the family from Colorado to southern California in 1975. The mosque, together with an Islamic center and an elementary school, comprises the Islamic Society of Orange County (ISOC), of which Dr. Khan served as president before moving on to San Jose in 1980.Here's another troubling bit of information from Mr. Gaffney's article:
The Islamist character of the ISOC was evident in a visit there in December 1992, by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the Blind Sheikh , who was later convicted in connection with the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. On the occasion of his fundraising visit to Orange County, Rahman "dismissed nonviolent definitions of jihad as weak. He stressed that a number of unspecified enemies had 'united themselves against Muslims' and that fighting them was obligatory. 'If you are not going to the jihad, then you are neglecting the rules of Allah.'"
He has repeatedly been a featured speaker at MSA, ISNA and CAIR events, as well as those of other problematic groups, including the California-based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Institute (II, also known as the Islamic Free Market Institute or IFMI). For example, Khan spoke most recently at an II meeting in December 2006.The name Abdurahman Alamoudi rang a bell so I checked him out. Here's what I found:
The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists' influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi's long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II's offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.
A self-described Muslim moderate, Abdurahman Alamoudi has had many public titles over the years: founder and executive director of the American Muslim Council; Islamic affairs advisor for the Clinton administration; official appointee of the Pentagon in charge of choosing Muslim chaplains; and State Department-selected Goodwill Ambassador to Muslim nations. In stark contrast, Alamoudi's private life has been devoted to supporting and fundraising for a host of anti-American/anti-Israeli terrorist groups and nations, from Hamas and Hezbollah, to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, to the Libyan regime of Muammar Qadhafi.This brings numerous questions to mind:
- Did Hillary know what Mr. Alamoudi was all about?
- Did Hillary know that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah?
- If she knew that Mr. Alamoudi supported Hamas and Hezbollah, why didn't they run him out of their administration immediately?
- How extensive of a background check was run on Mr. Alamoudi?
- What was found out about him through this background check?
- Considering that Mr. Alamoudi was "openly raising funds for Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh's defense fund after he helped orchestrate the original WTC bombing, shouldn't that have raised a ton of red flags for Mrs. Clinton? Or was it just not that important to her?
Hillary Clinton has worked particularly closely with the head of the AMC, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who has openly collected funds for the legal defense of Mr. Marzuk, the Hamas chieftain arrested at JFK Airport, and for Mr. Abdurahman, who organized the World Trade Center bombing.Here's what Discover the Networks says about Mr. Abdurahman:
- In 1994 he said: "Hamas is not a terrorist group,I have followed the good work of Hamas...They have a wing that is a violent wing. They had to resort to some kind of violence."
- During a March 26, 1996 appearance on Middle East TV, Alamoudi said the following about Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) founder Musa Abu Marzook, who in 1997 would be deported from the United States because of his Hamas-related activities: "I am honored to be a member of the committee that is defending Musa Abu Marzook in America. I really consider him to be from among the best people in the Islamic movement, Hamas and I work together with him."
- On December 29, 1996, Alamoudi told a meeting of the IAP: "I think if we were outside this country, we can say, 'Oh, Allah, destroy America,' but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America."
- In October 2000, Alamoudi attended an anti-Israel protest outside the White House. Speaking to a group of Palestinian-terrorist-supporters, he declared: "I have been labeled...as being a supporter of Hamas. Anybody supporters of Hamas here?...We are all supporters of Hamas...I wish they added that I am also a supporter of Hezbollah."
- Alamoudi defended Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh imprisoned for his role in plotting New York-area terrorist attacks, most notably the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Norquist's themes are those of the Islamist apologist organizations like CAIR and the American Muslim Council: informed critics of Islamofascism and advocates of American interests like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney are portrayed as bigots, and key law enforcement tools against domestic terrorism are alleged to be nefarious infringements of civil rights. When Norquist attempted to enlist James Woolsey to his cause on the latter score, Gaffney powerfully established that Norquist was all but lying.People will point to the work Mr. Norquist did at Americans for Tax Reform as reason to cut him slack. I'd simply respond by saying Mr. Norquist isn't irreplaceable. If he leaves ATR or if ATR shuts down, competent people will come along to start a similar organization up. What's inexcusable is how Norquist ignored the war against the jihadists while lambasting good men like Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes as Islamophobes. That's simply inexcusable. What's worse is Mssrs. Norquist and Keene being shills for the most radical terrorist-sympathizing groups in America.
Keene's willingness to be a panelist with Parvez Ahmed at the National Press Club is foolish, especially considering CAIR's being an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal trial against the Holy Land Foundation. If his goal was to reach out to the Muslim community, his better bet would be to reach out to Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. As far as I can tell, Dr. Jasser doesn't have a history of ties with known terrorist groups.
How does Keene justify appearing with Parvez Ahmed? Doesn't he care about CAIR's terrorist ties? Or is it that he just isn't that particular about who he associates himself with? It seems to me that Keene should draw the line short of legitimizing a terrorist-sympathizing organization like CAIR.
I'd also question Mr. Norquist's decision to promote Suhail Khan's candidacy for the ACU board. What was he basing this decision on? Did he do a background check on Suhail Khan? If he did, why didn't he have concerns when organizations like the MSA, ISNA and CAIR popped up on Khan's resume? I think I can answer that with this tidbit of information:
The Islamic Institute was established by Grover Norquist in 1998 with $20,000 in seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi (who is currently serving a 23-year federal sentence for terrorism-related activities). II is the principal vehicle for the Islamists' influence operation aimed at the Bush Administration and Republican and conservative circles. Norquist was its founding president; Alamoudi's long-time deputy, Khalid Saffuri, was its first executive director; and II's offices continue to be housed in the downtown Washington office suite rented by Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.In other words, Norquist placed a higher priority on lobbying the White House than on his client's terrorist ties.
It seems totally appropriate to say that national security and the fight against the jihadists must take precedence over commerce. Norquist and Keene forgot that lesson. Their dash for lobbying cash vetoed their national security concerns.
Posted Monday, July 2, 2007 10:45 PM
Comment 1 by Muslims Against Sharia at 14-Nov-07 12:16 AM
Emerson, a Jew who gets it
A perspective of a moderate Muslim
At the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, I want to say this: either American Jews are completely clueless about the internal struggle inside Islam or they are so cowardly, that they are even afraid to voice their opinion. Or maybe it's a combination of both.
Every time there is a development that involves radical Islam, be it a Mayor of New York attending an Islamist parade, DOJ's officials attending an Islamist conference, or a protester being sued for having the balls to expose an Islamist-sponsored event at an amusement park, the American Jewish community is as quiet as a church mouse. It's like it is not even there.
The effect of this silence is devastating. Not for the Jewish community, not yet. That time is still to come. The silence affects the American Muslim community. Every time moderate Muslims are ignored and Islamists are legitimized (by either direct support from government representatives or silent support of the ADL), radicals gain ground. In the current PC climate, moderate Muslims have pretty much no choice but to keep their mouths shut.
Luckily for us, not everyone in the Jewish community is like that. There are some Jews that are speaking out. One of them is Steven Emerson, who has been warning the West about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism since before PanAm 103. Most of his current work is focused on exposing the radicals masquerading as the moderates ; those radicals who are embraced by the DOJ and the Pentagon, by the mayor of New York Bloomberg (Rudy would never get into bed with terrorist supporters) and the Treasury Department, by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, by the Congress and the White House.
There is a war of ideas within Islam, and moderate Muslims are losing. Most of Muslim clergy and Muslim establishment are paid for by the Wahhabis. Moderate Muslims are being run out of Mosques and community centers, and in many cases are physically threatened. Moderate Muslims have no place in the media or public debate, because the place reserved for Muslims is filled by Islamic radicals, who attempt to make criticizing anything Islamic a taboo. According to the Islamists, a Muslim can do no wrong.
1. When a non-Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslims, he/she is an Islamophobe.
2. When a Muslim criticizes Islam or Muslim, he/she is not a real Muslim, therefore see #1.
This is a tactic used by "moderate" Muslims, the darlings of the government and the media. But how can you call someone who praises bin Laden, or has ties to Hamas, or calls for the elimination of Israel, or wants to replace the Constitution with the Koran a moderate? They are anything but moderates, however nobody except for a few people like Steven Emerson seems to notice that. But even when the Emersons of America appeal to the public, they are often being dismissed as alarmists and racists. Well, they are anything, but. You don't have to be a clairvoyant to predict the future when it comes to expansion of radical Islam and extinction of moderate Muslims. All you need to do is get your heads out of the sand.
Why our government is so forgiving and forgetful when it comes to individuals or organizations with known terrorist ties and anti-American views is beyond me. Why the Jewish leaders are so timid when it comes to the subject of radical Islam is incomprehensible.
I thank God every day for people like Steven Emerson, because they are the last glimmer of hope for moderate Muslims.
K.M.
Original post
Commuting Scooter's Sentence: The Quotes (And My Commentary)
This AP's article lists quotes from Democrats that need a thorough fisking. Needless to say, I'm perfectly willing to perform that public service. Here goes:
"Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world." - former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.Sen. Breck Girl, Just how were Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan "held accountable for their vile anti-Catholic diatribes? For that matter, why didn't you fire them immediately after learning of their vitriol? Talk about sending "exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world."
"The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own vice president's chief of staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law." - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.Sen. Reid whines about President Bush commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby while Patrick Fitzgerald won't prosecute reporters who didn't remember key sections of their stories until the defense team 'reminded' them of what they'd said. Talk about a double standard.
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.Mrs. Clinton, you whine about Bush's cronyism but you haven't said a word about how your brother lobbied your HINO (Husband In Name Only) to pardon Carlos Vignali, "the cocaine trafficker whose father was a big Democratic contributor" and "Glenn Braswell, the herbal-medicine mogul sentenced to three years in prison in 1983 for mail fraud, perjury and tax evasion."
As I recall, you peddled the line that you didn't know that old Hugh was lobbying your HINO for pardons. Mrs. Clinton, you're either a lousier liar than your HINO or you're the most naive First Lady in history. Frankly, I don't think it's the latter.
"The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed." - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.Nancy, Why shouldn't we trust President Bush's word on that but then trust you for funding the war after voting to cut off funding for the war?
"It is time for the American people to be heard - I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law." - Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.Sen. Plagiarist thinks that he can drum up a flood of phone calls over this like talk radio and the Right Blogosphere did with immigration (non)reform. What Sen. Plagiarist doesn't get is that people have to feel passionately about an issue. They don't feel passionately about Scooter Libby. It's like me calling for the folks to flood his email inbox and his office phones because he's an admitted plagiarist. It just doesn't work that way.
"President Bush's 11th-hour commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence makes a mockery of the justice system and betrays the idea that all Americans are expected to be held accountable for their actions, even close friends of Vice President Cheney." - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.Sen. Kerry talks about making a mockery of the justice system when President Bush exercises his constitutional rights after an officer of the court makes a mockery of the judicial system by convening a grand jury after he knew that the crime he was asked to investigate didn't meet the criteria for the IIPA or the Espionage Act.
Yes, Sen. Kerry, there was a mockery of the justice system. Yes, there was an abuse of power. No, Sen. Kerry, those abuses were made by a headline-seeking bitter prosecutor looking to hang a trophy on the wall no matter what he had to do to manufacture a crime.
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2007 2:37 AM
No comments.
God Bless Kirsten Powers
Kirsten Powers does a weekly segment on the O'Reilly Factor with superblogger Michelle Malkin. Because of those segments, I've come to appreciate Ms. Powers' forsaking the typical Democratic talking points. Simply put, she's a liberal with a coherent beliefs. That intelligence shines through in this NY Post column on the Fairness Doctrine.
LAST week, the immigration bill died a grisly death at the hands of the talk-radio listeners who have frustrated and confounded me on this issue as I have regularly guest hosted Fox News' morning radio show.This genie's out of the proverbial bottle. Last Friday, we had a Welcome Home Heroes event for our local GOP legislators. One of the big topics of conversation at my end of the table was the impact 'high tech' grassroots activists played in collapsing the immigration bill. My friend Ed Garrett immediately agreed when I said that activism had stepped into a new realm.
Nearly as frustrating, however, has been the imperial reaction of elected officials to their citizen uprising. Apparently, democracy is a drag, but it's nothing a little authoritarian censorship can't fix.
Enter the Fairness Doctrine, which has captured the fancy of top Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who announced that she is "looking into" reviving it to target talk radio.
The doctrine, abandoned by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987, used to compel broadcast licensees, that is, radio and TV stations, to give equal time to both sides of controversial issues. The FCC dropped it after concluding it actually discouraged informed discussion.
With each senator and representative having their own websites, office phone numbers and contact forms, we can apply pressure instantly. With each bill being online, activists and bloggers can actually read the legislation. In turn, a blogger like Captain Ed can read through the preapproved amendments to the bill and Hugh Hewitt can read the first bill, aka the 'Grand Bargain', then propose changes to make the bill more effective.
The end result is that activists can then write more intelligent emails or make more specific points on why a bill should be defeated.
The immigration bill and the activists' reaction to it are the reason why politicians are thinking about the Fairness Doctrine. They've expressed genuine outrage at our telling them what to do. These politicians don't get it that we're tired of being sold a bill of goods, only to have bureaucrats like Michael Chertoff essentially tell the citizens he serves to buzz off.
But I digress.
Conservatives long ago adapted to life in a world where watching the network news or picking up one of the major news dailies is a virtual guarantee of having their views mocked, demeaned or misrepresented. If you're a social conservative, multiply the odds by 100.In short, we're used to having to fight for everything in terms of public policy. We're used to having to point out flaws in liberals' thinking. We're used to having to know the details about the bills we're opposing. Liberals can float through college without ever having their beliefs challenged. Social conservatives are criticized throughout their college years on a daily basis. Let me illustrate that via an old story.
A young child spotted a butterfly struggling to break free of its cocoon. Moved with compassion, the child broke the cocoon open. The child was heartbroken when the butterfly didn't fly. The child didn't know that the butterfly's struggle to break free of the cocoon was what built up its flying muscles.
The moral of the story is simple: Not having to fight for something means that you don't have the opportunity to build up your muscles. Without muscles, the battle is lost.
Finally, there's this parting shot:
If liberals want to provide balance in talk radio, they need to stop maligning it - and figure out how to compete on it.Exactly right, Kirsten. Exactly right.
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2007 5:01 AM
No comments.
Gaffney Speaks Out Against Muslim Brotherhood (Spot On!!!)
The best thing I can say about Frank Gaffney's Washington Times op-ed is that it's spot on. Here's what I'm talking about:
Still more worrying are persistent reports the Bush administration will not content itself with merely dignifying and legitimating Islamist individuals, organizations and institutions associated with and in the service of Saudi Wahhabis and their counterparts in a classic totalitarian good-cop/bad-cop routine, the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration is evidently intent on embracing the Brotherhood itself.Patrick Poole's FrontPageMag article about the Project is must reading if we are to grasp the different tactics and methods used in Islamists' attempts to build a caliphate. Here's the key section of Mr. Poole's article:
The ostensible reason for doing so is that the Brotherhood has eschewed violence and is content to obtain power through elections. Evidently, the imposition of a fascistic legal code called Shariah via balloting and/or the steady accretion of concessions made in the name of religious tolerance is supposed to be different from, and preferable to, that achieved via terror and mayhem. In the end, though, it amounts to the same thing: a world without freedom, a world without America.
If we are to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans and their government must stop blurring the distinction between Muslims who are determined to bring about, one way or another, our demise as freedom-enjoying people, and Muslims who are fully committed to preserving the liberties secured for us 231 years ago tomorrow and subsequently preserved at great cost in lives and treasure. Otherwise, we will find our own footprints on the path to the next act of Islamofascist terror.
What makes The Project so different from the standard "Death of America! Death to Israel!" and "Establish the global caliphate!" Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood "master plan". As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe ; including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent "cartoon" jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London ; the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.Applying the principles of the Project to Mr. Gaffney's op-ed, it's easy to see the validity of Gaffney's argument. When Gaffney says "Evidently, the imposition of a fascistic legal code called Shariah via balloting and/or the steady accretion of concessions made in the name of religious tolerance is supposed to be different from, and preferable to, that achieved via terror and mayhem", he's saying that fascistic governments that are governed by Shariah law are hell on earth whether the takeover was done without AK-47's or with AK-47's.
Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by "moderate" Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.
- Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
- Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of "moderation";
- Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood's collective goals;
- Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn't conflict with shari'a law;
- Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
- Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
- Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
- Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of "international plots fomented against them";
- Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing "academic" studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
- Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
- Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
- Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
- Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
- Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
- Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
- Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
- Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals;
- Creating autonomous "security forces" to protect Muslims in the West;
- Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West "in a jihad frame of mind";
- Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
- Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
- Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
- Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
- Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
- Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
- Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood had thought things out to the point of creating a 100 year plan using all tools at their avail should wake America up. When Fred Thompson said that the jihadists "have a 100 year plan. We've got a plan that lasts until the next election" was a reference to that. That's why AAH has named Thompson their latest Honoree.
The truth is that the jihadists will use any tool at their avail. They'll kill people to threaten and intimidate the rest of the population. They'll use goodwill propaganda if it can be used later to deflect criticism when they employ more hardline tactics. They'll lie outright if they've been caught implementing their plan.
The most important lesson people must learn is that we're fighting an enemy that is adept at adapting to whatever environment they're put in. We must learn that this isn't just a military or judicial war. It's a war that's being fought on a multitude of levels with various tactics. It's important that we recognize the tactics but it's imperative that we remember what their goal is.
If we don't make defeating the jihadists our top priority before they slowly, methodically establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate, then we'll continue making the mistake of rationalizing extremist behaviors. There's too high a price to pay for employing what might best be described as an 'ostrich strategy'.
Just because Muslim Brotherhood extremists aren't setting off car bombs, detonating dirty bombs or engaging in other acts of violence doesn't mean that they've abandoned their plan. That's what Mssrs. Poole and Gaffney are saying.
The president's participation in the rededication of this facility is a perfect metaphor for his administration's central failure in this War for the Free World. The Washington mosque has repeatedly been found to be disseminating hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-American literature. Such material, and the indoctrination of which it is a piece, are at the core of the intolerant Islamofascist ideology promoted by the Saudi cult and practiced by its adherents, like Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and myriad other terrorist groups.It's time that the White House learned that it isn't doing the American people any favors by participating in events that CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are involved in. In fact, I'd strongly recommend that President Bush use one of those moments to deliver a 'Sister Souljah' speech. In other words, I would've preferred that he'd taken the opportunity to chastise the imams for their hateful and anti-semitic rhetoric right in front of the people gathered at the event.
Among the 200 invited Muslim and other guests were a number of Islamists like Ibrahim Hooper, communications director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). As ever, the White House vetters were seemingly untroubled by the presence of an organization recently declared by the Justice Department to be a front for the Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist-financing plot involving the notorious Holy Land Foundation.
I'm certain that President Bush just wants to reach out to Muslims. That said, he shouldn't be reaching out to terrorist-sympathizing organizations like CAIR and MB. If that outreach isn't a principled outreach, it's counterproductive. It's something that should be avoided at all costs because it legitimizes corrupt organizations.
Another consequence of unprincipled outreach programs is that those events can then be used as propaganda back in the Middle East as a sign of America's weakness.
That's the last image that we should be projecting.
Posted Tuesday, July 3, 2007 5:57 PM
No comments.
Unilateral Defeat Repeat
That's what the Webb Amendment to the Defense authorization bill amounts to. Here's proof of that:
Signaling concern with the continuing erratic deployment schedules, the amendment requires the Pentagon to give active-duty troops at least as much time at home as they spent on deployments, and mandates that National Guard and Reserve members get to stay home for three years following their one-year deployments.Whether you call it slow bleed or not, that's what it is. That's almost identical to what John Murtha proposed this winter:
Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet.The similarities between Murtha's original slow bleed plan and Webb's proposal are obvious and plentiful. What's worse for the Democrats is that more newspapers are reporting that the surge is working. Today's liberal newspaper that's reporting improvement in Iraq is the Boston Globe:
At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 police officers and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry's operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.Not only does that represent a major drop in civilian casualties but it also takes the wind out of John Murtha's sails when he blusters about our troops being caught in the middle of a civil war. He's never been right about that but it hasn't stopped him from repeating himself. The difference this time is that he'll have to make those claims after Gen. Petraeus testifies that civilian deaths have plummeted since the start of the surge offensive.
That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry's May figures, 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 police and 47 soldiers.
I'm betting that Webb isn't foolish enough to brag about this the way that Murtha bragged about his slow bleed plan. That said, I definitely think that he's arrogant enough to make some statements that will come back to bite him.
This is a potentially dangerous position for Democrats to take. What happens if Operation Arrowhead Ripper works? Based on the trends that we've seen since the surge buildup started, that's certainly possible. At this juncture, I'd say it's even likely. Another danger for the Democrats' presidential candidates is to have Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Crocker deliver a credible, positive appraisal in September.
President Bush will know by then what Gen. Petraeus' report will include. So will the major presidential candidates. I suspect that they'd start touting the success of this offensive if the reports are positive.
A positive report by Gen. Petraeus is particularly troublesome to Hillary. She's already shifted positions so often that she's making John Kerry almost look principled. If the news is upbeat, she'll have to shift again. That won't fly with thoughtful adults.
Posted Wednesday, July 4, 2007 3:13 AM
No comments.
Celebrating the Birth of a Great Nation
Today, Americans are getting together at parades, backyard barbecues and various other venues to celebrate the 4th of July. Truly appreciative people will celebrate the birth of the greatest nation in the history of the world.
What sets us apart is what makes America great. I remember reading about how Hubert Humphrey was fond of mentioning that America was the only nation in the history of the world to list the pursuit of happiness as a national priority in its founding documents.
That's just one of the priorities spelled out in our nation's Declaration of Independence. It's worth the time to examine the other priorities, too:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.The revolutionary nature of these principles often goes unnoticed. Before America's Declaration, European countries said that power was given to the government, which then doled out limited amounts of power to that country's citizens. The American Declaration that power started the citizens, who in turn gave limited amounts of that power to various governments, was as revolutionary as the declaration that the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa. It essentially stood conventional wisdom on its head.
Similarly revolutionary were the notions that all people were created equal, that the God of Nature gave them rights that couldn't be denied, and that those rights included life, liberty of all types and the pursuit of happiness.
My first hope for you today is that you take some time to think about what a magnificent set of documents our Founding Fathers gave us. I'd submit that the greatest governing principles in the history of the world are contained in our founding documents.
My second hope for you today is that you think of whether we should take these founding documents at their word or if we should take them as simply guidelines that can be brushed aside for the 'greater good'.
I submit that we should take the Declaration and the Constitution literally. I further submit that the only way we can stay true to our Founding Fathers' ideals is to take these documents literally.
Posted Wednesday, July 4, 2007 4:24 PM
No comments.
Cal Thomas Not Intimidated by CAIR's Intimidation Tactics
This video is proof of that:
I personally agree with everything that Cal Thomas said in that video. It's time that more average citizens learned what Cal Thomas and others already know: that Islamic radicals have told us plainly what they want to do, that they'll use any tool at their avail and that they'll jump on anything said about any Muslim terrorist as 'proof' of America's Islamophobic ways.
Today, when we celebrate the birth of this great nation, let us ever be aware of the threats to our liberty.
Posted Wednesday, July 4, 2007 6:19 PM
No comments.
Mr. Wilson, Subversionist Supreme
There are few things that get my blood boiling as much as listening to Joe Wilson yapping about how Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney ruined his wife's career. It's time that he took responsibility for that himself. Here's part of the transcript of Wilson's interview on Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: If there...there are many people who look at this and say, there was no original crime committed, in terms of the revealing of an intelligence officer's name. Your wife, clearly, her name was put out there. She was outed as a CIA operative.I've said numerous times that the easiest way to tell if Wilson is lying is if his lips are moving. If they aren't, he isn't. If they are, he is. This is no different. For him to lecture us on right and wrong is beyond hypocritical. He's sticking to the line that his wife was a "covert CIA officer", which we know isn't the case. She hasn't been covert since she worked in an embassy. He certainly wasn't covert when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential campaign. And she surely wasn't covert when Joe Wilson listed her as his wife in a Washington Who's Who registry.
But the critics of this...of this entire investigation will say, well, look, if that was really a crime, if a crime was committed, there are laws that people who outed her could be prosecuted under, and they were not.
WILSON: Yes. And Mr. Fitzgerald addressed that at the time of the indictment. Go back and read and report on what Mr. Fitzgerald himself said.
The fact of the matter is that Americans understand the difference between right and wrong. They understand what it means when a senior government official spends two hours in a Washington restaurant telling, divulging the name of a covert CIA officer. American people now fully understand, because the CIA has acknowledged it. It's in a court filing of Mr. Fitzgerald that Valerie was covert.
Her career was ruined. But, more to the point, the national security of this country was compromised, as a consequence of Mr. Libby, Mr. Armitage's, Mr. Rove's acts, and, presumably, I believe, under the direction of the vice president of the United States.
Wilson says that we should look at what Patrick Fitzgerald said about Plame's covert status so that's what I did. Here's what I found:
"Let me say two things," Fitzgerald told reporters. "I am not speaking [in this indictment] to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert...And we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly or intentionally outed a covert agent."During trial, Fitzgerald avoided talking about Plame's status with the CIA. While Joe Wilson hints that Fitzgerald clears this matter up, it's far from clear that that's what happened. That's of little consequence to Wilson, though, because the truth isn't that importance to him. Here's the ultimate dishonest statement:
Fitzgerald did insist that Mrs. Wilson's "association with the CIA was classified," which would make leaking her occupation a crime. But he declined to bring any charges to that effect, casting even more doubt on the claim that her CIA job was a closely guarded secret.
COOPER: Do you think you will get that?For a backstabbing lowlife like Joe Wilson to say that "this president...isn't a very decent individual" is beyond arrogant. When Wilson penned his NY Times op-ed about Iraq's pursuit of uranium, he said that he hadn't found proof of Iraq's purchasing uranium. As I've said numerous times, President Bush's Sixteen Words speech didn't say that Iraq had purchased uranium. He said that Iraq had tried purchasing uranium in Africa.
WILSON: I doubt it, because I believe that this president is really...is not a very decent individual.
But, quite apart from that, I believe the president owes the American people an explanation. As for openers, I think that he should release the transcript of both his interview and the vice president's interview with the special prosecutor.
I think he ought to instruct the special prosecutor to release all the documents related to this investigation, so the American people themselves can see what it was the prosecutor was talking about when he talked about a cloud over the vice president's office. And, if he doesn't do so, I think Congress should use its full authority to investigate this, and come to the bottom.
This op-ed was written while he was John Kerry's foreign affair advisor. It was a total hit piece designed to put John Kerry in the White House. That's why President Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby sought to discredit Joe Wilson. Had Wilson stuck with the truth, he wouldn't have gotten attacked.
As for Wilson's statement that Congress should investigate President Bush and "come to the bottom", I'd suggest that Congress has already met Amb. Wilson at "the bottom."
Posted Wednesday, July 4, 2007 7:21 PM
No comments.
