Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network

FrontPage’s Interview’s guest today is Deborah Weiss, an attorney, freelance writer and public speaker. A 9/11 survivor of WTC attacks in NYC, she formerly worked for the Committee on House Oversight in Congress and the Office of the Corporation Counsel under Giuliani. She is currently President of Vigilance, Inc., and is an expert in OIC UN resolutions. She has written a chapter in the new book, Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace. She can be scheduled for speaking engagements or interviews through info@vigilancenow.org

FP: Welcome Deborah. Glad you could join FPM today.

Weiss: Thank you for inviting me.

FP: Let’s begin with you telling us a about Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network.

Weiss: Thanks, Jamie.

As you know, Western petro-dollars have made Saudi Arabia a rich country. The Saudis use the money in part to export a radical Islamist ideology into the West. The ideology is antithetical to the Western values of freedom, equality and human rights.

The book was put together and edited by Sarah Stern, President of Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET). It has chapters by various experts and well-known authors, including James Woolsey​, Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes​, Rachel Ehrenfeld​ and others. Your readers are probably familiar with many of the authors.

For decades now, the West and America in particular, has been pretending that Saudi Arabia is our ally. This book lifts the veil off that myth by demonstrating the various ways that Saudi ideology has infiltrated America and the West, posing a threat to our freedom and way of life. It includes chapters on Saudi penetration into American NGO’s, American so-called “mainstream Muslim” organizations, the American school curriculum, finances, and more. The point is to illustrate the negative impact our addiction to oil will ultimately have on our society. It’s really about the stealth jihad.

FP: How did you got involved in the book?

Weiss: I am a 9/11 survivor from NYC, and have been working on the issues of non-violent radical Islam for years, as you know, Jamie. Every year, there is an event on Capitol Hill​, timed to coincide around the time of 9/11, that showcases speakers and experts on the topic of Saudi infiltration. I was one of the speakers the last two years. So when Sarah asked me if I’d be willing to contribute a chapter on the same subject, of course I said yes.

FP: What is your chapter about?

Weiss: My chapter is titled, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Defamation of Religions, and Islamophobia.” The OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world, comprised of 56 member states plus the Palestinian authority. Its members tend to vote together as a bloc in the UN, so they hold quite a lot of power and sway. Yet, most people have never heard of them.

They are an Islamist organization, which seeks to make Islam a victorious political power and to deny freedom to anyone who doesn’t want to live under Sharia law, including Muslims who don’t want to live under Sharia law. One of its main goals is to eventually internationally criminalize free speech on any Islam-related topic, including Islamic theocracies, Muslims, Islamic terrorism, Islamic human rights violations, and Sharia law. I know it sounds crazy, but partly because the public is not paying attention to this issue, and partly because the OIC’s strategy is to achieve its goal in small increments, it is actually making significant inroads. The OIC has successfully targeted various UN bodies with resolutions on this issue, called “Defamation of Religions” and it has targeted several EU Parliaments as well. The language is presented in a watered down form, so instead of asking for speech to be criminalized, the OIC will ask for states “to take effective action” or “condemn” the speech or discourage the speech. It has also presented Muslims as the victims of so-called “Islamophobia” in order to win more support for their cause.

FP: What exactly is the Defamation of Religions?

Weiss: Well, in America we have the concept of defamation of individuals or groups. Generally, defamation in the U.S. has to be a false statement and with negligent or reckless disregard of the truth, depending on whether you’re defaming a public figure or a private citizen. And it has to be a statement that is likely to result in either a pecuniary harm or harm to that person’s reputation. In America, truth is a complete defense. And I might add that in our system, defamation only applies to statements of fact. The First Amendment gives us protection to express any opinion we desire, no matter how negative it might be.

Defamation of Religions by contrast, gives protection to an idea, in this case a religion, as opposed to protecting a person or group. Also, it constitutes protection from criticism, even if the statement is true. And to boot, the way it is applied in countries that implement it, and the way the OIC interprets it, it is really only applied to Islam. In fact, the original title was called Defamation of Islam, but in order to get more support for it, the OIC changed the title. Still, Islam is the only religion mentioned in the text, and in practice it is only Islam that is afforded protection from criticism. Believe me, the OIC is totally fine with Defamation of Judaism and Defamation of Christianity. Additionally, the Muslim countries that have these types of laws usually impose a harsh criminal penalty for its violation, rather than a civil penalty. People who “defame Islam” are often jailed, flogged, sometimes even executed.

FP: Implementing Defamation of Religions laws obviously harms people.

Weiss: Yes, Jamie, it does. What’s ironic about it is that the OIC wants to make “Defamation of Religions” a human right. But in reality, it constitutes the very opposite of a human right. In countries that have this law, there are gross human rights violations. Not only are the penalties very harsh, but it also has the effect of oppressing those with minority religions. For example, if you are Christian and you say, “I believe Jesus is the Son of G-d”, that is not only blasphemy, but could be considered Defamation of Religions. Saying this could have dire consequences. This law even hurts Muslims who have a minority interpretation of Islam that differs from the official interpretation of the government. For example, in Pakistan it is illegal to be an Ahmadiyya Muslim. Ahamadiyyas are peaceful, loving, egalitarian-minded Muslims. But because they believe in a Prophet after Mohammad (named Ahmad), the Pakistani government considers them heretics and openly practicing their faith is a crime.

FP: Defamation of Religions is clearly harmful to religious freedom and human rights. What are some other negative implications?

Weiss: The ramifications also include the hampering of national security and terrorism prevention efforts. If you know anything about war, the threat doctrine dictates that the first rule of war is that you must know your enemy and be able to name it by name. Unfortunately, to the degree that the West censors discussion of Islam and Islamic terrorism, it hamstrings the ability of intelligence professionals to come up with strategies to defeat the problem.

FP: Here in America, we are still allowed to discuss these things, right?

Weiss: So far, America is the last bastion of freedom in terms of free speech. Unlike Europe, we do not have hate speech laws – yet. However, we have moved from self-censorship to having our government and other institutions issue restrictive guidelines on speech. For example, DHS, the State Department​ and the NCTC have all issued memos to their professional employees discouraging them from using words such as Islamic terrorism. The National Security Strategy Memo, which guides our whole US national security policy, also has had all references to Islamic terrorism deleted. There have been various other measures taken, especially in this administration, to cleanse all official and unofficial policy from discussion, mention, or even acknowledgement of Islamic terrorism.

FP: Why would our government do this?

Weiss: That’s a good question, Jamie. But first let me tell you why the OIC countries want this. The OIC countries want this because in their interpretation of Islam, it is considered blasphemy to say anything negative about Islam. They want to impose this rule on everyone else. Many of the Muslim majority countries have blasphemy laws in one form or another, even if it’s informal. The OIC has a big push to gradually move the West in this direction. Part of it is due to their ideological belief system. The other part of it is that they really have a political agenda. To the degree that they can obfuscate, confuse, or prevent us from knowing what they are doing, that gives them the upper hand in winning the war.

We are not really in a War on Terror; terrorism is a tactic. We are in a war against – not all Islam – but certainly radical Islam, and nobody wants to acknowledge that. The OIC doesn’t want to acknowledge that because going back to the threat doctrine, if we don’t know our enemy, it gives them an edge. Our government doesn’t want to acknowledge it for other reasons. One is political correctness. Two is if one has a political ideology but cloaks it in the language of religion, nobody wants to sound like they are criticizing a religion. Plus we have freedom of religion in America. Third, I hate to say it, but in this administration, I also think Obama is politically sympathetic to the OIC. If you recall during his speech in CAIRO, he said that it was his job as President to combat negative stereotypes of Islam wherever he finds them. Notice he said Islam, not Muslims. Anyway, I don’t remember learning in law school that this was one of the President’s functions. Maybe I was absent that day, but it’s certainly not in the enumerated powers. There are other reasons we don’t discuss this as well.

It poses a big problem because intelligence professionals are now being told to focus on terrorist behavior and disregard the underlying ideology that motivates it. If we are going to win the WOT, it is the ideology that needs to be addressed, not just the terrorism. Terrorism is just a symptom. Additionally, those who adhere to this radical ideology are not always terrorists. Many have a non-violent strategy to undermine our freedoms from within. As I said, it’s a stealth jihad and it’s not being adequately addressed.

FP: Where is the West on the issue of stifling free speech on Islam-related topics?

Weiss: Well, Europe has been much more Islamized than America. Additionally, many of the EU countries have hate speech laws of one sort or another. Canada has Human Rights Commissions that regularly fine people for defaming Islam even if they didn’t defame a person. If a Muslim or Muslim group files a complaint and it is found that they said something that is “likely to cause hatred” against that group, they will most likely be fined. That is true even if there is no intent to cause hatred, and no result of hatred. Not to mention that hatred is an emotion, so we’re not limiting this to the prevention of violence or legal discrimination.

In other countries, one can also get fined for negative speech on Islam or Muslims. Also as you know, recently in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was actually criminally prosecuted for expressing his views on Islam. He was acquitted, but the mere prosecution has a chilling effect on free speech. And that is in a country where there’s only about 5% Muslims. The whole thing is rather scary.

FP: What is the status of the Defamation of Religions resolutions now?

Weiss: It has been passed in numerous UN bodies year after year starting in 1999. This year, 2011, is the first time that the OIC did not introduce that resolution.

FP: Why not?

Weiss: It has gotten declining support in the last few years. So this year Secretary Hillary Clinton contacted the OIC and the EU to join together with the US and draft a resolution that would hopefully address the West’s concerns about free speech, while still addressing the OIC’s concerns about alleged Islamophobia.

FP: Tell us about the new resolution.

Weiss: The new resolution is titled, Resolution 16/18 to Combat Intolerance based on Religion or Belief. It passed in March of this year and the State Department is touting it as a big success. The State Department is under the impression that the resolution will move from protecting ideas from defamation to protecting individuals. But the OIC has made it very clear in other documents and statements that it has not dropped its goal of achieving the concept of Defamation of Religions.

FP: So the State Department is wrong about this resolution?

Weiss: Well, the whole issue comes down to how the words in the resolution are interpreted and implemented. On its face it seems that the State Department is interpreting the resolution one way, while the OIC is interpreting it another. The new resolution certainly omits the word “defamation” but instead, it replaces it with European hate-speech type language. There is no question that the language embodied in the new resolution can still be manipulated to achieve a Defamation of Religions concept. And that is exactly how the OIC intends to interpret it.

FP: But UN resolutions aren’t binding, so is there still cause for concern?

Weiss: Unfortunately, there is Jamie. First, if the resolutions keep passing and EU parliament implement similar language, eventually it can be considered “customary international law” and the US would be pressured to adhere to it. Second, the State Department has called a series of meetings with the OIC in order to move this last resolution to implementation. The first meeting is in December.

FP: What do you think will take place at the meeting?

Weiss: The OIC will use this as an opportunity to pressure Western governments to regulate speech on Islam-related topics. We’ll have to see exactly how this plays out. Secretary Clinton and the Obama administration have already shown a willingness to “shame” people who talk about these topics in a critical manner. Merely having this meeting with the OIC gives the OIC legitimacy and is cause for concern. As I explain in my chapter, America’s values and the OIC’s values are not in sync. It is futile to try to work with the OIC to show “respect” because the OIC’s definition of respect is that we should just shut if we’re saying anything it doesn’t like, and instead submit to its religiously-based speech codes.

Contrary to the popular belief that restricting our free speech on Islam will show “sensitivity” and win over the affection of Islamic countries, in reality, it will hamper our ability to protect our freedom and national security. It is a slippery slope and it is vital that we remain vigilant in order to keep America free. I hope people will buy the book. Becoming informed is the first step.

FP: Deborah Weiss, thank you for joining us.

For more, see www.vigilancenow.org
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/bioAuthor.aspx?AUTHID=3577
http://www.ascfusa.org/authors/view/80
as well as Human Events, American Thinker, Washington Times

Read more ...

NYC 9/11 Screening Tour Succeeds! | Christian Action Network

NYC 9/11 Screening Tour Succeeds! | Christian Action Network

FIRST PARAGRAPH GOES HEREREST OF THE ARTICLE GOES HERE

Read more ...

Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?

By Deborah Weiss

The treatment of women under Islamic Sharia law is inherently discriminatory against women. Alarmed by the suffering of Muslim women at the hands of Sharia Courts in Britain, Baroness Cox recently introduced legislation into parliament which would ensure gender equality in Britain’s Sharia Courts.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act of 1996, litigating parties are permitted to forgo the British court system and have their cases heard in an arbitral tribunal if both parties agree on the tribunal, are willing to relinquish their rights to a judge and jury, and voluntarily consent to the arbitration. Sharia Courts have operated informally in Britain for quite some time. However, in 2007 Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act which rightly made him realize Sharia Courts could be classified as arbitration tribunals. Subsequently, he began heading up the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal to oversee the Sharia Courts. Once classified as arbitration tribunals, the British government began enforcing Sharia judgments with the full force of law.

According to a report by the Civitas think tank in England, as of two years ago there were approximately 85 Sharia Courts operating in Britain. The Arbitration Act of 1996 permits tribunals to rule on financial and property issues. However, the report asserted that many of the Sharia Courts exceeded permissible jurisdictional boundaries by advising on matters of marriage, divorce, child custody and domestic violence. By law, family and criminal matters are not arbitrable. This illegal expansion of jurisdiction has been dubbed “jurisdiction creep.”

The arbitral rulings and advisory opinions issued by Sharia Courts mandate the disparate treatment of women. Under Sharia law, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s, she is awarded half the inheritance of her male counterparts, custody laws grossly shortshrift women, and property laws provide unequal rights based on gender.

In terms of mediation efforts, Sharia Courts often merely hand the parties pre-determined outcomes that comport with the laws of Sharia and request both parties to sign consent forms. Then, the forms are submitted to the Family Court on the false premise that the terms were truly negotiated by the parties involved.

To make matters worse, many Muslim marriages take place solely under religious ceremonies and are not registered with the state as required by the Marriage Act of 1949. Thus, these “marriages” are not civilly recognized and the “wives” are not afforded any legal protections. Interestingly, the problem of non-registration appears only in the Muslim community. Jews and Christians always register their marriages civilly even when the wedding ceremony is religious in nature.

Unfortunately, there are Muslim women who fled their homelands to escape the oppression of Sharia law, only to find they are facing a similar situation in the UK. Because many Muslim immigrants are illiterate, the women are unaware of their rights under British law. It is legal to consent to arbitration if the acquiescence is voluntary. However, often in Muslim communities women are threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced into submitting to Sharia Courts. Thus, it is not truly voluntary.

Baroness Cox finds the injustice to Muslim women and the discriminatory judgments being handed down by Sharia Courts to be disconcerting. In addition, many British judges have begun questioning whether Sharia rulings comply with the UK’s obligations to ensure gender equality under the Human Rights Act.

Accordingly, Baroness Cox’s bill, titled “The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill,” if passed into law, makes it clear that sex discrimination laws apply to arbitration tribunals as well as civil courts. It would prohibit unequal treatment of testimony, uneven-handedness of property, inheritance distribution, and financial rulings. It would also make it a crime punishable by up to five years in jail to falsely assert jurisdiction over family and criminal matters. Finally, the bill mandates that in unregistered marriages, public authorities must inform the parties that they are required to register their marriages in order to secure legal rights.

In other words, the bill requires Sharia Courts to acknowledge the priority of British law over Sharia law when the two conflict, and to preserve the British values of human rights and equality for women.

The bill does not mention Islam or Sharia by name. However, both the Baroness’ comments, as well as the Explanatory Note attached to the bill, make it clear that the legislation was prompted by concerns of the inequality executed in Sharia Courts and the fact that Sharia Courts have regularly, gradually, and illegally expanded their jurisdiction.

Various secular, Christian and Iranian-Kurdish women’s rights groups support the Baroness’ bill.

It comes on the foot-heels of the Home Secretary’s admission that Britain’s anti-terrorism program failed to recognize the extent of radical Islamist ideology and its influence in Britain, and an acknowledgment of Britain’s continuing problems of lack of integration and assimilation by the Islamic community. It is therefore no surprise that some Muslims are complaining about this legislation.

Turning a blind eye to the lack of consent, their ignorance of the law, the cries of suffering women, and the failure of Sharia Courts to inform Muslim women of their rights, Khurshid Drabu, constitutional adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain argued, “[B]ills of this kind don’t help anybody.” He accused lawmakers of failing to understand the “freedom” that Britain ensures whereby Muslim women should be permitted to submit to Sharia rulings.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Deborah Weiss is an attorney, freelance writer and public speaker. She works for vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.

Read more ...

The Importance of Being (Peter) King

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
June 24, 2011

Poor Peter. The burdens that come with exposing the problem of radical Islam in America are falling squarely on Congressman Peter King’s shoulders. This is because he, almost single-handedly, has taken up the mantle of leadership on this issue in the form of congressional hearings. This is a daunting task no doubt, and he is to be commended for both his efforts and his courage.It was therefore a grave disappointment when last week’s hearing, titled “The threat of Muslim-American radicalization in U.S. Prisons” fell flat. Indeed, it left the observer wondering what the goal of the hearing was. If it was to educate the public, it utterly failed. If it was to raise awareness, it did no such thing. To the contrary, an objective observer uneducated on this topic would likely walk away believing that the trend of Islamist radicalization in U.S prisons is minute, perhaps irrelevant, and certainly not a serious threat. It might reasonably have been concluded that prison gang violence, discrimination against poor black men, a lack of rehabilitation and social injustice should have been the subject of the hearing. After all, why is Poor Peter picking on radical Muslims and not radical Jews or radical Christians? It just doesn’t seem fair. And without further explanation, it doesn’t even seem constitutional.

Confining their answers to the questions being asked by the committee’s congressmen, the witnesses were able to eke out bits and pieces of useful information. Yes, some people become radical Muslims in prison; yes, some Muslims in prison have formed or joined terrorist cells, and yes there are some inmates who want to supplant the U.S. government with Sharia law.

But without context and a clear purpose of what the hearing was intended to achieve, the viewer was left at the mercy of information elicited by congressmen who might not know much more about this subject than they do. It is conceivable that some congressmen might even have had a contrary political agenda.

This is the inevitable result when committee staff selects witnesses who are apologists for Islamism or who are unable to explain the relevance of the issue at hand. The first witness, Patrick Dunleavy, former Inspector General of the New York State Department of Corrections and author of “Fertile Soil of Jihad” (a book about Islamic radicalization in prisons) did his best to explain the problem in the five minutes allotted. The other three witnesses gave testimony counter to the conclusion that Chairman King presumably wanted the audience to conclude. Sociology Professor Bert Useem from Purdue University (the Democrats’ witness) insisted that it is impossible for prisoners to be inculcated with extremist literature in jail because such literature is prohibited (ignoring other witness testimony that this literature abounds in jails anyway). Kevin Smith, former Assistant U.S. Attorney from California, told the audience about some specific cases of terrorist cells forming in prison, but they sounded like isolated incidents. And, Michael Downing from the L.A. Police Department praised Islam as “one of the most peaceful religions in the world but it has been hijacked.” He insisted that working with the Muslim community is the best defense to countering terrorism. Additionally, he asserted that the Islamic ummah would likely be “shocked” and not proud to learn about the extremist interpretations of Islam that inmates are learning in prison. Yet, he emphasized that California jails examine “suspicious activity” and made no mention of monitoring the underlying ideology.

During the question and answer period, several congressmen used their allotted time to grandstand rather than extract information from the witnesses. Some of the performances were quite impressive. Congressman Hansen Clarke (D-Michigan) was practically in tears as he shouted that discrimination against poor black men constituted the real problem with jails and that the focus on Islamic radicalization is merely a “distraction”. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS) seemed certain that criminal gangs are more of a threat to America than Islamists. Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-CA) and others insisted that radical Christians and radical Asians and radical every-other-group are all equal threats. Further, Richardson professed that singling out radical Muslims constitutes discrimination “based on race or religion.”

Undoubtedly, Peter King’s staff realized that criticism for holding hearings on radical Islam would be inevitable. They knew too, that there are people on both sides of this issue whose positions are fixed and cannot be swayed by congressional hearings. Their target audience should have been those in the middle who are uninformed but open-minded. Their goal should have been to educate the public and raise awareness, to present testimony that would rightly demonstrate why the Chairman’s concerns are founded. Ideally, the three witnesses selected by the Republicans would have provided facts within a framework that could have served as the basis for concurring with the Chairman’s conclusions.

The selected witnesses should have incorporated the following information into their initial presentations:

■What is the definition of radical? Is it just violence or the underlying ideology?
■Is there a difference between prisoners who might become “radical Christians” or “radical Jews” and those who become radical Muslims? Which is the largest national security threat and why?
■Is Islamic radicalism a religion as the west understands it or is it more of a political ideology? Does it make sense to single out the radicalization of Muslims as opposed to other religions?
■Can you be specific about how radical Islamist ideology is a threat to national security and freedom including freedom of religion?
■How is Islamist radicalism different from gangs and thugs? Can you place this in a national security context and tie it to the War on Terror?
■Is it possible that “credentialed Imams” are radicals as they are in the military program, established by now-jailed Alamoudi?
■Why did the 9/11 Commission single out Imams as problematic rather than all jail clergy?
■Though the number of radicalized Muslims in jail might be small, as were the 19 hijackers from 9/11, what is the risk of ignoring this problem?
■What is the process of radicalization and what can be done to prevent it?
■Is the radical Islamic ideology a problem when prisoners are released from jail?
■Can the problems that the EU is having with radical Muslims happen here in the U.S.?
Little of this was confronted in the original testimony. Of course it was appropriate for the Democrats to have a witness who does not believe that the radicalization of Muslims in prison is prevalent enough to pose a national security threat. After all, reasonable minds can differ. However, it was imperative for the Republican panel to include witnesses who would explain the dangers of radical Islam as a political ideology and to identify this underlying ideology as a threat to national security and American freedom. It was a mistake to allow Democrats to frame the issue as a prison problem rather than a national security threat. The Chairman pointed this out, but in order to have any impact, the witnesses needed to present facts and analysis that would lead the audience to the same conclusion.

Congressman Peter King should be commended for raising issues critical to the national dialogue and for having the fortitude to withstand the onslaught of criticism that he bears.

Let’s hope that in preparation for the next hearing in this series, Peter King’s staff does a better job in witness selection, obtaining subject matter expertise, and drawing out testimony that explains why Islamism is a problem in the U.S. Chairman King and the American public deserve no less.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. works for Vigilance and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council.

Read more ...

Britain Admits Failure of Anti-terrorism Program

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine
June 17, 2011

After the 7/7 bombings on the London subway in 2005, the U.K. launched a 63 million pound program to combat terrorism. The program, named “PREVENT”, was recently reviewed. Subsequently, Britain’s Home Secretary, Theresa May, admitted that the program had failed. Here’s why: The program’s strategy aimed to counter terrorist groups largely by funding so-called “moderate” Muslim organizations in an attempt to work jointly toward its goals. PREVENT also financed overseas operations that were allegedly designed to stem terrorist activity in the U.K.

As it turned out, much of the program’s money went to support non-violent radical organizations that share the same hard-line Islamist ideology as Al-Qaeda and other terrorist entities. Further, the program’s emphasis on international projects merely wasted precious pounds and “diverted valuable resources” away from the prevention of home-grown terrorism, a growing concern in the U.K.

Home Secretary May confessed that the PREVENT program clearly failed to recognize how terrorist groups make use of the extremist ideology promoted by non-violent radical organizations. Therefore, the program was unsuccessful in convincing some parts of the Muslim community that terrorism is unacceptable and wrong. Additionally, the program only targeted a small segment of the audience that is susceptible to terrorist propaganda.

As a result of the review’s findings, there will be a significant shift in the program’s direction. PREVENT’s new strategy will tackle not only terrorism, but its underlying ideology. In so doing, it will focus on non-violent extremist organizations. It will also examine how schools, colleges, and mosques are addressing the problem of Islamic extremism. It will additionally evaluate the role of law enforcement as well as that of other government entities in combating the problem.

To its credit, the U.K. government will withdraw financial support from more than twenty Muslim organizations to which it gave money in the last three years for the purpose of fighting extremism. No additional funds will be delivered to any Muslim organizations without properly vetting them first. Any Muslim organization found to oppose British values such as human rights and equality under the law, will be denied government money.

PREVENT will now monitor the prison system looking for signs of radicalization, and target prisoners newly released from jail on terrorism charges. Additionally, the program will have a renewed focus on the internet, and is considering a “national blocking list” for violent websites. Computers in schools, libraries and colleges will be barred from access to these sites.

The budget for the program’s new strategy will be 36 million pounds. The Home Secretary believes that the successful prevention of radicalism will also depend on integration of the Muslim community rather than segregation. She asserted that espousing fundamental British values and denouncing extremist ideology can also help.

Although the government will continue to arrest suspects as necessary, the emphasis of the program will be on preventing radicalization in its early stages.

The U.K. government has finally realized – perhaps too late – that it is the underlying radical ideology that must be tackled in order to get at the root cause of terrorism. When will the U.S. government learn this same lesson?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss is an attorney, writer and public speaker. She works for vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.

Read more ...

Israel: Standing Alone?

By, Deborah Weiss
American Security Council
June 2, 2011

Israel celebrated her sixty-third anniversary of independence on Saturday, May 14th, 2011. The following day, May 15th, constituted the holiday Palestinians refer to as “Nakba”, which means “the catastrophe” in Arabic. It is the day in which Palestinians mourn the creation of Israel. Prior to Israel’s anniversary, 350,000 organizations and individuals signed onto a facebook page calling for a third intifada against Israel, at which time facebook finally took the page down. During the first two intifadas, Palestinians had thrown rockets across the borders into Israel, terrorizing Israeli citizens. Fatah, which had previously worked to prevent terrorism along the West Bank, announced that it if a third intifada were to occur, it could not do anything to stop it. As it turned out, the protests did not rise to the level of an intifada this year. However, Israel was still invaded with violent demonstrations from all sides – Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank.



Now, Hamas and Fatah are reconciling to form a “unity government”. It has been established that once a Palestinian unity government is formed, it will go to the UN demanding unilateral recognition of Palestine as a nation state, henceforth bypassing the peace process. In other words, Palestine would not have to negotiate with Israel regarding borders and Hamas would not withdraw its charter-required commitment to destroy Israel. If the UN grants this request, then Palestine will be able to sign onto the International Criminal Court and file criminal complaints against “Israeli aggression”. This is a legal strategy to achieve the destruction of Israel at the same time Palestinians have a strategy on the ground to attain Israel’s destruction through terrorism.



President Obama’s speech on May 19, 2011 was additional bad news for Israel. For the first time in American history, a sitting U.S. President referred to parts of Israel as “occupied territory” despite the fact that there had never been a pre-existing Palestinian state to occupy. President Obama also told Israel that she should go back to the 1967 borders. If Israel were to comply, she would be only 9 miles wide at her narrowest point and Jerusalem would be split in half. Israel would no longer control the land with the Wailing Wall of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest of sites. Moreover, such borders would give the Palestinians land that is geographically higher than that of Israel’s. This would provide Palestine with a military advantage, making it easier to proceed with maneuvers toward Israel’s destruction. Indeed, the President’s speech raises the question of whether Israel’s one friend in the world --- the U.S. --- is abandoning her in her greatest time of need.



Undoubtedly, Israel is in big trouble. In the Middle East, anti-Semitism combined with anti-Israel sentiment is the one unifying force that fractioned groups active in the “Arab Spring” have in common. Though they may differ on other issues, they are united in their hatred of Israel. Unfortunately, this sentiment is increasingly shared around the globe including Europe, where anti-Semitism is at its highest rate since World War II. And Obama isn’t helping. Nor are college campuses in the U.S. which are indoctrinating their students with anti-Israel propaganda. For example, Columbia University recently announced that it started a “Palestinian Studies” department. Apparently it wasn’t enough that Columbia already employed a professor with known terrorist ties – Khalid Rashidi. Now, he is the head of the university’s Center for Palestinian Studies.



Currently, the United States provides Fatah, the alleged "moderate Palestinian party" with approximately half a billion dollars of funding per year. However, Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by both the U.S. and the European Union. And, it is illegal to donate money to a terrorist organization. Indeed, there are people sitting in American prisons today for donating money to Hamas.



Accordingly, Democrats and Republicans in Congress are deliberating the idea of passing legislation stop funding to the unity government until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and promises to work to stop Palestinian terrorism against Israel. However, political appointees at the State Department urge continued funding of the Palestinians. They want to take a “wait and see” attitude, claiming it is too soon to form a conclusion about how the new unity government will act.



Despite the State Department’s inclinations, the Hamas Charter is clear that it is dedicated to the total destruction of Israel -- not merely to regain what some in the west refer to as "occupied territories”. Hamas considers ALL of Israel to constitute "occupied territory". Hamas has been equally clear that its position on this will not change with the formation of the new unity government. On the contrary, Fatah is already showing signs that it is acquiescing to Hamas, by refusing to stop Palestinian invasions of Israel along the West bank during Nakba.



All this sounds like a conspiracy theory against Israel, right? If only it were. Prosecutors will tell you that some conspiracies are theories and others are fact. The existential threat against Israel could not be more real. Funding a terrorist entity is against the law. There is no exception for the U.S. government. Please contact your congressmen and senators to let them know that you do not want your tax-payer money going to support Hamas, a U.S-designated terrorist organization.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss is an attorney, writer and public speaker. She works for Vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation, FrontPage Magazine and The Washington Times.

Read more ...

Today's Sun Sentinel has an article http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2010/10/wasserman_schultz_protests_wes_1.html about an attack by democratic congresswomen Wasserman Schultz attacking Col Allen West as being dangerous to women supporting their sexual abuse. The protest is being organized in a desperate attempt to save the campaign of Ron Klein who is running behind Col West in the polls.

She had no problem with Bill Clinton's sexual abuse of an intern, no problem of his rape of a latina employee, no problem with Senator Kennedy killing a woman he had an affair with, no problem with Senator Edwards affair with employee's but Allen West she has a problem with.

Clearly she cares nothing for the issue and is just trying to make a political point. And she endangers women with this type of false charges because by crying wolf she risks the public becoming so cynical that they ignore real abuse of women.

Oh wait these were white men so its OK for them to abuse women. But an African American like Col West is a danger. Shame on the Ron Klein campaign for pushing this racist attack on an American hero, Rather than focusing on the issues Ron Klein has chosen to use stereotypical attacks on his opponent as a dangerous black man who is a sexual predator.

These racist stereotypes of African Americans were supposed to end with the success of the civil rights movement. Shame on Ron Klein and Wasserman Schultz for using the race card in this election. As a Jew I am ashamed of all the attacks I here from Klein's activists attacking the "shvartze"

Hopefully the public will ignore these racist attacks. Its nothing short of disgusting that politicians are resorting to them this election.

Read more ...

Lipstick Revolution

LIPSTICK REVOLUTION
40 lashes for throwing a sweet 16 party

By Deborah Weiss
Published in The Washington Times
June 18, 2010

In the early years of the Islamic Revolution, wearing red lipstick was considered "an insult to the blood of the martyrs." Indeed, when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979, the lives of women changed drastically, as they were forced to adhere to Shariah law, including its stringent dress code. Now, some protesters are fighting for their fashion freedom.Tala Raassi is a 27-year-old fashion designer residing in Washington. However, it wasn't always the case that she was able to wear clothes that made her feel sexy or feminine. She grew up in Iran, where the government gave her 40 lashes for her 16th birthday for the crime of wearing "indecent clothes."

Tala's friends had decided to throw her a Sweet 16 party. Thirty boys and girls gathered at one of her friend's houses. Once inside the privacy of the home, Tala wore only a miniskirt and T-shirt. The teens enjoyed some innocent fun, listening to music and chatting. There were no drugs or liquor at the party.

A boy who had not been invited reported the party to the religious police. Without warning, the police barged into the house and started screaming. Tala ran out the back door. The religious police ran after her, threatening, "Stop or we'll shoot you!" Realizing that they meant it, Tala stopped running. One policeman shoved his gun into Tala's back so hard that she fell to the ground. Then he dragged her back to the house and handcuffed her. The teens were rounded up, pushed into a van and carted off to jail.

Once there, the boys and girls were separated. Tala and the other girls were thrown into a rat-infested, barren room. There were no beds, just cement. Already there was one pregnant woman lying on the ground, another woman with her baby and a third who had been dragged to jail straight from her wedding. Tala was informed that one of the women had been raped with a Coke bottle by the other prisoners. She watched the rats run around and listened to the screams of other prisoners being tortured down the hall. She wondered what her future would portend. She slept there overnight and was provided no food or water.

The next day, during the "adhan," or call to prayer, which occurs three times a day in Iran, the guards ordered the prisoners to line up for their lashes. After the prisoners had stood for 40 minutes with no lashes executed, they were told to return to their cells. This routine continued for days.

On the fifth day, Tala and her friends were brought to court. They were not permitted to have an attorney or defend themselves. The court sentenced the boys to 50 lashes each and the girls to 40 lashes each. They were convicted of breaking Islamic rules by wearing "indecent clothes," mingling with the opposite sex and listening to Western music.

Once back in jail, Tala and her friend were called in for their lashes by two middle-aged female guards dressed in black chadors. They were ordered to lie face down on mattresses. The girls were to keep their T-shirts on so that the material would dig into their wounds when bloody and burn even more than if the girls had been bare. The guards dipped their leather whips into water to ensure the maximum sting. Though the lashings seemed to take forever, in reality it was over in 10 minutes. Tala's parents heard her screams down the hall.

Tala graduated a few months later, but she remained depressed and rarely left the house. The experience of being lashed changed her forever. Her parents decided it would be good for her to leave Iran. She came to America and decided to become a clothing designer because, to her, fashion equals freedom.

After arriving in the United States, Tala took a job at a boutique and began designing her own clothes. Five years later, at a party, a gentleman complimented her on her self-made shirt. He liked it so much that he became her first investor and helped her get her business off the ground.

Now Tala has her own line of clothes, called Dar be Dar, which means "door to door" in Persian. She specializes in bikinis and sells her designs to stores in the U.S. and Dubai and also through the Internet. She also had a show at Miami Fashion Week, an event many designers would covet.

Tala is planning to launch a new T-shirt line called Lipstick Revolution. It's inspired by the new revolutionary movement in Iran. It specifically honors women around the world who are fighting for freedom.

Before 1979, women enjoyed a fair amount of freedom in Iran, but after the Islamic Revolution, Shariah law was implemented. The value of women's lives was reduced to half that of a man's; women were stoned for adultery, married at age 13 and held criminally responsible at the same age. It's nearly impossible for women to obtain divorces, though men can do so arbitrarily. Custody and inheritance laws strongly favor men, and gender apartheid is in effect. Women are required to dress covered from head to toe.

Now, after 30 years of Islamic rule, a recently rigged election and massive riots, the protests in Iran continue. Some of the protesters include women who literally are dying for their fashion freedom. Tala Raassi's Lipstick Revolution does pay homage to them.

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation.

Read more ...

In Defense of Freedom

By Deborah Weiss
Published in FrontPage Magazine
June 10, 2010

Last week, The Heritage Foundation’s second annual “Protect America Month” came to a close. The program was designed to express commitment to America’s national security, advocate for increased defense spending, point out the constitutional basis for government’s role in protecting America, and to examine the threats to the United States. John Ashcroft, former Attorney General of the United States, delivered the closing speech.Attorney General Ashcroft began by asserting his belief that “the defense of America is tantamount to the defense of freedom. And freedom is worth defending.” He astutely reviewed his understanding of the definition of freedom, and how American exceptionalism plays a vital role in contributing and sustaining freedom around the globe.

He rejected the common argument that freedom and national security must be balanced. Rather, freedom is the highest value with no parallel. However, in order to maintain it, it must be secured. Therefore, the two are not counterweights to each other. Rather, national security protects America’s freedom, and ensures that freedom stays intact.

Ashcroft explained that the ability to engage in the pursuit of happiness increases freedom, while the provision of happiness by the government impairs freedom, and often comes at a high cost. In other words, when needs are converted into rights, freedom shrinks. Most importantly, the imposition of that which is not wanted constitutes the denial of freedom regardless of the virtue of that which is being imposed.

Freedom is under attack. Nine years after September 11, 2001, Americans have become complacent. Many have a false sense of security. But the former Attorney General encouraged the audience not to surrender to the terrorist threat, and always be mindful of those who sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom.

Ashcroft believes that the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect its citizens. The way he believes national security is enforced is through the rule of law, so that people are on notice of what they can and cannot do.

In analyzing habeas corpus doctrine, the use of military tribunals and indefinite detention, Ashcroft reviewed numerous Supreme Court cases including Hamdi, Quirin, and Eisentrager. He also discussed the DC Court of Appeals case, titled Maqaleh v Gates.

When asked about his positions on specific policy and legal matters, he emphasized the reasoning process that should support these decisions. They included the following:

■Be aware that policies send a message that can deter behavior or invite behavior;
■Determine if the conduct in question constitutes a war crime or merely violates a domestic criminal statute;
■Ensure that all three branches of government are acting within their appropriate constitutional limits;
■Know that the executive branch can make faster decisions to ensure the protection of America’s national security than can the legislative branch;
■Acknowledge the fact that military tribunals, while operating under different rules than federal courts, still result in outcomes that are fair and respect the true facts;
■In deciding whether a defendant should be tried in a military tribunal versus a federal court, determine your objective. If national security information in involved, minimize the release of this information to our enemies;
■If a person with US citizen status is fighting against the US with America’s enemies, perhaps he should be treated as an enemy;
■Laws should be clear and certain. If the geographical location of the occurrence doesn’t provide clear rules, then look to the circumstances surrounding the case;
■America should make sure that she runs prisons only in locations where she can maintain control of what occurs within them;
■Finally, Americans should distinguish between detention for the purpose of punishment and detention for the purpose of removing enemy combatants from the stream of battle.
The former Attorney General also noted that America’s reckless financial conduct will have grave national security implications for future generations who might be unable to finance their defense. Moreover, if America reveals a lack of self-sufficiency to the world by becoming a debtor to the world, it signals America’s weakness. Funding national security should be one of government’s main priorities.

America’s current Attorney General, Eric Holder, appears to have no clear rules guiding his decisions in reference to which defendants go to a military tribunal versus a federal court. His decisions appear to be arbitrary and capricious. Though he is the head of the Department of Justice, national security does not seem to be his paramount priority. He refuses to acknowledge the Islamist ideological threat, favors the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, opposes the Patriot Act (responsible for disrupting numerous terrorist plots in the US) and is critical of enhanced interrogation techniques. Instead, he has stated that engagement in “dialogue” with the Muslim community is a priority for his Department, as is the prosecution of so-called “hate crimes.” Though he is not an expert in Islamic theology, he nevertheless asserts with seeming authority the claim that that those who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam behave in a way that is “un-Islamic” and contrary to Islam’s actual teachings.

By contrast, John Ashcroft led America through its toughest times after the largest terrorist attack on US soil following September 11, 2001. He made fighting terrorism his number one priority. He reorganized DOJ to ensure that suspected terrorists were prosecuted when the evidence warranted it. Under his leadership, DOJ dismantled numerous terrorist cells throughout the US and over 150 plots throughout the world. Ashcroft’s role in the execution of the War on Terror was one of the most difficult of any cabinet member.

Ashcroft’s speech at the Heritage Foundation expressed a love of freedom, an appreciation of American exceptionalism, an understanding of the threats to liberty, respect for the law, Judeo-Christian values, and a deference to “we the people.” The Left, of course, has consistently expressed its venom toward John Ashcroft and the entire War on Terror. But Ashcroft’s speech reminded me of the time after September 11, 2001, when, however briefly, the country came together to face our common enemies. Our government united us in the cause for freedom and our shared American values. My, how things have changed.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the American Security Council Foundation. She delivers speeches on the methods radicals use to stifle free speech.

Read more ...