Americans Against Hate

Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network

2011-12-01T16:57:00.008-05:00

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

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

2011-09-13T18:54:00.000-05:00

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

FIRST PARAGRAPH GOES HEREREST OF THE ARTICLE GOES HERE

Gender Equality in Sharia Courts?

2011-08-12T21:58:00.006-05:00

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.

The Importance of Being (Peter) King

2011-06-24T14:12:00.004-05:00

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.

Britain Admits Failure of Anti-terrorism Program

2011-06-17T12:56:00.003-05:00

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.

Israel: Standing Alone?

2011-06-17T12:48:00.004-05:00

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.

2010-10-22T12:49:00.003-05:00

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.

Lipstick Revolution

2010-06-21T18:13:00.003-05:00

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.

In Defense of Freedom

2010-06-21T18:12:00.001-05:00

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.

No Such Thing As Islamic Terrorism?

2010-05-18T23:50:00.004-05:00

By Deborah Weiss American Security Council Foundation: May 18, 2010

Against President Obama’s backdrop of bowing to the Saudi King, berating Israel, Mirandizing terrorists, and voluntarily reducing US nuclear capabilities, the United States Administration has now made a decision to ban words such as “jihad” and “Islamic extremism” from the US National Security Strategy. But will this cleansing of national security vocabulary be effective in making America safer?

Last month it was announced that President Obama’s advisors will remove all religious terms from the central National Security Strategy document, an instructive document on preventive war strategy. The purpose of the removal of these terms is to send a message to Muslim nations that America does not view them through the eyes of terrorism. The change constitutes a significant shift in US strategy. Under President Bush, the same document expressed the view that “militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the 21st century.” Now however, it appears that in the context of US national security, any discussion of Islam is verboten.

Instead of addressing radical Islam head-on, Obama has teamed up with the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to fight polio. The OIC is an organization of 57 Muslim majority states that vote as a block on the UN Human Rights Council, rendering it unable to address human rights abuses in the Muslim world. Obama also held an Entrepreneur Summit encouraging US investment in Muslim businesses, some of which were owned by Muslim Brotherhood types. Additionally, the President’s administration collaborated with Egypt to introduce a resolution into the UN Human Rights Council encouraging all nations to “take effective action” against those who “defame Islam.” In other words, the resolution seeks to provide an ideology (rather than people) with protection from criticism, and aspires to penalize those who make such criticism.

Part of the Administration’s apprehension in using accurate terminology might be attributable to political correctness. Though the push toward political correctness has been building for decades, the momentum greatly accelerated since 2009 when Obama took office. Indeed, documents such as the 9/11 Commission Report, which repeatedly mentioned Islamic terrorism, could likely not have been written in today’s politically correct environment. Thus, despite overwhelming evidence that the Fort Hood shootings constituted an Islamist terrorist attack, the Pentagon report failed to entertain this possibility. Instead, it speculated that Major Hassan was somehow suffering from “PTSD” or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, despite the fact that he never went to war.

Obama’s new national security strategy turns a blind eye toward Islamist supremacist ideology and its adherents’ abhorrent treatment of infidels around the globe. The elimination of words from the national security lexicon not only changes how the US can talk to Muslim majority countries, but what America talks to them about. Instead of focusing on terrorism – in other words national security concerns, officials will now be discussing issues like the environment, poverty and education. This is based on the false premise that terrorism is caused solely or primarily by legitimate geo-political complaints, rather than a radical political ideology masking itself in the name of religion.

The question is, will the elimination of offensive words eliminate the underlying threat conveyed by these words? History, global politics, and the study of human psychology will answer this question with a resounding “no!” Denial has never made any problem disappear. To the contrary, traditional threat doctrine mandates that in order to defeat an enemy, one must be able to accurately identify it and name it by name.

Though the President might score some political points with those whose true agenda is to destroy America’s freedom from within, the strategy of omitting language offensive to America’s enemies comes at a cost. Appeasement of terrorists and Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers will only serve to embolden them. By contrast, truly moderate Muslims should have no reason to feel offended if the US takes aim at radicals who in addition to putting Jews, Christians and atheists in danger, equally threaten the lives and freedoms of moderate Muslims.

To be sure, radical Islam - both violent and stealth, constitutes today’s greatest threat to freedom around the globe. One needs only to look at the incremental Islamization of Canada and Europe to see what forebodes America. Dictators have always known that the first step to gaining power and implementing tyranny is through censorship. And, there is no better way to relinquish power than to use self-censorship in discussion or identification of Freedom’s ideological enemies. Despite this, when President Obama visits Indonesia in June, he is determined to reiterate the themes of appeasement that he delivered in his Cairo speech.

Words represent ideas and thoughts. The removal of language identifying America’s threats also necessarily precludes discussion of strategies to defeat such threats. It is tantamount to removing tools of war from America’s national security professionals, hindering their ability to keep America safe.

President Reagan understood the power of words. By identifying evil for what it was, he gave hope to those around the world who suffered under its tyranny. In part, his speeches set the stage for the collapse of the “Evil Empire”. But under Obama’s leadership, what was heretofore considered Freedom’s greatest ideological enemy can no longer even be mentioned. Traditional threat doctrine, critical to winning any military war as well as the war of ideas, is now being replaced with the official policy of Denial.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation and a columnist with FrontPage Magazine. She works for www.vigilancenow.org and delivers speeches on the instruments radicals use to stifle free speech.

During International Crisis, Which Law Reigns Supreme?

2010-05-18T23:36:00.004-05:00

By Deborah Weiss

American Security Council Foundation: April 13, 2010

At this critical juncture in history, the West is engaged in a long, unconventional war with radical Islam. Freedom hangs in the balance. The international community connives, seduces and pressures the US to work in “cooperation” with the rest of the world on matters of utmost importance. In the debate between internationalists and nationalists, which laws should govern, those of the international community or American law? Which law reigns supreme? America’s answer to this question may determine the future of her existence and that of the entire Free World.

American nationalists believe in American sovereignty. Sovereignty is the trait of having supreme, independent and sole authority over one owns land, and it stems from the right of a nation to self-determination. Some sovereign states operate as dictatorships, where the government is self-determinative, but the people are not free. But the American system of government is based on the notion that individual rights are endowed by their Creator, not the government. Rather, the government derives its power in the form of limited, enumerated powers conveyed to it through the constitution. Critical to this concept is the notion that the people consent to this governmental power. The government of the United States works for its citizens, not the other way around. The constitution creates a private domain in which the individual is free from government interference.

The plain text of the constitution states that the constitution is the “supreme law of the land”. Of course, the constitution itself can be amended through the procedures stated within it. Indeed, it was through those procedures that the Bill of Rights was created. Additionally, the US can choose to bind herself to an international agreement by signing and ratifying a treaty (requiring a 2/3 Senate vote). However, such treaties must be entered with caution because unintended consequences cannot be corrected through the domestic legislative process.

Internationalists believe that international law should take priority over the constitution and American law. In other words, they do not believe in US sovereignty, but rather that America should cede her power to external authorities. Though treaties may require the relinquishment of American authority, at least they are self-imposed. The larger problem stems from years of non-binding resolutions by international bodies, the assertion of authority by international organizations and conferences, and the establishment of “traditional and customary international law”, all of which gradually erode America’s right to make her own laws and decisions. The decision to yield to these authorities is political, not legal. Much of the world desires that nation states “share sovereignty.” In reality, this means that states will relinquish their national sovereignty in favor of some internationally recognized authority.

In the worldview of internationalists, no nation or nations would hold a balance of power over the others. Countries like the US and Israel that stand up as the beacon of freedom and human rights would hold no sway over countries that are tyrannical and oppressive in nature. American internationalists reject the notion of American exceptionalism. They refuse to believe that America holds a special place in the world by setting an example of freedom, equality and prosperity. Instead, they believe that America is and should be just one of the 192 member nation states of the United Nations, no different from any other.

The danger in this worldview is it cedes irrevocable authority to unelected, unaccountable international decision-makers who often do not have America’s best interest at heart (and oft-times nor of their own citizens). There is no consent by Americans to yield this power, no oversight after it is transferred, and no check on external power to keep it from being abused. Even when American officials bind themselves voluntarily to international agreements, the agreements are often flawed. In effect, they often constitute legislation without representation, and are used as a surrogate for the domestic legislative process. To the extent that politicians sign treaties on otherwise domestic issues, or issues circumventing the constitutional rights of citizens, that agreement constitutes a misuse of power.

American internationalists deny human nature. Their view is based on the false premise that there is no evil in the world, and that people from all cultures, countries and religions hold the same values, beliefs, interests and goals. It is this false premise that leads some in the west to espouse the merits of global governance. At a time when the world is at war with radical Islamists who believe in Islamist supremacy, and reject the concept of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, between men and women, and between heterosexuals and homosexuals, it is important to understand that cultural relativism and tolerance for the intolerant cannot sustain the underpinnings of freedom and human rights. Appeasing enemies with contrary values and anti-freedom ideologies will not make our enemies like us more. It is tantamount to surrender.

It is likely that foreign countries which advocate for the ultimate authority of international bodies such as the International Criminal Court and expanded UN powers have the de-legitimization of US power as one of their goals. A world dominated by “global governance” drastically increases the threats to American sovereignty. The undermining of sovereignty progresses slowly over time so as to go under-noticed by the public as well as government officials. Included amongst the threats are:

• international bodies whose authority would supplant US authority. Some of these bodies would put America in a position where she has to request permission to defend herself via national security efforts;

• binding treaties that are under-examined by the officials who ratify them. Many of these circumvent domestic legislation and impact issues should remain internal, such as gun control, racism, and energy use;

• non-binding UN resolutions and international conventions which are eventually deemed “international and customary law”, “tradition,” or the “established norm.” They are then used to pressure the US to comply with that to which she never agreed;

• multilateral taxes. Under the guise of producing a unified solution to climate change, internet control, and banking failures, the UN is attempting to impose taxes on the US for which American citizens never voted and will have no representation. Once American dollars and resources are confiscated by non-US entities, she will have relinquished her sovereignty and will likely never get it back.

Little attention is paid to sovereignty issues because the subject may seem boring or academic. There is a lack of understanding of the implications of sovereignty, and a gross devaluation of its importance. Currently, America appears to have its first internationalist President whose ideology breaks from a long line of both Republican and Democrat Presidents who fundamentally believed in US sovereignty. President Obama’s past comments eschewed the notion of American exceptionalism. His foreign policy and national security goals aggressively advocate, increase, and lead in multi-lateral “cooperative” efforts. The President fantasizes about the reality of a nuclear-free world, Iran’s voluntary cessation of building nuclear capabilities following America’s example of unilateral disarmament, and has introduced along with Egypt, a UN resolution aspiring to outlaw free speech on radical Islam. There is no better time than now to heed the warning of the Founding Fathers regarding the limits of federal power and the importance of maintaining national sovereignty.

So, what is wrong if the rest of the world thinks that America should abolish the death penalty, reduce her carbon footprint or ban nuclear missile tests? If they are right, those holding these viewpoints should win the debate in the marketplace of ideas.

The real question is who will decide these issues? Will it be Americans who speak with the power of their votes? Or will foreign entities steal America’s freedom by imposing the false notion that America is bound by the “customs and traditions” of countries whose values lead them to have less freedom, less equality and less prosperity than the US?

As former Ambassador John Bolton so astutely worded it, “in secular terms, there is no superior authority” to the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers laid out in the constitution that it is “we the people” of the United States who are sovereign. We must maintain that position against all political pressure if America is to remain free.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. works for www.vigilancenow.org. She is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation, American Thinker, and FrontPage Magazine. She also delivers speeches and seminars on the various methods that radicals are using to stifle free speech in the west.

Obama's "Stunning Naivete"

2010-04-07T22:51:00.004-05:00

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine, April 7, 2010

Last week at the Heritage Foundation, Former Ambassador John Bolton delivered a speech titled, “Protecting National Sovereignty in the Age of Obama.” The focus of the speech laid emphasis on the importance of maintaining American sovereignty in order to ensure the preservation of freedom. In this context, Bolton reviewed Obama’s policies on national security, charging the President with a worldview that demonstrates “stunning naiveté.”

On one side of the debate are the Americanists who believe, as the Founding Fathers intended, that the Constitution of the United States is “the supreme law of the land.” On the other side of the debate are the globalists who advocate that “customary and international law,” international organizations, conventions and resolutions should take precedence over national sovereignty. In this worldview, nations which constitute the beacon of liberty and human rights would hold no sway over those which snuff out freedom and human dignity.

Bolton pointed out the near-theological weight that Obama places on treaties, international organizations, and multi-lateral collaborations. He is indeed a “post-American President.” As Evan Thomas from Newsweek explained, Obama is “standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God….He’s going to bring all different sides together.” Central to Obama’s worldview is his obvious rejection of American exceptionalism, made clear in numerous prior statements. This view maintains that the US is merely one of 192 UN members, with no special role over that of other countries.

Obama’s positions stem from the false assumption that all countries, cultures and religions share common values, interests and goals. This gross misconception has led the President down the dangerous path of advocating treaties and policies which will drastically weaken America’s national security and reduce her ability to defend herself. The President’s ultimate vision is that of a nuclear-free world. His “stunning naiveté,” as Bolton phrased it, has led the President to believe that if America takes the first steps toward disarming herself, she will set a virtuous example for the rest of the world, and her enemies will then follow suit. This misguided belief has inspired Obama to pursue the following national security goals:

* Become signatory to the International Criminal Court ceding prosecutorial jurisdiction to the international community. Countries that may themselves be human rights violators would be able to prosecute Americans for alleged violations of human rights to which their countries have no connection. For example, Obama has refused to promise that he would disallow former Bush officials to be criminally tried in foreign courts for implementing enhanced interrogation techniques in the War on Terror;
* Sign the new bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), thus “re-setting” American-Russian relations. This treaty will obligate Russia and the US to reduce their number of nuclear warheads by 30%. Obama hopes that Tehran will follow America’s lead in nuclear stockpile reductions.
* Become signatory and ratify a number of multi-lateral treaties including the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and the Landmines Convention.

Additionally, though not mentioned in Bolton’s speech, Obama has already cut the American national security defense budget substantially, and impeded our ability to update expired nuclear weapons.

There is no doubt that contrary to the President’s assertions, enemies of freedom who seek the demise of America will view America’s reduced ability to defend herself as weakness, not virtue. They will likely seize the opportunity to gain military advantage. This puts America’s safety and national security at greater, not lesser risk.

Additionally, it places America in a position where it is more difficult to achieve success in diplomatic negotiations, a tactic which Obama seems to place as high priority. The President advocates meeting with terror states, rogue states and hostile states without pre-condition in diplomatic efforts. However, without a healthy national security system in place, the leverage he needs to attain his goals is substantially reduced.

President Reagan had it right: the maintenance of a healthy military, an effective missile defense system, and cutting edge weaponry is not tantamount to an invitation to war. Rather, these can be used as leverage in diplomatic negotiations in addition to serving as protection against enemy forces, should the need arise. In the age of Obama, Americans must stand their ground and insist that the policies set forth by elected officials will produce “peace through strength.” After all, it is “we the people” to whom they must answer.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine, the American Security Council Foundation, and American Thinker. Her articles have also been published in The Washington Times, Worldnetdaily, National Review Online, the Weekly Standard, and American Spectator Online. She delivers speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech on behalf of vigilancenow.org

A Valentine's Day Virus

2010-03-08T23:58:00.003-05:00

A Valentine’s Day Virus

By Deborah Weiss February 17, 2010
Published by the American Security Council Foundation

Every year Islamic extremists do all they can to suppress the expression of love and affection on Valentine’s day. Imams and Religious Police around the globe condemn the holiday, calling it “un-Islamic.” Some Muslim countries ban the holiday, making its celebration illegal.

Saudi Arabia is one of those countries. There, it is illegal to wear red clothes, buy or sell red roses, give candy or heart-shaped gifts, or hold hands with your spouse in public on Valentine’s Day. Beginning one week prior to the holiday, the Religious Police issued warnings instructing stores to rid their shelves of the forbidden sales items and decorations. On February 14th, stores were subject to inspection. Anyone caught in violation of the law was subject to arrest and punishment.

For those daring enough to risk jail or worse in order to make a profit, the underground market for verboten items was drastically inflated. Contraband is expensive. Red roses, normally costing 5 riyals each ($1.30), sold for 30 riyals on Valentine’s Day.

Saudi Arabia is governed by Shariah law (Islamic law). It is a theocracy without separation of mosque and state. Its religious ideology precludes the mixing of men and women who are not married. It prohibits women from driving, attending college, or getting surgery without permission from a close male relative. Adulterers are stoned, and those caught stealing are subject to amputation of the right hand. Saudi Arabia is devoid of religious freedom except for those who adhere to Wahabbist ideology.

In Pakistan, Lahore University, a private sector college, has started to implement extremist policies by imposing a campus ban on Valentine’s Day. Students at Lahore wanted to celebrate the holiday by having cake, wearing colorful clothes and having mixed-gender gatherings on Saturday, February 13th (since the school was closed on Sunday.) But, the school administration forbade it.

In protest for the freedom to celebrate Valentine’s Day, many students gathered at the overhead bridge outside the university. University employees responded by forcing the girls back into the school, threatening to expel them from college if they did not return to the university premises.

The school also stationed guards and teachers at the university’s main gate to search student bags for Valentine’s Day gifts. Female students were interrogated about any plans to spend a romantic day with their boyfriends.

Students charged the university with following the policies of Islami Jamiat Talibat (IJT), an extremist group that launched a city-wide campaign against Valentine’s Day celebrations. IJT criticized Valentine’s Day as being “a shameful day”. The university colluded with IJT by permitting the group to promote its anti-Valentine’s Day agenda by placing posters all over campus and instructing students to refrain from celebrating. The university even threatened to take action against any student caught extolling the holiday.

In Malaysia, though there are no laws banning Valentine’s Day, religious officials urged couples to shun the holiday because Saint Valentine was a Christian and “romantic revelries might prompt impure behavior.” One Muslim lawmaker suspected that “unmarried couples might come together and mingle with each other in unacceptable ways.” Spiritual leaders expressed concern that couples might not stop at giving greetings and gifts, but would “go beyond the limit” and “engage in promiscuous activities.”

Iran’s morality police ordered shops to remove hearts, flowers, and decorations including pictures of couples embracing. In Kuwait, Valentine’s Day is legal. Never-the-less, Islamic extremists condemned it, proclaiming that it promotes immorality and contradicts Islam’s religious values and teachings. And last year, an Islamic cleric warned Muslim youth that Valentine’s Day constitutes a virus “more dangerous than AIDS, Ebola, and cholera.”

Those in the Free World should be grateful that they have the liberty to openly express love and affection, not just on Valentine’s Day, but every day of the year. Let’s hope and pray that the Valentine’s Day virus of love has infected extremist ideology and spreads quickly through-out Middle East. __________________________________________________________________________________ Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to the American Security Council Foundation and FrontPage Magazine. She lobbies for Vigilancenow.org and delivers speeches on Political Islam’s Assault on Free Speech.

License to Libel

2010-01-19T01:18:00.002-05:00

By Deborah Weiss
Published in FrontPage Magazine 1/11/10

In his recently released book Banned in Britain, Michael Savage, an American conservative talk show host, reveals the sordid details that caused the British Labor Party government to ban him from the UK. In context, the ban constitutes part of a larger effort to restrict free speech in the West.

One morning in May 2009, Michael Savage awoke and googled the news. There in bold headlines he read that he was forbidden to enter the UK, due to his “extremist views.” At first he thought it was a joke. But upon linking to the British Home Office website, he discovered its truth. A “name and shame” list had been posted of those prohibited from entering the country. The list included terrorists, murderers and Michael Savage.

The talk show host never committed a crime. He never applied to enter the UK, nor was his show broadcast there. The British government never warned him that he was engaging in problematic behavior, nor did it notify him after placing him on the list. He was not afforded due process or any process. Rather, the decision to ban Michael Savage was made by government authorities with no oversight, behind closed doors. They side-stepped laws and trampled on his civil liberties.

Banned in Britain explains how, through the Freedom of Information Act, Savage uncovered e-mails by British authorities who made the decision. The e-mails demonstrated that because most of the people on the list were Muslim, the government feared that radicals would falsely allege that the “unacceptable behavior” policy was specifically targeted at the Muslim community. Therefore, authorities sought a non-Muslim to place on the list in order to achieve “balance in exclusion cases”, or diversity in banning.

The Home Office’s prime researcher found no evidence that Michael Savage advocated violence, or that violence was ever committed as the result of his words. Nevertheless, then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith used a collection of Savage’s sound-bites out-of-context to serve as the basis for his ban. She insisted that the talk show host sought to “provoke others to serious criminal acts and foster hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence.”

Savage wrote to the US State Department, the UK Home Office, and the British Prime Minister in an attempt to get his name removed from the “name and shame” list. Failing to get results, he subsequently filed a defamation law suit against the British Home Office and Jacqui Smith in her personal capacity. (Smith had resigned amidst allegations of corruption and financial impropriety unrelated to the Savage case).

Though most Brits had not heard of Michael Savage prior to his ban, his name is now likely a household word. The Secretary’s slurs made the American talk show host a target for Islamists. Therefore, after hiring body guards, Savage made numerous media appearances in Britain in order to plead his case.

America’s first amendment was not written to protect polite speech or politically correct speech. It was written, in part, to protect controversial, offensive, and cantankerous political speech. The speech in which Michael Savage engaged was legal in America. And though the UK has no first amendment, it purports to maintain freedom of speech and is signatory to treaties that promote it.

Free speech is not limited to the right to express one’s viewpoints. It includes the right not to be punished for expressing ideas contrary to those of the government. That means the right not to be libeled or slandered, not to have the government knowingly make false statements about you, or falsely attribute statements to you. It also means the right not to have the government ban you from the country as an alternative means of censorship.

Legal restrictions of free speech do not occur overnight. The process is gradual. First, self-censorship is encouraged, then “guidelines” are issued. Eventually, legal complaints lead to civil penalties, and finally criminal prosecution. Penalizing one man for asserting his free speech rights also has the effect of chilling the speech of others, who take heed of the consequences.

Across Europe, the progression is evident. Islamic blasphemy laws are being construed more broadly in countries that have non-Muslim majorities. In Canada, Human Rights Commissions regularly issue civil fines for “Islamophobic” speech or speech “likely” to cause hatred, even if no hatred results. To defend themselves, respondents must endure a punitive bureaucratic process, costing them inordinate amounts of time and money. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, Member of Parliament, will be placed on criminal trial January 20, 2010 for producing a short documentary on Islamic extremism, which allegedly constitutes “hate speech”. If convicted, he faces the possibility of jail. Ironically, Wilders, founder of the Party for Freedom, has been pushing for an international equivalent of America’s first amendment.

In the US, the signs are more subtle. Though America doesn’t exert police power to stifle speech, she may pass legislation, issue executive orders, or create a politically correct climate of intimidation. For example, the State Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security issued memos to their employees discouraging the use of words ranging from Islamic terrorism to jihad. Politically correct double standards are applied to college campus speakers. Ahmadinejad is ok, but David Horowitz and Nonie Darwish are hate-mongers undeserving of a platform. The Fairness Doctrine looms large, threatening to shut down conservative talk radio since liberal talk radio cannot survive in the market place. Also, for the first time in history, the FCC has a diversity czar. He mandates private broadcasters to pay license fees that support PBS, doing indirectly what he cannot do directly.

Just this past year, DHS, the Missouri Information Analysis Center, the Maryland National Guard and Nancy Pelosi have all equated “right-wing extremists”, military vets, tea-partiers, and libertarian political groups, to threats normally associated with terrorists. Expressing fear of violence from those who espouse none, creates paranoia in law enforcement, who may respond with unfounded intimidation tactics. And in the UN, the United States in conjunction with Egypt, recently introduced a resolution that aspires to restrict criticism of Islam around the globe.

Under the facade of “sensitive speech” or “responsible speech” radical Muslims and the leftists who join them, seek the authority to limit the words and ideas of those with whom they disagree. Instead of winning the war of ideas in a fair fight, those in power seek to shut down the debate. After all, those who have weak arguments or false arguments must be unsettled by those who might win on the merits.

Those who benefit from restrictions on speech are those in power. Currently, that is the political left. Critical thinking serves as its enemy. Dissent is suddenly unpatriotic. Questions are discouraged. People assume they hold the right not to be offended. Expression of alternative viewpoints is precluded.

Academic institutions, once America’s shining example of intellectual diversity, now serve as leftist indoctrination centers. Worse, some national security threats can no longer be openly discussed by intelligence professionals. DHS whitewashes the problems. The media fails to report them.

Free speech serves as the foundation of free and democratic societies. Without free speech there can be no political opposition. Those who oppose government or mainstream views are oppressed, penalized, imprisoned, or even executed. All socialist, communist, fascist, and tyrannical regimes know that the first step in stemming political opposition to their power is to stifle free speech. The Nazis burned books, Stalin outlawed non-state controlled newspapers, and Iran is currently jailing those who peacefully protest June’s election outcome. In some American journalistic circles, terrorism seems less subject to criticism than objectively reporting its roots.

In western countries, free speech ought not be considered a privilege but a fundamental right. Its restriction doesn’t merely violate human rights, but additionally constitutes a national security risk. In order to secure America’s freedom, the public must be informed of freedom’s ideological threats. Intelligence must be permitted to discuss ideological motivations for terrorism. The media has a duty, not to be “sensitive” but to report accurately. Academia has an obligation to foster independent thought.

Banned in Britain is an easy, interesting, and enlightening read. Savage portrays his story in context of the increasing social, political and legal encroachments on western freedom of speech. Those who speak out with differing, conservative, or controversial viewpoints are incrementally being silenced. Now an American talk show host can be banned from the country that gave us the Magna Carta. Will the thousands of listeners who share his views be next?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. delivers speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech and is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine. www.vigilancenow.org

Much Ado About CAIR

2010-01-03T01:13:00.003-05:00

Much Ado About CAIR
By Deborah Weiss
Published December 24th, 2009 by FrontPage Magazine

Is it a mainstream Muslim civil rights organization, an illegal lobbying firm, a terrorist front group or all of the above?

In the eye-opening new book titled Muslim Mafia, former federal investigator Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington) provide an inside look into the controversial tax-exempt organization known as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

In a brazen display of courage, Dave’s son, Chris, feigned conversion to Islam and loyalty to its radical tenets. After winning over the trust of CAIR’s top leaders and inner circles, Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall became privy to the private meetings and secret documents of this notorious organization. Muslim Mafia tells the story of what Chris and his cohorts discover when they infiltrate the infiltrators.

During a six month sting operation, during which time he earned an award from CAIR, Chris was tasked with shredding confidential documents. But instead, he brought them home for examination. He taped conversations, researched court documents, and investigated the organization’s finances, goals, strategies and key players. What he found is both fascinating and frightening.

Muslim Mafia portrays CAIR as nothing less than America’s fifth column. It is part of a network of organizations including ISNA, NAIT, MSA, and others which front for the Muslim Brotherhood and conspire to incrementally Islamize the west. The Muslim Brotherhood’s goal is to sabotage the United States from within, and its main weapon is deceit.

The book demonstrates that CAIR is anything but a true civil rights organization. Rather, it constitutes a turnstile for terrorist-supporters and victimizes mainstream Muslims who seek its aid. It has penetrated major US institutions, derailed counterterrorism training programs, placed moles in law enforcement agencies, and advised mosque-goers to remain silent in the face of FBI investigations.

Sadly, political correctness in collusion with Islamic radicalism has weakened America’s national security. Indeed, some in the FBI notified CAIR in advance of its raids, rendering the raids useless. And until recently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies employed CAIR to provide “sensitivity training” to their agents, teaching them how to refrain from offending terrorist suspects held in custody. Field agents complained that higher ups seemed more concerned about appeasing organizations with terrorist ties than actually investigating them.

Recently, in the largest terrorism trial in the US, where several defendants were convicted and sent to jail, CAIR and ISNA were named unindicted co-conspirators. Despite this, aspects of law enforcement persist in “Muslim outreach” to these same organizations.

Political correctness is also causing America to lose control of framing the issues for the war on terror. And generally, those who frame the debate win it. Yet, succumbing to Islamist propaganda, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center have distributed memos to their employees dissuading them from using a host of words and phrases ranging from “jihad” to “Islamic terrorism”. If America can’t name her enemies and discuss them, neither can she produce a strategy to defeat them.

It is progress that the FBI finally cut ties with CAIR subsequent to the Holy Land Foundation trial. It is also encouraging that some Congressmen are calling for an investigation of CAIR. However, much work remains. Muslim Brotherhood fronts are still infiltrating other areas of society including corporations, banks, courts, academia and media. Their persuasion tactics range from political donations and carefully crafted public relations messages to lies, propaganda, economic boycotts, name-calling, bogus lawsuits and veiled threats.

For example, CAIR affiliates have managed to obtain congressional staff positions. CAIR still works closely with some congressional offices, drafting legislation and otherwise targeting key committees to influence policy. Among its goals are to strip America of her counterterrorism tools, eliminate immigration restrictions from high risk Muslim countries, outlaw profiling, criminalize criticism of Islam, abolish aid to Israel, and withdraw US troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Some politicians share CAIR’s anti-freedom and anti-national security sentiments. Others have been the recipients of purposeful disinformation campaigns by various Muslim Brotherhood front groups that pose as mainstream.

The Pentagon’s Muslim Chaplain program exemplifies another Muslim Brotherhood success story. It was started by Alamoudi, then-head of the Muslim American Society, while he simultaneously raised money for Al-Qaeda. The program provided the Pentagon’s stamp of approval to radical imams. Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he started remains in place.

The Treasury Department and Wall Street are the next targets for Islamists. They are pushing for sharia-compliant financing, the instruments of which are precluded from dealing with alcohol, pork, and any business with Israel. Dispute resolution must be handled by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC. The goal is to create a parallel financial system at odds with American values and lacking government accountability. Worse, a portion of the earnings from sharia-compliant financing goes to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable at best. Never-the-less, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.

Allowing Muslims and others of all faiths to immigrate to America and enjoy her way of life is the American way. But America cannot allow her freedom of religion to be turned on its head and used against her. She ought not accommodate radicals who demand respect for the intolerant, attempt to reduce national security, restrict freedom of speech or ultimately seek the merging of mosque and state.

America must do more than merely defend herself from her enemies. She must be pro-active. America cannot wait for another 9/11 or until CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups achieve their objectives before learning their true motivations. She must act now before it is too late.

Muslim Mafia is a fascinating read which, at a minimum, raises critical issues that demand to be asked and answered. To support its claims, it details copious citations from court records, declassified FBI documents, interviews with government officials, counterterrorism expertise, and internal CAIR memos. Get the book and become informed. America’s freedom and national security depend on it.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a columnist for FrontPage Magazine. She delivers speeches and seminars on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech at www.vigilancenow.org

America's Islamist Fifth Column

2009-12-18T23:34:00.003-05:00

By Deborah Weiss
Published by the American Security Council Foundation

The Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist organization which originated in Egypt, has tentacles that reach around the globe. Its agenda is to establish worldwide sharia (Islamic) law. Because its tactics are largely non-violent and incremental, it operates under the radar and often goes unnoticed. Its plans are long term, but its adherents are patient. And make no mistake about it, it’s making inroads.

Now, evidence has surfaced demonstrating that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is at the nucleus of Muslim Brotherhood front activity in the United States. A recently published book titled, “Muslim Mafia”, written by former investigator and counterterrorism expert David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry (author of “Infiltration”,) reveals the shocking details of the undercover operation conducted by Gaubatz’s son.

After having assumed the role of an Islamic convert and winning the confidence of CAIR’s leadership, twenty-nine year old Chris Gaubatz aka David Marshall attained an internship at CAIR’s national headquarters where he gained access to private meetings and top secret records. He was assigned to shred boxes of documents, but instead brought them home for further examination. There, he discovered persuasive evidence that CAIR, ISNA and NAIT are part of the Muslim Brotherhood network.

Drawn from thousands of memos, emails and faxes, Muslim Mafia demonstrates that CAIR:

• supports organizations with terrorist ties (indeed the Justice Department designated CAIR, ISNA and NAIT as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, where several defendants were found guilty of funneling money to Hamas);

• overtly claims to cooperate with the FBI, but covertly advises Muslims to remain silent when questioned, thus obstructing investigations;

• builds unilateral “bridges” to law enforcement, the interfaith community and political circles in order to obtain information and cement relationships to provide itself with credence and possibly shield itself from investigation;

• is funded by foreign donors; and

• lobbies congress in possible violation to its IRS tax-exempt status and other US laws.

CAIR’s goals are:

• to support Palestinian terrorists;

• to eliminate aid to Israel;

• to abolish restrictions on immigration from high-risk Muslim countries;

• to desensitize Americans to creeping sharia;

• to dismantle America’s counterterrorism tools; and

• to infiltrate America’s government, corporate, media and academic institutions to gradually Islamize America.

In pursuit of these goals, CAIR’s primary arsenal is deceit. Though it purports to be mainstream, in reality, CAIR is a Muslim extremist organization. Abusing America’s freedom of religion and non-disclosure laws inherent in its non-profit status, CAIR conceals its donor base and operates to influence American policy by targeting key congressional committees including the Judiciary Committee, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Committee.

Taking advantage of America’s tolerant and trusting nature, CAIR uses public relations, propaganda and lies to convince the FBI, law enforcement and the public that it is nothing more than a well-meaning American-Muslim civil rights organization. Yet, Muslim Mafia tells a different story. It provides examples of how CAIR applies the tactics of pressure, persuasion, false claims of discrimination, economic boycotts and veiled threats to attain sway.

Unfortunately, political correctness has formed an unholy alliance with Islamism. Consequently, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies hired CAIR on the tax-payers’ dime to provide “sensitivity training” to its agents. There, agents learned how to handle terrorism suspects in a non-offensive manner. Instead of investigating organizations with terrorist ties, government and interfaith outreach efforts to CAIR and its affiliates had the effect of legitimizing America’s sworn enemies. Further, some FBI field agents protested that higher ups provided CAIR with advance notice of FBI raids to Islamist organizations, rendering the raids useless.

Fortunately, the FBI recently cut ties with CAIR. Additionally, the book Muslim Mafia has inspired some Congressmen to demand an investigation of CAIR. This is a commendable first step, but much more needs to be done. The FBI still collaborates with ISNA. Other law enforcement agencies still work with CAIR. Moreover, several congressmen accept campaign donations from CAIR leaders, speak at CAIR banquets, and work with CAIR on legislative initiatives.

Sadly, CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood sister organizations are having an impact. For example, Alamoudi, once head of the Muslim American Society, started the Muslim Chaplain program at the Pentagon, all-the-while raising money for Al-Qaeda. Though Alamoudi now sits in jail, the program he commenced, which provides the Pentagon’s seal of approval to radical imams continues to this day.

Radicals have also been successful in pushing to have terrorists tried in civilian courts rather than military tribunals (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed), strong-arming corporations to remove from the market products that have allegedly offensive designs (Nike, Burger King, and others), and penalizing those in the media who are critical of radical Islam (Michael Graham WMAL was fired, and CAIR is suing Michael Savage). These are just a few examples of the myriad of successes enjoyed by non-violent Islamist organizations.

The next targets are the Treasury Department and Wall Street, where Islamists are advocating sharia-compliant financing. Sharia compliant instruments are prohibited from dealing with alcohol, pork and any business dealings with Israel. Disputes are resolved by sheiks who are expert in sharia law, rather than by the SEC. If successful, sharia compliant financing will result in the creation of a parallel financial system that lacks government accountability and contradicts American values. Worse, sharia compliant financing requires that a portion of earnings are donated to “Islamic charities” many of which are questionable. Despite this, the Treasury Department offered its first course titled “Islamic Banking 101” earlier this year.

Eight years after September 11, 2001, Americans and those they elected are still largely uninformed or misinformed as to the nature of her enemy in the War on Terror. We are fighting those who adhere to an ideology that is intolerant and anathema to freedom. Terrorism is not the cause of the problem; it is merely a symptom. The media, government officials, the intelligence community and the public had better wake up from their slumber before it is too late. It would behoove politicians of all stripes to set aside political correctness and learn the enemy’s playbook instead of refusing to read it. It is imperative to understand our enemy’s ideological and theological motivations if we are to successfully achieve a strategy to defeat him. Once we have a proper understanding of the threat and put ourselves on proper war footing, we can prevent tragedies such as the murders at Fort Hood and Binghamton University. We will understand the perils of trying the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and refrain from making such grave errors. It is not un-American to protect ourselves from supremacist totalitarian ideologies, even when they cloak themselves in the name of religion. On the contrary, countering the efforts of CAIR and its Muslim Brotherhood network is the only way America can ultimately secure her freedom. Buy Muslim Mafia and become informed. You won’t regret it. America’s freedom and national security are at stake.

A Demand for Respect

2009-12-14T13:57:00.003-05:00

A demand for 'Respect'
Islamic Conference fosters drive for Shariah
Article originally published in The Washington Times
October 30, 2009
By Deborah Weiss

The secretary-general of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) recently delivered a little-reported speech at the United States Institute of Peace. In it he demanded that the United States give the Muslim world "respect." But precisely what does he mean by that?

The OIC comprises 57 states with Muslim majorities, and is expected to expand to 60 states. It is the second-largest nongovernmental organization, surpassed only by the United Nations. It is without exception the most powerful Muslim organization in the world, often voting as a bloc on international issues.

In his claim to power, Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Insanoglu enjoys expansive authority to speak on behalf of the OIC, conferred to him by the OIC charter. He boasts of speaking as the voice of the Muslim world, representing 1.5 billion Muslims. "We have an edge on all Islamic movements, and enjoy respect from all of them" he noted.

Indeed, according to Mr. Insanoglu, the push for Shariah (Islamic) courts was a movement nobody paid much attention to originally. It was he who brought those pushing for this change into the fold, and now they are making great strides. Proud to credit himself with this accomplishment, Mr. Insanoglu boasted that Sheikh Sharif, the former head of the Shariah courts movement, is now president of Somalia and is supported by both the OIC and the United States.

In a mild-mannered voice, Mr. Insanoglu observed that we are moving toward a global world order. He believes a shift in power is inevitable within 10 years.

He asserted that the "root causes" of the conflict between the United States and the Muslim world are threefold. First, the Muslim world is disenchanted with America because of its support for Israel and because of Israel's "apartheid" policies and the resulting "indignities" Palestinians must endure. Second, when the United States withdrew from Afghanistan after the Soviet Union left, Muslims felt abandoned. Third, Muslims opposed the war in Iraq, and are angry because of subsequent Iraqi deaths and the abuse of Abu Ghraib prisoners.

Clearly laying out the "preconditions" for good U.S.-Muslim relations, Mr. Insanoglu demanded that these three "problems" be addressed "properly." Additionally, America must stop "infringing on the activities of the Muslim world" and change its mindset to stop perceiving Islam negatively. After all, the OIC can be a threat to the United States or a conciliatory force. The choice is in America's hands.

Mr. Insanoglu insisted that America and the OIC have more "mutual interests" than not. To demonstrate this point, he noted OIC's collaboration with the United States to combat malaria in Africa, and its interest in alleviating poverty and homelessness in indigenous lands.

Mr. Insanoglu is optimistic about improving OIC-U.S. relations. It was step in the right direction when President Bush proclaimed his respect for the Muslim faith and apologized for any bias against Muslims. It further helped that he appointed an envoy to the Muslim world. After all, the OIC welcomes any envoy - so long as he is Muslim - and has the ear of the president.

Now that President Obama sits in office, the OIC is especially hopeful. "The Cairo speech was historical, and addressed the Muslim world for the first time in a positive way." Mr. Insanoglu applauded Mr. Obama's good intentions. He hopes the intentions transform into policies, which will then lead to programs, making "the president's and the Muslim world's dream a reality." He looks forward to a new partnership with America and believes Mr. Obama's Cairo speech echoed the same sentiment.

A specific dream that Mr. Insanoglu says he shares with the president is that of a nuclear-free world. He emphasized that there should be "only one yardstick" in coping with problem countries that refuse to rid themselves of nuclear weapons.

Israel should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, while other countries are requested to forgo theirs. If Iran has nuclear weapons, it should be honest about it.

But, Mr. Insanoglu was quick to add that "we shouldn't repeat the same type of mistake that we made with Iraq," when reports of weapons of mass destruction turned out to be erroneous. We must act slowly and cautiously with regard to Iran. In fact, the head of Iran's nuclear program is "a very intelligent, decent guy." Mr. Insanoglu knows this because the program head was formerly the secretary's assistant general of science and technology at the OIC for four years.

During the question-and-answer period, Mr. Insanoglu was challenged regarding the OIC's track record and positions on human rights and free speech. He argued that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which restricted human rights to conform with Shariah law (in effect negating these rights), was "a long time ago." He suggested the audience review the OIC's new charter and its 10-year plan.

I did just that. Though the language has changed, the goals are similar. The OIC's documents indicate that it seeks increased power, Islamist supremacy, the denigration of Israel, restrictions on free speech, and the whitewashing of any connection of Islam to terrorism. The "joint efforts" are to boost the Muslim world only. There is no hint that the OIC intends to treat Christians and Jews who are persecuted by Muslims, as sudden equals.

The burden of attaining a "positive relationship" rests entirely in the hands of Western dhimmis who naively think capitulation will make their enemies like them more. And that, dear friends, constitutes the "respect" that the OIC demands.

Deborah Weiss is a lawyer and a columnist for FrontPage Magazine and American Thinker. She also gives speeches and seminars on the legal instruments used by radicals to stifle free speech. To schedule a seminar, contact info@Vigilancenow.org

CAIR Stoops To Yet Another Low

2009-11-14T06:58:00.002-05:00

CAIR is using the Fort Hood massacre to promote a fundraiser. Excerpt from the CAIR letter below the fold, from this source:

We need financial help to meet these crises and push back against those who seek to score political points off the Muslim community in the wake of the Fort Hood tragedy.

Also note this paragraph:

Our tone and immediate response is paying off. Major media acknowledged the strong statement that American Muslims issued condemning the Fort Hood attack. On CNN, Anderson Cooper reported that CAIR “reacted to the shooting spree, condemning the attack in the strongest terms possible.” ON MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews noted that CAIR was “quick to condemn the massacre.”

The letter is signed by Nihad Awad, CAIR's National Executive Director.

Read the entire letter HERE. Be sure to check out the postscript.

May CAIR's resources be strained to the breaking point.

Obama's Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam

2009-10-20T13:02:00.004-05:00

Obama’s Resolution to Stifle Free Speech on Islam – by Deborah Weiss
Published by FrontPage Magazine, Oct 16th, 2009

On October 1, 2009, the Obama administration in conjunction with the Egyptian government, introduced an anti-free speech measure to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council (HRC). It was adopted the next day without a vote.

Earlier this year, when the United States sought a seat on the HRC, it was a controversial decision. Many who found the HRC neither credible nor useful, opposed the move. Yet, others were more optimistic that America could change the HRC from within. Perhaps the U.S. could spur debate stemming from its opposition to China, Sudan, Libya, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia on critical human rights votes.

Little evidence suggests that Americans on either side of the aisle contemplated the US entering the ring and supporting the opposition’s anti-freedom measures. Yet now, the current administration has done worse: it’s leading the charge.

The draft resolution, misleadingly titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” includes two troubling components. First, it calls on nation states to take “effective measures” to address and combat “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. It expresses concern and condemnation of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups”. It further attempts to construe this as an international human rights law and obligation. Second, it recognizes the media’s “moral and social responsibilities” and the “importance” that its potential voluntary code of conduct could play in combating intolerance.

This resolution appears to stem from, and constitute a step toward, the Organization of Islamic Conference’s resolution to “combat defamation of religions”. The OIC’s resolution would ban outright the “defaming” of religions, speech critical of religion (even if accurate), and open discussion about any negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs (such as Sharia law).

Though both resolutions mention “religions” generally, the context and references of the resolutions make them almost certain to apply only or disproportionately to Islam. Indeed, the defamation of religions resolution singles out treatment of Islam. Yet not surprisingly, the OIC has blatantly refused to curtail hate speech against Jews or Israel.

Further, it is the nature of religion to include a component of exclusivity, thus making it impossible to express one’s theology accurately without making “defamatory” remarks against another theology. For example, merely preaching that Jesus is the son of God can be viewed as an inflammatory remark and an affront to Islam. Additionally, the wording of this resolution makes its violation subjectively determined and comes dangerously close to outlawing certain emotions, such as hostility toward Islam or Muslims.

Critically important is the resolution’s attempt to internationalize norms on speech, potentially usurping fundamental constitutional rights. Strict constructionists of the US constitution view the constitution as “the supreme law of the land” (as the constitution expressly states), whereas those who view the constitution as “a living, breathing document” might not. But even under a strict construction, when the US signs a treaty, the treaty becomes binding on the US. Though this UN resolution does not constitute a treaty, it is fair to presume that because it is a US-led initiative, the US should be bound by it.

Also problematic is the resolution’s attempt to make the restriction of free speech a human right. In fact, it is free speech that constitutes a human right and not its restriction. Ideologies, ideas and religions do not, and should not be afforded “human rights”. They should be fair game for criticism, analysis, open debate and discussion. Religions and ideologies cannot be “defamed”. Once ideologies are afforded protection from criticism, it is in direct contradiction to individual human rights. Moreover, some of the language in the resolution is vague and open to interpretation. Given the parties on the HRC who adopted it, a broad construction of speech restrictions is likely.

It is no accident that countries which have no freedom of expression show support for this resolution. For example, Ambassador Hisham Badr from Egypt, in discussing his satisfaction with the resolution, stated that “freedom of expression…..has sometimes been misused.” He went on to imply that media which fails to comply with limitations on free speech are unethical.

Pakistan Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the OIC, confirmed that the resolution allows free speech to be trumped by the suppression of that which “defames” religion or expresses a negative stereotype of religion. He asserted that freedom of expression is important but this right carries “duties and responsibilities”, including the need to fight hate speech. He articulated the view that defamation of religion and negative stereotyping are forms of religious hatred. He made clear that in the OIC’s interpretation, such negativity applies not just to individuals, but to religions and belief systems, proclaiming that this constitutes a human rights violation.

Jean-Baptiste Mettei from France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, appears to be in denial about the meaning and impact of this resolution. While prefacing his remarks with praise for the resolution, the French Ambassador then declared that human rights laws protect individuals in free speech and freedom of religion and does not protect belief systems. The EU summarily rejected the concept of defamation of religion, and expressly denounced the notion that the media has a moral and social responsibility to curtail speech. He argued that states should not interfere with the work of journalists, and acknowledged their right to editorial independence. As such, the EU could not support the restrictions on journalistic speech embodied in the resolution.

In the past, when the US addressed international speech norms, it went out of its way to ensure that treaties by which it was bound would not restrict free speech or undermine America’s first amendment protections. But now, change has come.

Arguably relinquishing one of America’s most fundamental freedoms, Obama is once again bowing down to the Muslim world. The interim ranking US diplomat, Douglas Griffiths explained, “[T]his initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” However, to the OIC, “respect” means the silencing of offensive speech against Islam.

With all due respect Mr. President: the attainment of freedom and human rights is not tantamount to winning a popularity contest. And capitulation is not leadership. It is a sad state of affairs when France refutes major portions of a United States initiative because the initiative undermines fundamental freedoms.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and freelance writer. She gives speeches on Political Islam's Assault on Free Speech on behalf of www.Vigilancenow.org

American Paul Williams' Rights Threatened in Canada

2009-10-03T00:59:00.003-05:00

If you've read about my legal case, you'll know that I have recently suffered through a frivilous lawsuit brought by several Dallas-area Islamist groups. They attempted to harm me financially, while trying to remove my rights to free speech, free assembly and free press -- basically all of the main freedoms we cherish as Americans.

My friend Paul Williams is going through something similar in Canada. Please read about his case below and help him in whatever way you can.

Joe Kaufman

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tracy Hood - No Compromise News

"AMERICAN JOURNALIST STRIPPED OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS"

Next week, investigative journalist and author Dr. Paul L. Williams will be tried in a foreign court for his investigative work on reports of al Qaeda terrorists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

But he broke no American statute and his alleged violation of Canadian law took place not in Canada, but at his home in Pennsylvania.

Williams got into a legal jam with the Canadians while discussing his book The Dunces of Doomsday on the nationally syndicated “Coast-to-Coast AM” radio program with George Noory.

To make matters more bizarre, Williams had been advised by the Ontario Provincial Police to issue warnings to his fellow Americans about terrorist activity at the Canadian university that placed the lives of countless millions of Americans in jeopardy.

The case is significant since it represents the first time an American journalist is being forced to submit to Canadian law.

Williams has been stripped of his Constitutional rights and forced to deplete his financial savings to pay for his Canadian lawyers.

“The matter would have gone away if I simply signed an apology,” Williams said, “but what kind of journalist would I be if I apologized for telling the truth?”
He estimates that the cost of the lawsuit already has topped $500,000.
Williams visited McMaster University in May, 2006 to verify accounts by Janice Kephardt of the 9/11 Commission, journalists Bill Gertz and Scott Wheeler of “The Washington Times,” former federal prosecutor John Loftus, and others, that the liberal Canadian university had harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati.

The same sources testified that when the al Qaeda operatives left McMaster, “over 80 kilograms” (180 pounds) of nuclear material was reported missing.

During his visit to McMaster, Williams says that he discovered an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries within the university’s department of engineering.

In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, he says, 9 out of 10 faculty members were from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. Similarly, Williams maintains the three McMaster officials, who head the College of Engineering and supervise the work at the reactor, all hailed from the University of Cairo.

Jane Corbin of the BBC has reported that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Williams says that he and several of his associates, including a licensed private investigator, met with officials from the Ontario Provincial Police, who confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton.

The officials in question - - Detective Constables Dennis Bryson and Tim Trombley - - were not available for comment.

Williams insists that the problem at McMaster was evidenced by the fact that several of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students at the school.

Supporting Williams’s contentions, Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has testified on tape that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 80 kilos of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school.

Jayne Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster, declined to comment on whether el Shukrijumah and other al Qaeda operatives were ever students at the school. She maintained that such information was confidential.

Peter Downward, the attorney representing the University says, "We regard Mr. Williams' allegations about McMaster as being on a par with UFO reports and JFK conspiracy theories. The notion that because there are people on faculty from Egypt that McMaster is then a haven for terrorism is not only logically offensive, it smacks of racism.”

McMaster may get away with dismissing findings of lawyers, investigators from the 9-11 Commission, and international journalists as racist, logically offensive, and looney.

However, the predominance of Muslims from terror sponsoring countries at McMaster and the lack of security at the reactor has been verified by independent sources, including Sean Michaels of GlobalTV-CA.
Moreover, Ontario police officials have labeled the campus “a hive of jihadi activity.”

In Canada, any person offended by a statement can file a lawsuit, and it remains up to the respondent to prove his innocence.

Executing Virgins, Iran Style

2009-08-11T17:32:00.001-05:00

By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, August 10, 2009

Despite the fact that Iran’s penal code prohibits the execution of virgins, Iran executes more juveniles than any other country in the world. The executions are conducted through hangings, stonings, and other barbaric measures consistent with Sharia law. Since the age of personal responsibility in Iran is 13 for boys and 9 for girls, surely many of those sentenced to death are virgins. How does the government get around this? On the condition of anonymity, a Basiji guard recently spoke out to explain how Iran executes virgins.

The Basiji is a volunteer paramilitary force founded by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Known as the people’s militia, it is subordinate to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and remains very loyal to Khomeini’s successor, the Supreme Leader Khamenei.

Explaining how he became a member of the Basiji, the guard stated that his father was a martyr in the Iran-Iraq war. At age 16, his mother took him to the Basijis and pleaded with them to accept him so he’d have a better life. They agreed.

The guard became a well-regarded member of the force. His superiors were so impressed with him that they gave him the “honor” of temporarily marrying young girls prior to their executions. The girls are forced into marriage with a prison guard, and then raped on their wedding night before being killed the next morning.

The girls always fight back when their marriage is to be “consummated”, so sometimes the guards put sleeping pills into the girls’ food. When the rapes were over, the guard would hear the girls crying and screaming. He remembered one girl who clawed her own face and neck, resulting in deep scratches all over. Though the non-consensual weddings are considered legal, the guard admitted that the girls were more afraid of their wedding nights than of their pending deaths. “By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.”

In Sharia law, certain crimes are punishable by death. According to Amnesty International, the Ayatollah, who followed strict Sharia law, had twenty thousand girls and women executed in the first three years of his rule. Though Islam does not prohibit the execution of virgins, it does teach that virgins go to Paradise after death. Many Islamic clerics, not satisfied with merely cutting short the lives of young girls, also wanted to ensure that the girls would suffer an eternity in hell. Therefore, Iran made it illegal to execute virgins, but created a legal loophole by ordering guards to “marry” and rape their prisoners. Authorities in many other Islamic countries also order their guards to systematically rape female prisoners. In Iran, the crimes of homosexuality, fornication, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking are among those deemed capital offenses. Often fornication charges are leveled even when the accused is raped. The victim is rarely able to “prove” her innocence due to a lack of due process and the fact that the testimony of females is worth one half that of a man’s.

The Basiji guard spoke after recently being released from prison by Iranian authorities. He had been jailed for the crime of releasing a 13 year old boy and a 15 year old girl after they were arrested for protesting the Presidential election results in June. Many other police and members of security forces have also been arrested for showing leniency to protestors or for releasing them from custody without authorization from higher-ups. The guard released the two teens because they looked so young and he knew what was going to happen to them. He believes it was primarily the release of the girl that got him into trouble. However, while in prison he was treated well and spent most of his time praying and thinking about his wife and children.

Ironically, it is no longer the Presidential election results that Iranians are protesting, but the kind of brutality and inhumanity that the Basiji guard himself perpetrated through his “temporary” marriages. Iranians are tired of living under the oppression of an Islamic theocracy. Protestors are willing to risk imprisonment, bodily injury and their lives for the cause of freedom. Many of them are under age 18.

As of July 30, 2009, dozens of protestors have been killed and hundreds more have been arrested. While in jail, they may have their fingernails ripped off, be forced to lick dirty toilet bowls or be beaten to death. Numerous Islamic clerics are formally demanding the death penalty for protest leaders.

Though Iran publicly condemns the execution of minors, it justifies the execution of its own youth by defining minors to be those under age 13 if male and under age 9 if female. Alternatively, sometimes Iran holds minors in prison until the age of 18 before executing them. Prior to the riots, 140 girls remained on death row for crimes committed as juveniles. This number is twice what it was in 2007. Since the demonstrations began, the current number of juveniles on death row is impossible to ascertain.

Iran accounts for two thirds of the world’s child executions, earning them worldwide condemnation. However, international criticism has not resulted in sufficient pressure to stop Iran’s practice of raping and executing minors. Let’s hope that the demonstrations will succeed at putting an end to this savage practice and other human rights violations put in place by Iran’s religious mullahs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss, Esq. lobbies for Vigilance, Inc. and is a freelance writer.

Afghan Idol

2009-07-27T12:18:00.004-05:00

By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 24, 2009

After 30 years of civil war, foreign invasion, and Taliban rule, Afghans finally have the opportunity to vote in free elections. They have learned to campaign, solicit votes, and support candidates of varying ethnicities. Even women are part of the process. It is likely the most democratic, egalitarian process Afghans have witnessed in decades. Am I referring to the Presidential elections? No. It’s Afghan Star, the new TV show modeled after American Idol. The show is popular, controversial, and it’s paving the way for true political reform in Afghanistan.

Though traditionally Afghanistan had music as part of its culture, in recent decades music was heavily censored. During Taliban rule from 1996-2001, music, dance, television and films were outlawed altogether in accordance with Islamic Sharia law. Anyone caught engaging in these crimes was subject to harsh penalties including death.

After Operation Enduring Freedom toppled the Taliban, these activities became legal. In 2005, shortly after the new parliament was in place, Afghan Star emerged. However, music and dance are still shunned by Islamic fundamentalists and the more conservative Muslim community. Those who enter Afghan Star’s singing contest are, in effect, making a bold political statement and risking their own lives.

In Afghanistan, equality is still a radical concept. Despite this, Afghan Star places no age, gender, or ethnic restrictions on its participants. Last year, approximately 2000 people auditioned for the show, including three women. Two of them were among the top ten finalists, showing great strides for women who, under Taliban rule, were not allowed out of the house unless in a burqa and accompanied by a close male relative.

The show is produced by Tolo TV, the country’s first commercial station, and it is broadcast to fourteen cities nationwide. Because not every Afghan household has a TV, large crowds gather together on Friday nights at restaurants and friends’ homes to watch the contest. It is the most popular show in Afghanistan, and dominates the airwaves for six months of the year.

The film follows the lives of the top four contestants as they compete for the Afghan Star title and $5000 (a small fortune by Afghan standards). This no-frills version of American Idol takes place against the backdrop of a visibly war-torn and poverty-stricken country. The documentary does an excellent job of portraying Afghanistan’s politics, religion, culture, ethnic conflicts, and artistic struggles through the eyes of each singer’s personal experience. It brings Afghanistan’s triumphs and conflicts to life, making them a reality. Indeed, it was filmed amidst bombings and earthquakes, business as usual in Afghanistan. Though the film won two awards at the Sundance Film Festival in Utah, it is banned in Afghanistan because it interviewed women on screen.

The final four contestants were Satara, Lima, Rafi and Hamid. Satara, the most rebellious character in the film, is a 21-year-old girl from Kabul, Afghanistan’s most progressive city. Her family hails from Herat, a conservative area on the outskirts of Afghanistan. Growing up she took singing lessons in secret, with her family’s moral support. Singing gives Satara a sense of freedom. Music fills her with happiness which propels her to dance ever so slightly onstage. She allows her hijab to slip, uncovering her hair. She has gone too far and is voted off the show. Almost everyone disapproves of her actions including other contestants. Viewers call her “loose”, “a whore”, and “immoral”. Some believe she deserves to die.

Lima, the last remaining woman, is relatively conservative. Asked if she would consider dancing on the show, she declares “never.” Not even if she were offered thousands of dollars. Not even is she was guaranteed to win. Lima comes from Kandahar, the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism, where the mere fact that a woman is on TV is considered quite politically charged. Nevertheless, she has the support of most of her Pashtun community and many women admire her for her courage and confidence, talent aside. Lima came in third place.

The two finalists, Rafi and Hamid originate from different ethnicities, Tajik and Hazara, respectively. Though they view themselves as singers, in reality the contestants are politicians of a sort, trying to achieve national unity through music. They are encouraging people to compete in song rather than in war. The two travel throughout the country, putting up posters and yelling through megaphones, asking for votes. As in the US, votes are placed through cell phone text messages. The advance of technology is sharply contrasted with Afghanistan’s seventh century mores when teen girls dressed in full burqas catch a glimpse of the stars and start shooting snapshots of them with their cell phones.

Many in Afghanistan believe that music is a universal language. The older generation recalls a time when music was part of Afghan culture and is eager to restore it. The younger generation sees music as a vehicle for personal expression and freedom. Others, who have suffered the death of a loved one in war, welcome song as a healing agent. It soothes the pain, and facilitates recovery from the grieving process, bringing a sense of peace. Many of the children love to sing, explaining that there is no joy without music.

Yet, the religious elements of Afghanistan remain steadfast and are not without sway. Though it didn’t come to fruition, midway through the show the Taliban threatened to shut down the transmission towers, which would have rendered people unable to text in their votes and would have caused the show’s demise. Additionally, prior to the finale, the Islamic Council issued a strong statement to President Karzai condemning the immorality of Afghan Star and other TV shows that fail to comply with Sharia law. When the show was over, the Council was successful in passing a resolution making it illegal to dance on TV.

All the contestants were subjected to death threats at the show’s close. Those who resided in Taliban controlled localities were at the gravest risk. When the show ended, Satar, the girl who danced, was evicted from her apartment by a disapproving landlord. She had no choice but to return to her parents’ conservative hometown, with all its consequences. Fortunately, she eventually made her way back to Kabul and is currently recording an album. Lima, despite the fact that she refused to dance, received significant death threats and was forced into exile. She currently lives in hiding in Pakistan.

Daoud Siddiqi, Afghan Star’s show host, known as the Ryan Seacrest of Afghanistan, made the mistake of announcing on film that “the Taliban is finished.” They proved him wrong by making him one of their prime targets. Daoud recently was granted political asylum to the United States.

Despite the challenges, Rafi and Hamid are going on tour, trying to pave the way for greater tolerance and national solidarity. Rafi insists that he does not represent only his ethnicity, but represents all Afghans.

Clearly, Afghanistan has a long way to go in securing the exercise its newfound freedoms. Still, the mere fact that singing is legal and that the show is permitted to air demonstrates the country’s progress. Eleven million people voted in Afghan Star’s finale. That is one third of Afghanistan’s population. For many, it was the first time they voted or the first time they supported someone of a different ethnicity.

Presidential elections are scheduled in Afghanistan for August 20, 2009. Let us hope that the freedom, egalitarianism, and message of tolerance that permeated the democratic process on Afghan Star, paves the way for similar campaigns in Afghanistan’s national politics. Many Afghans believe it will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss, Esq. lobbies for Vigilancenow.org and is a regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Fredrick's of Mecca

2009-07-14T12:37:00.002-05:00

No Frederick's of Mecca
By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 03, 2009

In June 2009, a group of 26 women completed a course in how to fit, stock, and sell lingerie. It was the first course of its kind ever offered in the Saudi Kingdom. Trained by an Australian woman using colorful bras donated by Victoria Secret, the women engaged in a ten day course culminating in a small graduation ceremony at a college in Jeddah on June 23, 2009. However, the graduates might have celebrated pre-maturely, as they are forbidden to put their new skills into practice.

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy, governed by Wahabbi ideology which is implemented through strict Sharia (Koranic) law. The society operates under rules of gender apartheid by segregating men and women who are not close relatives or married to each other. The two sexes are not permitted to stand in the same fast food lines together, be in a room alone together, travel in the same car, or meet at Starbucks for a cup of coffee. Violations of these rules are punishable by law.

Additionally, women’s rights are drastically lagging behind those of men. Women are forbidden to vote or drive. They cannot go to college or have surgery without permission from a male relative. And in courtroom trials, the testimony of a woman counts one half that of a man’s. In accordance with their country’s religion, women must be covered in black abbayas from head to toe whenever they are in public.

It seems ironic that in this environment women would be forced to discuss the details of their intimate apparel purchases with male strangers. Yet, this is the case.

Traditionally, women in Saudi Arabia were not permitted to own businesses of any kind, including lingerie shops. Until recently, all the lingerie shops were staffed 100% by men. In keeping with the notion that accurate depictions of women should not be publicly displayed, the lingerie shops showcased headless mannequins dressed in pajamas. Inside the stores were racks of racy lingerie, sexy bras, lacy teddies and thongs. But there was nowhere to try on lingerie before buying it, as the religious police banned dressing rooms in women’s apparel stores. They consider it is morally wrong for a woman to undress in a public place…..even when nobody can see her.

To make matters worse, because unmarried men and women are forbidden by law to touch each other, male staffers cannot measure women for their proper bra size. Women are left in a position where they must guess what size they wear. Sometimes they are subjected to the scrutiny of male staffers who size them up, looking them up and down, perhaps in disagreement with their request. “No, I think you need a smaller cup size” or “You should get a larger cup size” are common comments made by the salesmen.

Although refunds are readily available if women go home and discover their undergarments are the wrong size, the hassle and the embarrassment often result in women keeping what they purchased. Many own a collection of mis-sized bras and underwear. And, although women are permitted to shop for their clothes alone, many of them insist that their husbands accompany them to ensure that the salesmen keep in-line and act respectfully. Otherwise, when salesmen act inappropriately, women cannot speak up for fear that they will be punished, often by their own families.

In 2006 a law was enacted stating that only females can be employed at women’s lingerie shops. However, the law was never implemented. Approximately a year ago, a few all-female lingerie shops opened. They are primarily stand-alone boutiques or stores placed in the women’s-only section of shopping centers. Unlike the male-run shops, these stores allow buyers to try on garments prior to making a purchase. In order to ensure that men cannot see inside, the stores have no windows.

Many women are tired of the ordeal posed by purchasing intimate apparel from men. Heba al-Akki, a business woman, stated that she buys items quickly and runs out of the store as fast as possible, as though she were making an illegal purchase. Others have sworn off lingerie shopping in Saudi Arabia altogether, and instead shop for their undergarments in Dubai.

In March 2009, fifty women gathered together and decided to boycott all lingerie stores staffed by men. They urged other women to limit their lingerie shopping to stores that employ females. Boycott organizers decided that rather than working through the government, they would put pressure where it counts - - by hitting retailers in the pocketbook. The boycott was launched at a women’s center near the Red Sea Port of Jeddah. Additionally, almost 1700 people have signed a Facebook petition protesting the all-male staffing practices. Some Saudi newspapers have written about the boycott, but it is picking up steam predominantly through word-of-mouth.

Hoping to expedite the hiring of women, Suhair al-Qurashi, head of the private Dar al-Hekma College, got the idea to hold the training course teaching women to fit and sell lingerie, and deal with customer complaints. That way, if the opportunity for female employment in lingerie shops arose, there would be qualified saleswomen to accept the positions.

Some salesmen hint that they too support female employment in lingerie shops, explaining that the current situation is often embarrassing to salesmen as well. Nevertheless, there are large segments of Saudi society that still resist the idea. Traditional and religious women are somewhat suspicious of female-run stores…..even if they are merely selling lingerie. And, both men and women are concerned that employing women in lingerie shops will take away jobs from men in a country that already suffers a 10 to13 percent unemployment rate of the male population.

To date, though the graduates have completed 40 hours of intense instruction over a ten day period, they are unable to implement their knowledge, as stores still aren’t hiring women.

The boycott continues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com. REST OF

Why Iran's Women Are Rioting

2009-06-24T23:20:00.003-05:00

Why Iran's Women Are Rioting
By: Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The current uprising in Iran is not merely about a fraudulent election. The simmering masses of Iran are restless for the freedom and prosperity they once enjoyed, before being straitened for decades by the strictures of religious fanaticism. The people have seized upon this election fraud to push for greater openness and such forgotten notions as women’s rights. Nothing better illustrates the awful injustices Iranian women face than a soon-to-be released film, The Stoning of Soraya M.

The film tells the grisly true story of an innocent woman who was stoned to death in Iran on charges of adultery. The events – which are described in flashback by the title character’s aunt, Zahra – take place in 1986, in the rural village of Kupayeh. Zahra recounts how years earlier her niece Soraya entered a marriage that had been arranged by her parents. She was 14 and her husband, Ali, was 20. Together they had four children, two boys and two girls. Ali was emotionally and physically abusive to his obedient wife, physically beating Soraya and openly cavorting with prostitutes.

At the age of 41, Ali fell in love with another 14-year-old girl and wanted to marry her, but couldn’t afford two wives. He requested a divorce, offering to take the two boys with him and to leave Soraya a meager settlement. Knowing the divorce would leave her and her daughters in abject poverty, Soraya declined, which only served to escalate Ali’s abuse.

Soon, three men in the village persuaded Soraya to do chores for a widower named Hashem and his son. Zahra negotiated a reasonable fee on her behalf, so she could save money to leave her husband.

Impatient to obtain his divorce and his 14-year-old bride, Ali lied that he had seen Soraya whispering, smiling, and holding Hashem’s hand – spreading the convenient rumor that she had cheated on him and was a whore. The slander raced through the village, eventually reaching the mayor. Zahra warned Soraya to give up the job, reminding her that things were different after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Shari’a, or Islamic law, was now the law of the land, and flimsy rumors could lead to her death. Soraya fatefully refused to listen.

Ali and a corrupt mullah approached Hashem, threatening to find another “witness” and have him killed as an adulterer if he refused to perjure himself in Soraya’s adultery trial. Under threat of death, Hashem capitulated. Soraya’s “trial” constituted nothing more than two men lying to the mayor with uncorroborated testimony. Because Soroya was unable to prove her innocence, she was sentenced to death by stoning.

Unable to escape, Soraya decided to meet her fate with fortitude, though she prayed for a quick death. As the crowd gathered in the public square, Zahra walked Soraya to the pit that had been dug for her. Zahra removed Soraya’s chador, revealing her niece dressed in virginal white. Authorities tied Soraya’s elbows behind her back, so she would be unable to protect her face, placed her in the pit, and covered her in sand up to her waist.

If the film’s “trial” highlights the injustice of Shari’a law, the stoning underscores the barbarity of the Muslim legal code. Soraya’s father cast the first stone at his daughter’s unprotected face only after declaring she was no longer part of his family. Her husband and sons were next. Islam had destroyed the bonds of blood and kinship integral to every civilized society. Family members were followed by stone-throwing villagers who had known her since birth. Anger mingled with murderous joy rippled through the crowd as they screamed “Allahu akbar” and forced the innocent to endure a slow, agonizing death. When the whole event seemed over, Ali drew close to her and saw her eyelid flutter and screamed, “The bitch is still alive!” The crowd unleashed a gratuitous round of fury that lasted beyond her death.

Here, some semblance of reality took over. Soraya’s children sobbed – but the rest of the village celebrated. A carnival-like atmosphere ensued, as villagers played music and the whole town danced at the scene of the crime. Authorities refused to allow Soraya a proper burial. Zahra left Soroya’s covered body at the shore and returned in the morning to secretly bury the remains the dogs had left behind.

The film ends on twin notes of caution and optimism. Its twist-ending acknowledges the calculated difficulty those who believe in women’s rights face in spreading the truth. However, it also displays the power a damning account such as Soraya’s has to discredit Shari’a law.

If only its subject matter were fiction. After the Islamic revolution in 1979, with the enactment of Shari’a law, stoning became the prescribed penalty for adultery. The law requires that the stones be large enough to cause pain but not large enough to cause instant death. It is predominantly women who are stoned, including those who speak up after being raped. Because they are unable to find sufficient witnesses to the rape, their complaints are construed as confessions of adultery.

Iran executes minors as young as 13. Their families often approve, longing to restore the family’s “honor” for their daughters’ crimes of impurity or failure to remain chaste. Currently, there are nine people sentenced to stoning in Iran, eight of whom are women. Although the Iranian Judiciary issued a moratorium on stoning in 2002, it remains a part of the penal code. In August 2008, Ali Reza Jamshidid, a spokesperson for the Iranian Judiciary, confirmed that execution by stoning still occurs, that the previous directive to halt stonings holds no legal weight, and judges are free to ignore it. Indeed, a man was stoned to death in Iran as recently as this May 5. Other Islamic theocracies also implement stoning executions.

The film, based on the 1994 book by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam, is directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh (screenwriter for The Path to 9/11 and The Day Reagan Was Shot), and stars Mozhan Marno and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Academy Award nominee for Best Supporting Actress in House of Sand and Fog). The film recently premiered at the Toronto Film festival, where it received critical acclaim.

The timing of this film could scarcely be more prescient. On the streets of Tehran, Iranian men and women are demanding that their government take steps toward recognizing basic freedoms: the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the fight to free and fair elections, and not least the rights of women to live as equals. The Stoning of Soraya M. could not have been released at a more critical time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

2009-06-21T11:42:00.001-05:00

Muslims4Obama is now defending Hitler

Edward Cherlin just echerlin@gmail.com latest post to the group

In fact, I believe that what set Germans off most about Jews and
Gypsies was their belief in their racial superiority (the Gypsies are
originally from North India, making them in fact Aryans). They
otherwise have very little in common, other than playing in wandering
Klezmer bands together.

Imam Johari had his Computer Confiscated by Homeland Security

2009-06-12T10:48:00.007-05:00

According to Mahdi Bray, on his June 7, 2009 'Crescent Report' radio show, Imam Johari Abdul Malik (above) has been stopped numerous times by Homeland Security at airports and "at least once" had his computer "confiscated" by authorities. Malik is the Director of Outreach for the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA).

Dar Al-Hijrah, a Falls Church, Virginia mosque, is associated with accused Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Awlaki. MANA is associated with Siraj Wahhaj, an "unindicted co-conspirator" of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

2009-06-08T21:54:00.001-05:00

AP
Secretary of State invites Va. assembly candidate Esam Omeish

— who once told crowd 'jihad way is the way to liberate your land' — to participate in conference call on bridging divides with Muslims.

Unindicted Co-Conspirator Day at the MSA

2009-06-03T11:30:00.006-05:00

On the homepage of the National Muslim Students Association (MSA) there is found an image of Siraj Wahhaj, in celebration of what the MSA is calling "IMAM Siraj DAY."

Siraj Wahhaj is listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Inside the Minds of Freedom Haters

2009-04-22T14:07:00.007-05:00

By, Deborah Weiss
Published April 14, 2009 by Worldnetdaily.com

Despite claims of tolerance and moral superiority, the left seems to consistently support tyrannical regimes and oppressive ideologies. Whether the communist Soviet Union, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, or radical Islam, far-left "progressives" line up on the wrong side of history. How is it possible that those who purport to fight for human rights, gay rights and women's rights scream a deafening silence in the face of monstrosities, mass murder and unthinkable abuse when perpetrated in communist or Islamist societies?

In his riveting new book, "United in Hate," Frontpage magazine's managing editor, Dr. Jamie Glazov, explains the far left's romance with tyranny and terror. This well-researched book posits a theory: Liberalism is a religion. Imbued with all the mutated imagery of Judeo-Christianity, True Believers seek a utopian ideal, a redemption from the fall of mankind that can only be brought about through sacrificial death and destruction.

Those who subscribe to this ideal politicize their personal problems. They suffer from an alienation of the self and society. Though this is a spiritual problem requiring a spiritual solution, leftist Believers attempt to fill their void by means of non-spiritual answers. Longing to go back to a time when they will be taken care of and feel they belong, Believers refuse personal responsibility for their own happiness and assume they are entitled to have their government and the world meet their needs.

Understand leftists' dedication to tyranny and tolerance of terror in Jamie Glazov's "United in Hate"

Whether it's communism or Islamic totalitarianism, submerging the self into a collective whole cures the Believer's loneliness. Of course, the price that must be paid for this symbiosis is the obliteration of the self, and deep down inside that's just what the leftist desires. The common good requires the riddance of individuality – for better or for worse.

The suffering that must occur to achieve this ideal is of no concern. Ideas are paramount over people, as the Believer is compelled to look at the "bigger picture." Even when suffering is proved with evidence, Believers refuse to acknowledge that destruction is at the core of their ideology, and indeed is likely what attracts them to begin with. Because it is too painful to admit to themselves their own destructive tendencies and the consequences of implementing their ideals, they defend against their dark desires with a psychological reaction-formation, labeling everything the opposite of what it is in actuality. Thus, they insist that their political activism will result in peace, social justice and equality, rather than in dominance of the cruelest societies.

Craven with the desire for death and destruction, where the blood of millions is sacrificed on the altar of the common good, Believers fantasize that a newer, better world can be created upon ashes. Denying that human nature is inherently flawed, they are on a quest for perfectionism that does not exist and of which man is not capable. To every freedom-hater, the end justifies the means. Lenin admitted that his goal was to murder two-thirds of mankind, but the remaining third would all be communist, and that's all that mattered. Similarly, radical Muslims are in a holy war with infidels worldwide. Their ideal is Islamist dominance and global Shariah law. Once that is achieved, peace will ensue. Purging everything unsacred is not considered a necessary evil. Rather, it is a good deed that will be rewarded by Allah. Thus, becoming a martyr and a suicide bomber is the only way to ensure one's entrance into Paradise.

Similarly, those who abide by the false faith of liberalism, have little tolerance for unbelievers. Eschewing the values of freedom and personal responsibility, they prefer to side with other freedom-haters. The result is the emergence of a staunch anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. An unholy alliance is formed between leftist peaceniks and tyrannical regimes, as they abide by the motto "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is even likely that Believers secretly identify with the tyrant, living through his power vicariously in an effort to compensate for feelings of personal deficiency.

Though many Believers, including the Underground Weathermen, Code Pink and leftist political activists, pride themselves on supporting a cause greater than themselves, the cause they exalt is not freedom, but the veneration of death and oppression. Protesting the most minor infractions of gay rights, women's rights or human rights in America, Believers turn a blind eye to the most egregious and grotesque abuses committed on foreign soil. It seems hypocritical that Western writers support governments that deny free speech, that ardent feminists support governments that wreak gender apartheid and treat women like chattel, that militant gays support governments that hang homosexuals.

Dr. Glazov has an explanation for this: Leftist Believers view freedom as weapons of destruction against their own society. Freedoms and rights constitute arsenal to undermine Western culture. They are not valued in and of themselves, but rather are a means to an end. In other countries, where the government "takes care of" its people, like a parent would, abusive or not, these freedoms are unnecessary. Like the Islamist who abuses America's freedom of religion to funnel money to Hamas, or abuses American civil liberties to fight the Patriot Act, Believers have an eye toward the ultimate destruction of freedom. In the name of multi-culturalism where all cultures, religions and values are deemed morally equivalent, Believers accept and even embrace tyrannical regimes and ideologies.

Glazov's book is a must-read that gets to the root of the left's unholy alliance with radical Islam and other oppressive ideologies. He includes shocking chapters on Islamist hatred of women and of Jews, and its parallels in liberalism. His theories and analysis are fascinating, and the facts on which he forms his conclusions are extensively documented. As radical Islam is likely the biggest threat to Western freedom today, it is critical to grapple with the left's love affair with tyranny and jihadism. Jesus said that the Truth shall set you free. But leftist Believers prefer the chains of bondage.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who cares about freedom and truth.

Deborah Weiss is an attorney and a freelance writer

2009-02-14T12:22:00.000-05:00

Bridges TV CEO Arrested for Beheading Wife Received Award from CAIR

US News | Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:41:45 pm PST

The founder and CEO of the Islamist channel Bridges TV, arrested today for beheading his wife after she filed for divorce, was given an award in 2007 by the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations:

Muzzammil Hassan receives award from CAIR-PA Chairman Iftekhar Hussain and CAIR National Chairman Parvez Ahmed

2009-01-29T18:40:00.000-05:00

FBI Cuts Ties with CAIR

Mmmmmbout time.

Via Investigative Project: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.

Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs.

Killing Jews not extremist according to Obama email list

2009-01-24T21:12:00.002-05:00

From the Foreign Policy Wonks for Peace and Justice group

My take is that Hamas is not an extreemist (sic) group,
kathypodgers@yahoo.com

Suicide bombings, blowing up Passover Seders, shooting children in the head, missiles aimed at kindergartens.

Actually now that I think of it this is normal behavior for Israels enemies.

Question is shouldn't President Obama think this is extremist behavior?

Obama blog administrator complain of Jewish control America

2009-01-20T20:06:00.005-05:00

Mark Levin administrator of Obama's Foreign Policy Blog and email group writes

We need to see Israel through clear lenses, not the rose-colored ones of Jewish journalists, pundits and experts in think tanks that dominate our Mideast discourse. They cannot be blamed for an emotional preference for one side, probably having grown up in a Holocaust-sensitive household. It's in outsize proportion to our less than 2% of the US population.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ForeignPolicyWonksforPeaceJusticeandHuma/

Pure lenses of racism and anti Semitism. Time and time again this anti Semite attacks American Jews as disloyal calling for them to removed from positions of power, whether in media or government simply because they are Jews. And it was after promoting this bigotry that this man was picked to be a leader in the Obama movement.

Obama Foreign Policy E-group moderator "Special Interests" cause America to support Israel

2009-01-12T23:17:00.004-05:00

The following is from mlevin49@yahoo.com moderator of Foreign Policy Wonks e-group for Obama

Let's look at broader measures of what "Democrats" think, which is a truer representation than we get in our one-sided Congress - from Rasmussen's poll a couple of weeks ago:

"While 75% of Republicans say Israel is an ally of the United States, just 55% of Democrats agree. Seven percent (7%) of Democrats say Israel is an enemy of America, but only one percent (1%) of Republicans say the same. For 21% of Republicans, Israel is somewhere in between, and 28% of Democrats agree.

Just over half of adults (51%) fear Israel’s actions will cause more terrorism against the United States, with 17% saying that is Very Likely to be the case.. Nine percent (9%) believe that future terrorist attacks on America are not at all likely because of Israel’s attacks on Gaza this week.

Those who say they have followed the news out of the Gaza Strip Very Closely are slightly more concerned about increased terrorism at home, with 20% saying it is Very Likely as a result of Israel’s actions."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/
americans_closely_divided_over_israel_s_gaza_attacks

I'm in that 28%. It could be an ally if its supporters weren't acting in a way that reduces US national security.

Looking at 55% of Dems who call Israel an ally, and 99% of Dems in Congress that do so sets up an interesting question - why?

---

I'm just going to ask why Obama's people see someone who thinks the Jews control congress in charge of one of their groups?

Obama's anti semitic web team

2009-01-12T21:48:00.002-05:00

Obama's E-group ForeignPolicyWonks for Peace and Justice has just placed a Mark Levin mlevin49@yahoo.com as the group moderator

Mark Levin is a support of Hamas and an avowed supporter of Israel's destruction
He argues Hamas is the victim and Israel the terrorists attacking Israel for attacking Hamas terrorists during a graduation ceremony stating
"...In a choked, blockaded economy, there are not many employers, so when you find a job as a cop in Gaza, since it is ruled by Hamas, your death during your graduation ceremony is justified by Michael since it was a "terrorist graduating ceremony." This kind of de-individualizing death, is the dehumanizing type of blanket community-wide blame that the worst characters of the 20th century engaged in...." (1/6/2009 email)

Thats right its racist to kill terrorists.

So I have to ask myself is it an accident that so many racists and anti Semites are running Obama's e-groups. Is Obama just a fool, or do they represent his true agenda.

Just one more week before he is revealed.

"Proportionality" in Context

2009-01-08T12:58:00.002-05:00

'Proportionality' in Context
By Deborah Weiss
Published by The American Thinker,1/8/09

Tuesday marked the deadliest day since Israel commenced its Cast Lead Operation eleven days prior. After terrorists threw mortar shells at Israeli troops from a UN-run elementary school in Gaza, Israeli soldiers fired back. Booby-trapped bombs planted by Hamas exploded, killing 30 to 40 Palestinians. The UN is calling for an independent investigation of the incident.

Subsequently, Israel agreed to open a humanitarian corridor. Though she had been allowing trucks into Gaza regularly to deliver food and medicine, distribution was difficult. Accordingly, Israel and Hamas refrained from fighting for three hours. During that time, hundreds of Palestinians took to the streets to shop for food, and UN workers distributed goods from incoming trucks.

Many were hopeful that this temporary truce was a sign of a more permanent ceasefire. Indeed, Israel showed signs of open-mindedness to the French-Egyptian proposal. She agreed to accept the cease-fire conditionally based on the establishment of an international mechanism to top arms smuggling through Gaza tunnels, and a total cessation of terror activity along the border. The US backs this agreement along with Israel's conditions.

After all, Israel's military operation is deterrent in nature. It's designed to cripple Hamas in order to create a secure and rocket-free environment for Israelis living in the south. The operation includes the participation of Israeli tanks, artillery, infantry, the navy, IAF, various security agencies and intelligence. On Saturday, the Israeli cabinet authorized Stage II of the operations, commencing a ground invasion into Gaza. Troops not entering Gaza were lined up along the borders on standby.

Israel could have carpet-bombed Gaza and leveled Hamas, killing all the Palestinians. Instead, she is doing everything possible to minimize Palestinian deaths. She has risked and lost the lives of Israeli soldiers in the process. Additionally, troops are refraining from entering Gaza City due to its high density civilian population.

The weight of international pressure has focused on Israel. However, it is Hamas that refuses to concede to a truce. The deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, Moussa Abu Marzouk, proclaimed that as long as Israel continues her "occupation", Hamas will continue its "resistance". Hamas spokesperson Fawzir Barhoun, insisted that Israeli "aggression must stop, Zionist forces must pull out" and the siege must be lifted. In exchange, Hamas agrees to no actions, but is willing to "talk about other issues including calm and rockets."

As soon as the three hour truce ended, Hamas picked up where it left off, launching numerous rocket attacks across the Gaza border, and firing grad rockets into Beersheba. Israel retaliated. It was only Monday when Israel blew up 40 tunnels which Hamas used to smuggle in weapons and arms, amidst the continuing sounds of heavy firepower. Also struck were Hamas' military storage facilities, rocket launching sites, operations bases, and Hamas leaders. Never-the-less, Hamas gunmen appear motivated and ever-focused. Its political wing has been substantially damaged. However, assessments in the defense community are that Hamas is still capable of launching a "quality" attack onto Israeli civilians. It's just waiting for the right moment.

All the while, in addition to the usual bashing of Israel as "the Zionist entity", and "occupiers", Palestinians are now adding words like "barbarians" "human rights violators" and "war criminals" to their name-calling list.

Libya is still pushing for an official condemnation of Israel. In its statements at the UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Libya repeatedly lied, insisting that Israel is the one who violated the ceasefire agreement, and that her aggression was "unprovoked".

Meanwhile, the number of anti-Israel rallies around the globe is increasing. Protestors are not merely decrying the plight of Palestinians, but are carrying venomous signs that read "Nuke Israel" and the like. In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab screamed at a pro-Israel demonstrator, (referring to the Nazi concentration camps,) "[G]o back to the oven. You need a big oven. That's what you need."

On Tuesday, Al-Qaeda's number two leader, Al-Zawahiri, openly called for the murder of Jews and Israelis around the world as revenge for Israel's actions. He justified the murder of Jewish children and women, arguing that they should not be spared. It appears that many are taking heed of his words, as anti-semitic attacks heighten in Europe. Jews and synagogues in Sweden, France and Britain have subsequently been under attack.

Aiding the Palestinian cause, the MSM persists in labeling Israeli operations as "disproportionate". It airs extensive footage of Palestinian deaths and injuries, while minimizing Palestinian provocations. However, in order to accurately determine whether or not Israel's actions are "disproportionate", we must analyze the situation in context.

In 2005, the Palestinians demanded the Gaza territory, and Israel relinquished it. The IDF yanked families out of their life long homes, and removed all synagogues and Jewish graveyards. American Jews raised millions of dollars to buy the greenhouses in Gaza, and gave them to the Palestinians as a gift. Israel believed that this would be the beginning of true peace process, and she was willing to exchange land for peace.

What did the Palestinians do with this opportunity? The first thing they did was raise flags with logos along the lines of "Gaza today, the West Bank and Jerusalem tomorrow".

The second thing they did was rename Gaza streets after suicide bombers and martyrs.

The third thing they did was elect the terrorist organization Hamas in landslide elections across the Gaza strip. The Hamas charter, based on the Koran, openly calls for the elimination of Israel. And during the current conflict, Hamas emphasized that it remains steadfast in its determination to wipe Israel off the map.

The fourth thing the Palestinians did, was brainwash their children with hatred and hostility toward Jews and Israel. They feed them a steady diet of praise for suicide bombers, provide geography lessons which delete Israel from the map, give history lessons which omit any mention of the holocaust and the reason for Israel's existence, and show them cartoons which encourage them to become martyrs. They teach their children that Palestinians cannot live in peace until Israel is obliterated.

The fifth thing they did, was to destroy the greenhouses given to them, merely because they were made by Jews. Instead of creating a life for themselves, Hamas in conjunction with Islamic Jihad and others, turned Gaza into a hotbed of terrorism. In the past four years, they have launched thousands of rockets and mortar shells into Israel. They built underground tunnels to smuggle in weapons, and received terrorism training from Iran and other state sponsors. They intentionally target Israeli civilians, including busloads of school children, Jews celebrating religious holidays and customers in pizza parlors. They have killed scores of innocent Israelis. Afterwards, they hold celebrations honoring the suicide bombers who have become martyrs for the cause.

Additionally, many Israeli civilians have been blinded, crippled, or maimed by the attacks. Those not physically injured still suffer from the havoc, disruption and constant fear caused by the incessant rocket launches. As Netanyahu explained in a recent interview, city alarms ring every time rockets are launched. Schools often close down and citizens have 20-30 seconds to get to the nearest bomb shelter. This occurs daily and hourly with increasing frequency. And thanks to longer range rockets being provided by Iran, it's occurring in cities farther and farther from the Gaza border. Reports show that as a result, an entire generation of Israeli children and their parents are exhibiting long-term symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Israel, on the other hand, has gone out of her way not to hit innocent Palestinians. She has allowed ambulances to enter Gaza, and even brings many injured Palestinians to Israeli hospitals for treatment. Because they value all human life, Israelis do not rejoice in Palestinian deaths. They do not teach their children to hate Palestinians or Muslims. Nor do they seek to expand their territory to the whole Arab region or force Muslims to convert to their religion. They are merely trying to survive, violence-free, in the small sliver of land that was voted theirs after World War II. No country in the world would allow the constant firing of rockets into its borders without recriminations.

But the destruction of Israel is a priority for Hamas. It is more important than the quality of Palestinian life, and more important than preserving life itself. Accordingly, they built their training camps and military storage facilities amongst civilian populations, knowing that in order for Israel to defend herself, she would have to kill civilians, further enraging Palestinians.

Mr. Mansour, Palestinian representative to the UN, claims, "yes of course we want to live side by side with Israel ...... with East Jerusalem as our capitol." Translation: they don't really want peace. They know they won't obtain East Jerusalem without a fight. Nor will they be satisfied if they get it. Their standard is one always out of reach. They wanted Gaza. They got it. Now they want the West Bank. If their demand is met, East Jerusalem will be next. And so on until Israel is pushed into the sea with only a Palestinian state remaining. Palestinians want to liberate all "Israel-occupied" territory, and to them, all of Israel is occupied.

Hamas threw hundreds of rockets and missiles over the Gaza border in the last few months during the supposed cease-fire while Israel did nothing to retaliate. When the six months was over, Hamas refused to extend the cease-fire. Instead, it stepped up its rocket attacks. Palestinians failed to put pressure on Hamas to halt the attacks, and presumably agrees with Hamas' actions. After all, unlike the 2006 Middle East conflict, where Hezbollah represented a small portion of the Lebanese people and its government, in this case, Hamas is the government. It was elected by the Palestinians throughout the Gaza strip, and represents all of Gaza, not just a small minority.

Even as recently as 2008, Israel released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners jailed on terrorism charges, in order to demonstrate its "good faith." In exchange, Hamas refused to release innocent Israeli prisoners. Instead, Israel received only increased bloodshed. Yet, when Israel closed the gates to defend herself from suicide bombers, Palestinians cried that she was a "human rights abuser".

Is it possible that Israel is just tired of it?

This is not to deny that there is Palestinian suffering. But, let's be honest about what is occurring. A defensive war is not equivalent to an offensive act of aggression. When a nation acts to protect her borders against illegal rocket launches, it's not a war crime. Self-defense against suicide bombers is not genocide or human rights abuse. And, if a government chooses to use its civilians as human shields by burying its weapons facilities and launching sites amidst its own people, then retaliatory military action, despite collateral damage, is not "disproportionate." Israel's response is entirely proportionate to the long-term holy war that has been waged against her by various Palestinian factions over the years.

Israeli actions might look harsh if viewed in a vacuum. But Israel has tolerated the intolerable long enough. "We are fed up with empty gestures", explained Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. Israel cannot and should not accept a ceasefire without concrete measures to ensure the safety and security of southern Israelis. Yet, some demand that Israel do just that, even as Hamas continues to launch rockets into civilian territory with no end in sight.

The key to Palestinian freedom and peace has always been, and remains, in their own hands. But they repeatedly throw away the key. The choice is theirs.

The Cost of Provocation

2009-01-03T01:04:00.004-05:00

The Cost of Provocation
By Deborah Weiss
The American Thinker 1/2/09

Thursday marked the sixth day of Israel's Cast Lead Operation against Hamas. The IAF aimed to hit twenty Hamas targets the night prior, after Israeli civilian areas were attacked on Wednesday night with five rockets from Gaza. Three of the rockets landed as far at Batsheeba (30 miles from Gaza) and two landed in Netivott. Batsheeba's alarm system was malfunctioning, but no deaths resulted from either attack.

In the meantime, thousands in the US took to the streets to protest on both sides of the conflict. In some cities like Dearborn, Michigan, a hotbed of Islamic radicalism, the protests were staunchly pro-Palestinian. In other major cities like NY, Boston, and LA there were more pro-Israel rallies.

Since Saturday, Israel has hit hundreds of Hamas-affiliated sites from the air as well as navy vessels. She is targeting Hamas' military facilities, administrative buildings (where they plan terrorist operations), tunnels created for weapons-smuggling, and the homes of Hamas terrorists. The number of estimated deaths is 369 Palestinians, around 300 of whom were Hamas-affiliated, and 4 Israelis. Amongst those who died was Sheik Niza Rayyan, who was considered a possible successor of the Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. Two of his four wives, and four of his twelve children were also killed. Prior to the attack, his family was warned to leave the building, but they refused. Still, most of the Hamas leaders remain alive, hiding in underground bunkers. Approximately 20,000 Hamas fighters also remain unscathed and likely possess anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft guns.

On Wednesday, Israel declined to accept a 48 hour "truce" proposed by the Quartet. Israel vows to fight to the bitter end in order to achieve "a new security environment". Her reasons for declination are that the proposal includes no enforcement mechanism to ensure that Hamas will stop smuggling weapons into Gaza or cease its rocket attacks. Further, there is no indication that the truce would extend into permanency. It is also untrue that a truce is needed to provide necessities to Palestinians in a "humanitarian crisis". Israel has allowed hundreds of trucks into Gaza carrying food and medicine. She has sent ambulances to aid Palestinians and has even permitted Palestinians into Israeli hospitals where they are being treated for injuries.

Yet, in a televised speech on Wednesday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (the "moderate") referred to Israelis as "barbarians," "occupiers" and "criminals" who are committing a "massacre" against "those who want justice and peace." In the same breath, he honored all the Islamic martyrs who have died in this conflict and previously, proclaiming that "Gaza is the test for steadfastness and defiance". His initial rhetoric blaming Hamas for the Israeli attacks has dissipated, and he is now calling for all Palestinian factions to put their differences aside and unite. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh insists that Israel must stop her violence first, unconditionally, and lift all blockades and open Gaza crossings. In exchange, Hamas refuses to promise a cessation of its rocket launches. Instead, if its requirements are met, Hamas agrees "to talk about all issues." Haniyeh promised Palestinians that in the end the occupiers will achieve nothing.

Peace-lovers, indeed.

On Wednesday evening, the UN called an emergency meeting to vote on a resolution Libya drafted to officially condemn Israel. However, due to US protests that the resolution was "unbalanced", the meeting ended without a vote. The US remains Israel's prime supporter, at least verbally. The White House has stated that to end the violence, Hamas must stop shooting rockets into Israel. President Bush states that he backs Israel's right to self-defense. Secretary Condoleeza Rice has been on the phone non-stop with Arab and Israeli leaders, trying to come to a "durable and sustainable" ceasefire, even if it's not immediate.

Still, international pressure is once again mounting against the Jewish State. She is urged to stop the violence without promise of reciprocity, despite the fact that Hamas instigated the whole affair. The world seems to accept the Palestinians as they present themselves: as victims. News media in Europe and the United States focus on non-stop footage of Palestinian suffering without showing the Palestinian actions that prompted the Israeli reprisals. And, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon insists that the Israeli response is "disproportionate." The question is, disproportionate to what? Is the victim of unprovoked violence morally confined to a tit-for-tat missile launch? Is there nothing to be said for deterrence or self-defense, if not retribution? Applying this line of reasoning to a criminal case, one would have to wait until he was shot dead before he could justify killing an armed intruder who shot him first. Should Israel aim to hit only Palestinian civilians in order to even the score?

In any event, the focus is on the wrong party. Had Palestinians adhered to the six-month Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, there would have been no cause for Israeli aggression, proportionate or otherwise. After years of having missiles and Katyusha rockets launched over the Gaza territory into Israeli civilian populations, Israel has finally had enough. Her patience has run its course. Her appeasement, tolerance and hope for peace has gotten her nowhere. The shock and awe campaign she launched this past weekend is an attempt to end the continuation of death and havoc wreaked on Israeli civilians. The campaign targets only terrorists and Hamas infrastructure, trying as much as possible to avoid hitting civilians. Israel even warns Palestinians to evacuate before aiming at weapons shelters or Hamas facilities. It is a difficult situation considering the fact that Hamas has buried its police and training camps amongst populated civilian areas.

In the meantime, Hamas remains steadfast in its position on Israel: she doesn't have the right to exist.

Palestinian schools have deleted Israel off all maps and indoctrinate Palestinian youth with hatred of Jews. The courses omit entirely any mention of the holocaust which prompted the UN vote for making Israel a state. Instead, they inform the children that Israel and the Jews are occupiers and evildoers. They even air anti-Israel cartoons, feeding their toddlers diets of loathing and animosity.

Repeatedly over the years, Palestinians have intentionally and randomly killed Israeli civilians while the world turned a blind eye. Even as this article was being written, Hamas TV was portraying the death of innocent Jews as cause for celebration. While continuing to launch multitudes of rockets and mortar shells across the Gaza border, Hamas is vowing victory to its people. In reality, it is only guaranteeing that Palestinians will suffer more severe consequences.

If the Palestinians were smart, they would rally against their leadership to stop the provocations. The much complained of fence could be torn down and the gates opened so Palestinians could work, travel, and live in freedom, peace and prosperity. But this would require unlikely self-reflection of their "religious" ideology and their political policies. It would necessitate that they focus their energy on helping themselves rather than using their resources toward the destruction and devastation of others.

But presumably, Palestinians prefer to remain victims so that they can continue to scapegoat Israel and the Jews for their plight.

muslims4Obama violent Jihad a muslim obligation

2009-01-01T10:37:00.001-05:00

*{And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?�-- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!}* (An-Nisaa' 4:75)

If we refuse to fight, or support those who do, we are disobeying Allah. I know none of us wants to do that.

writermom6@yahoo.com
Jamilah Kolocotronis

Muslims4Obama Islam does not mean peace

2008-12-31T19:40:00.000-05:00

...you are mistaken Islam DOES NOT mean peace, that's a common Judo-Christian thought. Islam means submitt to Allah, a Muslim is one who submitts to the will of Allah.

amnadia91@aol.com

More support for violence from muslims4Obama

2008-12-30T07:48:00.000-05:00

From writermom6@yahoo.com

I love peace, but in my study of jihad (I wrote a book--Islamic Jihad by Jamilah Kolocotronis, published 1990) I learned there is a time to negotiate and a time to fight. The days of negotiation are over.

Muslims4Obama blames Jews for the Iraq war

2008-12-30T07:45:00.000-05:00

The following is from nagi.murshed@gmail.com

I agree with you Nadia.

Israelis/Jews are the main cause of Afghanistan and Iraq wars. 911 happened
"because of the Israeli occupation". Iraq war is for the protection of
Israel.

Israel is cancer in the Middle East.

Muslims4Obama continues support of violent Jihad

2008-12-30T07:42:00.002-05:00

Sickening how open these people are about their support for terrorism the following post is from amnadia91@aol.com

this whole Muhammad, (peace & blessing of Allah be upon him) called for peace after jihad, yes..BUT it was after Jihad. Sura 4:104 says, " be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy."...
While Sura 5:3, " the punishment of those who wage war aganist Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered (or crucified)....
That's what Allah (swt) said, on the matter.

Ishaq (a.s) reported that the Prophet (saw) , The Apostle prepared for war in pursuance of Allah��s command to fight his enemies and to fight the infidels who Allah commanded him to fight.Ishaq:280

That was a true and powerful quote by Gandhi, but I serve not the religion, beliefs nor teachings of Gandhi, I am no Hindu.

Thanks
Nadia Asiyah
this whole Muhammad, (peace & blessing of Allah be upon him) called for peace after jihad, yes..BUT it was after Jihad. Sura 4:104 says, " be not weak-hearted in pursuit of the enemy."...
While Sura 5:3, " the punishment of those who wage war aganist Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered (or crucified)....
That's what Allah (swt) said, on the matter.

Ishaq (a.s) reported that the Prophet (saw) , The Apostle prepared for war in pursuance of Allah��s command to fight his enemies and to fight the infidels who Allah commanded him to fight.Ishaq:280

That was a true and powerful quote by Gandhi, but I serve not the religion, beliefs nor teachings of Gandhi, I am no Hindu.

Thanks
Nadia Asiyah

The Campaign Against Sharia

2008-12-19T16:51:00.002-05:00

The Campaign Against Sharia
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Last year, the UK began backing up Sharia judgments with the full force and authority of British civil courts. Now, a campaign has been launched to end the operation of all religious courts in Britain --- especially those operating under Islam.

Dubbed “One Law for All”, the campaign commenced not coincidently on December 10, 2008, the 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Promoters of the No Sharia Campaign wanted to highlight the contrast between human rights and Sharia law.

In 2007, Sheik Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi discovered a clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996 that he rightly believed he could take advantage of. Under this Act, Sharia courts could be classified as arbitral tribunals. Rulings issued in arbitration are binding by law so long as both parties consent. Siddiqi now heads the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, which runs the British Sharia courts.

To date, British Sharia courts have heard over 100 cases issuing legally enforceable judgments. They deal with disputes involving divorce, inheritance and other civil issues as well as “small criminal cases” such as domestic violence. There is a network of five Sharia courts that have been conferred the full power of the judicial system through the county or high courts. Two additional such courts are planned. However, there is evidence that there are many more Sharia courts operating in the UK than those which have been publicly acknowledged.

Sharia courts have operated in Britain for years. But previously they relied on voluntary adherence to rulings and their judgments were not legally enforceable. Enforcement of Sharia court judgments took effect one year after the Archbishop of Canterbury caused a major controversy by declaring that formal recognition of Sharia law “seemed inevitable.” Numerous politicians have expressed concern that the formal backing of Sharia courts marks the beginning of a parallel legal system based on Sharia law, such as exists in Lebanon. Dominic Grieve, shadow home secretary, made clear that he considers the court enforcement of Sharia judgments to be illegal. He emphatically declared that British law is absolute and must remain so. Others agree that Sharia judgments should not be encouraged or enforced by the British courts.

There are numerous problems posed by the official backing of sharia judgements. First, arbitration is permissible only when both parties consent. Evidence shows that in some families and within the Islamic ummah (community), many women are intimidated into submitting to Sharia arbitration and are not truly there based on free will.

Second, the Sharia courts treat men and women very disparately. For example, in inheritance cases, they award the sons twice as much as the daughters. By contrast, British courts award sons and daughters equal amounts. Indeed, the enforcement of Sharia courts was defeated in Canada by Muslim women who complained that they came to Canada to escape the oppression of Sharia meted out in their countries of origin.

Third, the UK has been unsuccessful at integrating Muslims into mainstream society. Sharia courts undermine the efforts of moderate Muslims to assimilate, and make it more difficult for them to come to an understanding of Islam that is tolerant and pluralistic.

Finally, a Civita study demonstrates a correlation between Sharia courts and honor killings. While there is no evidence that the courts have ordered murders or beatings, the fact that men are given extreme rights and power over their wives and daughters creates a strong risk that the legitimized control contributes to the exercise of that control through violence.

The underlying principle in allowing parties to consent to arbitration is that they should have the freedom to contract. Parties who consent to arbitration waive their rights to a judge or a jury. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure that those who enter into such agreements are truly doing so voluntarily. When they do, arbitration is often a more efficient method to resolve disputes than engaging in long drawn out litigation in court.

Some Muslims argue that so long as there are Beth Din courts (Jewish religious tribunals), Sharia courts must also be permitted. However, there are some notable distinctions. Looking around the globe, there is no evidence that Jews are trying to impose their religious beliefs on others through violence or intimidation. Nor are they promoting the notion of Jewish supremacy. On the contrary, they don’t even believe in proselytizing to non-Jews, and explicitly adhere to the rule that they must abide by the official laws of the country in which they reside. By contrast, there are several radical Islamist movements that are working hard to spread Islamic supremacy through the use of terrorism, intimidation, litigation and disinformation campaigns. In many Muslim majority countries, Muslims and non-Muslims are deemed unequal, the latter being treated as second class citizens. Some of these nations are trying to expand their oppressive laws to other lands through creative legal instruments. A parallel legal system utilizing Sharia courts is likely to constitute one step toward expanding political Islam, rather than serving as the final request for a religious accommodation. Unlike other religions which adhere to the notion of separation of religion and state, Sharia law by definition, embodies a whole way of life. It merges the political and the spiritual. Its goal is to replace democracies with Islamic theocracies.

Finally, even if Sharia courts are permitted to engage in legally binding arbitration, the subject matter over which they are granted jurisdiction should be confined to civil matters. It is imperative that “small criminal matters” such as domestic violence, are limited to British criminal courts. A civil matter involves a wrong done by one private party to another, or a dispute between two or more parties on the issue of money or property. On the other hand, a crime is a wrong perpetrated upon the State. That is why a criminal case can land a murderer in jail, but does not require the murderer to provide restitution to the victim’s family. Criminals prosecuted and convicted for murder or theft go to jail in part to penalize the perpetrator, but also to protect society from the criminal who might do further societal harm if he were free. However, if a victim or victim’s family files a civil lawsuit for wrongful death or other wrongs committed, then the goal is to make the plaintiff whole if he wins his case. The remedy is usually financial compensation.

Therefore, in cases where a man commits a crime such as domestic violence, he not only harms his wife, but wrongs society and tramples on its values. In no case should he be let off with mere “anger management” classes, while the abused wife is encouraged to withdraw her police complaint. Yet, this is often the scenario when Sharia courts hear domestic violence cases.

The advocates of the No Sharia Campaign argue that One Law for All should apply --- and that law is a British secular law. They argue this on the basis of equality for all. They argue this on the basis that Sharia rights for some means less than civil rights for others. They argue this on the basis that in Sharia courts Muslim women will be treated as less than full human beings, worth half the value of their male counterparts. They argue this on the basis that human rights should prevail over the “rights” of religions or ideas. Accordingly, they are advocating that the Arbitration Act of 1996 be amended so as not to allow British court enforcement of any religious edicts.

The One Law for All campaign already has an impressive showing of support from prominent individuals such as Aayan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is a former Dutch Parliamentarian who wrote the script for “Submission”, a documentary about the abuse of women under Islam. The producer of the film, Theo van Gogh, was murdered by radical Muslims who threatened that Hirsi Ali would be killed next. Additionally, numerous human rights organizations enthusiastically support the campaign against Sharia. They include the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and others.

In this battle, let us hope that civil rights triumph over Sharia. Individuals have the right and the freedom to practice the faith of their choosing. However, society must be vigilant in ensuring that the faith of some is not imposed involuntarily on others or impinging on individual rights. Additionally, no belief system should be granted the legitimacy of British law if it usurps the democratic law-making process.

A win for the campaign against Sharia would be a win for human rights, and especially the rights of Muslim women in the UK who might otherwise have no choice but to suffer discrimination at the hands of Islamic jurists. More importantly, it would be a statement to those who hold a radical political ideology cloaked in the name of Islam, that Britain stands for freedom and equality, and will not appease those who seek to subvert it.

Muslims4Obama expect US to become Islamic

2008-12-17T19:32:00.000-05:00

Slowly but surely the US will come to adopbt (sic) Islamic principals sooner or later.. inshaAllah

touretech@yahoo.com

Remember all these list are monitored by Obama's workers. Anything he opposes causes the poster to be banned by the moderator from the list.

Muslims 4 Obama support violence against President Bush

2008-12-16T19:43:00.000-05:00

From the official Muslims for Obama email list from heavenearthsilver@yahoo.com

Bush has to be the Dummest POTUS ever...He has zero idea what "Throwing a Shoe" means in the Moslem World ! Should have knocked his damn head off !

Will Obama be willing to condemn this support for violence against the President of the United States by his radical Muslim supporters

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights

2008-12-11T15:14:00.000-05:00

Human Rights vs. Islamic Rights
By Deborah Weiss
Published in The American Thinker 12/11/08

Yesterday was the 60th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR). The UN planned a big celebration, presenting seven awards to international figures who have made a mark in the human rights field this past year. One of the awards was posthumously earmarked to Benazir Bhutto, an advocate for true democracy in Pakistan assassinated during her campaign for Prime Minister.

Great strides have been made in the progress for human rights since the UNDHR was drafted. Yet, several Islamic countries, most notably the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), object. Instead, they are promoting the Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights for Muslim-majority countries. Two NGO's have filed an appeal to the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, arguing that the Cairo Declaration and the UNDHR clash. They have requested an official ruling.

The UNDHR came into existence after WWII. When the Nazi atrocities perpetrated upon the Jews came to light, the world community realized that the UN Charter was not sufficiently specific to protect human rights. In response, the UNDHR was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on December 10, 1948. It consists of 30 articles which cover a broad range of rights including social, political, economic and religious. Though not legally binding, the UNDHR is considered a foundational document in international human rights law. It has inspired the development of 50 human rights instruments around the globe including international treaties, national constitutions, and regional human rights laws.

The bedrock beliefs embedded in the UNDHR are the inherent dignity and equality of all, as well as the right to liberty and the brotherhood of all humanity. The document omits any mention of specific religions, but presumes that all religions and cultures are equal. It promotes equality between men and women, and requires that the human rights of children be protected.

So, what's not to like? According to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, and the other countries comprising the OIC, the UNDHR fails to take into account the "cultural and religious context of Islamic countries". Indeed, in 1981, the Iranian Representative to the UN construed the UNDHR to be a "secular interpretation of a Judeo-Christian tradition which can't be implemented without trespassing on Islamic law." In June 2000, the OIC resolved to support the Cairo Declaration as an alternative.

So, what's the Cairo Declaration? The pre-cursor to the Cairo Declaration was the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, first proclaimed in the 1980's by the Islamic Council at the International Conference on the Prophet Mohammad and His Message. The document was rooted in the belief that Allah alone is the law giver and the source of all laws. It espoused that the State has an obligation to establish an Islamic order, and that all laws must be based on the Qu'ran and the Sunnah, as compiled by Muslim scholars, jurists, and representatives of various Islamic movements.

Many of these ideas were finalized in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights (Cairo). 54 Muslim-majority countries signed the document that year. Many of these countries had abstained from the first vote on the UNDHR. The strategy of abstaining rather than voting in opposition to UNDHR, allowed these countries to uphold the false appearance of supporting human rights, while at the same time precluding a sufficient number of yes votes necessary for the UNDHR to pass.

How does Cairo stack up to the UNDHR? Cairo, unlike the UNDHR is anything but a religion-neutral document. On the contrary, it overtly asserts that Islam is superior over other religions, and that the Islamic ummah is the "best nation". It cites the Muslim community's role in guiding "a humanity confused by competing trends and ideologies", and claims that Islam is the solution to man's "chronic problems of this materialistic civilization." It lists separate rights for men and women rather than advocating for general equality. It precludes the State from taking a life or perpetrating bodily harm except as allowed by Sharia (Islamic law). It entitles everyone to a State-funded Islamic education even if they are not Muslim, but refuses to fund education in any other religion. Freedom of expression is restricted by Islamic interpretation, and blasphemy is forbidden. Most ominously, Articles 24 and 25 assert that all interpretations of the so-called rights stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, must be interpreted through the eyes of Sharia law. Sharia is cited as the sole source of reference allowable for explanation and clarification of all articles in the Declaration. Therefore, the entire document and all the rights and freedoms contained therein, are in fact, limited to those which are in accordance with the Islamic Sharia.

In short, the Cairo Declaration is a religious document. It is not the rights of the individual that are protected, but the best interest of the Islamic Ummah (community). It pits Muslims against non-Muslims and discriminates against women. It allows stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, and the death penalty for blasphemy. Its freedom of religion does not include the freedom to leave Islam, and the proselytizing of other religions or of atheism is strictly forbidden. Freedom of expression and freedom to obtain information cannot be of a nature that weakens the faith of the Islamic society. It is no coincidence that many of the enumerated "rights" are not rights at all, but are actually limitations on rights and freedoms. Therefore, the Cairo Declaration cannot reasonably be interpreted as a declaration of human rights. It is more accurately a statement of obligations which are required to submit to the will of Allah.

The Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights holds a misleading title. By limiting the rights otherwise guaranteed by the UNDHR and confining rights to those permitted by Sharia law, the Cairo Declaration undermines the very rights it purports to protect. In a world where radical Muslims are at war with Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Christians in the Sudan and moderate Muslims in their own countries, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, still insists that Islamophobia is one of the root causes of the world's violence and instability. Further, he claims that Israel is the world's main human rights oppressor.

The OIC diligently works to enforce oppressive measures in Muslim lands and expand Islamic supremacy around the globe. Yet, the OIC Secretary General still has the audacity to request that the 60th anniversary of the UNDHR be used to engage in dialogue with countries of "different viewpoints and religions" in an atmosphere of "mutual respect and tolerance." In other words, the OIC, arch enemy of human rights, is demanding tolerance for the intolerant, and respect for the disrespectful.

What is the reason that the OIC refuses to support the UNDHR? Does Islam conflict with fundamental human rights, basic freedoms and western values? Many moderate Muslims around the globe claim that it does not. But the leaders of the OIC insist that it does.

CAIR Reads AAH

2008-12-02T20:53:00.000-05:00

Finally CAIR put a condemnation of the Mumbai attacks on their homepage. But of course their main focus was to demand India protect the Muslims in India from retaliation. And it only took them till December 2 to publicize it on the homepage of their website.

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=25607&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

Of course as its been several days since the attack its pretty clear that no one in India is planning on killing Muslims for this terrorist attack. But any condemnation by CAIR is just PR. Notice how they can never condemn a terror attack just because it kills non Muslims it always has to focus on Muslims as the real victims. Radical Islam is never to blame.

Heck I'm surprised they didn't just claim Mossad did it

CAIR quiet on massacres in India

2008-11-30T12:00:00.001-05:00

Just checked out the website of CAIR to see if they condemned the terror attacks last week in India. Why am I not surprised that they are not condemning them.

Of course they do condemn the conviction of the Holy Land Foundation for supporting terrorism.

So can well all stop pretending CAIR isn't a terrrorist organization.

Lessons of Kristallnacht

2008-11-10T16:04:00.001-05:00

Lessons of Kristallnacht
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, November 10, 2008

November 9, 2008 marked the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht. It was a night of terror which constituted the commencement of the Holocaust. It was a horrible night, but it was merely a foreshadow of the doom yet to come. This anniversary should not merely commemorate the horrible events that took place in 1938. Rather, it should serve as a warning that we must learn the lessons of history lest we repeat our mistakes; we must take our enemies’ words seriously, and we must not be complacent in the face of evil.

Hitler disguised his plan to exterminate Jews when he first seized power in 1933. Instead of announcing his plan for genocide, he implemented more palatable anti-Semitic policies, which were incremental, systematic, and strategic. Initially, the policies deprived Jews of social, economic, and legal rights. They helped to desensitize the public to discrimination and hate. Eventually, the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 stripped the Jews of their German citizenship and they remained legally nationless.

In October of 1938, the Nazis deported approximately 17,000 Polish Jews back to their land of origin. Each was allowed to take one suitcase of belongings. Their businesses, homes, and other possessions were confiscated by the German government. However, Poland refused to take the Jews back, as they were no longer Polish citizens. They remained on the border of Poland in military stables, penniless, jobless, and in hideous conditions.

Herschel Grynzpan, a 17-year-old student in Paris, learned that this was the plight of his family. His sister, Berta, had sent him a postcard from the Polish outskirts, asking him to send money. Enraged, Herschel bought a gun. On November 7, 1938 he went to the German Embassy and fired five shots at the Third Secretary, Ernst von Rath, whom he mistook for the Ambassador. Herschel took this drastic action to draw attention to how Germany was treating the Jews. Two days later, von Rath died.

The assassination was the perfect pretext for Nazi reprisal against the Jews. Josef Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, organized what later became known as “Kristallnacht” or “night of the broken glass.” Some historians believe that the Nazis had planned an act of violence against the Jews well before the shooting, and were merely waiting for the right moment to implement it.

On November 9, 1938, Richard Heydrich, head of the office that oversaw the Gestapo, the SA, and the State Police, issued a telegraph to all headquarters and police stations. It informed them that riots against the Jews in Austria and Germany would occur that night and into the next morning. It instructed them not to interfere with the violence and to protect only the lives and property of non-Jews.

That evening, acting under Nazi instructions, mobs of Germans and Austrians incited riots. Dozens of Jews were killed, Torah scrolls were desecrated, and hundreds of synagogues were burned to ashes, many of which had been historical houses of worship standing proudly in Germany for centuries prior. Firemen were forbidden from extinguishing the flames.

Approximately 7500 Jewish shops, businesses and homes were vandalized, pillaged and ransacked. This included orphanages and hospitals for sick Jewish children. Some standers-by joined in the rampage, including women and children. Others cried, and more remained silent. Thirty thousand young, healthy Jewish males were arrested, imprisoned and sent to concentration camps. The next morning, the streets were littered with shattered glass from the broken windows.

When all was said and done, some complained that destroying Jewish goods affected German businesses. As a result, the Jews were fined one billion marks to pay for the damage that had been done to them. Claims paid by insurance companies for the broken glass were taken by the state. It took six months for the windows to be completely replaced.

Kristallnacht signaled a dramatic shift in policy from political, social and economic persecution to physical beatings and murder. It was the inevitable progression of incremental discrimination and hate-filled policies. It was also the first violent pogrom in Western Europe in centuries. Further, it marked the end of the German-Jewish legacy which included centuries of religious scholarship, business-building, social activism, culture, science, government service and other Jewish contributions to German society. Previously, many Jews had even fought and died as German soldiers out of loyalty to their Fatherland.

The day after Kristallnacht, Goebbels announced, “[W]e shed not a tear for them. They stood in the way long enough. We can use the space made free more usefully than as a Jewish fortress.” He announced government-sanctioned reprisals against the Jewish community. Within weeks after the shooting of von Rath, Jewish newspapers and magazines were banned from publication, Jewish children were banned from “Aryan” state elementary schools, and all Jewish cultural activities were suspended indefinitely. The Nazis issued a “Decree on Eliminating the Jews from German Economic Life.” Jewish businesses were not allowed to re-open unless they were managed by non-Jews. Jews were no longer allowed to own radios or have driver’s licenses. They were given curfews and geographically segregated. Virtually no Jewish-German contact was permitted in public life, whether related to transportation, schooling, or hospitals.

Though many newspapers and magazines throughout the world condemned the Nazis, little action was taken to actually help the Jews in Germany. Some Jews were permitted to enter England. President Roosevelt stated that refugees already in America on visas could remain. However, the U.S. legislature voted not to open its doors to additional Jewish refugees. And for the most part, other western countries did not change their immigration policies to come to the rescue of the Jews.

The apparent apathy of the “civilized world” in response to Nazi brutality against the Jews only emboldened them. It led them rightly to believe that they could commit ever increasing acts of violence and cruelty without consequence. Jews in Germany, who were no longer citizens of any country, remained trapped in Germany without legal or physical protections from any government. They were no longer human; they were “untermenschen” (subhuman).

During the 1942 Wannsee Conference, the SS adopted the “Final Solution” as official government policy. It paved the way for them to implement policies toward a Judenfrei Europe, and to extinguish the Jewish race as humans would extinguish rodents. Heydrich, who had previously participated in the meeting to remove Jews from all economic life, was appointed Chief Executor of the Final Solution.

Today it is not Aryan supremacists who want to extinguish all Jews, but Islamist supremacists who want all countries to be ruled by Sharia. In some regions of the world, Islamists are imposing their will through acts of violence and terrorism. In the West, they are using non-violent means to achieve the same radical goals. They are lobbying, legislating, litigating, and infiltrating our governments and universities. They are fighting to obtain preferential treatment and take away our freedom.

We must stop our enemies in their first steps on the path toward evil. We cannot give them a foothold. If we do, we have been forewarned. In the face of apathy and complacency, our values, freedom, and national security will be at risk.

Edmund Burke once said “all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Make no mistake about it -- Hitler is back with a different name. After WWII, the world vowed never again. Today, we have another chance to look evil in the eye and take action to defeat it. Will we rise to the challenge? Or will we, once again, sit idly by?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com

Jihad Against Free Speech

2008-11-09T14:38:00.001-05:00

Jihad Against Free Speech
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, November 06, 2008

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist supremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslim majority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in the world. It is also the largest international organization of any kind, second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

The purpose of the OIC is to promote Islamic values, to revitalize Islam’s pioneering role in the world, to strengthen and enhance the bond of solidarity and unity among Muslim states, to support “the Palestinian struggle” and to defend Islam. Its charter claims that OIC works to promote peace, tolerance, and fight terrorism. However, its actions are dissonant with these claims, as it strives to define these words through the extraordinarily skewed views of radical Islam.

Since 1999, the OIC has been pushing incrementally and strategically toward its goal of internationally outlawing all criticism of Islam, Muslims, Muslim theocracies, and Islamic extremism. Subsequent to September 11, 2001, it professed concern about alleged backlash against Muslims.

In 2005, the OIC urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (“UNCHR”) to pass a resolution called “combating defamation of religions.” Although the title of the resolution referred to religions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically. It lamented negativity towards Islam in the media and the use of broadcast, print and the internet to incite violence, discrimination or intolerance towards Islam and other religions. It revealed alarm over the backlash against Muslims since 9/11, and law enforcement measures that “target Muslims.” It expressed deep concern over statements which “attack” religions generally, and Islam and Muslims in particular, and concern over the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities. It alleged that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. Additionally, it proclaimed that defamation of religions plays a role in the denial of fundamental rights of the target groups.

The Commission urged resolute action to prohibit “racist, and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers… and to protect against acts of discrimination, intimidation, hatred, and defamation of religion.” It called on the international community to begin a “global dialogue” on religious diversity and to combat defamation of religions. It further required the Special Rapporteur to report on the discrimination faced by Muslims and Arabs. Not surprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolution included many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

The OIC’s insistence on prohibiting defamatory speech against Islamic countries was without reciprocity. No effort to silence anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli speech has been made. At an OIC Special Session in 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad freely expressed his goal to eliminate the “Zionist regime.” Indeed, the OIC backs Iran’s nuclear program, supports Hamas, and rationalizes 9/11. Moreover, the OIC insists that the definition of terrorism should exclude the killing of innocent civilians where there is a “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation,” i.e. Israel. It is for this reason that the UN has been unable to pass a comprehensive convention against international terrorism.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostile glances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goal of the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in European parliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Human Rights Commission with the failed hope of becoming an effective advocate for human rights). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and run contrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In 2007, the Secretary General of the OIC, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a “moderate” Muslim from Turkey, used the “International Day of Tolerance” to assert that freedom of speech is defiling Islam. He stated, “[M]uslims around the world are the first victims of intolerance. They are facing a campaign of hatred and prejudice, what is otherwise known as Islamophobia. This growing trend of Islamophobia has subjected them to discrimination including religious profiling and stereotyping. The right to freedom of speech is being used to defile the sacred symbols of Islam.”

He continued, “[I]t is high time that the international community considers enacting legal measures against defamation of religions and religious beliefs. I would urge the Alliance of Civilizations and the Human Rights Council to take pro-active action in this regard.”

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (“IHEU”) warned that UN approval of a law combating defamation of religions would have grave implications for the freedom to criticize a religion or its practices. It explained that countries will have broad latitude in how they penalize the disrespect of religion because OIC’s resolution did not define what constitutes “defamation.” Further, the resolution failed to distinguish between defamation of religion and incitement to racial and religious violence.

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where it produced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itself against all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers, reporters, politicians or governments. Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules be imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s President, and Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom without limits.” To support his argument, some OIC delegates pointed to European laws that criminalize holocaust denial and anti-Semitic rhetoric, as well as to UN charters that condemn discrimination based on religion. As a result of this summit, the UNHRC passed the resolution.

Instead of fighting terrorism to make obvious that Islam and terrorism need not be affiliated, the OIC unveiled at its summit, the first report on Islamophobia. It consisted of 58 pages of real, perceived, and alleged claims of Islamophobia. Under “negative incidents,” it cited numerous occurrences of Muslims threatening or committing violence against non-Muslims in response to factual reports on Muslim behavior. Negative reports about Muslims, even if true, resulted in claims of Islamaphobia.

Some of the incidents reported as Islamophobic included: Wikipedia’s refusal to cave into Muslims’ demand to remove all depictions of the Prophet from its English language website; a report accurately stating Muslims were outraged by the opening of the first church in Qatar and insisting that Qatar is a Muslim country where others have no right to build a place of worship; the fact that Florida Attorney General (and former Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime in Congress) showed the movie “Obsession” to his staff; and the fact that the European Union requested Iran to drop the death penalty in its penal code for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and witchcraft. Reports of threats made to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, producer of the documentary “Fitna,” were also deemed Islamophobic.

Finally, the bulletin suggested that Islamophobia poses a threat to global peace and security. It proposed the use of legal instruments to prohibit Islamophobic speech, urged monitoring and compiling lists of Islamophobic incidents, and encouraged the persuading of others to believe that Islam is a moderate, peaceful and tolerant religion.

In June of 2008, the OIC reported on the 2007 opening of its Washington, DC office which works to engage OIC politically. Karen Hughes, then-undersecretary of public diplomacy at the State Department, spoke at the opening ceremony. She lauded OIC’s effort to pass the resolution on combating defamation of religions. She also advocated a program called “citizen dialogue” which she started in order to address Muslims’ sense of isolation. However, Muslims abroad indicated that they were not interested in meeting with U.S. government officials or non-Muslim Americans, so she sent Muslim-Americans as envoys to foreign countries for the so-called dialogue.

The OIC also boasted about the inroads it has made at the UN. It pledged to place Islamophobia at the forefront of its next summit in April 2009.

Additionally, a rule has been implemented at the UNHRC, requiring that all speaker presentations and discussions omit any “judgment or evaluation about religion.” The word “sharia” does not have to be expressly stated to violate this rule. All discussions must avoid making any mention of controversial fatwas (religious rulings) or human rights abuses that are implemented as part of Sharia or in Islamic countries. This includes, for example, protests against the forced marriages of young girls.

The OIC construes the word Islamophobia very broadly, using it to include news reports, observations, and accurate accounts of violence or intolerance on the part of Muslims or Islamic theocracies. In effect, the OIC is requesting a legal exemption from free speech rights of any criticism of the effects of an extremist interpretation of Islam. Any individual, group, or government acting in the name of Islam would be entirely off limits for open debate or discussion.

The obvious result of OIC’s push to internationally outlaw defamation of Islam, would be not only to stifle free speech and freedom of religion, but to devastate efforts to fight human rights abuses and to counter terrorism. Fighting for human rights in Islamic countries might be deemed Islamophobic even if it pertains to the human rights of Muslims.

Therefore, OIC’s comment that Islamophobia jeopardizes global peace and security was not an expression of fear of Islamophobia. Rather, it was a warning that anyone who claims Islam is not a religion of peace might have violence perpetrated against him. Its simultaneous propaganda campaign to convince people that Islam is a “moderate, peaceful, and tolerant religion” demonstrates that its words and actions are at odds with each other.

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islam that disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, are utilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals. By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech and religious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Claiming victimhood can score big political points in a free and compassionate society. If the OIC can convince people that those who stone women, behead apostates, sexually abuse minors, fly planes into buildings, and blow up subway systems are really the victims of evil, rather than the perpetrators, then the OIC’s proposed restrictions on free speech will accomplish more damage throughout the west than 9/11 ever could.

It is important to understand that only individuals should be afforded rights. Ideas, thoughts and religions should not be protected from criticism. There is no such thing as defamation of religion. To the degree that it is concocted, the rights of ideas and religions will stand in direct opposition to the rights and freedoms of humans. The right of free speech is, in part, designed to offend others. The Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution erected the First Amendment for the purpose of fostering cantankerous political speech. They believed that the way to counter offensive speech and bad ideas is to engage in more speech, espousing good ideas. In this case, however, it is the OIC that clearly has the bad ideas, and not the alleged defamers. Perhaps the reason the OIC seeks to prohibit free speech rather than to rebut it, is because it too knows that free speech works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com

Defeating Libel Terrorism

2008-10-20T18:37:00.000-05:00

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 20, 2008

There are many forms of terrorism, and violence is just one of them. The non-violent, incremental strategies used to achieve the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal to “sabotage the west from within” are more insidious and more likely to be successful than violence. Though non-violent radicalism takes many forms, one of the most dangerous forms is the effort to stifle free speech through the use of foreign defamation law suits.

A main case in point is that of Rachel Ehrenfeld. She is an Israeli-American counter-terrorism expert, and is internationally recognized. In 2003, she authored the book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it. In it, she asserted that Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker and billionaire helped finance Al Qaeda. To support her claim, she cited official government documents from France, Britain, and the United States.

Rachel’s book was written, published, and distributed in America, and was targeting an American audience. However, through the Internet, approximately 23 books were sold in the United Kingdom. This was sufficient for British courts to acknowledge jurisdiction when Mahfouz decided to sue Rachel for defamation in the British courts.

Rachel refused to travel to the U.K. for her court appearance. She was consequently issued a default judgment. The court ordered her to pay $225,000 and to apologize to Mahfouz. Rachel sought a declaratory judgment in Manhattan’s federal court, requesting that the U.K. judgment be declared unenforceable. However, the case was dismissed due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction over Mahfouz.

Mahfouz claimed he was innocent of the charges that Rachel levied against him. Yet, he chose not to sue her in the U.S. where jurisdiction would have made more sense. This is because British and American defamation laws differ starkly. In America, free speech is protected under the first amendment of the U.S. constitution. The laws in America are pro-free speech, pro-defendant, and truth is a complete defense. A public figure cannot win a libel law suit unless he meets his burden of proof to show that the statement made was false and the author made it with “actual malice” or with “reckless disregard of the truth.” Plaintiffs in America are often deposed under oath, and under discovery rules, Mahfouz could additionally have been required to make his finances open to public scrutiny. None of these rules apply in Britain.

In the U.K., defamation laws are very pro-plaintiff, tilting in favor of protecting one’s reputation to the degree that it often amounts to censorship. There, it constitutes defamation to publish “a statement that would make an ordinary person modify his opinion of a person as a result of hearing or reading the statement.” The plaintiff does not have the burden of proof. Instead, the statement is presumed to be false, and the burden of proof is on the defendant to show otherwise. Defenses to defamation claims in the U.K. include the argument that you were not really the author; you did not know the statement would be published; you did not know the statement was defamatory; or the person about whom the statement was made had such a poor reputation that a negative publication would not change the average person’s opinion of him.

Due to these differences in law, there has been a substantial rise in the phenomenon known as “libel tourism,” where terrorism financiers and front groups forum-shop around the globe to sue in the legal system most favorable to them. With the advent of book sales through the internet, courts that would otherwise have no jurisdiction can hear cases where the subject books were bought in their country.

Law suits and threats of law suits by Mahfouz and others like him, have had a chilling effect on free speech throughout the west. Mahfouz has already sued or threatened to sue forty authors, including twenty Americans. In so doing, he has collected substantial damages, and precluded the sale and distribution of important information on terror-financing. For example, in 2006, after Mahfouz filed a libel claim, Cambridge University Press announced that it would halt the sale of all unsold copies of its book titled Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, written by Robert O. Collins, a former professor of history from the University of California, and J. Millard Burr, a former State Department employee.

Subsequently, in 2007, Andy McCarthy wrote a book titled Willful Blindness. McCarthy was the lead federal prosecutor of Abdul Rachman (otherwise known as “the blind Sheik”), who was responsible for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. A book distributor operating in Canada and Britain wrote a letter to Roger Kimball, McCarthy’s publisher-to-be, inquiring if the book contained any anti-Saudi or anti-terrorist content. He feared he would offend Saudis living in the U.K. and subject himself to possible lawsuits.

As a practical matter, even those who want to stand on principle rarely have the deep pockets required to defend themselves in court. The Saudis, on the other hand, have seemingly endless amounts of money with which to fund their litigation efforts.

The result of this libel terrorism is that books deemed offensive by terrorist financiers, terrorist front groups, and terrorist sympathizers, don’t get published even if true. Their money laundering, training of Wahabbi imams around the globe, distribution of hate-filled literature, and radical indoctrination of madrassa students must all go unmentioned. Even when plaintiffs don’t have a meritorious case, they know that the threat of bleeding a defendant dry can be sufficient to achieve their goal of stifling free speech. And, the threat of a law suit need not be spoken to have a chilling effect. That defamation suits initiated by radicals are increasing throughout the West is enough to make everyone in the industry take notice. Libel terrorism has indeed been successful.

The flood of libel lawsuits in foreign courts demonstrates that radical Muslims and terrorist financiers are trying to shut people up. After all, if Americans cannot talk about how terrorism operates and is funded, they cannot properly address the problem. It is therefore crucial to defeat libel terrorism, not only in order to preserve America’s free speech rights, but to maintain her national security.

In response to these events, the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate unanimously passed the “the Libel Terrorism Reform Act” earlier this year. Also known as “Rachel’s Law,” this bill gives New York courts jurisdiction over foreigners who win defamation judgments against New Yorkers. It allows the defendant to seek a declaration that the judgment is unenforceable if the country in which it was issued does not provide the same free speech protections as the first amendment. The bill was signed into law by Governor Paterson in May, 2008, and is a victory for the publishing capital of the world.

Now, Congress wants to make protection against libel terrorism national, and toughen the consequences even further. “The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008” was introduced in the House of Representatives by New York Congressman Peter King. In the Senate, the bill was sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter and cosponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer. This bill, if passed, will provide the same remedies as the New York State bill. Additionally, it will allow authors and publishers to counter-sue for treble damages in cases where the plaintiff filed a defamation complaint with the intent to intimidate defendants from exercising their first amendment rights. The bill is pending in both the House and Senate judiciary committees.

Unfortunately, this bill will die in committee unless Congress goes back into session before the year’s end. However, word is that after January 1, 2009 the committees will bring these bills up again, giving Congress a second chance to send them to the floor for a vote. If Congressmen and Senators work together in a bipartisan fashion, they can win this battle to preserve one of America’s bedrock freedoms and to defeat non-violent radicals in their abusive litigation tactics. In order to win the global war on terror, it is critical that authors are free to disseminate truthful information on terrorism-related issues to intelligence and counterterrorism professionals, as well as to the public.

Let’s hope that when the New Year commences, America’s legislators will not let this important opportunity slip by.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

Jihad for Love

2008-10-20T18:30:00.001-05:00

By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, September 18, 2008

During his speech at Columbia University almost one year ago, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad professed, “[w]e have no homosexuals in Iran.” Now, a film entitled “A Jihad for Love” demonstrates why it is difficult to locate gays in the Muslim world.

Filmed over a period of five and a half years, filmmaker-director Parvez Sharma, a gay Muslim, conducted interviews with other gays and lesbians in twelve countries and nine different languages. The film premiered in Toronto in 2007 and was only recently released in the United States. It was banned at the Singapore International Film Festival due to the “sensitive nature” of discussing the compatibility of Islam and homosexuality.

The film attempts to reclaim the concept of jihad to mean “inner struggle,” rather than the often-used concept of “holy war.” Yet, one could not help but notice that the reaction to homosexuals by the surrounding Muslim community was overtly hostile, violent and oppressive. The inner struggle seemed to be directly brought on by the inner-outer conflict of how to reconcile one’s own sexual proclivities with the inevitable disapproval, chastisement, and violent penalties that would be imposed by Islamic fundamentalist governments, the Muslim religious community, and sometimes even family members.

For example, Muhsin, a gay imam in Johannesburg, South Africa, decided to “come out” by making the rounds with radio appearances. His goal was to speak out in an attempt to reach other gay Muslims and prevent them from either committing suicide or leaving Islam. But the audience would have none of it. Though homosexuality is not illegal in South Africa, callers from the conservative Muslim community believe it should be. “He should be thrown off a mountain or burned.” “They should cut off his arse.” “They should definitely bring back the death penalty for this guy…He’s bringing down the name of Islam.”

These were just some of the comments called in by English speaking citizens. Muhsin’s children, who see him less often since his divorce, laughed and giggled when he asked them what they thought should happen to him because he’s gay. “[Y]ou should be stoned!” shouted his daughter. “No, he should be thrown off a mountain,” her brother argued. All this, despite the fact that they clearly loved him.

“Seriously,” Muhsin asked, “if someone tried to hurt you, I would put my life on the line because I love you (paraphrasing)….You wouldn’t do the same for me?.... If someone wanted to kill me, what would you do?” The children sobered up and the daughter replied, “I would pray that my Dad won’t feel, and that he would die with the first stone.” Muhsin continued, “I know the mentality of the Muslim community, and I was prepared to die.”

Muhsin believes that the answer to reconciling homosexuality with Islam does not lie in the Koran, but in ijtihad-- the independent interpretation of Islamic laws, used by legal scholars. Unfortunately, most scholars believe that “the gates of itjihad closed in the tenth century.” Therefore, Islamic rulings have generally not been updated since that time. Muhsin explained that in their religious education, most Muslims are taught to fear Allah more than they are taught about God’s love. He believes this needs to be changed.

In Iran, the government discovered that Amir was a homosexual. There, homosexuality is a crime, often punishable by death. The movie did not reveal that most homosexuals in Iran are hung in the public square, sometimes as young as age sixteen. Instead, it showed photographs of Amir’s back, after he received one hundred bloody lashes. It is likely that he was allowed to live because his father was a martyr. Eventually, Amir and three of his friends escaped to Turkey, which does not recognize Iranian refugees. They applied to the UN Commissioner for Central Refugees for refugee status. Their requests were granted and they relocated to Canada. Had their applications been denied, they would have been returned to Iran.

Arsham was among Amir’s friends who applied for refugee status. He had founded “The Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization” or “PGLO” for short, an organization not mentioned in the film. Two of Amir’s friends as well as other interviewees were filmed with blotted out faces due to fear of repercussions to themselves or their families.

Some of the interviewees visited imams or Islamic scholars to find out whether their homosexuality was compatible with their faith. All the scholars emphatically declared that it was not. One imam explained that homosexuals are not entitled to Muslim burials. He asserted that according to all Islamic scholars, the sin of homosexuality is punishable by death.

The only differing views pertain to how one should be killed. In India, punishment for the crime of homosexuality is not enforced. There, one scholar encouraged Qasim, who came seeking answers, to pray to Allah for forgiveness. When Qasim inquired what would happen if he continued his homosexual activity after saying his prayers, the scholar demanded that Qasim see a psychologist to cure his problem.

Almost all of the gays and lesbians in the film had prayed for Allah to remove their homosexuality. For most, this prayer went unanswered. Many came to terms with their sexuality but still remained believers in Islam. Some are trying to reform their religion. Some merely escaped to freer countries. Others stayed behind drenched in guilt and shame.

Maryam and her girlfriend researched the status of lesbianism within Islam. They discovered that it is forbidden by all scholars, but is only punishable by scolding because it doesn’t involve penetration. Maryam sighed, wishing the punishment were greater -- perhaps a severe lashing, in order to relieve her of her guilt. Maryam resides in Morrocco, a more liberal Muslim country, but her girlfriend lives in Egypt where homosexuality, including lesbianism, is punished by the government. They commute to see each other in secrecy, both desiring to live together as a couple, but simultaneously fearing the consequences. Maryam fails to understand why she cannot live with both her girlfriend and Allah at the same time. Nevertheless, she is happy to cover herself in the Islamic hijab because it makes her feel less attractive to men and she finds that freeing.

Others came forward in the film as well. One lesbian had been the victim of female genital mutilation as a child, which closed her genitals up until she was age twenty-five. Another, a cross-dresser, went on the annual religious hajj to Mecca. When he returned, he “felt funny” about his sexual behavior knowing he still attended a mosque that forbids it. He discontinued his cross-dressing and his homosexual activities.

Across the globe, homosexuality is taboo in many religions and cultures. However, the prohibition is strongest within the Islamic culture. Not only must gay and lesbian Muslims endure the name-calling that occurs across the board, but if they live in Islamic theocracies, their conduct constitutes a crime punishable by a range of violent acts from bloody lashings, to stoning, beheading or hanging. Where the state does not impose such penalties, often the Muslim community opines that it should, and sometimes even takes matters into its own hands.

“A Jihad for Love” covers the reactions to homosexuality throughout an array of Muslim countries, customs and communities. All the interviewees came forward under the threat of death. The film would have been more effective had it provided a more complete picture of the extent of violent penalties for the crime of homosexuality. Nevertheless, it is the only known full length documentary covering the subject of homosexuality and Islam. The West, and those on the left in particular, need to be confronted with the fact that radical Islamic ideologies are in direct conflict with all the values they claim to hold dear.

Parvez Sharma should be commended for coming out of the closet -- for revealing the truth regarding how much of the Muslim world denies homosexuals their basic human rights and dignity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

Obama campaign officially supports anti semitism on its listserv

2008-10-01T22:05:00.000-05:00

Here is the response from the Obama campaign to my complaints regarding anti semitic activity on its listserv

We appreciate your involvement on My.BarackObama. However, we have received complaints concerning your listserv messages. This is a reminder to keep the dialogue between group members respectful. As our movement for change grows, it's important that we continue to maintain a welcoming community where all people can engage in positive discourse. Please join us in moving beyond the divisive politics of the past. Thank you so much for your understanding and cooperation.

Emily Obama for America

Anti Semitism has now been endorsed by the Obama campaign

Obama email list supporting Israels destruction and holocaust denial

2008-09-25T10:22:00.002-05:00

This is from an email list on the Obama campaign site

ForeignPolicyWonksforPeaceJustice

Note how the article supports holocaust denial as being opposed to the "Zionist" narative of the holocaust

As of this point the moderator of the group has refused to post my rebuttal of this criticism.

Exposing the fallacy of anti-Zionism equaling anti-Semitism

When the world speaks up against such crimes when committed by Zionist Jews, the ready-made charge of "anti-Semitism" will be unleashed in the face of Israel critics.

And if the critics happen to be Jewish, the disgusting mantra of "self-hating Jews" will be invoked to silence and intimidate the Jewish critics.

There are many conscientious Jews who courageously reject the Zionist claim that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are two sides of the same coin.

The small but increasingly active group, known as Neturei Karta (guardians of the City) represents the most pronounced Jewish opposition to Zionism and Israel.

The group believes that Zionism is inherently immoral and antithetical to true Judaism.
Israel is not hated because it is Jewish.

Israel is hated because of her evil ideology and equally evil practices. A country whose birth and survival were and continue to be at the expense of another people is an evil country and has no right to exist.

A country that is dedicated to the destruction and obliteration of another people is an evil country regardless of how many admirers its has around the world.

Israel is hated because of its systematic, institutionalized oppression, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, home demolition, apartheid, racism and slow-motion genocide of non-Jews as is the case in the Gaza Strip.

Israel is hated because it oppresses people and discriminates against them in ways reminiscent of the Nazi era because the victims don't belong to the "holy tribe"!!!

In short, Israel is hated because of its evil acts, not because of its Jewish identity. Claiming that it is hated because of its religion or "race" is a canard amounting to a Big Lie.

Anti-Zionism highest moral obligation

There is no doubt that anti-Semitism, like Islamophobia and other forms of racism, must be fought relentlessly and uprooted, although this may well be an impossible task, given the human nature.

However, anti-Zionism is a different thing, since Zionism represents evil in is ugliest form. Yes, Zionism produced many scientists and made some technological advancements. But so what? Nazi Germany, too, produced many scientists and made technological advancement.

In the final analysis nations, like individuals, are primarily judged according to their moral credentials not scientific achievements, especially if these achievements are utilized to further injustice toward fellow human beings. This is why a given scientist who does and supports evil should be viewed as an evil man no matter how many prestigious awards he has won.

------------

In recent years, a famous French author was found guilty of displaying "anti-Semitism" for writing a book on Zionist mythology with regard to Palestine.

In Austria, a British historian was dumped in jail for questioning the Israeli-Zionist narrative regarding the holocaust.

And in the United States, the country of the First Amendment, a major British Publishing House has been "ousted" because it publishes books the world-wide Jewish lobby considers "anti-Israeli."

-###-

September 21, 2008 By Khalid Amayreh in occupied Palestine Souce: www.xpis.ps

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/21/exposing_the_fallacy_of_anti_zionism_equ

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to 147 members of Foreign Policy Wonks for Peace, Justice and Human Rights
This email was sent from Dick McManus dick.mcmanus@yahoo.com
Listserv email address: ForeignPolicyWonksforPeaceJusticeandHuma@groups.barackobama.com
Your reply will be sent to: ForeignPolicyWonksforPeaceJusticeandHuma@groups.barackobama.com
Unsubscribe or change your email settings: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ForeignPolicyWonksforPeaceJusticeandHuma/listserv-unsub

2008-09-05T18:05:00.000-05:00

Report: Muslims
ripped off by CAIR
Organization allegedly threatened
to sue over subsequent complaints

Canada's Human Rights Gestapo

2008-08-31T18:23:00.000-05:00

This is how Canada handles those who "offend Islam."

Canada’s Human Rights Gestapo
By Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Perhaps you’ve heard about the Ezra Levant affair. Ezra Levant was the publisher of the now defunct Canadian magazine Western Standard, which was a politically-oriented news magazine, analogous to the National Review.

In 2006, Ezra’s magazine republished the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with an accompanying article about the Muslim riots that followed. It argued that journalists should not censor themselves out of fear of violence from a radical Muslim minority, and chastised media that refused to exercise their free speech rights on those grounds.

Subsequently, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities (“ECMC”) filed a complaint against the Western Standard with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. After passage of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Commissions and the Human Rights Tribunals were established for the purpose of prohibiting discrimination and guaranteeing equal opportunity for all. The commissions investigate each complaint and determine whether there are legitimate grounds upon which the case should go to trial at a tribunal.

The Act reads in part:

section 12: “No person shall publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or

section 13: “… is likely to expose a person or class of persons to hatred or contempt [because of race, religious beliefs, etc. …].”

No actual harm is required to prove one’s case. No actual intent to foster hatred is required. The only requirement is that the communication is “likely….to expose” an individual or group to hatred. And unlike with U.S. defamation laws, truth is not a defense. It is no wonder that the tribunals have a 100 percent conviction rate for section 13 cases.

The EDMC’s complaint alleged that the Western Standard’s publication of the Mohammed cartoons was “anti-Islamic, racist and reproduced for the purpose of inciting hatred against the Prophet and Muslims.” It further claimed that “the republication perpetuates negative stereotypes of Muslims.”

During Ezra’s hearing with the commission, he was asked what his intent was when he published the cartoons. Visibly upset, he insisted that his magazine should be able to exercise unbridled free speech without regard to intent. With provocative statements, he practically begged the commission to convict him, so that he could bring the case to a “real court” and destroy the credibility of the Human Rights Commissions altogether. Ezra’s legal written response to the complaint explained that the article and the cartoons merely constituted objective news published in a news magazine.

On July 29, 2008, the Human Rights Commission (“HRC”) issued a report on its investigation, and ECMC’s complaint was dismissed. The commission ruled that in balancing free speech rights against the laws that prohibit discrimination, the Western Standard’s publication of the cartoons, “in its full context” did not warrant a trial. Yasmeen Nizam, a civil litigation attorney and an ECMC director, disagreed. She believed that Western Standard should have been brought to trial “regardless of the context.” As she stated, the goal in filing the complaint was “to educate people” on the increased “risk” of discrimination against Muslims in a post-9/11 world.

In the meantime, the HRC’s investigation of the Western Standard article was completed to the tune of 500,000 dollars in taxpayers’ money, and 100,000 dollars to Ezra and his magazine. Had the complaint been filed in a Canadian civil court, the loser would have been required to pay Ezra’s attorney’s fees. But in HRC cases, the complainant doesn’t even have to pay for his own attorney’s fees. The investigation is conducted at taxpayer expense. Had the complaint been filed in a Canadian criminal court, charging the magazine with criminal incitement of hatred, then Ezra would have been entitled to due process and a speedy trial. Instead, he was dragged through the mud at the Alberta’s Human Rights Commission for 900 days, at the mercy of a bunch of bureaucrats.

Currently, there are fourteen Canadian Human Rights Commissions, employing 1000 people, with a budget of 200 million dollars annually. Together, they function as a parallel court system, often at direct odds with laws administered through the Canadian civil and criminal courts. While the establishment of the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals may have started out with good intentions, over time they have become so extreme that they regularly side with radical Islamists. In a crusade to stamp out offensive language, they stifle free speech. Additionally, the legal fees for respondents can be astronomical. When they win, their speech constitutes exorbitantly expensive speech, not free speech. Soft jihadists purposely use these nuisance suits as lawfare to shut people up and prevent them from voicing their opinions. The process is the punishment. As Ezra protested: “[t]he process I was put through is a warning to journalists who would defy radical Islam.” In effect, the commissions judge both speech and thought. Worse, they preclude open political debate about the nature of radical Islam and the west’s enemy in the war on terror.

At first blush, the dismissal of ECMC’s complaint against the Western Standard might seem like a win for free speech rights. But it’s not quite the good news it appears to be. As Ezra himself so astutely pointed out, it merely means that in the process of government censorship, the Alberta Human Rights Commission approved of his article. And that should send a chill down everyone’s spine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

The Democratic Party's "Unindicted Co-Conspirator"

2008-08-25T15:04:00.006-05:00

President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Ingrid Mattson (center), pictured at the 2008 Democratic Convention, where she helped lead a convention-sponsored interfaith session. This, while ISNA was recently named an "unindicted co-conspirator" for a federal trial dealing with the financing of millions of dollars to Hamas and while ISNA recently propagated material on its national website calling for violence against Jews and Christians.

The Company that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison Keeps 2

2008-08-25T14:19:00.009-05:00

The following images of Representative Ellison were taken after CAIR and ISNA were named as "Unindicted Co-Conspirators" by the U.S. government for their involvement in the financing of Hamas.

Keith Ellison pictured with CAIR-Chicago (a.k.a. CAIR-Illinois) Executive Director and CAIR National Strategic Communications Director Ahmed Rehab and CAIR-Chicago Chairman of the Board Safaa Zarzour

Rep. Ellison pictured, at November 2007 CAIR-California (a.k.a. CAIR-Los Angeles) event with CAIR-California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush and CAIR National Board member Fouad Khatib

Rep. Ellison speaks at ISNA's September 2007 annual convention

The Company that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison Keeps

2008-08-23T13:41:00.006-05:00

Congressman Ellison (center) with "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" Jamal Said (right)

Congressman Ellison (right) with Al-Qaeda web designer Mazen Mokhtar (left) and "Unindicted Co-Conspirator" Siraj Wahhaj (center)

Salute to a Holocaust Heroine

2008-08-08T16:22:00.001-05:00

By, Deborah Weiss
FrontPage Magazine, August 8, 2008

Last Wednesday, July 30, 2008, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 361 “commemorating Irena Sendler, a woman whose bravery saved the lives of thousands during the Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courage, selflessness, and hope.”

So, who was Irena Sendler? Born to a father who was a physician, primarily to poor Jews in Warsaw, Irena grew up with the spirit of compassion. She worked as a Senior Administrator in the Warsaw Social Welfare Department, which provided food and services to the destitute, orphans and the elderly. When World War II began, Irena illegally registered Jewish families under Christian names and continued to provide them with aid. To dissuade the Nazis from inspecting Jewish homes, she reported that they were infected with contagious diseases such as typhus and tuberculosis.

In 1942, when hundreds of thousands of Jews were herded and sealed into a sixteen block area known as the “Warsaw Ghetto,” she was appalled at the conditions they were forced to live in. Crowded, freezing, without food and hope, they faced certain death by execution, starvation or deportation to Nazi death camps. There they would be tortured, forced to work relentlessly, subjected to cruel “medical experiments,” and ultimately mass murdered.

Irena joined the “Zegota,” an underground resistance movement which provided safe passage and assistance to Jews. She took charge of the children’s division and directed efforts to rescue Jewish children from their awful fate. In order to gain legal access to the Warsaw Ghetto, she obtained a pass from Warsaw’s Epidemic Control Department. She visited daily, established contacts, and brought food, clothes and medicine. She wore a yellow armband with the Star of David to show solidarity with the Jews and to avoid being caught by the Nazis.

Irena persuaded Jewish parents to part with their young children in order to save their lives. With her own life in danger, she smuggled 2500 Jewish children out of the ghetto. She snuck them out in ambulances, potato sacks, body bags, coffins, and tool boxes. Some of the children entered the local church through a ghetto entrance as Jews, and exited the door on the Aryan side of Warsaw as Christians. With assistance from coworkers in the Social Welfare Department, Irena issued thousands of false documents on behalf of the children. The children were given to Christian families with new identities on the condition that they would be returned to their families of origin and their Jewish roots when the war was over. In order to preserve their accurate identities, Irena noted in code form, all the children’s original names along with their new identities. She placed the documents in jars and buried them underground in a neighbor’s back yard.

Eventually, the Nazis caught her. She was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. The Nazis broke both her legs and feet, crippling her for life. Despite this, she refused to relinquish the names of those who had assisted her or the names of the Jewish children she had saved. She was sentenced to death by firing squad, but was spared at the last minute when members of Zegota bribed a Gestapo agent to halt the execution. She escaped from prison, but lived in hiding pursued by the Nazis for the duration of the war.

After the war was over, Irena dug up the jars and tracked down the children she had rescued, hoping to reunite them with family members. Sadly, most of their families had perished in the Treblinka death camp. Through all of this, Irena never considered herself a heroine, but expressed only regret that she had not been able to do more.

Later in life, Irena Sendler was honored with numerous awards including the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial’s “Righteous Among Nations” award, Poland’s highest civilian decoration, “The Order of the White Eagle,” and the Jan Karsi award for Valor and Courage. She was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. Additionally, Irena’s life was documented in the film, “Tzedek: The Righteous” and an award-winning play was written about her rescue work, titled “Life in a Jar.” She died on May 12, 2008, at the age of 98.

The resolution regarding Irena Sendler was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2008, where a vote is pending. Irena Sendler gave life and hope to 2500 children whose lives would otherwise have been snuffed out. Let us use this bill as an opportunity not only to commemorate the bravery and compassion of this heroic woman, but to remind ourselves of the difference that one person’s unyielding strength and hope can make in a time of darkness and war.

The War on Words

2008-08-05T16:00:00.003-05:00

By, Deborah Weiss
FrontPageMag.com

During the past year, several federal agencies – including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the National Counter Terrorism Center – have declared a war on words. Specifically, these agencies have issued memoranda discouraging their employees from naming the enemy in the War on Terror. The prohibition included words such as “jihad,” “Islamist,” “Islamofascism,” and “caliphate,” among others.

It’s not that the terms are inaccurate. Quite the contrary, as the agencies conceded, they often are used by the terrorists themselves. But they urged censorship all the same. Calling jihadists “holy warriors,” as they call themselves, is accurate, but it risks glorifying them. Moreover, even when used accurately, words like “Islamist” might be misinterpreted by moderate Muslims – who are henceforth to be known as “mainstream Muslims” – and should therefore be avoided so as not to offend anyone in the Muslim community. The phrase “Muslim community” should also be avoided.

To be sure, all the memos featured disclaimers stating that they were “not official policy.” But the fact that they were distributed on agency letterhead suggested at least a tacit endorsement of their content. Taken together, the memos marked a victory for government-imposed political correctness over clarity in the War on Terror.

That’s certainly how Michigan Congressman Pete Hoekstra saw it. On May 8, 2008, Hoekstra introduced an amendment to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that would prohibit government agencies from using any intelligence funding to enforce their new speech code. The amendment states: “None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act my be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases ‘jihadist’, ‘jihad’, ‘Islamofascism’, ‘caliphate’, ‘Islamist’ or ‘Islamic terrorist’ by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government.”

At first the amendment failed to make it out of committee. Consequently, 900 people signed a petition in protest. As a result, on July 16, 2008, the Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009, which included Hoekstra’s amendment, was presented to the full House of Representatives. This time the amendment passed in a 249-180 vote. All 180 opposing votes came from Democrats. Despite this opposition from their party’s leadership, 55 Democratic Congressmen voted in favor of the amendment.

During the floor debate, Rep. Hoekstra made a case for the critical importance of words in the conflict with Islamic terrorists. “Al Qaeda itself uses these terms to describe its fight against America, our allies, and moderate Muslims around the world,” Hoekstra noted. “Why then would we prohibit our intelligence professionals from using the same words to accurately describe Al Qaeda’s stated goals?”

Hoekstra also noted that the agencies’ memos suppress free speech. Citing death threats that jihadists routinely make to authors, cartoonists and journalists, he insisted that government agencies must not stifle free speech. Yet another danger of mandating political correctness, he observed, is that it would contribute to the politicalization of America’s national intelligence community.

On each of these counts, Hoekstra is correct. But more is at stake than free speech. The government’s memos preclude an honest and open discussion about the nature of our enemy. Terrorism in a tactic, but we are fighting those who subscribe to a dangerous ideology – radical Islam – that we ignore at our peril. It was not a coincidence that the Council on American Islamic Relations, a group with longstanding ties to Islamic terrorist organizations and an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas, was one of the groups to applaud the government’s new terminology for terror.

Another problem with the unofficial speech codes is that, even as they will inhibit debate in the U.S., they will have no influence on the debate in the Middle East. Government officials can ban all the words they like, but jihadists will continue using them. What’s more, their Muslim audience will continue to look to religious leaders for the “proper interpretation” of Islam. Neither United States government officials, nor Westerners more broadly, will be considered authoritative on these matters.

Rep. Hoekstra’s amendment will not alter this reality. Nor is it likely to change the climate of political correctness that exists in our government agencies. Still, it is important symbolically. It demonstrates that at least some officials understand the nature of our enemy, as well as the strategic importance of naming the threat that America faces. When a similar bill comes to a vote in the Senate, let us hope its members will evince the same kind of courage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Weiss is an attorney and regular contributor to FrontpageMag.com.

2008-06-26T17:57:00.001-05:00

From AoSHQ -

Terrorist Sami Al-Arian Convicted of Contempt for Refusing to Testify in Terror Case

—Ace

Breaking.

Thanks to CJ.

Arrogance And The Unindicted Co-Conspirators

2008-06-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

Recently the CAIR website announced the formation of a coalition of Muslim groups to carry out a nationwide census project to collect “accurate data” concerning America’s mosques.

The coalition will contact every Mosque and Muslim community center so as to compile accurate statistics relating to Muslim population, infrastructure development, participation of women and youth and the degree of Muslim involvement in American society.

Strangely, there is no mention of American prisons. A substantial number of violent, undereducated criminals convert to Islam inside the prison walls annually. Conversions that are sometimes facilitated by Wahhabi agents. A curious omission.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) will conduct the project and publish its findings in early 2009. That is, two organizations with terrorist connections that have been designated unindicted co-conspirators by the United States government will supply us with everything we need to know about Muslims in America.

One might wonder why unindicted co-conspirators are more qualified to administer a census of Muslims then the U.S. Census Bureau. Until one remembers that post 9/11, governmental agencies from the FBI to Homeland Security dare not approach the Muslim Community without asking permission to do so. From the Muslim Community.

Dr.Ihsan Bagby, Board Member of unindicted co-conspirator CAIR says; “The vibrant diversity of our community is an asset to our nation, and understanding the American mosque is essential to understanding U.S. Muslims.”

Dr. Syed Sayeed, National Director of unindicted co-conspirator ISNA gushes, “Muslims in America are making an important contribution in enriching the mainstream of America”. Sayeed also insists the project is critical in “educating both Muslim and the mainstream community about Muslims and Islam.”

Certainly Bagby, Sayeed and other Muslims who constantly assure us that Islam is “enriching” American society have managed to convince some of us (the U.S. government and the media) that Muslim proselytizing and Muslim commitment to Islamic tribal loyalties are in the best interests of America, rather than the Muslims themselves.

But not all of us.

And just as one shouldn’t be surprised when a pig rolls in the mud or a dog eats his own vomit, so one shouldn’t be surprised at the duplicity and obfuscation exhibited by these co-conspirators in the furtherance of their goals.

And make no mistake; the goal of these co-conspirators is jihad.

Consider the efforts of CAIR and ISNA to present their own data to Americans within the context of the evidence presented at the Holy Land Foundation Trial. At that trial the co-conspirators were said to be engaged in a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" that states; “The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Given all that, what sort of “accurate data” will these unindicted co-conspirators manufacture? And how will these unindicted co-conspirators spin that “accurate data”? And who, outside of our clock watching federal government (and the media) will buy any of it?

As for understanding Muslims or being educated about Muslims and Islam, well, that’s all backwards isn’t it? As a member of American society and a citizen of the United States, I am under no moral, cultural, legal or constitutional obligation to be educated by Muslims in the observance of Islamic rituals, rites, obligations or superstitions. Rather, it is incumbent upon the Muslims to educate themselves in American traditions and obligations so as to assimilate into my culture and my nation.

Interestingly, the very things these co-conspirators demand of us they deny Christian minorities in their Muslim homelands. According to the U.S. Copts Association there are no Christian governors, mayors, chief of police, presidents of City councils or college deans in Egypt. And unlike here, where Islam is foisted upon our children behind our backs, Coptic History (which predates Islamic history in Egypt), language and culture is not taught in Egyptian schools at all. The list of Islamic repressions visited upon their respective Christian minorities is endless.

And the unindicted co-conspirators presume to impose that intolerance here under the guise of delightful diversity?

These loons need to get with the program. Religion is a personal and private matter here. An elective if you will.

The co-conspirators problem is not the ignorance of the American people regarding Islam. We know what Islam is. Their problem is the arrogant presumption that their misguided beliefs grant them the right to ignore American cultural, societal and legal norms.

Our problem is the flaccid and pathetic government that allows these groups to continue to spread their poison.

David Tatosian

Radical Muslim or Legally Insane?

2008-06-12T11:46:00.005-05:00

Defense attorneys argue that a Muslim who believes God approves of his mission to kill infidels is legally insane. Should the jury use this definition to acquit a Jew-murderer? The Judge refused to answer the question. As a result, the jury was unable to figure out if Haq Naveed met the legal definition of insanity and the judge declared a mistrial. The prosecutor never thoroughly addressed the issue, and now Haq will face a second trial, presumably with these troubling questions left unanswered. Is every Palestinian suicide bomber and jihadist legally insane? Or are they just radical Muslims who should be held to account?

Read the whole story here: "http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=34A4E51E-05D9-43A2-8999-8CC87CC7E97D"

2008-05-24T12:18:00.000-05:00

CAIR Sabotaging Anti-Terror Training in Seattle

Sat, May 24, 2008 at 9:53:52 am PDT

In Seattle, the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations is doing what it always does—sabotaging efforts to educate law enforcers about Islamic terrorism: Does course on Islam give law enforcers wrong idea?

And again, the Seattle Times quotes representatives of CAIR without a single word about their ties to terrorist groups or their status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding trial.

Some local Muslim community members are upset about a training course for local law enforcement, saying it could promote stereotypes and ethnic and religious profiling.

The program, called “The Threat of Islamic Jihadists to the World” and conducted by a Miami-based company, began Thursday and continues today at the Port of Seattle. It is billed as providing insight into the formative phases of Islam, the religion’s different branches, radical Islam and how to respond to terrorist acts.

But Arsalan Bukhari, president of the Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the program appears to be linking an entire religion to terrorism.

“Most police officers don’t have a basic grounding in Islam, so before you teach them about Islam, how can you teach them about radical Islam?” he asked. “It just makes you nervous because when a law-enforcement person pulls someone over, when they see a Muslim person or someone who appears Muslim to them — all this information they just learned kicks in.”

Bukhari believes the need for police training on issues of profiling and bias was highlighted by an incident last summer in which the FBI launched an international search for two men who took photos below deck on a Washington state ferry. The FBI announced earlier this month that the men were tourists, not terrorists. Bukhari said law-enforcement agencies need to learn about Islam, but not just in the context of terrorism.

But Solomon Bradman, CEO of Security Solutions International, which is conducting the program, said, “I can’t take the responsibility of my course linking their religion to terrorism. I think their religion got linked to terrorism a long time ago.”

And the police chief of the Port of Seattle is embracing the terror-linked Saudi-funded front group.

Port Police Chief Colleen Wilson met with local CAIR representatives and offered to have them come in to do additional training. Bukhari said CAIR intends to do so.

Al-Arian Shill, Meg Laughlin, Says Taliban Better Than U.S.

2008-05-23T12:47:00.000-05:00

Meg Laughlin, Saint Petersburg Times reporter and Sami Al-Arian's shill in the media, on May 2, 2008, told former CAIR leader Ahmed Bedier, on his radio show, that the Taliban treats its prisoners better than the United States does.

She stated, "When I was in Afghanistan, I did a story on men who had been prisoners of war of the Taliban - and these were Northern Alliance soldiers who had been captured by the Taliban and held - and to me, the sad irony is that they were provided with every right that the Geneva Convention gives. They would list for me, they got a mattress, they got a blanket, they were able to get letters out, the international Red Cross could come in and monitor them. And I bring this up to say that I do think it's such a sad irony that the Taliban [has respected] the rule of law, at least when it came to prisoners in a war situation, more than the United States has."

New CAIR Watch Profile - Omer Subhani

2008-05-10T18:40:00.004-05:00

New CAIR Watch profile! CAIR-Florida's Communications Director Omer Subhani.

Are Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist organizations? You'd be surprised at his answer. Actually, if you know about the organization he represents, you wouldn't be surprised at all. His answer is "No."

Care to do 'interfaith' with a Hamas supporter?

Check out all of Subhani's statements in defense of Hamas, here.

Escape from a Brooklyn Mosque

2008-04-28T14:31:00.006-05:00

ESCAPE FROM A BROOKLYN MOSQUE

By

Bos Smith

Bos Smith in front of Masjid At-Taqwa

Don't snap a photo of the Masjid At-Taqwa in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn unless you want to be hauled away by a group of angry Muslims in Islamic attire to the basement of the facility where a group of twenty "security guards" in karate suits will interrogate you.

This might sound preposterous.

But it happened on Saturday, April 24, at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Ali Kareem, the head of security for Siraj Wahaj's mosque, conducted the grilling. A small, muscular man with a wispy black beard that has been dyed red with henna, Kareem demanded to know the reason why a trio of kafirs had dared to photograph the building on a public street without securing his permission.

He further insisted on securing our identities and obtaining our motives for such a violation of Islamic space.

Being surrounded by a group of militant guards in a mosque basement from which there is no means of escape is not a comforting place to be for a Wall Street financier.

We tried to explain that we found the neighborhood with its halal meat vendors and food stores; Islamic dress shops, featuring the latest styles in burqas and hijabs; Muslim souvenir outlets, replete with bumper stickers stating "Don't Be Caught Dead Without Islam"; and Middle Eastern restaurants offering a variety of goat dishes to be rather quaint and interesting.

This explanation was not sufficient.

Kareem was impatient and did not want a detailed explanation of the reason for our excursion (simple sight-seeing) or a graphic account of the sights we had seen and photographed.

"I ask the questions here," he said, "and you provide the answers."

Realizing that we were in a bit of a pickle, my companion explained that we were interested in various religions and knew Siraj Wahaj, the imam of the mosque, was a prominent Muslim figure whom we would like to interview for a news outlet.

This didn't work too well since we could not produce a business card from a wacko blog, let alone credentials from a national publication.

At last, we blurted out that we were admirers of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him) and wanted to obtain information about conversion. We were even knowledgeable enough to blurt out "Salaam" and "Allahu akbar."

The last utterance seemed to be the "Open Sesame" that got us out of the basement and back to Bedford Street, where we managed to take a picture of the mosque before hailing a cab and making a getaway.

The experience was disconcerting. Surely, anyone who takes a picture of St. Patrick's Cathedral or the Riverside Church is not hauled off to a basement for questioning by a threatening figure in a karate uniform and a band of Ninjas.

What is taking place within Masjid At-Taqwa?

And what about Siraj Wahaj, the celebrated imam of this mosque who claims to be a moderate?

Masjid At-Taqwa at 1226 Bedford Street was an abandoned clothing store, which Wahaj purchased at an auction in 1979 for $30,000 with cash from oil-rich Saudis. The interior is divided into spacious, windowless rooms that have been painted green and beige.

At Friday afternoon prayers the meeting room is crammed with hundreds of congregants. Some show up in do-rag stocking caps and Sean John sweatshirts; others wear finely embroidered, authentic-looking Muslim caps and flowing robes of crimson and gold. About half of the attendees are African-Americans. The others are immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Worshipers range from Brooklyn street bums to the local celebrities, such as former heavy-weight champion Mike Tyson.

The place has played host to a number of notorious exponents of radical Islam, including Clement Rodney Hampton-El (Dr. Rashid), a key player in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Mr. Hampton-El is presently cooling his heels in a federal slammer since he was found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Mr. Hampton-El, who was born and raised in Brooklyn, fought as a mujahadeen under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Upon his return, Hampton-El was hailed as a hero by members of the mosque. Imam Wahaj has said that he was sought out by young and old alike for spiritual advice as an "elder" in the community. Wahaj, in fact, appeared as a character witness for Hampton El when the former mujahadeen stood trial before Judge Michael Mukasey in New York's Federal District Court on charges of seditious conspiracy and attempted bombing.

Hampton-El is currently serving thirty-five years in a supermax prison for America's most dangerous inmates.

Bos Smith at Masjid al-Farooq

Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman visited Masjid At-Taqwa on many occasions while serving as the imam of the nearby Masjid al-Farooq at 554 Atlantic Avenue, several blocks from Masjid At-Taqwi. On the second floor of Rahman's mosque, al Qaeda had opened an office under the name of the al-Kifah Refugee Center. It became a favorite haunt for members of Wahaj's congregation.

Rahman also spoke on occasion at Masjid At-Taqwa. In one speech, the fiery sheikh suggested that Muslims should rob banks to benefit Islam.

In 1995, Sheikh Rahman was hauled into court as the alleged architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and for planning to blow up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, and buildings throughout Manhattan. At his side was his good friend Siraj Wahaj who provided testimony of the sheik's sterling character.

In a Feb. 2, 1995, letter to defense lawyers in the landmarks-bombing case, then-U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named about 170 people as "un-indicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators." Imam Wahaj was on the list.

Other infamous characters reportedly have made their way to the Bedford Street mosque, including Imam Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, whose son Adnan has been singled out by the Justice Department as "the next Muhammad Atta." Gulshair, it turns out, served a stint as imam at another radical Brooklyn mosque - - the now defunct Masjid Nur a-Islam, at 21 Church Street.

Another visitor, according to informed sources, was Sheikh Gilani, the founder of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, who served as the imam of yet another Brooklyn mosque - - the Yasin Masjid at 777 Saratoga Avenue. This infamous mosque is now a beauty salon. From 1980 to 1995, it served as a recruiting center for the jihad and for paramilitary Islamic compounds that remain in existence throughout the country.

Since the time of its inception, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been responsible for more terror attacks on American soil (30 and counting) than all other terrorist groups combined. Members of ul-Fuqra, which maintains headquarters in Pakistan, have been convicted in US courts of such crimes as homicide, conspiracy to commit murder, firebombing, gun smuggling, grand theft, counterfeiting, and workers' compensation fraud. Others remain leading suspects in criminal cases throughout the country, including ten unsolved assassinations and seventeen fire-bombings. Some of the better-known adherents of ul-Fuqra are Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, and John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway sniper.

But what of Wahaj? Is he an exponent of radical Islam - - a man who poses a threat to millions of Americans?

He is a well-known and welcome figure in Washington DC. He was the first Muslim cleric to offer the invocation at the opening session of Congress. He has dined with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and serves on the boards of no less than five major Muslim organizations. He has received commendations from the Brooklyn police for eradicating crime from the Bedford-Stuyvesant area. In 2003, Siraj Wahaj Day was celebrated in Brooklyn in recognition of what one borough official called a "lifetime of outstanding and meaningful achievement."

But the proof of the real Wahaj is in the proverbial pudding.

In one of his sermons, Wahaj announced that the "real terrorists" are the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. In another, he said, "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam." He proclaimed that a society governed by strict Islamic law, in which adulterers are stoned to death and apostates beheaded, would be vastly superior to American democracy.

To a Muslim audience in New Jersey, Wahaj advocated the idea of Muslims forming a coup to take control of the federal government. "If we are united and strong," he said, "we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. Take my word for it, if six to eight million Muslims united in America, the country will come to us."

His so-called "moderate" interpretation of the Qu'ran became clear by this remark: "If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it's the obedience of Allah and his messenger -- nothing personal."

Wahaj informed an audience of black women wearing Muslim head coverings in Orlando, Fla., that Islam condones a man's marrying up to four wives, and that this rule, when introduced in the seventh century, served as a restriction on arrangements involving even more wives per husband.

And there are the national Islamist organizations to which Wahaj has been affiliated. He served as emir (president) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has been charged with funneling millions to terror groups, and as an advisory board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been labeled by author and counter-terrorism expert Steven Emerson as a "radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."

All this may be well and good, save for the fact that Wahaj and his mosque retains a small army not of brown-shirts but black-belts who now claim the right to collar ordinary citizens on the sidewalk and to haul them off for interrogation.

You're only safe in Brooklyn at this writing if you say your prayers - - meaning, of course, the Basmalah.

(Bos Smith holds a law degree from Wake Forest University. He serves in the securities division of a major Wall Street investment bank. The research for this article was conducted in preparation of his soon to be released book; Within the Belly of the Beast: Jihad in America. Questions and comments may be directed to mail@bossmith.org).

Mayor of Lansing Supports Hamas

2008-04-21T23:46:00.006-05:00

On April 4, 2008, we called on the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan Virg Bernero to rescind an award that he had given to the Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan Dawud Walid. We cited information concerning CAIR's ties to Hamas and other groups and Walid's own defense of terrorist-related charities.

We sent Mayor Bernero detailed information regarding this and more.

Unfortunately, the Mayor decided NOT to rescind it. Instead, he has chosen to embrace CAIR, a group that the U.S. government calls a front for Hamas. This, after he told a television station that he would seriously consider rescinding it, if the information was correct. Well, the information was correct. The Mayor just ignored it.

Here's Mayor Bernero's contact, if you wish for an explanation/excuse.

A test on terrorism

2008-03-09T19:31:00.001-05:00

Interesting article from Rabbi Boteach

The sight of Gazans rejoicing at the cold-blooded murder of eight yeshiva students who had not hurt anyone was particularly jolting for me. I am a religious man and feel an immediate affinity with all who profess a love for God and strive to live a life of religious devotion. Meeting religious people of different faiths is always a great pleasure for me. I feel an immediate sense of kinship with them...

....BUT WHAT shakes me to my core is when some of my Muslim brothers and sisters rejoice at the deaths of innocent Jews, particularly those who are at prayer in their yeshiva.....

...Surely you want to be exemplars of your faith's compassion rather than succumb to an unquenchable hatred that is not sated even when poor victims lie dead in their classrooms? Please join me, therefore, in condemning and mourning the loss of innocent religious students life. In our tears and, God willing, later in our joys, we will discover each other's humanity and become true brothers under God. ......

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1204546440616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Read the entire article and then try a test. Call up you local mosque and see if they will condemn Hamas or Hezbollah for supporting this terrorist attack.

"The Muslim Way of Life"

2008-02-27T00:11:00.004-05:00

A Bergen County, NJ local Jewish paper listed an event for Wed. -- that a Muslim guy from the Islamic Center of Passaic County was going to speak at a synogogue about the Muslim Way of Life and How Islam is a Religion of Peace. I decided to check him and his organization out. Turns out the org. has all kinds of Hamas ties. This is what I found. Click link for full article.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=35FDE67D-2307-450C-B83A-3C347A2B9FCF

CAIR changing tactics - attacking right wing blog sites - AND WHY DID THEY CHANGE THEIR TAX CLASSIFICATION?

2008-02-19T22:06:00.002-05:00

CAIR - feel the assimilation... THey now are attacking Right wing sites as hate speech. Gosh darn Charles Johnson at LGF.

When CAIR Attacks

Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 3:13:42 pm PST

Unindicted Hamas co-conspirators CAIR have put out a press release targeting LGF: Hate Site Comments Suggest Violence Against Missouri Mosque.

UPDATE at 2/19/08 4:09:21 pm:

At Pat Dollard’s place, the Bashman has a few words for CAIR: CAIR Now Targeting Right Wing Conservative Blog Sites ... Bring It Bitches.

(Military-grade language warning...)

UPDATE at 2/19/08 5:13:08 pm:

Note that the comments quoted by CAIR in their press release were posted only this morning, and were deleted as soon as I received reports about them. They quoted four comments out of a total of more than 3,000. They’re watching LGF’s comments more closely than I am.

UPDATE at 2/19/08 5:24:42 pm:

The press release is now at Yahoo News.

UPDATE at 2/19/08 5:38:08 pm:

Another important note: this CAIR press release is not a news story from the wires, although it’s not obvious at Yahoo News—it shows up in a news search for ‘CAIR’, for example. But it’s not from a news wire—it’s from a company called PRNewsWire, a very expensive paid press release service with wide distribution. That’s why CAIR always uses it for their smear jobs—and their Saudi funding pays for a lot of smear.

UPDATE at 2/19/08 6:36:25 pm:

To see how closely they’re watching, I put in some code to redirect any links from CAIR’s press releases to go to this page instead, exposing CAIR’s many ties to Hamas and other extremist organizations.

As of this writing, you can still see this redirect in action, by following any of the LGF links at this Yahoo News page.

But the press release at PRNewsWire’s page has now been edited, and the links to LGF have been removed.

David Horowitz Freedom Center Announces Declaration Against Genocide

2008-02-19T05:09:00.001-05:00

The David Horowitz Freedom Center announced that it will distribute a Declaration Against Genocide and ask individuals and groups, particularly those on American college campuses, to sign it. The Declaration notes that the Sudanese and other Africans have been victims of a slow motion genocide, and that Islamo fascists in the Middle East are preparing a new genocide against the Jews and can be found here: http://terrorismawareness.org/petitions/140/declaration-against-genocide .

In describing the objectives of this new initiative, David Horowitz, President of the Freedom Center, said: “We are asking all campus groups to repudiate the genocidal passage in the Islamic Hadith which reads: “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: ‘The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!’”

Horowitz continued: “We are also asking all campus groups, including the Muslim Students Association, to condemn the Hamas Charter which says: `Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.’ Signers of the Declaration will also be asked to repudiate the Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has said `The accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible.’ And Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah, who called the Jews `a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment,’ and has said, “If the Jews `all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.’ These are hateful doctrines that threaten the lives not only of Jews, but of all Americans.”

In addition to condemning the genocidal agenda of these leaders and organizations, the Declaration calls on campus groups to affirm “the freedom of the individual conscience and the right to change religions or have no religion at all; the equal dignity of men and women; and the right of all people to live free from violence, intimidation and coercion.”
“Although a Declaration Against Genocide should be seen as a document with universal appeal,” Horowitz notes, “a coalition of groups with ties to the Islamo-fascist jihad are bound to protest this effort. Our goal is to test universities’ claims that they support religious and ethnic tolerance, and to challenge the campus left, which consistently overlooks statements by Islamic radicals which are nothing less than an invitation to mass murder.”

Radical Muslims are trying to recruit kids to Islam with cold hard cash

2008-01-30T17:19:00.002-05:00

The Muslim Students Association has organized the "Muslim Inter-Scholastic Tournament," which tests children in public schools on their ability to recite Muslim prayers. (The same prayers, taught in Madrasas, that foment hatred and violence against America).

All high school children are permitted to compete for the prize money, but female children who do not wear the headscarf are penalized. Non-Muslim girls who have objected to wearing the headscarf for the tournament, have been chastised and pressured by the tournament organizers for refusing. According to the Muslim Students Association, which was founded by the North American Islamic Trust, which owns hundreds of mosques in the U.S. and Canada, the girls must conform to Islam's sharia law dress codes, or they will be ineligible to vie for educational funds. (Please see MIST website for verification of this policy.)

According to research done by the Center for Security Policy:
"In the United States, two leading Saudi-backed organizations are the MSA and the Islamic Society of North America (the MSA's adult counterpart), both of which receive major funding, direction, and influence from Riyadh."
"In addition, there is overwhelming evidence that the MSA, far from being a benign student society, is an overtly political organization seeking to create a single Muslim voice on U.S. campuses—a voice espousing, anti-Americanism, and anti-Semitism, and expressing solidarity with militant Islamist ideologies."

Muslim Inter-Scholastic Tournament
MIST 2008 Regional Dates!
DCFeb 29-March 2, 2008Venue: University of Maryland, College Park
BostonApril 5-6, 2008Venue: Harvard Law School, Pound Hall
AtlantaApril 11-13, 2008Venue: Emory University
HoustonApril 18-20, 2008Venue: University of Houston, Main Campus
MichiganApril 26-27, 2008Venue: Oakland University
Toronto May 3- 4, 2008Venue: University of Toronto
New YorkDate TBAVenue: University of Rochester
Registration has begun in the following regions: DC, Houston, Atlanta

Muslim woman defends oppression of women

2008-01-28T14:10:00.000-05:00

The founder of Islamic Networks Group, Maha Elgenaidi, will be advocating Islam as, "a gift of God's mercy to humankind," at the Divinity school of the Pacific in Berkeley on 1/30/08.

Ms. Elgenaidi, who emigrated to the U.S. from Egypt at the age of 24 by way of a student visa, confesses on her website that her, "greatest challenge was working with Muslim (men) who consigned the role of women to raising children at home." She also states that while employed in Egypt, in a clerical capacity, she was not allowed to speak in the presence of men. She was instructed to speak in all of the "women's committees" she liked. Ms. Elgenaidi, also relates that, after moving to the U.S. she "very quickly learned about the rights of women here and the (subjugated) role of women in Islam." She also states that she, "learned to fight back (against her oppressors) and hold her ground."
Why then, I ask you, is she running around spouting off to anyone who will listen about how great Islam is?!! I'll tell you why. She's getting a higher ticket price for her show than many a fine rock star! How nice for her that she has been able to work a profitable angle out of her Muslim life experience. For money, she is willing to continue to call herself a Muslim, and claim that she likes it, as long as she doesn't have to live in a Muslim country.

"EPIPHANY WEST INTERFAITH CONFERENCE", CHURCH DIVINITY SCHOOL OF THE PACIFIC
BEGINNING DATE 1/30/2008
END DATE 1/31/2008
LOCATION 2451 Ridge Road, Berkeley, CA
DESCRIPTION ING will be participating in the Epiphany West Interfaith Conference 2008 as presenters. The theme of this year's conference is "Sacred Text as Window - Seeing one's self through the eyes of another".Conference Class: Wednesday, January 30, 9:00AM-12:00PMWomen in Jewish and Muslim Law Ameena Jandali, Author, educator and co-founder of Islamic Networks Group (ING); and Rachel Biale, Author and Bay Area Regional Director of Progressive Jewish AllianceConference Workshop: Thursday, January 31, 4:00PM-5:00PMA Grassroots Initiative: The Interfaith Speakers BureauMaha Elgenaidi, Executive Director, Islamic Networks Group (ING)
SPEAKER Maha Elgenaidi, CEO and Founder, Islamic Networks Group (ING); and Ameena Jandali, ING veteran speaker and Senior Content Development Manager
COST $325.00 / Attendant

2007-12-04T13:14:00.000-05:00

Video: Happy Chanukah from the Al Qaeda Dancers!

A special video by Infidel al Amriki. The Dancing Jihad Battalion of al Qaeda wish every one a Happy Chanukah, Merry Christmas, & a Happy New Year!

Pssst: Do me a favor and click on over to the YouTube page and rate this video and add it to your favorites.

2007-10-10T12:12:00.000-05:00

No Terror Ties to CAIR

Nope, no link between the Council on American Islamic Relations and terrorism. This check from the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front, and CAIR means nothing.

These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along.

Thanks to Evan Kohlmann of the NEFA Foundation for the image.

Six Flags 'Muslims Only' Exclusionary Policy

2007-10-08T08:13:00.000-05:00

On October 14th, Six Flags Over Texas will be hosting the Dallas chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) for its Muslim Family Day event. According to Bridges TV, the Islamic television network, "Muslims admitted [to the park] will be charged $22." This while, according to the Six Flags website, a "General Admission" day pass costs $47.

Screen 1: Bridges TV announcement that "Muslims admitted will be charged $22"

Screen 2: Six Flags website stating, "TICKET PRICES AT THE PARK - General Admission $47.00"

SC2 Bombshell: CAIR's Boy Admits To Making An Bomb-Building Instructional Video

2007-09-27T20:39:00.000-05:00

SC2 Bombshell: CAIR's Boy Admits To Making An Bomb-Building Instructional Video

—Ace

Don't question his jihadism:

In a 12-minute video posted on YouTube, an Egyptian man wearing a white shirt, khaki pants and rubber gloves explains in Arabic how to turn a toy boat into a bomb.
His name is Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed, and last month he was arrested in Goose Creek after authorities found four PVC pipes containing a mixture of potassium nitrate, kitty litter and sugar in his car’s trunk.

Mohamed told FBI agents he made the video to teach “those persons in Arabic countries to defend themselves against the infidels invading their countries,” according to federal court documents released late Tuesday.

Specifically, he told the FBI “the technology which he demonstrated in the tape was to be used against those who fought for the United States.”

Well, I initally was a skeptic. I'm skeptical no more.

2007-09-26T14:55:00.001-05:00

Outrage of the Week: Leader of Muslim Brotherhood Front Group Appointed to Virginia Commission on Immigration

Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:51:56 pm PDT

The Democratic governor of Virginia, Timothy M. Kaine, has appointed Dr. Esam Omeish to the Virginia Commission on Immigration: Valley delegate challenges Kaine appointee to immigration panel.

Esam Omeish is a name LGF readers may recognize; he’s the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood’s primary front group in the United States, the Muslim American Society.

A local delegate has asked Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to re-think his appointment of the head of the Virginia-based Muslim American Society to the Virginia Commission on Immigration.

Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, wrote to Kaine earlier today, saying he was concerned about the appointment of Dr. Esam S. Omeish, a Northern Virginia physician and the group’s president, to the panel. The commission was created earlier this year to study the impact of illegal immigration on the commonwealth.

The Muslim American Society has significant ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt, Gilbert said. “It is unfortunate that the Governor would choose the leader of an organization such as this to represent many the freedom-loving Muslim citizens of Virginia on this important commission,” Gilbert said.

“While the Muslim American Society claims to be the innocent face of peaceful Islam in America, their history and teachings tell a much different story. Unfortunately, it is a story about which all Americans have become much too familiar — that of the promotion of a global Islamic state. The questionable origin and teachings of this group should give the Governor some serious concerns about his recent appointment. Even though this organization has a savvy public relations machine, the public face that it projects may disguise some very troubling hidden intentions.”

Here’s Omeish at an August 2006 rally in Washington DC, wearing a kaffiyeh and delivering a virulent anti-Israel rant. This is the man the governor of Virginia chooses to advise him on immigration policy.

(Video player requires Flash Player.)

The Investigative Project has more information on the subversive Islamic supremacist group calling itself the Muslim American Society.

Ellison's scheduled participation in Muslim Day Parade

2007-09-20T01:03:00.001-05:00

More proof that Congressman Keith Ellison was supposed to be the Grand Marshall of the September 9th Muslim Day Parade held in New York City. [Thanks to Militant Islam Monitor for providing the images.]

1. The July 1, 2007 issue of The Tri-State Muslim has front page article about how Ellison was to participate in this year's parade. This newspaper and the forthcoming August newspaper were given out at the Muslim Day Parade.

2. The cover of the August 15th, 2007 issue of The Tri-State Muslim.

3. The issue contains a full page advertisement announcing Ellison as the Grand Marshall -- the same ad that was placed on the website for the parade and later removed, in favor of a mosque pic.