Charleston ACT for America

2,996 Project - Honoring the Memory of Debbie DiMartino

2009-09-10T21:57:00.003-04:00

In memory of Debbie DiMartino of Prince's Bay, Staten Island, New York. Wife, mother, daughter, sister, compassionate soul.

In 2006, I was randomly assigned Debbie as participant in the 2,996 Project. I was surprised to be given the honor of providing a tribute to someone with my name who was my age.

In 2009, I chose to renew my tribute to Debbie DiMartino. I no longer drive past Staten Island on my way to Brooklyn's beaches since I've moved back to South Carolina, but I still think of Debbie everytime I hear Staten Island, everytime I am reminded of 9/11, and everytime I hear about Christmas decorations. Debbie and her husband Joey began the tradition of putting up a massive Christmas display at their home. For Joey's first Christmas without Debbie, he put up a single yellow ribbon. I was happy to read here that Joey resumed the tradition that he and Debbie started for Christmas of 2005.

As I wrote in 2006, I believe that I am meant to learn something from the life that Debbie led. As you can see from the name of my blog (it used to have another name), I have since become involved with Act for America, Brigitte Gabriel's group that exists to educate and fight the bigotry and hate that exists within certain segments of Islam that caused Debbie's vicious murder. This organization exists to do our part to make sure this never happens again.

In September of 2001, Debbie was 36-years old and had been married to Joey DiMartino since she was 20 years old. She left behind two daughters, Danielle, now 19, and Samantha, now 13. She came from a big family, she had a successful career, and she was very much loved. She had a very full life at such a young age and she had accomplished more than many people ever do. I hope this provides comfort to her family and friends. The life Debbie lived on this earth has deep meaning that will continue through the lives of her daughters, her family, and all those she touched.

In trying to learn Debbie's story, I found out that she was the youngest of 8 children and her mother, Mary, had a special bond with her baby girl as described in this love letter. Her husband, Joe, worked the night shift at the Pepsi-Cola plant in Brooklyn - the time they'd spend together was in the evenings after she got home from work and as he was getting ready to leave for work; together they'd help Danielle with her homework and get both girls ready for bed. Read the New York Times article here.

From what I was able to learn about Debbie's last moments on earth, I'm haunted by the fact that she was not fortunate enough to die instantly. I cannot imagine the fear Debbie felt as she was trapped on the 89th floor of the South Tower after United Airlines Flight 175 flew into the building at the 78th through 84th floors. Her boss, Joseph Berry, must have felt confident that the instructions relayed to him from the building's fire command center after the North Tower was hit were appropriate and told Debbie and her coworkers that it was safer to stay put than to leave. We know that one of her coworkers made a phone call to his girlfriend at 9:20 am as he and his coworkers were searching for a way out of the building - the building collapsed at 9:59 am.

For Debbie's family, I respectfully write this tribute to your daughter, wife, mother, sister, aunt, and niece, with you in my heart. I hope you can find peace in knowing that Debbie made an impact on me as she has on those who knew her. Please know that she is still touching people's hearts and lives, even today. I'm so very sorry that she was taken from you so early. Please know how very rich the life she lived was - please find solace in remembering Debbie's kind spirit, warm smile and light-filled eyes - please find comfort when you look at the faces of her daughters and know that Debbie left a part of herself in them - you will never be without her. I am a better person for having learned about Debbie.

Status of Defense Bill w/Hate Crime Legislation Added

2009-07-19T01:57:00.000-04:00

State of the Union

2009-05-03T12:34:00.014-04:00

It's been a little over 100 days since Obama assumed office. So many things have occurred that it boggles the mind. Let's take a look, shall we?

The Good

1. Opened up stem-cell research

The Bad and the Ugly

1. Appointment of Zbigniew Brzezinski as his campaign foreign policy advisor.

2. Appointment of Samantha Power as his campaign foreign policy aide.

3. Appointment of Charles Freeman as Chair of National Intelligence Council.

4. Appointment of George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East.

5. First phone call of his Presidency was to Mahmoud Abbas.

6. Even though Mahmoud Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish Nation, Obama has decided it doesn't matter and they'll move full steam ahead in ironing out a 2-state solution, disregarding Israel's position completely.

7. Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority Military Court sentenced a man to death for selling land to Jews in Judaea/Samaria.

8. Obama made the equivalent of a hostage video to the "Islamic Republic of Iran" in an attempt to make nice.

9. Obama wants to join the UN Human Rights Council, a group that is primarily made up of dictators and despots who spend all their time villifying Israel for defending itself, while ignoring the genocide in Darfur, ignoring the Muslim-led attacks on Buddhists in Southern Thailand, ignoring the Muslim-led attacks on Christians in the Phillipines, ignoring the Muslim-led massacre in Chechnya. They've also just passed a resolution encouraging participating countries to criminalize criticism of Islam.

10. Obama genuflected to the Saudi King, putting himself in a subordinate position according to Middle Eastern custom.

11. Obama made nice with Hugo Chavez while Hugo Chavez made a fool of Obama by giving him an anti-American book.

12. After Obama made nice with Hugo Chavez, Chavez and Ahmadinejad contracted to develop closer ties.

13. Obama cut funds for our active military, yet increased funds for Hate Crime Legislation (H.R. 1913) that was unnecessary since we already have hate crime legislation in force.

14. Obama appointed Leon Panetta, someone with zero experience in intelligence, as the head of the CIA.

15. Obama appointed Janet Napolitano as the head of Homeland Security.

16. Napolitano's DHS issued a highly inflammatory and partisan memo stating that anyone who believes that State and Local law supercedes Federal law, anyone who is a returning war vet, and anyone who actively supports single-issues are right-wing extremists and therefore, potential terrorists. Single issues mentioned included anti-abortion advocates, gun rights advocates, and immigration control advocates.

17. Napolitano decided that Terror would now be referred to as "man-made disasters."

18. The War on Terror has been renamed "Overseas Contingency Operations."

19. Obama seeks the closure of GITMO with no plan for relocating the prisoners of GITMO.

20. Obama declassified and released sensitive CIA memos that outlined interrogation methods - which would enable our enemies to train knowing what they could encounter if captured by American military, putting our national security at great risk. He also didn't release the memos that outlined what information and plots were gleaned from the interrogation and were therefore quashed.

21. The Presidential Airlift Group, a defense department office located within the White House and overseen directly by the President, conducted a photo-op by flying a 747 with two military escorts 1,000 feet above Manhattan, without notifying Mayor Bloomberg or the people of NYC. The NYPD knew but were told by the FAA to keep it quiet. This "photo-op" was an insensitive, expensive stunt that demonstrates the Obama administration's dismissive view on terrorism.

22. After the flyover, Obama feigned ignorance of the photo-op, when he would've known about it via his daily briefings.

23. Obama has yet to speak sincerely to the American people without the assistance of a teleprompter.

24. Obama refuses to quiet naysayers of his citizenship status by providing records from Occidental College (where it's rumored he registered as a foreign student) or a valid, certified, paper birth certificate.

25. Ignoring common sense and Economics 101, Obama has introduced and passed a budget that is the largest increase in spending in US history, at a time when getting our economy stabilized and out of ICU should be the priority.

26. Obama accepted the names of 300 Muslims from US Representative Keith Ellison of the "best and brightest" in order to give Muslims positions within the Obama Administration.

27. Obama has maintained his campaign logo for use with his corps of volunteers called "Organizing for America," a group that will canvass neighborhoods and shops asking people to provide their personal information and pledge their support for Obama's policies.

28. Obama wishes to organize a civilian defense force since our military can't do it all.

29. Obama wishes to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine, which was valuable when we only had 3 networks from which to cull news, but is pointless and dangerous to free speech if enacted in an age where news from all viewpoints is readily available via cable, satellite, and the internet.

30. Obama stated he wishes to organize a civilian defense force since our military can't do it all.

31. Obama is increasing taxes on virtually everyone in the US by increasing taxes for those individuals and businesses making over $150,000, which will slow job creation and increase unemployment and by pushing for cap and trade initiatives - which means anyone with electricity will pay more in taxes.

32. Obama publicly ridiculed the people who protested his tax plan and inflated budget - which were thousands of Americans on tax day.

33. Obama unnecessarily dragged out the hostage situation of the Captain held hostage by Islamic pirates by ordering our military stand down so the FBI negotiators could be brought in. Ultimately, the pirates were killed and the Captain was safe thanks to our sharpshooting military. He took a military-appropriate situation and tried to make it a criminal situation.

These are just a few observations I've made of Obama's poor choices and why he does not demonstrate leadership or good judgment.

UN Human Rights Council Says OK to Criminalizing Criticism of Islam

2009-03-26T22:41:00.004-04:00

They finally did it. I thought it was going to the be the OIC to pass this resolution and that the Human Rights Council would take a few years to ponder - but of course they're the same group that gave us Durban and Durban II. How short-sighted of me to not consider that the UN Human Rights Council would pass such a preposterous proposition - and so quickly and quietly. Read below for the horse's mouth version,

UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism

By FRANK JORDANS – 8 hours ago

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal backed by Muslims nations Thursday urging the passage of laws around the world protecting religion from criticism.
The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained.

The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

"It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

The council is dominated by Muslim and African countries. Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said.

A coalition of more than 100 secular and faith groups had called on governments to oppose the resolution, warning that it could lead to accusations of defamation among different faiths.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.
India's Ambassador Gopinathan Achamkulangare said the resolution "inappropriately" linked religious criticism to racism.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975SKN01

The Iranian Bitch-Slap of Obama

2009-03-21T14:31:00.000-04:00

It was no surprise that the Great and Powerful Obama got bitch-slapped by the Ayatollah Khameini of Iran when Obama did what Obama does - assume his extensive charm, wit, and smile will win over even the worst of the world's despots in his offer to open dialogue with the Axis of Evil country.

Ironically, the Ayatollah was right. The Ayatollah said in a speech in the city of Mashhad, "Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?" The crowd chanted "Death to America." But Obama, in his idealistic naivete, seems to think that all people are reasonable. He's been open to many ideas, even the ideas of Rev. Wright, Edward Said, and Bill Ayers, which were flawed and hateful. Obama was able to find reason within these men. Perhaps because their hateful ideas didn't affect him personally, so he didn't research into the accuracy or viability of their stances.

Sadly, he will learn this lesson the hard way. Iran is not reasonable and this time Obama's interests are the target and he is personally affected. Maybe this will teach Obama that there is evil in the world and you can't charm the pants off of every foreign leader you meet. One thing I notice about Obama is that he only recognizes evil when it's at its most overt. He recognizes that Osama bin Ladin is evil. I think he recognizes Hitler was evil (though I have my doubts). He recognizes that these men were evil because the evil they perpetrated was in-your-face evil, not hidden or behind-your-back evil (which is how most evil thrives).

According to an AP article, "There's a thinking that they will do what the U.S. did with Libya: engagement and incentives in return for moderated policies," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "Iran, however, is a vastly more complicated place that has influence in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the region." I disagree with Clawson's estimate. Iran won't go the way of Libya because Libya was bombed into submission. Only after they were bombed and cowering in fear were they finally receptive to incentives in exchange for moderated policies.

Let this be a lesson to Obama. There are crazy people who don't value reason or life and they actually lead certain countries in this world. You can't change crazy - you can only medicate it. The medication for crazy countries is a show of extreme strength. Obama better learn that lesson or we're all in trouble.

Hope and change are great mantras for naive youth at a Dead show as that youth skips happily through the crowd hugging each other with perma-grins from the LSD they're on. That's just not real life.

Mohammed Al-Dura Incident Validated as Hoax by French Court

2008-05-21T19:00:00.000-04:00

Today the French appeals court ruled that Phillipe Karsenty did not commit libel against Charles Enderlin when Phillipe called the "journalism" of Charles Enderlin a lie. Karsenty was able to provide proof that the murder of Mohammed al-Dura never happened and it was most certainly a propaganda hoax. Sadly, it also was the event that set off the al Aqsa intifada and people died as a result.

Will this story make it to the mainstream media? I doubt it. I plan to send this to a reporter I know who may or may not forward it to his editor for consideration.

Next we just have to file a suit against those who claim the "Palestinians" were evicted from Israel or that they had indigenous ties to the country. Any takers?

You can read about Phillipe Karsenty's experience at Pajamas Media.

Biden and Pelosi are Pissed Off and CNN sucks!

2008-05-15T19:12:00.000-04:00

I wish I'd saved the original CNN story about Bush's comments regarding Israel that was surprisingly balanced. I logged on this afternoon and clicked on the link I'd emailed myself, and lo and behold, the story has changed to a remarkably left-leaning piece of "journalism."

Bush compared today's appeasement of terrorists to the Neville Chamberlains of 1930's Europe. He expressed to the Knesset, "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Yay! Too bad Bush doesn't follow his own ideals and discontinue his friendship with the Wahabbist Saudis, or stop Condoleeza Rice from making nice with Fatah - but that's another discussion for another day.

Bush's statements suggested that Democrats are the primary appeasers in this fashion. By all accounts, he is correct. So why are Joe Biden, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi so angry? Why are they calling on McCain to denounce Bush's statements? It sounds to me like Bush struck a nerve.

When they asked McCain to denounce Bush's comments, not only did McCain refuse, he added, "It is a serious error on the part of Sen. Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse."

Bush also states, "As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century."

To show just how stupid Biden is and why Bush's statements are right on target, enjoy the following quote from Biden regarding Bush, "He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has."

Wrong! Joe Biden, no country's foreign policies have contributed to Islamic jihadism. Do you think the Jihadist violence in Chechnya is a result of foreign policy? Do you think its presence in Southern Thailand is a result of foreign policy? How about Nigeria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast? What about India and the Phillipines and Guyana and Malaysia? The sole contributor to the increase in jihadist tendencies can be found in the qu'ran. The population explosion in Muslim communities is why the jihad is more overt, just as the qu'ran commands.

Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Harry Reid - you are why we're weaker than ever before. You are incredibly stupid people in light of your education and high positions. Sadly, even another terror attack will not wake you up to the dangers we're facing.

Your egos, your political correctness, and your hatred of Bush have clouded your ability to think clearly. As a result, you will be directly responsible for the loss of lives on American soil when the next attack comes. I believe it's coming - all indicators point in that direction. You foolishly, like Neville Chamberlain, think that by making nice and getting their "word" that they'll leave us alone will make them leave us alone. Make no mistake, Americans will blame each of you for any lives lost due to a terror attack on American soil.

Read up on some of the smartest leaders in history, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill - all of whom warned us of the dangers we face with regard to the political ideology called Islam.

George Soros is an evil man who has unduly influenced far too many leaders because he has the cash to influence them. Thank the lord he's an old man.

Is Google Anti-Semitic? You be the judge

2008-04-14T21:48:00.000-04:00

The Arab/Israeli conflict in a nutshell

2008-04-14T20:47:00.000-04:00

I have had to explain this so many times, that I've decided to post it here so I can merely direct interested parties to my blog in perpetuity. I won't even go biblical for this lesson - it's not necessary.

Let's start with 1867. In 1867, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the area now called Israel (and Jordan, and Lebanon, and pretty much the entire Middle East). There was no area called "Palestine." The Ottomans separated their lands into regions called Sanjaks. (The term Palestine was coined by the Romans when the area was predominantly Jewish as an insult to the indigenous Jewish population. The Romans subsequently banished most of the Jews from "Palestine." This is the beginning of the Jewish diaspora).

Also in 1867, Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain, visited the Holy Land and mused about it in his manuscript, "Innocents Abroad," as follows: “ ...[a] desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds-a silent mournful expanse....A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action....We never saw a human being on the whole route....There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

This was an area that could boast few inhabitants and even fewer fertile lands. There was a constant Jewish and Arab presence in the land - but it was minimal for both groups during this time. Then, in 1881, the first wave of Jewish migration back to the homeland began in response to the pogroms they were experiencing in Europe. This wave of Jewish migration had another unforeseen outcome - it also encouraged a wave of Arab migration into "Palestine" because with the Jews came jobs. This why the Ottoman census of 1881 counted 141,000 Arabs (both Muslim and Christian) in the regions now known as Israel, Jordan, Judea and Samaria. By 1889, the number of Arabs quadrupled. Many of the Arabs came for legitimate work opportunities, still others came to this lawless, desolate land in order to take what they wanted (similar to another group of Muslims called the Barbary Pirates).

Toward the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire fell as they were allied with Germany and the Middle East was carved up into sections with various countries constructing new countries and new borders. The region that had been known as "Palestine" under Roman rule was now called the British Mandate of Palestine and stayed under British rule. This included Jordan, Israel, Judea, and Samaria. Then, in 1917, Lord Balfour declared to Lord Rothschild that a national Jewish home would be provided "in Palestine." By this time, about 700,000 Arabs inhabited the land. The declaration further dictated that the Jewish homeland would not prejudice the civil or religious rights of non-Jews living in the land. Fantastic! The Jews finally had their homeland back and they could live in harmony with the Arabs who had migrated there for the economic opportunities presented by the large influx of Jewish immigrants. Jews bought the land from Arabs and Turks who were more than willing to earn a good deal of cash for their arid, desolate land. Contrary to popular belief, Jews didn't squat on Arab land.

With this declaration, more Jews immigrated to the British Mandate of Palestine. Once the declaration had been made that portions of the land would be considered the Jewish homeland, content Arabs who took home a healthy day's pay and enjoyed work opportunities never before experienced suddenly balked at the idea that "Jews" would run the show. Why would they balk at this proposition you may ask? Well, the Koran is quite clear that it is imperative that Muslims reject any leadership other than Islamic leadership.

The British saw that they now had quite a dilemma on their hands. So...in an effort to appease the Arabs, they mandated that the area East of the Jordan River, known as Transjordan, would be exclusively Arab and that no Jews would be allowed to inhabit that region. They made movement in 1921 toward Transjordan becoming an independent country - which it officially achieved in 1946, just two years before the State of Israel's independence.

As an aside, the Jews who were immigrating to and living within the British Mandate of Palestine ("BMP") were happy to share the land with the Arabs who lived there. It was the Arabs who had a problem with the Jewish leadership of a country in which they would be living.

When the UN was formed after World War 2, they became involved in the partitioning of the BMP. Seeing that the Arabs were unhappy, even though they had 80% of the former "Palestine" in the form of Jordan, the UN made further concessions and offered the UN Partition Plan of 1947, in which portions of the remaining 20% of "Palestine" would be carved up so Jews lived in Jewish areas and Arabs lived in Arab areas. The Jews were fine with this prospect - some land was better than none. However, the Arabs did not like this plan either, because quite frankly, they didn't want the Jews to have any sovereignty in this land, and they rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947. The British were so busy trying to appease the Arabs, the Jews were becoming increasingly concerned about the prospects of the promise of their national home going up in smoke. They decided to push the British into honoring their promise and ended up having to fight for Israel's independence. Israel fought the British military with a hodgepodge army of men and women with a hodgepodge of weapons. The Irgun was one such group and they bombed the British military headquarters (the King David Hotel). This event is often misstated by detractors of Israel to make it seem that Israel bombed a civilian hotel. Not so. In fact, the Irgun warned the British that it was going to bomb the King David Hotel with a phone call to the commander, and with a phone call to the Jerusalem Post. The British joked about the prospect of Jews bombing them and didn't take the warning seriously.

Finally, Israel won its independence in 1948, two years after Jordan became an independent country. Exactly one day after Israel declared its independence, it was attacked by the surrounding Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. This well-planned and calculated attack had been publicized in advance to the Arabs living within Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (a chief consultant to the Third Reich and one of the authors of "the final solution") called for Arabs of Israel to flee in light of the upcoming battle, but promised they would return to more money and more land than they had already. Some Arabs took heed of the Grand Mufti's warning and fled. Others stayed. The response of Arabs to this fatwa has been the sole determinant since as to which Arabs could live in Israel and which could not. Those who fled were instruments of war and therefore, gave up their right to return, and the right of return for future generations. Those who stayed are called Arab Israelis. These are Arabs living in Israel who enjoy freedom of religion, representation in Parliament, property ownership, business ownership, education, healthcare, and everything else that Israelis of other faiths and backgrounds enjoy.

The Jews of Israel had high hopes for their Arab neighbors. David Ben Gurion begged the Arabs of Haifa to stay.

Meanwhile, Israel had to continue to fight for its survival. With war after war fought, Israel stayed strong and secure. As the anti-Jewish Arab movement increased, a term was coined in the 1950's. That term was "Palestinian." In 1964, the Arab League formed a movement called the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This movement was led by an Egyptian by the name of Ahmed Shukairy. Notice that in 1964, there were no "occupied territories," no "illegal settlements" and East Jerusalem was under Jordanian control. The "territories" and "settlements" came about in 1967, when Israel was forced to confront Syria and Egypt as they amassed troops on the borders and blocked the Strait of Tiran, the only supply route for Israel to receive Asian goods and oil imports. Israel hit hard and in the process, it took control of Judea, Samaria, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. Israel never annexed any of this land (except for the Golan Heights due to its importance geographically to Israel's security and East Jerusalem) because Israel planned to negotiate peace utilizing this land. In fact, once Israel took hold of East Jerusalem and successfully made Jerusalem whole again, Moshe Dayan went to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and presented him with the key to the gate, to show that although the Jews were in control of the city, he welcomed the Arabs to enjoy their holy sites too. Under Arab occupation, Jerusalem was closed off. Access for other faiths was either limited or barred completely. Now all people can enjoy Jerusalem.

This land for peace idea would elude Israel with the advent of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a group that would continue to keep the fight alive and call for Israel's destruction, primarily as a source of wealth for its leaders and completely in conflict with the betterment of the lives of Arabs under Israeli rule. With the capture of the territories known as Gaza, Judea, and Samaria in the 1967 (Six Day) War, the PLO used this to push an agenda of disenfranchised Arabs, thus fueling their fight.

If the PLO didn't exist, chances are Israel might be enjoying a more peaceful existence now. Israel successfully brokered peace with Egypt(as successful as a Jewish country can broker peace with a Muslim country) and the Sinai was returned to them. The Gaza Strip was also offered to the Egyptians; after all, they were in control of it before 1967 for the most part. Egypt knew what poison the PLO was spreading and declined Israel's offer. The same thing happened with Jordan and Judea and Samaria. Jordan refused to accept this land from Israel because of the climate the PLO had been fomenting there. Jordan's King was already familiar with this poison when the PLO members had attempted to overthrow his government and he returned the favor by killing more PLO members in one month than Israel has throughout its entire existence.

If Jordan and Egypt felt that there should be a sovereign Palestinian state, why didn't they accept Israel's offer and just relinquish control and give the land to the "Palestinians?" Because there is a vested, financial interest in keeping a fight going with Israel via the "Palestinian" problem.

This is the reason the Palestinians, even though they have a Jew-free Gaza, have not declared themselves a sovereign country. This is the reason they use aid that comes in from Western countries (notice the lack of aid from the Arab League countries - the countries that created the PLO in the first place) not to establish infrastructure, but to purchase weapons. If they were to declare themselves sovereign, they would then have to abide by the laws that govern countries and they would no longer be able to blame Israel for all its woes. Their leaders do not want a sovereign "Palestine." Notice there is no demand from Jordan to give up land, even though it's 80% of the former "Palestine." That is simply because it's controlled by a Muslim government - because this is one of the basics in the Koran and the Muslim faith.

It's amazing that so many "intellectuals" fall for this game that is being played. It's become so ridiculous that it's embarrassing to watch allegedly "smart people" fall prey to the tactics and propaganda used by this anti-Israel movement. For example, the "Palestinians" have decided to erase historical Jewish claims to Israel by erasing Jewish presence in the land. They've renamed the Western Wall, which was part of the second Temple, Al-Baraq's wall, the wall where Mohammed tied his horse. Needless to say there is no historical data to show that Mohammed ever left the Arabian peninsula. Islamic claims on Jewish and Christian holy sites are nothing more than a land grab. There is no respect for other faiths. A mob of Muslims destroyed the tomb of Jacob located in Nablus. They attempted to destroy Rachel's tomb, Judaism's third holiest site, located in Bethlehem. Look at the Temple Mount, the Jewish people's holiest site. The Muslims built a mosque on top of it.

There is no rationale for most of these actions other than hatred of anything non-Islamic. When Gaza was evacuated and the last Jew left, the Muslims tore up perfectly good buildings, and perfectly good greenhouses. These structures could've helped them prosper and house people, but they destroyed them instead. We're not dealing with desperate, starving people. We're dealing with hate-filled people who are fueled by their leadership and have lost the ability to reason.

The suicide bombings and rocket attacks will not stop until Israel is destroyed completely, or until the world (Israel included) wakes up and realizes that there will never be peace with those whose goal is to destroy it - for no good reason.

Newest version of Fitna

2008-04-10T20:44:00.000-04:00

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - former Muslim!

2008-04-09T20:31:00.000-04:00

According to a story from The New Republic from March 19, 2007, the grumpy, hatemongering Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. was a Muslim. Amazing, isn't it? How ironic that Barack Obama, technically a Muslim pursuant to the Muslim tradition that dictates children of Muslim men are born Muslim, would come to choose a church that focuses on Black Liberation Theology and has a "former" Muslim as its pastor.

I'm extremely tired of this Obama person and the free ride the mainstream media is giving him. With regard to Reverend Wright's inflammatory comments, Obama first stated that he never heard Reverend Wright utter those types of things while he was in the church. Then he said he did hear Reverend Wright utter those types of things, but he didn't agree with them. He claimed Reverend Wright as a mentor in the beginning of his career, and now distances himself when his career no longer focuses on inner city constituents. When it comes to Reverend Wright, Obama has yet to have a consistent response. Also, when it comes to finding Christianity, Obama is again not quite forthright. He claimed to have found solace in Christianity - but he was obviously never hearing about Christianity at the particular church he joined. Also, contrary to what he has stated in the past, according to the story from The New Republic, Obama only came to church, not Christianity, in order to help him organize people for his job. There was no spiritual ephiphany for Obama - it was all about being practical for his career.

Wright's affiliation with Farrakhan, the trip to Libya, the hatred of Israel, the posting of the Hamas charter on the Trinity Church's website - it all points in one direction. Obama's past and current affiliations point in the same direction.

I'm too tired to write an essay on this topic so I'll keep it extremely simple: How dumb are some Americans that they are still supporting this guy? A man who won't even put his hand on his heart to pledge his allegiance to America - yet he's fit to be America's president?

Geert Wilders' movie, "Fitna"

2008-03-29T14:59:00.000-04:00

Open Letter to the Parents of Rachel Corrie

2008-03-16T23:19:00.000-04:00

This was sent today to rachelsmessage@the-corries.com.

This is the address listed on www.rachelcorrie.org. This website also provides links to the Electronic Intifada, a terrorist site, various ISM links, a Caterpillar boycott site, and propangada merchandise (Rachel Corrie trading cards).

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Corrie,

While I am very sorry for your loss and I cannot imagine the pain of losing your child, I am writing to you to respectfully request you to discontinue perpetuating your message of hate against Jews and Israel, and discontinue supporting the very organization that murdered your daughter.

Your daughter was used by the ISM to fulfill the purpose of creating propaganda. Your blame is misplaced.

Your continuous support of the ISM, Electronic Intifada (uprising), and your historically ignorant and naive views of the situation in the Middle East is causing more deaths. You're as responsible for Jewish deaths in Israel as the civilians in Nazi Germany who pointed their fingers at their neighbors and then hid behind their curtains as their Jewish neighbors were hauled away for execution. You are supporting another holocaust in your support of the ISM.

The current climate of leftist hatred of Jews and Israel is as fascist as the right-wing hatred of Jews during the Third Reich and the Inquisition. Guess who the majority of victims of religious hate crimes are in America, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports - more than triple the number of any other religious group...that's right, Jews...and you have yourselves to blame as active participants in creating that climate.

Israel and Jews value life - all life. We toast to life when we say, L'Chaim. Islam does not value life, as their imams have stated so many times and the q'uran supports. The greatest goal they can achieve in Islam is becoming a marytr - which means death is valued above life. They've demonstrated this by valuing your daughter's death more than her life - she's served their purposes much better that way.

You have an opportunity to do something good in the face of losing your daughter, and you've chosen to do something evil instead. I hope you can step back one day, look at the circumstances very closely instead of getting caught up in your daughter's misguidance, and do what's right.

(here I provided a link to my blog)

My deepest condolences and sincerest wishes for your healing in the warmth and light of truth, for ultimately truth will prevail,

Bambi

The Accidental Terrorist: Rachel Corrie is still dead 5 years later

2008-03-16T14:26:00.000-04:00

The fact that Rachel Corrie was a terrorist cannot be disputed. Whether her intention of becoming a terrorist was purposeful or accidental, by way of a naive, hippie-mentality that has put so many young people in harm's way, will probably never be determined. The motives behind her actions died with her exactly five years ago today, on March 16, 2003.

Rachel Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement aka Palestinian Solidarity Movement. This movement claims to be peaceful, however if you visit the website of StoptheISM, you will see a very different picture of this organization. This is an organization that has capitalized on the stupidity of youth and used the manufactured status of underdog to push Palestinian (Islamic) agendas in and around Israel. The members of the ISM have been trained in weaponry, act as humanshields to guard weapons smuggling operations, and have engaged in deception and trickery to cause harm to Jewish Israelis.

Even though the USA has actually done its share of appeasing and empowering the terrorists of Gaza, Judea and Samaria during the Bush Administration, Rachel Corrie still engaged in the burning of an American flag with some impressionable "Palestinian" children. Looking at her face, the word peaceful isn't quite what comes to mind.

The jihadists, whose goal is to destroy Israel, purposely put Rachel Corrie in harm's way from the minute she arrived. A dead, white American killed by an Israeli bulldozer was priceless to them and their propaganda war. They have also lied about the circumstances and events regarding Rachel Corrie's death. They've doctored photos and created scenarios that were completely inaccurate, as you can see here. The following three YouTube videos of an interview with Lee Kaplan, founder of Stop the ISM, are extremely revealing. In this interview, Lee Kaplan shows the original footage from the Israeli Defense Forces who conducted the bulldozing operation to seal weapons smuggling tunnels. This is what Rachel Corrie was put in charge of protecting.

YouTube Video Interview with Lee Kaplan - Part One

YouTube Video Interview with Lee Kaplan - Part Two

YouTube Video Interview with Lee Kaplan - Part Three

It should be noted that the Rachel Corrie death propaganda did exactly what it was designed to do by its jihadist creators, it inflamed people against Israel and Jews. The saddest part is that people didn't and still don't research this event and automatically assume that Rachel Corrie's death was a malicious act of violence by Israel, committed for kicks.

Alan Rickman, the British producer and actor, was one such idiot. Ironically, he played the right-hand of G-d in the movie, Dogma. He went so far as to produce and co-author a play based on Rachel Corrie's life and death on the assumption that the events that caused her death were accurately portrayed by the ISM. He actually co-wrote this propaganda piece with a Jewish woman, Katharine Viner.

Another idiot is Alice Walker, who read the words of Rachel Corrie as if she were an American hero, in an event held on November 11, 2006, in Berkeley, California (surprise!), in which people read excerpts of Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove's book, Voices of a People's History of the United States. From Howard Zinn, I expect it. From Alice Walker, for shame.

It's really quite shocking that my fellow Jews are so prominent in spreading the propaganda of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and all the others who contributed to Rachel Corrie's path to death. Goebbels would be proud - these jihadists have certainly out-propagandized him.

Sadly, the actions of these Jews, Katharine Viner, George Soros, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky, has resulted and will continue to result in the deaths of Jews. Should their be another holocaust, G_d forbid, these men would be screaming at the doors of Israel to let them in. Ironically, Israel probably would.

Others who are quick to jump on the Hate on Israel/Rachel Corrie is a Hero bandwagon are Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.) who called for a congressional investigation into Israel's role in her death, Brian Freeland, who happily directs the Rickman/Viner play, and the American Friends Service Committee, a division of the Quaker movement that is supposed to focus on peace, which sponsored the play's Iowa run.

Interestingly, though, Joshua Hammer wrote an article for Mother Jones magazine that is surprisingly explorative in its search for the truth regarding Rachel Corrie's not so innocent affiliations and death.

On this fifth anniversary of Rachel Corrie's death, we should all be reminded that there are stupid people in this world who are used as pawns by evil people. On July 14, 2004, ISM co-founder, George Rishmawi, told the San Francisco Chronicle why his group recruits student volunteers, "When Palestinians get shot by Israeli soldiers, no one is interested anymore," he said. "But if some of these foreign volunteers get shot or even killed, then the international media will sit up and take notice."

This who murdered Rachel Corrie, the ISM.

Enough Said

2008-03-15T16:56:00.000-04:00

Muslims under scrutiny by Human Rights Watch

2008-03-15T14:41:00.000-04:00

These silly Muslims...

They have finally raised the ire of Human Rights Watch and the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva. How so, you ask? Well, the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is a unifying organization comprised of the leaders of the world's Muslim nations (I wonder if England was represented) met in Senegal for two-days this week to discuss developing a battle plan "to defend its religion from cartoonists and bigots."

Their brilliant solution? Demanding redress and legal actions from nations like Denmark that have "allowed" the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad.

In an AP article on this meeting, Senegal's president, Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference stated, "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits."

Despite the growing number of laws in Europe that have done exactly what Mr. Wade is suggesting, the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to miuse the UN.

Human Rights Watch released a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views."

Hmmmm....are the lefties finally getting it?

Needless to say, this same conference had an agenda item calling for Israel to be charged with war crimes for protecting itself against constant missile-fire from Gaza.

Interestingly, an article on the same topic by Reuters was markedly different. The AP article was printed in a local newspaper, however I'm unable to locate that article online either via the Associated Press or my local paper.

Fatah Proves its Approval of Terrorism

2008-03-09T14:14:00.000-04:00

In the latest bulletin from Palestinian Media Watch, the official PA newspaper, Al Hayat Al Jadida, has run a story on the gunman who murdered 8 Israelis at the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva last week in which the caption under his photo labels him a "Shahid" or holy Islamic martyr. In a Page One article on the terror killings, his act is again defined as a "Shahada achieving" action.

Becoming a "Shahid," according to the Palestinian Authority's (Fatah's) interpretation of Islam, is the highest status that a human being can achieve. Sheikh Imad Hamato, on a Palestinian Authority Television program dated November 3, 2006 stated in his sermon,

"When a man sees one of his brothers being killed for Allah, a person with no head, no legs, his body completely burned. Intestines outside, fingers are gone... The most difficult thing which we fear is what the Shahids [Islamic Martyrs] wish for most of all. They ask Allah: 'Oh God, bring us back [to earth] to be killed by the Apache, so the planes will blow us up, that our heads will be cut off...'

We shouldn't forget that Allah, praise him, in blessing the blood of the Shahid, He forgives him from the first gush of blood. And he sees his place in Paradise. He is shielded from the Great Shock and marries 72 Dark-Eyed Maidens (virgins)."

Given that this is Fatah's interpretation of Islam and the murder conducted against innocent, civilian Israelis who were studying religious scripture at Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva's library was an overt act of terror, we have to wonder if the US government will make good on their promise to "terminate assistance to any individual, entity... which she has determined to be involved in or advocating terrorist activity" according to the 2008 Foreign Operations Bill Sec. 657.B - C.1. Last week, the US Administration sent a request to Congress to allocate $150 million to the Palestinian Authority. How can they give $150 million in good conscience of OUR taxpayer dollars to a group that openly advocates terrorism.

Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen can say "we denounce terror" as much as he likes, the proof is in the pudding. Is the United States a nation of Neville Chamberlains so eager to believe the promises of obviously insincere despots and monsters to make themselves feel better about ignoring a problem of such magnitude?

I urge you to contact your Congressperson by clicking here and ask if he or she is willing to give our money to a group (PA aka Fatah) that has so boldly advocated terrorism.

Congress further legislated that "none of the [US] ... assistance under the West Bank and Gaza Program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism."

Take your Congressperson at his word and bring this matter to his or her attention today.

Joel Mowbray of The Washington Times asked the same question of Congress in his editorial on March 7, 2008.

Terrorist fires 500-600 bullets into a crowd of students at yeshiva in Jerusalem

2008-03-06T16:30:00.000-05:00

Israel's latest tragedy, which seems to be a daily occurence, an armed gunman, reported to be Jabel Mukaber, an Arab Israeli resident of East Jerusalem, marched into the library at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva and began spraying bullets. The Lebanese Hizballah’s TV station interrupted broadcasts to name the perpetrators of the attack as the “Imad Mughniyeh Liberators of Galilee.” Hamas said in a statement, "We bless the (Jerusalem) operation. It will not be the last."

I guess those two can fight amongst themselves as to who Jabel Mukaber was working for.

Read the J-Post story here.

ADL Blasts Anti-Semitic Cartoons - but no fatwa called!

2008-03-06T16:18:00.000-05:00

Yes, it seems that the Muslims can push their own brand of cartoons depicting Jews as Nazis, or the stereotypical large-nosed, herring eating Chassid. The difference is, the Anti-Defamation League blasted the cartoons, but did not call for their removal nor did it call for the cartoonists to be murdered.

Read the full story here

Iran pre-revolution - circa 1970's

2008-03-06T15:16:00.000-05:00

I borrowed this from Gary Baumgarten's site. Enjoy.

Update: My questions to Sean Hannity were not allowed

2008-03-06T14:10:00.000-05:00

Well, as I suspected, Sean Hannity's screener, Linda, explained that I would not be allowed to ask Sean who hijacked Islam and what Islam is really supposed to mean. She referenced "Muslims for Peace" and said that they have been adamant about the fact that Islam's Koran and Hadiths have been misinterpreted.

Really? Well I went to the Muslims for Peace website, muslimsforpeace.net. It had no information other than notice of a march on Washington in late 2007. I never heard any news that this march occured.

Regardless, I understand what the problem is and it's very sad. Sean would likely lose his job if he goes where I'd like to go in my questioning. We need more Michael Grahams in this world to be brave enough to lose their jobs in order to speak the truth. This political correctness is going to kill us, literally.

I did agree to stay away from that topic and waited on hold for 30 minutes to let Sean know that the link to The Trumpet Magazine, Wright's daughter's magazine, which is who gave Farrakhan the award in Rev. Wright's name, was removed from the Trinity United Church of Christ website. It was replaced with a YouTube video of a white woman claiming to be a member of Obama's church. Sean barely let me speak, and then dismissed my comments. He still gets it wrong by saying the Church gave the award.

I'm a little annoyed at being dismissed. However, I'm more concerned about the fact that I was not allowed to broach the topic that Islam is a violent ideology and make Sean back up his statement that Islam was hijacked by radicals. As far as I'm concerned, the only possibility that a Muslim is moderate is either because he is secular or an apostate, although I've met a few of those who still have hateful beliefs of Jews, Christians, America, etc... Any practicing Muslim is also a radical Muslim.

Sean Hannity is a Wuss

2008-03-05T22:56:00.000-05:00

Yes, Sean Hannity is a wuss. On today's Sean Hannity radio show on the Sirius Radio Fox News Channel, Sean received a call from a man who identified himself as a black man. This black man praised Farrakhan and accused Sean of lumping all Muslims into one category and not differentiating between "regular Islam" and "Islamic fascists." While Sean did take this man to task, and very well I might add, on his comment of praise for Farrakhan, Sean shouted to the tops of the roofs that he ALWAYS differentiates between "regular Islam" and "Islamic fascists." Sean proclaimed that he has no problem with Islam and it is those who have hijacked the faith and commit acts of terror in the name of Islam that he has a problem with.

I have some questions for Sean, and hopefully I'll be able to ask him personally. How have the "Islamic fascists" hijacked this "faith?" When was it peaceful and at what point did this hijacking occur? How does the Koran support what he calls "regular Muslims."

The fact that he cannot or will not be honest enough to say the same things that a politician in the Netherlands has had the courage to say, which is that the entire basis of Islam is a violent ideology that is backed by its "holy book," is unfortunate. Perhaps he's worried that he'll go the way of Michael Graham. It's a worthwhile concern since we're discussing his livelihood. But if you're going to make your livelihood as a political commentator, you must have the courage to speak the truth. If not, then who is going to believe the rest of what you say?

We shall see if I have the opportunity to ask Sean these questions. Stay tuned...

PEW Study: Americans Losing Their Religion

2008-02-25T16:50:00.000-05:00

According to a new PEW study as published by CNN, Americans are losing their religion. The study gives specific numbers regarding where Americans' beliefs lie, which I will leave to you to examine. The bottomline, this is a trend that is especially important to the Counterjihad Movement.

This trend demonstrates the need for a less parochial and more intellectual debate on the dangers of Islam. The country's "Christian majority" is rapidly dwindling. It is the unaffiliated, the agnostics, the atheists, the Buddhists, the Jewish and all the people in between who must be convinced of the clear and present danger that Islam poses. This danger cannot be demonstrated through biblical comparisons or through "my God is better than your God" tactics. This danger has to be shown by the qualified exposure of the actions of Muslims, the decline of rights in countries in which Islam has imposed itself, the history of Islam, and the content of the Koran - and how those four perspectives are in direct conflict with a society that is civilized and respects the rights of minorities, other faiths, women, animals, children, and humanity in general. It is in direct conflict with the liberties and rights we enjoy as a free society. This is the only argument that is viable.

Multiculturalism, while difficult to juggle, is not impossible to achieve, except on one level. A multicultural society can only exist when all cultures that comprise it respect the rights of the other cultures. If even one of those cultures does not, then the harmony that multiculturalism is supposed to attain is an impossibility. Within multicultural America, the one culture that refuses to respect the rights of the other cultures within that society is...you guessed it...Islam.

Farrakhan Praises Obama as ‘Hope of Entire World’

2008-02-25T12:24:00.000-05:00

I LOVE it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the same day that Obama's Somali Muslim garb photo is unleashed - Louis Farrakhan endorses Obama and compares him to Fard Mohammed, founder of the Nation of Islam. Farrakhan loosely referred to Fard Mohammed and Obama as "saviors." I wonder if he thinks Obama is al-Mahdi?

My anger is actually not with Farrakhan or Obama at this moment. I expect Farrakhan to act like Farrakhan, and I've come to expect Obama to be the smiling wolf in sheep's clothing that I believe him to be. There is nothing more dangerous than a charismatic liar, as history has shown us.

I am most angry with my fellow Jews who voted for Obama to put him in the position of possibly getting the Democratic nomination. I hope every Jewish person who voted for Obama in the primaries feels like an idiot! Because you are!

One thing that many Jews in the diaspora have done is assimilated to the point of forgetting the lessons of the Holocaust. Some often ask what those lessons are. I believe those lessons to be:

1. Never ignore anti-Semitism because it will always grow...like an ignored weed.

2. Israel is the only safe-haven that Jews have. A Jew who doesn't love Israel and recognize that it's the ONLY country in the history of the world that has not oppressed Jews in some fashion (until Olmert came along at least), is a Jew who will be very surprised when he or she is beaten or raped or terrorized just for being a Jew.

3. You don't have to be a religious Jew to maintain a strong Jewish identity. Jews should always remind ourselves that we're Jewish - because when the time comes - you'll be considered a Jew, whether you like it or not. All signs point to that time coming...again. You'd better be ready for it.

4. Just because you haven't experienced anti-Semitism doesn't mean you won't. You will and if you don't believe me, wear a Jewish star around your neck and see if people treat you differently. There will come a day when they won't have to see your Jewish star to treat you differently.

Jews should always operate with those lessons in the backs of our minds. It is vital to our survival as individuals and as a group to heed those lessons. It is our responsibility to the over 6 million Jewish lives lost in the Shoah to remember those lessons. Should those who perished have done so for nothing? All Jews should give meaning to the victims of Hitler, Eichmann, and al-Husseini's Final Solution by recognizing the signs of a recurrence and being ready. Never again shall we willingly or quietly be led to cattle cars to face our death.

To read the story from Fox News on Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, please visit them at www.foxnews.com.

The Case for Keeping Muslims out of the American Military

2008-02-25T12:08:00.000-05:00

The story below is precisely why MUSLIMS should not serve in the US military. Their Koran dictates that they be loyal first to Allah & Mohammed & Islam. There is not one practicing Muslim who could possibly put American interests over his own holy book. This is another example of how our government likes to fool itself - to our detriment.

If an American showed sympathy or shared ideology with the Nazis during World War 2, would we have allowed them to serve in our military? How about the Japanese? There were a very select few Japanese Americans in our military during World War 2 - and those who were selected had to show complete and total loyalty to the American government, even at a time when their families were living in internment camps.

This is the danger of the continued denials by our government of who the actual enemy is that we're fighting. To continue along this path means our very certain demise.

Fox News Report: Trial Begins in Terror Case Against Ex-Navy Sailor

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — The trial of a former Navy sailor on terrorism charges promises to offer a glimpse into how prosecutors say an American serviceman communicated with suspected terrorists over the Internet while on duty and leaked information that could have doomed his own ship.

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and spectators began arriving at the U.S. District Courthouse about an hour before the trial was to begin about 9 a.m. Monday.

Prosecutors allege that Hassan Abu-Jihaad sent details of the location and vulnerabilities of a Navy battle group to suspected terrorism supporters in London.

"I think it's a very important case," said Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland. "If we have members of our military who are aggressively passing on secrets to terrorists, that's cause for concern. It's a very aggressive act which would have brought real danger to the United States."

Abu-Jihaad, 32, of Phoenix, has pleaded not guilty to charges he provided material support to terrorists with intent to kill U.S. citizens and disclosed classified information relating to the national defense. If convicted, he faces up to 25 years in prison.

Abu-Jihaad, an American-born Muslim convert formerly known as Paul R. Hall, was a signalman before he received an honorable discharge from the Navy in 2002. He worked in a UPS warehouse in Phoenix and has two young children, friends said.

"He was very opinionated," Miguel Colon, a friend questioned about Abu-Jihaad by FBI agents, said last year. "He would talk about things in regard to the way the Iraq war was going. It was something he disagreed with."

Colon, who met Abu-Jihaad at a mosque in Phoenix, said Abu-Jihaad admired the rebels in Chechnya but he rarely saw his friend angry and had a hard time believing the man whose children played with his children secretly supported terrorists. Colon said Abu-Jihaad was dedicated to his prayers, reading Islamic literature and following rules against drinking.

Abu-Jihaad is charged in the same case as Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist arrested in 2004 and accused of running Web sites to raise money, appeal for fighters and provide equipment such as gas masks and night vision goggles for terrorists. Ahmad is to be extradited to the U.S.

The Web sites were the premier English-language mouthpiece of terrorists, according to Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert and a government witness for the trial.

The investigation was one of the first to target online terrorism financiers after the Sept. 11 attacks and experts have cited Abu-Jihaad's case as an example of how Internet propaganda fuels the radicalization process.

During a search of Ahmad's computers, investigators discovered files containing classified information about the positions of U.S. Navy ships and discussing their susceptibility to attack, according to authorities.

The ship details included the makeup of the Navy battle group, its planned movements and a drawing of the group's formation when it was to pass through the Straits of Hormuz on April 29, 2001.

"According to Navy officials, knowledge of ships' movements, missions and capabilities would be extremely useful in planning a successful terrorist strike," the FBI wrote in an affidavit.

Prosecutors acknowledge they don't have direct proof that Abu-Jihaad leaked details of ship movements.

But Abu-Jihaad exchanged e-mails with Ahmad in 2000 and 2001 while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer that was part of the battle group formation, according to an FBI affidavit. In those e-mails, Abu-Jihaad discussed naval briefings and praised Usama bin Laden and those who attacked the USS Cole in 2000, investigators say.

Abu-Jihaad also purchased videos promoting violent jihad from the group. A judge has allowed prosecutors to play portions of the graphic videos as well as show pages from the group's Web site, which displayed bin Laden's declaration of war against the West.

Prosecutors say the videos and Web pages are important evidence because they must prove not only that Abu-Jihaad leaked the ship details but intended to kill Americans by sending the information to those who promoted terrorism. They say the videos depict martyrdom, explaining why Abu-Jihaad would allow his own ship to be targeted.

Prosecutors also hope to bolster the case by playing intercepted phone calls to show what they say is Abu-Jihaad's coded speech and obsession with security. Authorities said Abu-Jihaad spoke of "hot meals" and "cold meals" in conversations with associates to refer to intelligence that would be useful to strike American military targets.

Abu-Jihaad's attorneys say the statements are irrelevant and the government's case is weak.

But Philip Anthony, chief executive officer of the national jury consulting firm DecisionQuest, said a number of factors weigh against Abu-Jihaad, including his name and a lack of tolerance by jurors for terrorism. Jurors may view the trial as a "Benedict Arnold case" because Abu-Jihaad was in the military, he said.

"Jurors are very willing to follow a circumstantial trail of evidence," Anthony said. "They know a lot of things cannot be seen directly, but if enough facts come together to allow a jury to see a certain action is more likely than not, most jurors will follow that path to conviction."

Reprinted from Foxnews.com

Finally - Obama out of the Closet!!!!!

2008-02-25T11:55:00.000-05:00

Interestingly enough, the Obama camp is extremely angry over this photo being leaked. Funny, if Muslims are peaceful and Islam is peaceful and there's no problem with Islam and Muslims, why would Obama get upset that this photo has made its way to the public forum. Looking at the original story from the Drudge Report, there are pictures of other leaders in traditional clothing of countries they've visited, and they don't seem to be getting upset at all.

Also, why hasn't Obama addressed why he won't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance? He's responded by saying there are other ways to show Patriotism, but he still has not said - not ever - not once - what his reason is for not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Is saying the Pledge of Allegiance with your hand over your heart merely a show of Patriotism, or is pledging your allegiance to the United States of America? There is a big difference. I suspect it's because his allegiance lies elsewhere.

Obama Plagerizes

2008-02-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

I had to borrow this from Atlas Shrugs. I think I'll send it over to Hillary's campaign office too.

Goose Creek terrorists could go free on technicality

2008-02-21T15:56:00.000-05:00

Here we go again...no wonder they're smiling!

A story appeared in today's Charleston Post and Courier regarding the two Muslims who were pulled over for speeding in Goose Creek, South Carolina. It seems that comments by the Sheriff's deputies about these men prior to the discovery of the bomb materials in their trunk amounts to profiling and the defense attorneys are arguing the officers did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. The defense argues that their search was based on bigotry, and therefore the discovery of bomb materials that was yielded as a result of that search should be suppressed, which could result in a dismissal of the entire case against them. Sadly, the defense attorney could win this motion if the deputies can offer no other reason for requesting the search.

This is a prime example of why temperate speech should be utilized as a matter of practice within the counterjihad movement. Please see Baron Bodissey's post at Gates of Vienna on this topic. The idea is to prevail over the Jihadists, and to do so, we have to dot every i and cross every t, or we will be dismissed. Vitriolic rants can feel good, but they don't serve the greater good.

A second Berkeley County deputy sheriff on Wednesday admitted to making derogatory jokes about two Egyptians just moments before finding explosive materials in the trunk of their car in a traffic stop last summer.

A federal judge now must decide whether the actions and racist banter of Deputy Andy Taylor and Cpl. James Lamar Blakely are enough to warrant dismissing crucial evidence against the University of South Florida students.

Taylor testified in federal court in Tampa, Fla., that the jokes are one way deputies deal with the stress and danger of their job.

"We can be crass and rude," he said. "I believe that's part of the job."

Both deputies who stopped and searched the car occupied by Ahmed Mohamed and Youssef Megahed on Aug. 4 in Goose Creek acknowledged they made racist statements about the pair, equating them to the Taliban and joking about them being suicide bombers.

Taylor's testimony came on the second day of a hearing on a defense motion to suppress evidence found in the car, including ammunition and loosely packed explosives Mohamed and Megahed said were fireworks. Attorneys for the two, both Egyptian nationals, say the officers didn't have probable cause to search the car.

Defense attorneys argued the deputies acted improperly and lacked probable cause to detain the pair and search their vehicle.

Prosecutors argued the deputies grew suspicious because the men couldn't produce the car's registration and seemed to be taking a circuitous route to North Carolina.

Prosecutors and the deputies said also that the Florida license plate on the car and the men's presence near an area known for drugs raised more red flags.

Blakely pulled over the men for speeding, but defense attorneys told U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Pizzo that his explanations for the stop didn't make sense.

Neither Blakely nor Taylor mentioned suspicion of drug running during the stop, which was recorded by a dashboard camera.

Instead, the pair seemed fixated during their conversation about the pair's ethnicity. The deputies can be heard nervously discussing and joking about the suspicious nature of the defendants during the traffic stop, a few miles from the Naval Weapons Station.

Blakely told Taylor that both men were holding Qurans in their laps and the driver couldn't clearly explain where they were going or where they had been, according to a transcript of the tape.

Taylor: "Maybe they're gonna practice the suicide bombing here?"

Blakely: "Hey, man, not right now. I think they're Islamic. Are they Islamic? I'm just assuming. I'm just assuming."

Taylor, referring to Megahed's driver's license: "Well, he passed ... suicide bomber school quick. 02/08 of 1986."

Blakely: "This one's '81."

Taylor: "They're going up to blow up the Berkeley County lot."

Blakely: "That or they've damn been over there at the base."

Both Taylor and Blakely acknowledged in court that the statements were "unprofessional."

Attorneys argued that Blakely planned to search the car, regardless of whether they gave him permission. Blakely had already planned to issue the pair a warning for speeding but didn't return their driver's licenses quickly enough, said James Smith, a public defender representing Megahed.

Instead, the men were removed from the car, and Blakely asked Mohamed if he could search the car. Mohamed replied, "If you must," the patrol car video showed. His attorney, Lyann Goudie, said this did not qualify as consent.

Pizzo asked pointed questions of both prosecutors and defense attorneys, questioning whether a Florida license plate and taking a minute to pull over were legitimate reasons for Blakely's suspicions.

Blakely, a member of a special anti-drug squad, testified that Florida is a state known for its drug- running, and seeing Sunshine State plates in the area he patrols is uncommon.

Pizzo also challenged Smith about whether Blakely's and Taylor's remarks about the men mattered.

Smith said they reflected Blakely's true feelings and that he intended to search the men whether they consented or not.

Ahmed Bedier, executive director of the Tampa chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights organization for Muslims, attended the hearing. He said it was clear from the testimony that the deputies' preconceived notions guided their actions more than standard operating procedure.

"Their bias has jeopardized their own investigation," Bedier said. "If they had conducted themselves in a professional manner without bias we wouldn't be here today."

Mohamed, 26, and Megahed, 21, have been in jail since the traffic stop. They are both charged with illegally transporting explosives. Mohamed is also charged with trying to help terrorists by posting a video of himself on the Internet showing how to use a remote-controlled toy to detonate a bomb.

While the men have maintained all along that the items were homemade fireworks, federal authorities said the items met the federal legal definition of explosives. FBI analysts determined that the mixture could explode if it was packed more tightly in the pipe and capped.

Berkeley County Sheriff Wayne Dewitt has declined to answer any questions about the case or any disciplinary action taken that might be taken against the deputies at the request of the U.S. Attorney's Office. Blair Jennings, the sheriff's legal counsel, said they'll discuss the case once it's over.

Adam Allen, another federal public defender appointed for Megahed, said the federal magistrate who presided over the hearing will now make a recommendation on whether to grant or deny the motion to suppress evidence. Attorneys will have a chance to comment on that recommendation before it goes to a district judge for a decision, he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Reach Andy Paras at 745-5891 or aparas@postandcourier.com.

The comments in response to this story at The Post and Courier say it all, really.

Separated at Birth?

2008-02-19T21:42:00.000-05:00

I sadly didn't think there would come a day that one of the best self-promoting counterjihad blogs would go the way of Ward Churchill. This seems to be what it's come to with Little Green Footballs. It's sad that we were once all in this together, fighting the same fight. Sadly, one man's ego and pettiness has polluted our ability to stand together against the real enemy. Chuck, we'll take care of this without you.

Are Ward and Chuck related? Maybe Ward needed a job and Chuck helped him out? That could explain everything!

Google Censored UN critic

2008-02-19T10:29:00.000-05:00

This story appeared on Fox News. Blogspot is a Google division. This should be interesting.

The story of Matthew Lee, who runs a website called Inner City Press, has made it his mission to expose corruption within the United Nations. He has successfully exposed corruption within this vile organization and his site became a safe haven for UN whistleblowers, according to the Fox News story. (Click here to read the full story).

So Matthew recently got a letter from Google stating that after reading his site, they've decided to no longer include it in their news searches. This action was taken by Google due to one complaint the company received in February 1, 2008. Google will not disclose who the complaint was from.

Needless to say, Google has had to answer for its censorship and is in the lengthy process of relisting Inner City Press.

We all need to keep our eyes open to these kinds of abuses of power by corporations.

Google, you may be a liberal-minded company, but if you care about free speech and access to an open and uncensored media, you will refrain from such kneejerk reactions as delisting a site based on a single complaint.

Barack Hussein Obama Scares Me & Should Scare You Too!

2008-02-19T01:03:00.000-05:00

Barack Hussein Obama is not honest about his background or his current affiliations. This is disconcerting. He was raised as a Muslim child - both his father and stepfather were Muslims. He attended Madrassa as a child living in Indonesia.

Barack Hussein Obama's church of choice, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "africentric" and committed to a solely black congregation. No white people are allowed to be members of his church. Further, the affiliation that his church maintains with anti-semite extraordinare, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, has rich roots. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah White, Jr., head of Trinity United Church of Christ, has traveled with Farrakhan to visit Qaddafi in Libya. More recently in late 2007, according to Trumpet Magazine (see link to Trumpet Magazine at TUCC's website), Louis Farrakhan received the Magazine's Lifetime Achievement Dr. Jeremiah A. White, Jr. Award for being a "socially conscious giant(s), who allow(s) us to see more clearly what it means to be educated, nurtured and empowered. Being in touch with your roots as a African-American is to be celebrated, but to do so at the exclusion of others is wrong.

Barack Hussein Obama's brother lives in Kenya, is an active Muslim, and a Luo activist. The Luo are the tribe of Odinga, the man who recently disputed his loss of election and had his supporters go on violent rampages. Odinga also agreed to enact Sharia law under a pact he'd made with Kenya's National Muslim Leaders Forum. Obama openly supports Odinga and it's said that Obama and Odinga may actually be cousins.

Barack Hussein Obama converted to Christianity at age 27, he says. Converted from what?

Barack Hussein Obama refuses to wear a flag lapel pin. Why? Is the American Flag a source of embarassment? He also refuses to put his hand on his heart when reciting the pledge of allegiance. Again, why?

Barack Hussein Obama has been a junior senator from Illinois for 3 years. He was a state senator from 1996 to 2004. He graduated from law school but never practiced law. He worked as a civil rights and community organizer and a lecturer.

Barack Hussein Obama's campaign offices post Cuban flags with the image of Che Guevara on them. What does Ted Kennedy think of that? Ask any Cuban expatriate about Che Guevara and see what they have to say.

Barack Hussein Obama talks about change. What is his platform? How does he propose to logically embark on this change without bankrupting the US government? Has he given any specifics on what his plans in with regard to the War on Terror, our economy, our bleeding borders? He's a very charismatic speaker, but what is the content of his speeches?

People who are blindly supporting this guy because he's the Jerry Garcia of politics are just as bad as those who blindly supported Bush. Obama as President is a very scary proposition and I hope that the braindead Americans who are supporting this camera-ready candidate wake up from their hallucination in time to stop a tragedy from happening.

Lionheart to be arrested for blogging in the UK

2008-02-19T00:23:00.000-05:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Freedom of Speech is in danger, not only in the United Kingdom, but in the United States as well.

At issue is Paul Ray aka Lionheart and his plight. If he returns to the UK, he will be arrested for suspicion of inciting racial hatred because he has a blog about Islam and Jihadism - view Lionheart's Blog here. He is currently in America and in the process of applying for political asylum. Hopefully our asylum laws will protect his ability to speak freely in this country, for now.

What is interesting is that the United States is slowly going in the direction of the UK. Remember last fall when nooses were found at Columbia University? The first reaction of local government was to propose the creation of another law banning nooses or the image of nooses. As offensive as a noose can be, I certainly don't want laws prohibiting certain images to be enacted. What if someone wrote a play about Mussolini's execution? Would the playwright be arrested for having a noose as part of the set?

Another thing I find interesting is that a swastika was also scrawled at Columbia University around the same time, but no local governmental official called on the banning of the image of the swastika.

It seems that American governmental officials pick and choose what constitutes a hate crime and what doesn't and what constitutes an offensive image and what doesn't.

Maybe we should go back to the days before hate crimes were labeled as such and punish offenses based on the severity of the act, not the thought behind the act. If our government can't be fair and balanced in labeling all hate crimes as hate crimes, then perhaps it shouldn't even make the attempt.

Back to Lionheart - as you can see, the USA is headed in the same direction as the UK. What is sadder is that so many citizens of the United States would be all for banning speech that is critical of religions, race, nationality, etc... because at face value, it seems like a reasonable and civilized thing to do. This, of course, is the true danger, because when certain religions aren't civilized but you're banned from speaking up about it, you're now impotent.

Americans are very short-sighted. Basics from our forefathers should be reintroduced to America at large - it seems we have forgotten their warnings.

Is America Asleep?

2007-11-30T23:22:00.000-05:00

Okay, this may be a simplistic way of viewing things, but does anyone else find the following facts alarming:

1. The US Ambassador to the UN is a Persian American who tried to push through a resolution regarding the recent Mideast conference in Annapolis without consulting anyone, including our own government.

2. Bush is cutting the 2008 Counterterrorism Budget by 1/2.

3. There are over 30 Jamaat ul Fuqra paramilitary camps throughout the US that aren't being touched by the FBI and whose mission is to "purify Islam through violence" and is largely comprised of convicted felons who are Islamic "reverts." Nor has the media even discussed this alarming situation.

4. Congress passed a resolution acknowledging Ramadan - the first resolution ever to be passed by the US Congress to acknowledge a religious holiday. The resolution also expresses the "deepest respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world." It was adopted in the U.S. House of Representatives October 2 by a vote of 376-0.

5. The FBI has received "sensitivity training" by the Council on American Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, which seques into...

6. The Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas this year received virtually no mainstream press.

7. The Muslims who were caught in Goose Creek, South Carolina had a trunk full of cut PVC pipe filled with potassium nitrate, which is used to make explosives. This was scarcely mentioned in the mainstream media, including Fox. These boys even uploaded jihadist, anti-American videos onto YouTube.

8. Another media blackout occurred with the Utah mall gunman, another Muslim.

9. State universities are installing religious footbaths at taxpayer expense.

10. Ahamdinejad was given a visa to enter the US, given a platform at Columbia University and the at UN, all while he's supporting attacks on American military troops in Iraq.

11. A teacher was jailed in the Sudan for allowing a student (she didn't even name it herself) to name his teddy bear Mohammed. Hundreds of Muslims in the Sudan are calling for her execution - and there is no "moderate Muslim" outrage.

This is only but a handful of facts that I find disturbing. Appeasement is at an all time high.

What do you think?

The Future of Islam?

2007-07-17T17:43:00.000-04:00

What the history's greatest world leaders said about Islam

2007-06-23T19:17:00.000-04:00

Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson, two incredibly well-versed, thoughtful, and great leaders, have something in common. They both saw the danger in the ideology of Islam. When the politically correct apologists of Islam tell us "Islam is peaceful," or "it's only a small minority of Muslims who undertake or support terrorist tactics," we can see that these two world leaders whose reputations for insight, intellect, or fairness have never been sullied, knew better and were more honest than today's "leaders."

Here's what Winston Churchill wrote about Islam in an excerpt from his 1899 book, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan...

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

And here is what Thomas Jefferson said about Islam in his report to Secretary of State John Jay, and Congress, as written in the book "AMERICAN SPHINX The Character of Thomas Jefferson," by Joseph J. Ellis...

"Several muslim countries along the North African coast had established the tradition of plundering the ships of European and American merchants in the western Mediterranean and eastern Atlantic, capturing the crews and then demanding ransom from the respective governments for their release. In a joint message to their superiors in Congress, Adams and Jefferson described the audacity of these terrorist attacks, pirates leaping onto defenseless ships with daggers clenched in their teeth. They had asked the ambassador from Tripoli, Adams and Jefferson explained, on what grounds these outrageous acts of unbridled savagery could be justified: 'The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of the prophet, that it was written in their koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their [islams] authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners...'"

This event occured between 1784-1789 while Jefferson was ambassador to France and Adams (2nd president) was ambassador to England.

Update: Teddy Roosevelt weighs in on Islam. The following passages were written in 1916 in Teddy Roosevelt’s book, “Fear God and Take Your Own Part”, reproduced in “What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur’an” by William Federer.

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Africa at this moment solely because the seventh century Christians of Asia and Africa had trained themselves not to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to fight.Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, an on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor. …..The civilization of Europe, American and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel in the eighth century and those of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. During the thousand years that included the careers of the Frankish soldier and the Polish king, the Christians of Asia and Africa proved unable to wage successful war with the Moslem conquerors; and in consequence Christianity practically vanished from the two continents; and today, nobody can find in them any “social values” whatever, in the sense in which we use the words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan influences are concerned.There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do — that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.

Dr. Judy Wood claims 911 was an inside job

2007-04-07T11:53:00.000-04:00

Dr. Judy Wood, the Engineering "expert" behind the latest "911 was an inside job" theory is interviewed by physicist, Dr. Greg Jenkins. How credible is this "expert?" You decide.

Hillary Clinton Denounces Palestinian Schools...and no one heard about it

2007-02-10T20:11:00.000-05:00

On Thursday, February 8th, Hillary Clinton held a press conference with Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of Palestinian Media Watch. At 11:15 am on Thursday, the Press Conference was held in which Hillary Clinton denounced the Palestinian school curriculum for "indoctrination instead of education." Yet, there wasn't a single mention of Hillary's statements in the US Press, or the European Press, or the Islamic Press - the only story I saw on this was from an Israeli publication called Ynet. It finally appeared on Hillary Clinton's website today here. I have to wonder about the mainstream press - if Hillary had made an announcement denouncing Israel it would've been front page news. I am sadly under the impression that the media tends to be pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Below is the statement Clinton made:

New Palestinian schoolbooks present a world without Israel, turn territorial dispute into religious conflict, andreflect an anti-western bias

Washington, DC - The new Palestinian Authority (PA) textbooks for Grade 12 encourage students to see Israel, the US and the West as enemies, and portray the PA's territorial disputes with Israel as an existential religious conflict for Islam, according to a report released today by Palestinian Media Watch and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The report, "From Nationalist Battle to Religious Conflict: New 12th Grade Palestinian Textbooks Present a World Without Israel," was written by PMW director Itamar Marcus and associate director Barbara Crook, and analyzes eight textbooks released at the end of 2006.

According to the report, the new books create for students an image, both textual and visual, of a world without Israel. They reject Israel's right to exist, while describing its founding as a "catastrophe that is unprecedented in history." According to the report, the books encourage students to see themselves as victims of Israel's existence, and actively prevent these young people from seeing Israel as a neighbor to live beside in peace. The history books barely acknowledge the peace process. This is compounded by the presentation of the conflict as a religious conflict to defend Islamic land, and leaves no latitude or religious option for students to have positive -- or even neutral -- attitudes towards Israel.

The textbooks likewise portray the US and the West in negative terms, describing the relationship as a "clash of civilizations." The books teach that the US is a human rights abuser and a violator of international humanitarian law. The texts assert that the US is an economic supporter of Israel, while completely ignoring the US aid to the PA and to Palestinian humanitarian projects."

I believe that education is one of the keys to lasting peace in the Middle East and for this reason I am very concerned with these findings. Ever since we first raised this issue some years ago there still has not been an adequate repudiation of incitement by the Palestinian Authority. It is even more disturbing that the problem appears to have gotten worse. These textbooks don't give Palestinian children an education, they give them an indoctrination," Senator Clinton said.

"Teaching Palestinian children that the conflict is religious and not territorial will leave no possibility for compromise and could guarantee another generation of conflict," said Marcus.

The Grade 12 texts analyzed in the PMW report are the most recent books to be written by the Palestinian Curriculum Development Center. The director of the curriculum committee, Dr. Naim Abu Al-Humos, is a long-time member of the Fatah party and was appointed PA Minister of Higher Education in 2002, under Yasser Arafat, and continued after PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's election."

It's very significant and disturbing that these new books contain ideology that has been associated mainly with Hamas - especially the unequivocal denial of Israel's right to exist and the portrayal of the conflict with Israel as a religious struggle, not a territorial dispute," says co-author Crook. "But this ideology is being prepared for Palestinian youth by veteran Fatah educators, not by Hamas."

Click to see the report in pdf, click here.

For more information or copies of the report contact:
Nina Blackwell (Senator Clinton's Office) 917-584-4314
Itamar Marcus (PMW) 646-641-0905
Barbara Crook (PMW) 613-220-4570

Ayann Hirsi Ali - A Great Woman in Great Denial

2007-02-05T11:59:00.000-05:00

Letter to Ayann Hirsi Ali:

I have a question regarding your interview with Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times. You said in response to one of Ms. Goodstein's questions in describing a lack of an alternative message to militancy, "And every time there is a debate between a real jihadi and, say, what we have decided to call moderate Muslims, the jihadis win. Because they come with the Koran and quotes from the Koran. The come with quotes from the Hadith and the Sunnah, and the traditions of the prophet. And every assertion they make, whether it is that women should be veiled, or Jews should be killed, or Americans are our enemies, or any of that, they win. Because what they have to say is so consistent with what is written in the Koran and the Hadith."

Then in response to profiling Muslims in the post 9-11 era, you stated "However, I would say singling out people that you think are Muslims simply because they might is not something in an open society that you can defend."

My question is, if the Koran itself justifies the violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, why would it be so far-fetched to profile Muslims when attempting to vet out threats of violence? If a religion's holy book justifies and even encourages acts of violence against Jews, infidels, women, etc..., how can we, as a civilized society, accept this religion as viable? If one looks to the Koran or the actions of the Prophet Mohammed as examples to follow, how could Islam ever be anything but violent?

Read the New York Times interview here.

2,996 Project - Honoring the Memory of Debbie DiMartino - Victim of the attack on 9/11

2006-09-08T16:49:00.000-04:00

In memory of Debbie DiMartino of Prince's Bay, Staten Island, New York. Wife, mother, daughter, sister, compassionate soul.

Assigned randomly by the 2,996 Project, I was surprised when I was given the honor of providing a tribute to someone with my name who was my age. I believe that I am meant to learn something from the life that Debbie led. I have to say, I'm a little embarassed by the name of my blog in this context, but I assure you that it is not glorifying or making light of death in any way.

Debbie was 36 years old and had been married to Joey DiMartino since she was 20 years old. She left behind two daughters, Danielle, now 16, and Samantha, now 10. She came from a big family, she had a successful career, and she was very much loved. She had a very full life at such a young age and she had accomplished more than many people ever do. I hope this provides comfort to her family and friends. The life Debbie lived on this earth has deep meaning that will continue through the lives of her daughters, her family, and all those she touched.

In trying to learn Debbie's story, I found out that she was the youngest of 8 children and her mother, Mary, had a special bond with her baby girl as described in this love letter. Her husband, Joe, worked the night shift at the Pepsi-Cola plant in Brooklyn - the time they'd spend together was in the evenings after she got home from work and as he was getting ready to leave for work; together they'd help Danielle with her homework and get both girls ready for bed. Read the New York Times article here.

From what I was able to learn about Debbie's last moments on earth, I'm haunted by the fact that she was not fortunate enough to die instantly. I cannot imagine the fear Debbie felt as she was trapped on the 89th floor of the South Tower after United Airlines Flight 175 flew into the building at the 78th through 84th floors. Her boss, Joseph Berry, must have felt confident that the instructions relayed to him from the building's fire command center after the North Tower was hit were appropriate and told Debbie and her coworkers that it was safer to stay put than to leave. We know that one of her coworkers made a phone call to his girlfriend at 9:20 am as he and his coworkers were searching for a way out of the building - the building collapsed at 9:59 am.

For Debbie's family, I respectfully write this tribute to your daughter, wife, mother, sister, aunt, and niece, with you in my heart. I hope you can find peace in knowing that Debbie made an impact on me as she has on those who knew her. Please know that she is still touching people's hearts and lives, even today. I'm so very sorry that she was taken from you so early. Please know how very rich the life she lived was - please find solace in remembering Debbie's kind spirit, warm smile and light-filled eyes - please find comfort when you look at the faces of her daughters and know that Debbie left a part of herself in them - you will never be without her. I am a better person for having learned about Debbie. When I make the trip to New York City from Upstate, and I drive to the beaches of Brooklyn (my personal sanctuary), and I look out toward Staten Island, I will always think of her.

Free at Last! Free at Last! Thank G-d Almighty, Free at Last!

2006-08-27T12:49:00.000-04:00

The two Fox News journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, have made it out alive! I was very happy to learn of this news a short time ago. I was extremely concerned when the last video published of the two captives featured their forced conversion to Islam.

A formerly unknown group called The Holy Jihad Brigade was responsible for their abduction. As reported by Debka.com, the person behind The Holy Jihad Brigade is a Hamas benefactor by the name of Zakaria Dughmush, a follower of the now deceased Jemal Semhadana, head of the Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees. Semhadana was responsible for staging the attack on the US Embassy convoy that took place on October 15, 2003 and killed three American security officers. Debka goes on to say that this is the same group that is responsible for Gilad Shalit's abduction and works directly with Hamas. Ishmail Hanifeh was miraculously able to negotiate their release - similarly to Jill Carroll's release being negotiated by Sunni politician Adnan al-Dulaimi, the man she went to see when she was abducted.

UPDATE: The release of these journalists wasn't so miraculous after all - turns out Fox paid $2 million for their release. While I understand the desperation that prompted this payment - what does it say to these terror groups who take hostages?

Creep of the Week - John M. Lyons

2006-08-27T04:18:00.000-04:00

John M. Lyons of New Orleans, Louisiana is our winner this week! Mr. Lyons has taken being a self-absorbed, crybaby to a whole new level.

Mr. Lyons is suing his neighbor, Mark Morice, for not returning his boat. Mr. Morice willfully, wantonly, irresponsibly and foolhardily borrowed Mr. Lyons' boat to party on the bayou and didn't return it! Shameful!

The party Mr. Morice attended wasn't the usual kind with beer, blues and beignets - it was a rescue party immediately following the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Morice rescued over 200 people, including a 92-year old diabetic man who needed dialysis using Mr. Lyons' prized possession.

Instead of returning the boat to Mr. Lyons, Mr. Morice, after spending hours rescuing people, decided the right thing to do would be to let other rescuers use the boat.

Mr. Lyons could've taken comfort in knowing that with the use of his boat, he participated, albeit indirectly, in saving lives during a terrible collective crisis. Instead Mr. Lyons chose to take another path - that of a spoiled, selfish, petty little man who completely nullified any participation he may have had, directly or indirectly, in saving people's lives.

Mr. Lyons misfortune isn't the loss of his boat, it's the ridicule he will receive for the rest of his life for being the guy who sued his neighbor for saving people during one of the most horrible American tragedies in history (note picture above) .

Mr. Lyons claims that Mr. Morice's motives were to promote his law firm. Mr. Lyons is suing Mr. Morice for the cost of the boat, attorney's fees and court costs, and "mental anguish." I really hope his attorney asked for a jury trial!

UN and UNIFIL's bias against Israel

2006-08-27T01:25:00.000-04:00

As reported in The Weekly Standard by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, head of the Zionist Organization of America's Philadelphia office, UNIFIL broadcast the IDF's every move - locations, munitions, reinforcements - in their daily press releases published on the internet. These publications not only very likely caused Israeli deaths, it goes entirely against UNIFIL's mission pursuant to UN Resolution 425.

Below you can see a sample of a daily press release - these were given in real time and could be viewed by anyone, including Hezbollah:

UNIFIL's Fact Sheet, also available to read on the UNIFIL website, is incredibly misleading and gets very basic historical facts wrong as seen below:

This inaccurate reference to Hezbollah makes it sound like they only arrived in Southern Lebanon in the year 2000, after Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon. There is no mention of Hezbollah existing in Lebanon prior to that time!

Their fact sheet further states that "UNIFIL cannot, of course, compel the Lebanese Government to take the last step and deploy its personnel down to the Blue Line." Why not??? It compelled Israel to leave Lebanon as dictated by UN Resolution 425, why couldn't it compel Lebanon to deploy its troops? It renewed its mandate over and over again instead of holding the Lebanese government accountable for patrolling and protecting its borders.

Finally, as you can see in the excerpt from the UNIFIL Fact Sheet below, the UN did not consult or include Israel in its attempts to "diffuse crises and to promote a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East." The same man who is Kofi Annan's Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process is also the Personal Representative of Kofi Annan to the "Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority." Doesn't the acronym PLO stand for Palestinian Liberation Organization? A subtle, but important, change. The repetition of the term Palestine over recent years has actually trained people to think of Israel as "Palestine." What is Israel's role in Kofi Annan's world?

These extremely covert errors and omissions speak volumes.

Other indications of UN bias against Israel, I'm sure I could come up with thousands of them if I sat down and plowed through text and news stories for the next year, include:

Kofi's immediate claim that Israel purposely targeted the UN troops who were killed by Israeli missiles
The UN Human Rights Commission claiming Israel is guilty of war crimes in targeting civilians, even though Hezbollah wears civilians clothing, hides their weapons in homes, mosques, hospitals and schools, and fires their weapons from behind women and children in apartment buildings, hospitals, and mosques

Why is this body of inertia allowed to even exist and waste resources and money that could be spent actually helping people? Look at its inaction and impotence regarding African countries and the genocides occurring there by Muslims. Look at its complete and utter lack of response to the Beslan massacre where almost 200 schoolchildren were killed and another 300 were injured.

You can view the UNIFIL Fact Sheet with Adobe Acrobat Reader here.

You can view the UNFIL Daily Press Releases with Adobe Acrobat Reader here.

No New Terror Attacks on US soil since 9/11/01?

2006-08-26T21:52:00.000-04:00

January 5, 2002

Charles Bishop fka Charles Bisha, was a 15-year old, Syrian-American boy who flew a cessna into the Bank of America Building in Tampa, Florida. His suicide note praised Osama Bin Ladin and denounced Israel. It also claimed he'd been contacted for recruitment by al Qaida but declined.

July 4, 2002

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian national who lived in Irvine, California, showed up at the El Al terminal at LAX and shot and killed two Israelis. These murders were classified as terrorism once the FBI found that Hadayet had al Qaida ties.

September 5-October 22, 2002

John Allen Mohammed kills at least 10 people in Virginia, Maryland, Alabama, and Louisiana as the DC sniper.

August 6, 2003

Saudi National and college student Mohammed Ali Alayed slit the throat of his former friend, Ariel Sallouk in Houston, Texas. Mohammed cut ties with Ariel when Mohammed became a more devout Muslim. The night he murdered Ariel, Mohammed called his former friend suggesting the two get together. After having a couple of drinks at a local bar, they returned to Mohammed's apartment. As they talked with Mohammed's roommate, Mohammed came behind Ariel and slit his throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating him. Mohammed then said he would try to get back to Saudi Arabia and fled. He went to a mosque after the murder. Police later found him hiding in a vacant apartment in his complex. There was no argument prior to the murder.

October 27, 2003

Kerron Lavern Otis shot and killed Frederick Wayne Arnold, a deacon at the New Covenant Church, located next to where he had been fishing. Otis then stole Deacon Arnold's car. According to a statement made by the Jefferson County District Attorney's office, Otis had been seeking out a Christian to kill and claimed he was Muslim. The Islamic Center of Port Arthur and the Islamic Society of the Triplex disavowed any affiliation with Otis. During past arrests, Otis had been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.

October 1, 2005

Joel Henry Hinrichs III, a student at University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma, blows himself up near the packed football stadium after trying to and failing to gain access to the stadium. He was in possession of a significant amount of Jihadi material. Reports indicate that he had attempted to purchase a large amount of ammonium nitrate at a feed store before the bombing. Police found a large amount of explosives at Hinrichs' apartment.

March 3, 2006

Mohammed Taheri-azar, a Iranian-American student at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, drove a rented SUV into a crowd of students having lunch in an area known as The Pit, not readily accessible by cars, in an attempt to kill Americans. Mohammed stated that he was retaliating against Americans in response to American killing of Muslims throughout the world and to spread the will of Allah. He turned himself in and was proud of what he'd done. A note left in his apartment indicated that he would've preferred to shoot his victims but he had difficulty obtaining a gun. Pepper spray and a knife were found in the SUV he was driving.

July 28, 2006

Naveed Haq, a Pakistani-American who identified himself as a "Muslim-American" made it past security and shot 6 people, killing one woman, at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. He claimed he was "angry at Israel" prior to shooting his victims. This has been classified as a hate crime.

August 2, 2006

A molotav cocktail was thrown at a door at the Baltimore Hebrew University by an unknown perpetrator.

August 29, 2006

Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghani Muslim living in Fremont, California, went on a hit-and-run rampage with his SUV and mowed down 14 pedestrians and bicyclists in the San Francisco area over a 1/2 hour period, killing one man in Fremont. The rampage ended in Laurel Heights. While his family and attorney claim he is mentally ill, witnesses and arresting officers say he seemed aware, rational, and remorseless. During initial interviews, Popal claimed he committed these acts "because he just wanted to." Two of his victims were run over in front of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco on California Street.

Stop the US-Israeli War Rally

2006-08-13T03:26:00.000-04:00

Stop the US-Israeli War Rally
San Francisco, CA
August 12, 2006

This is what the caring, humanistic left has either become or has aligned itself with. Time for me to hand in my democratic party voter's card. Sickening.

picture republished from Little Green Footballs Blog - thanks!

Doubting Olmert

2006-08-12T19:21:00.000-04:00

Maybe there's some information I'm not privy to - but I think I stand with the majority of Jews when I say I'm exasperated with Ehud Olmert at the moment.

When will Israel do what it needs to do? Even Americans who aren't Jewish are saying, "Huh? What just happened?" Why did Olmert even give the go-ahead to the US to move forward with any type of Cease-Fire agreement? Even if it's just playing politics and won't be honored by either side - it serves no purpose other than to give Hezbollah time to think of ways to attack Israel and this fight will have to be refought eventually - more likely sooner than later.

Now, after one month of fighting, Israel is more aware of Hezbollah's capabilities and tactics - and so Hezbollah is of Israel's. This timid way of fighting war - especially against guerillas who hide amongst women and children - has not served anyone well. It has made the guerilla enemies stronger and bolder, it has made those trying to "minimize civilian casualties" seem weak, and it has made the deaths that did occur pointless - because nothing will have been achieved and the fighting will just be regurgitated over and over again - ultimately causing more death than just fighting to win would've caused.

I'm not sure if Olmert caved to public pressure, which is anti-semitic in nature, or if the US gave him an ultimatum with military consequences, or if he has something up his sleeve, or if he was just extremely short-sighted.

Let's talk about the UN resolution - why did Israel agree to a UN force? A NATO force would've made more sense after 2 decades of UN troops turning a blind eye while Hezbollah became a full-fledged army. Would there have been no resolution if a NATO force was demanded by Israel? Is a NATO force too much of a real military for Hezbollah? When the subject of cease-fire agreements was first broached , I seem to recall Hezbollah saying that they would not accept a NATO force. It seems that Hezbollah got far more from this resolution than Israel did. What did Israel receive? The return of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev alive and well? We shall see. What about Gilad Shalit? What about the 8 nameless and forgotten soldiers murdered by Hezbollah at the onset of this? What about Eliahu Asheri? Hamas and Hezbollah are being operated out of Damascus and openly assist one another on the front against Israel, despite the fact that one is Shia and one is Sunni. I don't think it was coincidence that Hamas and Hezbollah both decided to abduct and murder Israelis a little over a month ago.

In just this battle alone, Hezbollah succeeded in killing and maiming many Israelis, forced Israeli citizens to become refugees, obtained an upper-hand militarily, obtained support from non-Shia Lebanon, and it got the UN to change its position regarding Cheeba Farms, which the UN formerly assigned as Syrian territory in Resolution 1559. Hezbollah clearly won this battle I'm ashamed to say.

This trend of stopping short is not helping Israel - neither domestically nor internationally. During the first Gulf War when scuds were flying at Tel Aviv, Israel was asked to do nothing by America to avoid inflaming other islamic countries into joining Iraq, and Israel abided. Again, obvious demands by the US that Israel negotiate a cease-fire agreement has apparently had something to do with Olmert's decision.

I think responding with such restraint not only damages the view of Israel as weak by other countries, it also hurts the collective self-esteem of Israel. Israelis don't feel safe or protected - so in turn they become apathetic when it comes to the loyalty and patriotism for Israel. The passion to maintain a viable and safe Jewish homeland has dwindled and anti-semitism has become acceptable again. The Seattle Jewish Federation murder and shootings have already been forgotten. Should we blame ourselves?

Then there is the issue of public opinion and PR and if this perhaps contributed to Olmert's decision. While Israel seems to be bad at PR - it also has anti-semitism going against it - making Israel's PR battle that much more difficult. Some feel Israel shouldn't have to explain itself and that it should be obvious who the enemy is. Some feel that you cannot explain to people who hate Jews anyway. I agree that explaining does no good - but exposure does wonders. Qana was a good example - but again, Israel stopped short. They didn't keep pushing questions and facts into the forefront - such as the kids who were initially reported to be related (27-37 of them?) were actually disabled (disposable), or the burning question "where were the men?" or the fact that the explosion happened 8 hours after Israel hit the building, or Mr. Green Helmet's presence.

Maybe this UN Resolution and Olmert's agreement to it is preparation for something bigger - after all, Iran has a deadline with sanctions to be imposed as of August 31st if it doesn't stop enriching uranium (which it won't) and there is some big Islamic importance attached to August 22nd. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

Something in Common?

2006-08-12T18:06:00.000-04:00

Caliphate Agenda Nothing New

2006-08-12T17:21:00.000-04:00

OPINIONJOURNAL FEDERATION from Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Islam's Imperial Dreams
Muslim political ambitions aren't a reaction to Western encroachments.
BY Efraim Karsh
Tuesday, April 4, 2006 12:01 a.m.

When satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper sparked a worldwide wave of Muslim violence early this year, observers naturally focused on the wanton destruction of Western embassies, businesses, and other institutions. Less attention was paid to the words that often accompanied the riots--words with ominous historical echoes. "Hurry up and apologize to our nation, because if you do not, you will regret it," declared Khaled Mash'al, the leader of Hamas, fresh from the Islamist group's sweeping victory in the Palestinian elections:

This is because our nation is progressing and is victorious. . . . By Allah, you will be defeated. . . . Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good.

Among Islamic radicals, such gloating about the prowess and imminent triumph of their "nation" is as commonplace as recitals of the long and bitter catalog of grievances related to the loss of historical Muslim dominion. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly alluded to the collapse of Ottoman power at the end of World War I and, with it, the abolition of the Ottoman caliphate. "What America is tasting now," he declared in the immediate wake of 9/11, "is only a copy of what we have tasted. Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more than 80 years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated." Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's top deputy, has pointed still farther into the past, lamenting "the tragedy of al-Andalus"--that is, the end of Islamic rule in Spain in 1492.

These historical claims are in turn frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda. But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance. It goes by the name of empire.

"I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah.' " With these farewell words, the prophet Muhammad summed up the international vision of the faith he brought to the world. As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal, it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising "struggle in the path of Allah," or jihad. As the 14th-century historian and philosopher Abdel Rahman ibn Khaldun wrote, "In the Muslim community, the jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Islamic mission and the obligation [to convert] everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."

As a historical matter, the birth of Islam was inextricably linked with empire. Unlike Christianity and the Christian kingdoms that once existed under or alongside it, Islam has never distinguished between temporal and religious powers, which were combined in the person of Muhammad. Having fled from his hometown of Mecca to Medina in 622 c.e. to become a political and military leader rather than a private preacher, Muhammad spent the last ten years of his life fighting to unify Arabia under his rule. Indeed, he devised the concept of jihad shortly after his migration to Medina as a means of enticing his local followers to raid Meccan caravans. Had it not been for his sudden death, he probably would have expanded his reign well beyond the peninsula.

The Qur'anic revelations during Muhammad's Medina years abound with verses extolling the virtues of jihad, as do the countless sayings and traditions (hadith) attributed to the prophet. Those who participate in this holy pursuit are to be generously rewarded, both in this life and in the afterworld, where they will reside in shaded and ever-green gardens, indulged by pure women. Accordingly, those killed while waging jihad should not be mourned: "Allah has bought from the believers their soul and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the path of Allah; they kill and are killed. . . . So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph."

But the doctrine's appeal was not just otherworldly. By forbidding fighting and raiding within the community of believers (the umma), Muhammad had deprived the Arabian tribes of a traditional source of livelihood. For a time, the prophet could rely on booty from non-Muslims as a substitute for the lost war spoils, which is why he never went out of his way to convert all of the tribes seeking a place in his Pax Islamica. Yet given his belief in the supremacy of Islam and his relentless commitment to its widest possible dissemination, he could hardly deny conversion to those wishing to undertake it. Once the whole of Arabia had become Muslim, a new source of wealth and an alternative outlet would have to be found for the aggressive energies of the Arabian tribes, and it was, in the Fertile Crescent and the Levant.

Within twelve years of Muhammad's death, a Middle Eastern empire, stretching from Iran to Egypt and from Yemen to northern Syria, had come into being under the banner of Islam. By the early 8th century, the Muslims had hugely extended their grip to Central Asia and much of the Indian subcontinent, had laid siege to the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, and had overrun North Africa and Spain. Had they not been contained in 732 at the famous battle of Poitiers in west central France, they might well have swept deep into northern Europe.
Though sectarianism and civil war divided the Muslim world in the generations after Muhammad, the basic dynamic of Islam remained expansionist. The short-lived Umayyad dynasty (661-750) gave way to the ostensibly more pious Abbasid caliphs, whose readiness to accept non-Arabs solidified Islam's hold on its far-flung possessions. From their imperial capital of Baghdad, the Abbasids ruled, with waning authority, until the Mongol invasion of 1258. The most powerful of their successors would emerge in Anatolia, among the Ottoman Turks who invaded Europe in the mid-14th century and would conquer Constantinople in 1453, destroying the Byzantine empire and laying claim to virtually all of the Balkan peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean.

Like their Arab predecessors, the Ottomans were energetic empire-builders in the name of jihad. By the early 16th century, they had conquered Syria and Egypt from the Mamluks, the formidable slave soldiers who had contained the Mongols and destroyed the Crusader kingdoms. Under Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, they soon turned northward. By the middle of the 17th century they seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe, only to be turned back in fierce fighting at the gates of Vienna in 1683--on September 11, of all dates. Though already on the defensive by the early 18th century, the Ottoman empire--the proverbial "sick man of Europe"--would endure another 200 years. Its demise at the hands of the victorious European powers of World War I, to say nothing of the work of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the father of modern Turkish nationalism, finally brought an end both to the Ottoman caliphate itself and to Islam's centuries-long imperial reach.

To Islamic historians, the chronicles of Muslim empire represent a model of shining religious zeal and selfless exertion in the cause of Allah. Many Western historians, for their part, have been inclined to marvel at the perceived sophistication and tolerance of Islamic rule, praising the caliphs' cultivation of the arts and sciences and their apparent willingness to accommodate ethnic and religious minorities. There is some truth in both views, but neither captures the deeper and often more callous impulses at work in the expanding umma set in motion by Muhammad. For successive generations of Islamic rulers, imperial dominion was dictated not by universalistic religious principles but by their prophet's vision of conquest and his summons to fight and subjugate unbelievers.

That the worldly aims of Islam might conflict with its moral and spiritual demands was evident from the start of the caliphate. Though the Umayyad monarchs portrayed their constant wars of expansion as "jihad in the path of Allah," this was largely a façade, concealing an increasingly secular and absolutist rule. Lax in their attitude toward Islamic practices and mores, they were said to have set aside special days for drinking alcohol--specifically forbidden by the prophet--and showed little inhibition about appearing nude before their boon companions and female singers.

The coup staged by the Abbasids in 747-49 was intended to restore Islam's true ways and undo the godless practices of their predecessors; but they too, like the Umayyads, were first and foremost imperial monarchs. For the Abbasids, Islam was a means to consolidating their jurisdiction and enjoying the fruits of conquest. They complied with the stipulations of the nascent religious law (shari'a) only to the extent that it served their needs, and indulged in the same vices--wine, singing girls, and sexual license--that had ruined the reputation of the Umayyads.

Of particular importance to the Abbasids was material splendor. On the occasion of his nephew's coronation as the first Abbasid caliph, Dawud ibn Ali had proclaimed, "We did not rebel in order to grow rich in silver and in gold." Yet it was precisely the ever-increasing pomp of the royal court that would underpin Abbasid prestige. The gem-studded dishes of the caliph's table, the gilded curtains of the palace, the golden tree and ruby-eyed golden elephant that adorned the royal courtyard were a few of the opulent possessions that bore witness to this extravagance.
The riches of the empire, moreover, were concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many. While the caliph might bestow thousands of dirhams on a favorite poet for reciting a few lines, ordinary laborers in Baghdad carried home a dirham or two a month. As for the empire's more distant subjects, the caliphs showed little interest in their conversion to the faith, preferring instead to colonize their lands and expropriate their wealth and labor. Not until the third Islamic century did the bulk of these populations embrace the religion of their imperial masters, and this was a process emanating from below--an effort by non-Arabs to escape paying tribute and to remove social barriers to their advancement. To make matters worse, the metropolis plundered the resources of the provinces, a practice inaugurated at the time of Muhammad and reaching its apogee under the Abbasids. Combined with the government's weakening control of the periphery, this shameless exploitation triggered numerous rebellions throughout the empire.

Tension between the center and the periphery was, indeed, to become the hallmark of Islam's imperial experience. Even in its early days, under the Umayyads, the empire was hopelessly overextended, largely because of inadequate means of communication and control. Under the Abbasids, a growing number of provinces fell under the sway of local dynasties. With no effective metropolis, the empire was reduced to an agglomeration of entities united only by the overarching factors of language and religion. Though the Ottomans temporarily reversed the trend, their own imperial ambitions were likewise eventually thwarted by internal fragmentation.

In the long history of Islamic empire, the wide gap between delusions of grandeur and the centrifugal forces of localism would be bridged time and again by force of arms, making violence a key element of Islamic political culture. No sooner had Muhammad died than his successor, Abu Bakr, had to suppress a widespread revolt among the Arabian tribes. Twenty-three years later, the head of the umma, the caliph Uthman ibn Affan, was murdered by disgruntled rebels; his successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was confronted for most of his reign with armed insurrections, most notably by the governor of Syria, Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufian, who went on to establish the Umayyad dynasty after Ali's assassination. Mu'awiya's successors managed to hang on to power mainly by relying on physical force, and were consumed for most of their reign with preventing or quelling revolts in the diverse corners of their empire. The same was true for the Abbasids during the long centuries of their sovereignty.

Western academics often hold up the Ottoman empire as an exception to this earlier pattern. In fact the caliphate did deal relatively gently with its vast non-Muslim subject populations--provided that they acquiesced in their legal and institutional inferiority in the Islamic order of things. When these groups dared to question their subordinate status, however, let alone attempt to break free from the Ottoman yoke, they were viciously put down. In the century or so between Napoleon's conquests in the Middle East and World War I, the Ottomans embarked on an orgy of bloodletting in response to the nationalist aspirations of their European subjects. The Greek war of independence of the 1820's, the Danubian uprisings of 1848 and the attendant Crimean war, the Balkan explosion of the 1870's, the Greco-Ottoman war of 1897--all were painful reminders of the costs of resisting Islamic imperial rule.

Nor was such violence confined to Ottoman Europe. Turkey's Afro-Asiatic provinces, though far less infected with the nationalist virus, were also scenes of mayhem and destruction. The Ottoman army or its surrogates brought force to bear against Wahhabi uprisings in Mesopotamia and the Levant in the early 19th century, against civil strife in Lebanon in the 1840's (culminating in the 1860 massacres in Mount Lebanon and Damascus), and against a string of Kurdish rebellions. In response to the national awakening of the Armenians in the 1890's, Constantinople killed tens of thousands--a taste of the horrors that lay ahead for the Armenians during World War I.

The legacy of this imperial experience is not difficult to discern in today's Islamic world. Physical force has remained the main if not the sole instrument of political discourse in the Middle East. Throughout the region, absolute leaders still supersede political institutions, and citizenship is largely synonymous with submission; power is often concentrated in the hands of small, oppressive minorities; religious, ethnic, and tribal conflicts abound; and the overriding preoccupation of sovereigns is with their own survival.

At the domestic level, these circumstances have resulted in the world's most illiberal polities. Political dissent is dealt with by repression, and ethnic and religious differences are settled by internecine strife and murder. One need only mention, among many instances, Syria's massacre of 20,000 of its Muslim activists in the early 1980's, or the brutal treatment of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish communities until the 2003 war, or the genocidal campaign now being conducted in Darfur by the government of Sudan and its allied militias. As for foreign policy in the Middle East, it too has been pursued by means of crude force, ranging from terrorism and subversion to outright aggression, with examples too numerous and familiar to cite.

Reinforcing these habits is the fact that, to this day, Islam has retained its imperial ambitions. The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. Even the ostensibly secular doctrine of pan-Arabism has been effectively Islamic in its ethos, worldview, and imperialist vision. In the words of Nuri Said, longtime prime minister of Iraq and a prominent early champion of this doctrine: "Although Arabs are naturally attached to their native land, their nationalism is not confined by boundaries. It is an aspiration to restore the great tolerant civilization of the early caliphate."

That this "great tolerant civilization" reached well beyond today's Middle East is not lost on those who hope for its restoration. Like the leaders of al Qaeda, many Muslims and Arabs unabashedly pine for the reconquest of Spain and consider their 1492 expulsion from the country a grave historical injustice waiting to be undone. Indeed, as immigration and higher rates of childbirth have greatly increased the number of Muslims within Europe itself over the past several decades, countries that were never ruled by the caliphate have become targets of Muslim imperial ambition. Since the late 1980's, Islamists have looked upon the growing population of French Muslims as proof that France, too, has become a part of the House of Islam. In Britain, even the more moderate elements of the Muslim community are candid in setting out their aims. As the late Zaki Badawi, a doyen of interfaith dialogue in the UK, put it, "Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community."

Whether in its militant or its more benign version, this world-conquering agenda continues to meet with condescension and denial on the part of many educated Westerners. To intellectuals, foreign-policy experts, and politicians alike, "empire" and "imperialism" are categories that apply exclusively to the European powers and, more recently, to the United States. In this view of things, Muslims, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere, are merely objects--the long-suffering victims of the aggressive encroachments of others. Lacking an internal, autonomous dynamic of its own, their history is rather a function of their unhappy interaction with the West, whose obligation it is to make amends. This perspective dominated the widespread explanation of the 9/11 attacks as only a response to America's (allegedly) arrogant and self-serving foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As we have seen, however, Islamic history has been anything but reactive. From Muhammad to the Ottomans, the story of Islam has been the story of the rise and fall of an often astonishing imperial aggressiveness and, no less important, of never quiescent imperial dreams. Even as these dreams have repeatedly frustrated any possibility for the peaceful social and political development of the Arab-Muslim world, they have given rise to no less repeated fantasies of revenge and restoration and to murderous efforts to transform fantasy into fact. If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the "lost glory" of the caliphate.

Nor is the vision confined to a tiny extremist fringe. This we saw in the overwhelming support for the 9/11 attacks throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds, in the admiring evocations of bin Laden's murderous acts during the crisis over the Danish cartoons, and in such recent findings as the poll indicating significant reservoirs of sympathy among Muslims in Britain for the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July. In the historical imagination of many Muslims and Arabs, bin Laden represents nothing short of the new incarnation of Saladin, defeater of the Crusaders and conqueror of Jerusalem. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

To the contrary, now that this war has itself met with a so far determined counterattack by the United States and others, and with a Western intervention in the heart of the House of Islam, it has escalated to a new stage of virulence. In many Middle Eastern countries, Islamist movements, and movements appealing to traditionalist Muslims, are now jockeying fiercely for positions of power, both against the Americans and against secular parties. For the Islamists, the stakes are very high indeed, for if the political elites of the Middle East and elsewhere were ever to reconcile themselves to the reality that there is no Arab or Islamic "nation," but only modern Muslim states with destinies and domestic responsibilities of their own, the imperialist dream would die.

It is in recognition of this state of affairs that Zawahiri wrote his now famous letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, in July 2005. If, Zawahiri instructed his lieutenant, al Qaeda's strategy for Iraq and elsewhere were to succeed, it would have to take into account the growing thirst among many Arabs for democracy and a normal life, and strive not to alienate popular opinion through such polarizing deeds as suicide attacks on fellow Muslims. Only by harnessing popular support, Zawahiri concluded, would it be possible to come to power by means of democracy itself, thereby to establish jihadist rule in Iraq, and then to move onward to conquer still larger and more distant realms and impose the writ of Islam far and wide.

Something of the same logic clearly underlies the carefully plotted rise of Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, the (temporarily thwarted) attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to exploit the demand for free elections there, and the accession of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. Indeed, as reported by Mark MacKinnon in the Toronto Globe & Mail, some analysts now see a new "axis of Islam" arising in the Middle East, uniting Hizballah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, elements of Iraq's Shiites, and others in an anti-American, anti-Israel alliance backed by Russia.

Whether or not any such structure exists or can be forged, the fact is that the fuel of Islamic imperialism remains as volatile as ever, and is very far from having burned itself out. To deny its force is the height of folly, and to imagine that it can be appeased or deflected is to play into its hands. Only when it is defeated, and when the faith of Islam is no longer a tool of Islamic political ambition, will the inhabitants of Muslim lands, and the rest of the world, be able to look forward to a future less burdened by Saladins and their gory dreams.

Mr. Karsh is head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London, and his new book, "Islamic Imperialism: A History," on which this article is based, is about to be published by Yale. This article originally appeared in the April issue of Commentary.

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Santorum tells it like it is

2006-08-12T16:01:00.000-04:00

Love him or hate him - Rick Santorum tells it like it is in the following speech:

July 20, 2006, Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, today addressed members of the National Press Club in a speech that defined the unique challenges that confront the United States as we conduct a new world war.

Below is a copy of the speech as prepared for delivery.

"When I came to Washington in 1990 Karen and I were expecting our first child. Like most Americans we were worried about a slowing economy, competition from Japan and the high deficit. But we were also relieved by the end of the Cold War and talk of a peace dividend. In the 1990s, I felt my job representing Pennsylvania in Congress was important, but in retrospect the issues confronting us were not relative to what we are confronted with today.

In 16 years Karen and I have been blessed with the privilege and responsibility of raising six children. Like most Americans we are more concerned about the future of our country. Now most of you would expect me to launch into my oft written speeches about culture, the family, and children. Not today. No today the biggest issue facing our children's future is a war. Not, as so many describe it, the War on Terror. Not the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the world war, which at its heart is just like the previous three global struggles. In those wars we fought against European tyrants and their allies, from the Kaiser to Hitler to Lenin, Stalin, and their heirs. We fought them because we knew that our survival was at stake. The tyrants would never stop attacking until they had defeated us, or we had defeated them. Our only choices imposed on us, not chosen by us were either winning or losing, because there was no way out.

We are in the same kind of conflict today. Some say we are fighting a War on Terror. That is like saying World War II was a war on blitzkrieg. Terror like blitzkrieg is a tactic used by our enemy, not the enemy itself. In World War II we fought Naziism and Japanese imperialism. Today, we are fighting against Islamic fascists. They attacked us on September 11th because we are the greatest obstacle to their openly declared mission of subjecting the entire world to their fanatical rule. I believe that the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from Nazism and Soviet Communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose. Too many people talk about this war as if it were simply an attempt to create fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Iraq and Afghanistan are battlefields in a much broader war, which now includes every continent except Antarctica. Ask the Indians, the Thais, the Egyptians or the Argentines. Ask the Australians, the Indonesians, the British or the Spaniards. All have seen Islamic fascists at work, and have mourned their innocent victims. Islamic fascists have been waging this war against us for a very long time. It did not suddenly erupt on a sunny September day in 2001. Al Qaeda and other such groups had been attacking American targets for decades. A group of Islamic fascists attacked the United States directly, at the World Trade Center, a month into Bill Clinton's first term. So why is it so hard for so many Americans to see the nature of this war? It's not because the enemy is keeping the hostile objectives a secret. Every major Islamic fascist leader, from heads of states to heads of al Qaeda and Hizbollah, has openly identified the United States as their prime target, and repeatedly promises the creation of a new, global, "caliphate" where Islamic fascism will rule mankind.

This language comes from both Sunni and Shi'ite fanatics, whether Arab, Persian, Indonesian, American, or British. And yet we are foolishly reluctant to come to terms with this terrible reality. It's an old, sad story isn't it? Over and over again, our enemies announce their intention to attack us, and we refuse to believe them. Hardly anyone took Mein Kampf seriously and when Nikita Khrushchev pounded his shoe on the table at the U.N., announcing, "We will bury you," it was widely treated as a moment of comic relief. If we have learned anything from the twentieth century, it should be this lesson: when leaders say they are prepared to kill millions of people to achieve their goals, we must take them at their word. Particularly in this case when the enemy sees dying for their cause as a desired objective as opposed to a tragic consequence.

But we have not learned that lesson. I submit as evidence of that fact the recent publications of top secret intelligence programs. If we really believed that the Islamic fascists were a real threat to the future of our country, we would not be screaming and hollering about how our government is tracking terrorists' money, and monitoring their telephone conversations. Instead we'd be screaming and hollering that these programs are being compromised. So why do we choose not to recognize and respect the threat our enemy poses? I think in part because it makes us feel vulnerable. This is not just happening someplace thousands of miles away. The enemy is doing his utmost to kill us, because of who we are, wherever we are, at home or overseas.

That's why, we urgently need good intelligence: The best way to protect us is to know where and how the enemy is planning to strike. That is hard enough, but we also want to do it without unduly compromising our cherished freedoms, including our privacy. We have worked very hard to provide security without compromising liberty. Some leaders saw political advantage in disputing that fact. The result, for one thing a four-year misinformation campaign directed against the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act gave federal agents who investigate national security threats like terrorism; the same types of legal authority FBI agents investigating ordinary crimes have had for decades. Along with improved intelligence and military successes in the Middle East, the Patriot Act is a big factor in why we have not had another domestic attack since 9/11.

And yet, we supporters of the Patriot Act had to fight tooth and nail to get those powers renewed. Even worse, there has been a war against the war: a joint campaign by some people inside the government and allies in the media to undermine critical national security programs. To their shame, the bureaucrats have broken the law by revealing classified information to some in the media. Again, to their shame, some members of the media have put American lives at greater risk by publishing these secrets.

Before 9/11 we were fighting with 20th Century tools. Our national security surveillance activities were governed by a law that had been enacted in 1978, before anyone knew what email was. It did not permit the speed and flexibility needed to identify, and quickly survey, previously unknown threats. We paid a price: in thousands of American lives. America in 2001 said that had to change, so we designed a program to intercept our enemy's international communications, including those that crossed into or out of our country. The program didn't monitor all Americans, or calls wholly inside the United States. It involved only people reasonably suspected of working with the enemy. It was a valuable program. The program may well have prevented domestic terror attacks. Then it was leaked to the press, and it was published. The enemy was thereby given important insights into our capabilities. That story has made it more difficult for us to gather precisely the kind of information we have to have if we are going to thwart future attacks against civilians in America and soldiers on the battlefield. The same thing happened with financial intelligence.

In Belgium, there was a little known hub for international money transfers, a sort of clearinghouse, known as SWIFT, overseen by major national banks in Europe, Japan, and our own Federal Reserve. We got its cooperation to track terrorist transactions. This was a very well designed program. Terrorists had come to believe that whenever we found bundles of their money, we seized it. But in this case, we were wise and patient. We were watching the funds rather than grabbing them. I like to think of the money we didn't seize as an investment in good intelligence, and it was working. We were mapping the tentacles of terrorist networks. The information helped nab a guy called Hambali in Thailand, one of the world's most notorious terrorists and it helped us identify an al Qaeda facilitator here in the United States who was later convicted of providing material support for terrorism. The program was completely legal, and the administration, like the previous program, notified members of Congress from both parties and agreed to extraordinary auditing to make sure the information was only used to pursue the enemy.

The details of this excellent program were published despite the entreaties of government officials and private citizens with great expertise, such as the two ranking members of the 9/11 Commission. Once again, a vital intelligence tool was compromised. It will be hard to win this war if people inside the government violate their oaths and provide information to irresponsible members of the media, who then provide our enemy with information that hurts our country.

But, important as they are, these intelligence and legal issues are only part of our challenge. There is a bigger problem: our fear of speaking clearly, publicly, and consistently about the enemy. It is unfashionable in some quarters to speak about the Islamo fascists, because of the misguided cultural reflex that condemns anyone who speaks critically about others' practices or beliefs. Therefore, we can't say or do anything that might offend Muslims. But that's backwards. The real offense to Muslims is to remain silent about an ideology that produces the systemic murder of innocents. Mostly, Muslim innocents. They are the first victims of Islamic fascism, and the enemy directly targets them, as we have heard once again in the most recent audiotape from Osama bin Laden.

Those who refuse to criticize Islamic fascism undermine the cause of freedom of religion because if the Islamic fascists win this war, no other religion will be permitted to flourish. Paradoxically, when we refuse to criticize anybody, we end up patronizing everyone, which is offensive to everyone and self-defeating. It makes a mockery of freedom of speech, and traps us in the discredited nonsense of moral equivalence. This war is not between two morally equivalent sides; it's a war between brutal totalitarian fascism and freedom.

Our freedom, not just freedom for Iraqis and Afghans. We are the fascists' prime target, and they intend to impose a brutal tyranny on those of us who survive their onslaught. Islamic fascism is the great test of this generation. When we fail to fully grasp the nature of our enemy and the urgency of our victory, our own people become confused and divided, and the fascists are encouraged to believe that we're afraid of them. This has to stop. We have an obligation as leaders to articulate exactly what this threat is, and to defeat it.

The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom, once they understood what was at stake. We had no problem branding communism an evil empire, it was. We had no problem understanding that Nazism and fascism were evil racist empires, they were. We must now bring the same clarity to the war against Islamic fascism.

I recently had the great pleasure of sharing a podium with Natan Sharansky, who refused to be silent in the face of Soviet Communism, and eventually celebrated its downfall. He told me about the surge of hope that went through the Soviet gulag when President Reagan delivered his "evil empire" speech because the dissidents locked in the terrible Gulag realized that the leader of the United States understood their plight, and was determined to bring down their oppressors. Brave men like Sharansky understand, far better than politicians or journalists or college professors, the importance of a proper moral calculus, and the paralyzing effect of misguided moral equivalence.

If we do not recognize that it is right and proper for us to defend our freedom against Islamic fascism, we may well lose this war. The terrorists know that they cannot win on the battlefield against our armed men and women, and so their strategy is aimed at you. With every ied and with every suicide bomber they seek to break our will to fight, to get us to hang our heads and finally say "enough." And they will not stop coming after us until we stop them. This is a truly modern war, a war fought not just on the battlefield, but on the Internet, a war decided less by armies and warplanes than by individuals making individual choices.

Individual Iranians, like Akbar Ganji, have defied the regime of the mullahs and spoken out for freedom and democracy in Iran at the risk of their lives, as have other Muslims throughout the Middle East. Brave Iraqis, like Mithal al-Alusi, have suffered the murder of their children as they speak out for peace, democracy, and reconciliation. Terror plots are defeated every day, one was just foiled in Toronto because patriotic Western Muslims volunteer to penetrate terror cells to protect us all. But individuals also make bad choices.

Journalists made bad choices when they decided to betray the secret of our terrorist surveillance programs, our programs for tracking terrorist finances, and the location of the prisons in which al Qaedaâ's most senior leaders are held. Democrats in Congress make bad choices when they urge the president to withdraw our forces from Iraq before the war there is won. And as you all know, this fall the voters of our country have a choice to make. One vision sees the role of Congress as raising objections, finding reasons not to do things, and punishing those who take risks to defend our nation.

I have a different vision. I want Congress to contribute to victory, not just complain about how long things are taking. And I believe that a member of Congress, especially a United States Senator, has a duty to think independently and speak clearly, not to evade, not to mumble. As some of you may know, I am running for re-election. My opponent says that a senator should ask tough questions. But I don't think, 'How soon can we quit?' is a tough question. I believe a senator has a responsibility to lead with positive solutions, as I have done with the Syria Accountability Act and the Iran Freedom and Support Act.

Which brings us to Iran. The fascist regimes and the Jihadist organizations disagree about some things, but they have a common theme: destroy the West and its leader, America. They comprise a mosaic of different entities and countries. The largest piece of this mosaic, the keystone of the Islamic fascist structure, is Iran. It's a complex mosaic, stretching across the world, but Iran is the central piece, touching all the others in one way or another. Iran not only supports these organizations, it created Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, and is the driving force behind Hamas, but it is a threat to the civilized world all by itself.

This is no secret. Iran is at the top of the State Department's list of countries that support international terrorism, and we Americans know with great sadness how accurate that assessment is. Right after the Islamic Revolution in late 1979, a gang assaulted the American Embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year. In April, 1983, Iranian-supported suicide terrorists killed 60 people in our embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, and six months later 241 U.S. Marines were killed in a similar attack.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has been explicit about the Iranian role in the savage attack against the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and, although it is not often noticed, Iranian so-called U.N. diplomats are regularly asked to leave New York City when they are found photographing subway stations and railroad bridges. Indeed, in its 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden, the Government of the United States made it all very clear: Al Qaeda...forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.

It is therefore no surprise to see Iran actively engaged in support of the terrorists in Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon. The well-known accounts of Iranian activity inside Iraq extend from the recent reports of captured Iranian terrorists and intelligence officers, to the stories, from American and British military officials, of especially lethal mines and roadside bombs of Iranian origin. We have seen Iranian missiles fired at Israeli ships off Lebanon and at Israeli civilians in their homes. Iran reaches into Latin America, in the form of a strategic alliance with the Venezuelan tyrant. It also shows us the ease with which Islamic fascists work with radical leftists. We see this in some of the anti-American demonstrations in Europe. We see it in the cooperation between North Korea and Iran with their rocket and nuclear programs.

Just think about that for a minute: fanatical Muslims working hand in glove with fanatical leftists, bound together by hatred for us. The current public face of Iranian fascism is of course its president, Ahmadi-Nezhad. This is a man who recruited thousands of Iranian children to march to their death by detonating mines in advance of Iranian troops during the Iran/Iraq War. He is truly representative of the face of Islamic fascism in Tehran. When he speaks of destroying Israel and the infidels, it is not his voice alone. In such a regime, no one speaks without the approval of the ruling mullahs, so Ahmadi-Nezhad's words are canonical.

He has told us over and over again that he believes in the imminent arrival of the Shi'ite messiah, the so-called 12th Imam, who Shi'ites believe will return at the end time. What will cause this arrival? According to Ahmadi-Nezhad, a victory of extremist Islam over the infidels and crusaders. That would be us. He is working to hasten that final confrontation, and he, along with other Iranian leaders, openly declare their first step is to remove Israel from the face of the earth, then to defeat the United States.

They have also made it quite clear that Iran intends to use atomic bombs in this confrontation. His predecessor, President Khatami, has made similar statements. In other words, the spokesmen for the central piece of the Islamic fascist mosaic are working to bring about the end of the free world as fast as they possibly can, in order to subject mankind to the slavery of a new Caliphate. These messianic Shi'ites see this as an opportunity to accomplish this long desired mission for radical Islam. Remember, Islamic extremists fought the West over the course of a thousand years to their high-water mark outside the gates of Vienna.

The siege of Vienna lasted until September 1683, September 11, 1683, the next day the united West triumphed. Centuries have passed in relative peace, but now with the combination of oil revenues, off the shelf weapons and technology, and terror as a tactic a virulent alliance of extremist now have a strategy to defeat their enemy, the infidels. A few weeks ago I spoke with a leader of the Independent Student Movement who has escaped to America, and he told me that every young person admitted to college must sign an agreement to 'volunteer' for acts of suicide terrorism.

Nowadays every university student in Iran must attend courses on how to strap on and detonate a suicide bomb. In a recent speech Ahmadi-Nezhad said martyrdom is the greatest virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic fascism is truly evil. Such a regime cannot be permitted to build an arsenal of atomic weapons, and I don't expect that we are going to convince them to abandon their nuclear program at the negotiating table. You can't reason people out of something that they didn't arrive at reasonably in the first place. That is why I believe the only way to change the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to change the regime itself.

The people of Iran who overwhelmingly wish to live in a free society after 27 years of horror want the chance to choose their own leaders and their own policies. They, not the fanatics, should be our negotiating partners. I think President Bush believes that, for it is implicit in almost every statement he has made about Iran. Even a nuclear-free Iran would still be the driving force behind Islamic fascism, and it would continue its murderous policies toward us and all others who do not submit to the dictates of the Supreme Leader. I am sadly convinced that sooner or later we will have to confront this regime.

This is not yet the policy of the United States. In fact, the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which seeks to greatly increase our communication with the Iranian people, and will show the world the seriousness of our opposition to Iran's evil regime, has been vigorously opposed by the State Department. The Iran Freedom and Support Act has sixty-one cosponsors. Its companion bill was passed by the House of Representatives in April with over 350 votes. This legislation has two prime objectives. The first is to put the Senate on record in support for freedom and democracy for the Iranian people, to enable our government to broadcast that message effectively, and to support pro-democracy groups in Iran. The second is to punish countries who contribute to the Iranian nuclear program, by imposing sanctions on countries and companies who trade with Iran in nuclear and dual-use components. I want them to have to choose between doing business with the United States, and doing business with Iran. I think it's an easy choice.

When I recently proposed to attach the basic elements of the Iran Freedom and Support Act as an amendment to the military budget, Secretary of State Rice wrote to oppose it. She said it would hamper her ability to negotiate alongside our allies. I respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State, and I regret that a majority of Senators, including some who are cosponsors of the actual legislation, voted against the amendment.

I think the diplomats have it wrong. When we pass the Iran Freedom and Support Act, its major diplomatic effect will be to strengthen our negotiating position, for it spells out the consequences if Iran does not comply with our reasonable demands. I'm sure the President will sign it when it passes. The language of the State Department's opposition to the Iran Act is virtually identical to their warnings, over several years, about the Syrian Accountability Act that I authored. Yet, the President not only signed it, but he implemented the sanctions to the surprise of many. Still, though Syria is a critical element in the fascist mosaic, Iran is the indispensable piece. Iran is at the center of this war. We have seen that clearly in Lebanon and Gaza, where Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran's proxies, gratuitously attacked Israel.

During the fighting in Lebanon, we learned that Iranian missiles had been fired into Israel and at Israeli and Egyptian ships, and there even seem to have been Iranian Revolutionary Guards officers at the controls. Lebanon cannot survive as a free country if Hezbollah operates from its territory and uses it to stockpile Iranian weapons and give operational space to Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It is intolerable to allow more than ten thousand terrorist-controlled rockets and missiles, aimed at Israel, in southern Lebanon. And Iraq will never have the security it deserves so long as the Islamic fascists are in power in Iran. I believe we must fight for a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel, and a strong Iraq. That requires effective action against Iran. The longer we wait, the more people will be blown up, tortured, incarcerated, intimidated, and assassinated.

In 1979 Iran declared itself our enemy and for 27 years it has proven the truth of those words. A democratic Iran may not end the war against Islamic fascism, but without it this war will last to be our children's war, not just ours. We owe it to them, it is our watch, it is our challenge. Historians may write of this time in American history that we were not the greatest generation- that we fell short on many fronts. But I hope they also write that like our ancestors we too fought for freedom, that we too confronted evil, that we too endured a great trial and won a victory for the future of mankind. Thank you."

Republished from Rick Santorum's senate site.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Zionism

2006-08-12T15:55:00.000-04:00

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

Mr. Green Helmet, Mr. Blue Shorts and other Goebbels lemmings

2006-08-12T14:20:00.000-04:00

The war being fought today is not in Lebanon, is not in Israel, is not in North Korea, is not in Afghanistan and is not in the UK. It's in the media. Any death and destruction from war in the physical world are merely serving as props for the real battlefield, your television and your computer.

Unfortunately, not all the parties in the current war are aware of the location of the real battlefield. Sites like Little Green Footballs, Palestinian Media Watch, CAMERA, Honestreporting.com are doing the work for the rest of us in exposing how the other side is using the media to fight their battles, while the governments of the side of good are busy playing politics and acting like deer caught in headlights when they're hit with a media frenzy that supports the enemy.

It's slowly starting to change. Bush finally named the enemy out loud, "Islamofascists." Sadly, we have yet to see the members of my party be so bold. We are watching an identical parallel to 1936 in this year of 2006. All the players are present - we have the Neville Chamberlains, we have the Winston Churchills, we have the Josef Goebbels, we have the Adolph Hitlers, and we have the FDRs. Many people seem to actually be okay with the anti-Jewish comments of the former President of Malaysia, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Cindy Sheehan, Mel Gibson, the New Black Panthers, Fritz Hollings, and Cynthia McKinney. While people like Michael Graham or Rick Santorum lose their jobs or receive disdain and harsh criticism for accurately identifying Islamic Fascists as an enemy to humanism, freedom, peace and life. Remember what Martin Luther King Jr. said, "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

My political party is not savvy and while they're not bad people, they can be really really stupid. They have consistently lost against republicans due to their naivete - and they are being used to spread an incredibly evil ideology due to the same naivete. Identifying the enemy doesn't mean you're a bigot or racist or xenophobe - it means you can see what's two feet in front of your face. Joe Lieberman gets it because he's Jewish - and it should be obvious to every Jew due to the persecution we have faced. Most of us with a strong Jewish identity are hypervigilant when it comes anti-semitic danger signs. Sadly there are some Jews who don't get it for whatever reason. The democrat and the Jew in me had a hard time being okay with criticizing a "religion" because of what was done to Jews. But with enough repetition of "Allah hu Akbar" being screamed before acts of violence were committed, I finally woke up and feel justified in calling the enemy Islamic fascism because I realized, it's just fascism - not religion. The religion part is a guise about control and imposing an ideology on others. We saw the same thing in the crusades.

Remember Nick Berg's face just before the sword was drawn and put against his neck? He had the most innocent look. You could see that he really thought that people were inherently good and he did not realize he had an enemy who wanted to kill him. His death was tragic and another example of what we're dealing with. Then you have his father - who is a direct victim of crime committed by Islamofascism and he's afraid to say it. He thinks he'll be a bad person for identifying the enemy of freedom, humanism, life and peace because it's walking around calling itself a religion. He wants to blame Israel or western foreign policy for today's terror - what western foreign policy or Israeli "aggression" was responsible for the massacre of Jews in 1929 Hebron? Was it Jews or America that caused the Ottoman Empire and Sultan Suleiman to push into the Middle East and Europe in the name of Allah?

Democrats - please wake up. Do you hate life so much that you're willing to give it up?

Media Manipulations

To see Mr. Green Helmet in action - please visit seconddraft.org.