The Mosque Controversy
By Thomas Sowell
The proposed mosque near where the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed, along with thousands of American lives, would be a 15-story middle finger to America.
It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious, so it is not surprising that the intelligentsia are out in force, decrying those who criticize this calculated insult.
What may surprise some people is that the American taxpayer is currently financing a trip to the Middle East by the imam who is pushing this project, so that he can raise the money to build it. The State Department is subsidizing his travel.
The big talking point is that this is an issue about “religious freedom” and that Muslims have a “right” to build a mosque where they choose. But those who oppose this project are not claiming that there is no legal right to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center.
If anybody did, it would be a matter for the courts to decide — and they would undoubtedly say that it is not illegal to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center attack.
The intelligentsia and others who are wrapping themselves in the Constitution are fighting a phony war against a straw man. Why create a false issue, except to evade the real issue?
Our betters are telling us that we need to be more “tolerant” and more “sensitive” to the feelings of Muslims. But if we are supposed to be sensitive to Muslims, why are Muslims not supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of millions of Americans, for whom 9/11 was the biggest national trauma since Pearl Harbor?
It would not be illegal for Japanese Americans to build a massive shinto shrine next to Pearl Harbor. But, in all these years, they have never sought to do it.
When Catholic authorities in Poland were planning to build an institution for nuns, years ago, and someone pointed out that it would be near the site of a concentration camp that carried out genocide, the Pope intervened to stop it.
He didn’t say that the Catholic Church had a legal right to build there, as it undoubtedly did. Instead, he respected the painful feelings of other people. And he certainly did not denounce those who called attention to the concentration camp.
There is no question that Muslims have a right to build a mosque where they chose to. The real question is why they chose that particular location, in a country that covers more than 3 million square miles.
If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society. So the question is whether those who are planning a Ground Zero mosque want to be part of American society or just to see how much they can get away with in American society?
Can anyone in his right mind believe that this was intended to show solidarity with Americans, rather than solidarity with those who attacked America? Does anyone imagine that the Middle East nations, including Iran, from whom financial contributions will be solicited, want to promote reconciliation between Americans and Muslims?
That the President of the United States has joined the chorus of those calling the Ground Zero mosque a religious freedom issue tells us a lot about the moral dry rot that is undermining this country from within.
In this, as in other things, Barack Obama is not so much the cause of our decline but the culmination of it. He had many predecessors and many contemporaries who represent the same mindset and the same malaise.
There are people for whom moral preening has become a way of life. They are out in force denouncing critics of the Ground Zero mosque.
There are others for whom a citizen of the world affectation puts them one-up on those of us who are grateful to be Americans, and to enjoy a freedom that is all too rare in other countries around the world, even at this late date in human history.
They think the United States is somehow on trial, and needs to prove itself to others by bending over backwards. But bending over backwards does not win friends. It loses respect, including self-respect.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
We need to stand with Israel!!! I am so sick of the world treating terrorists with respect and then turning their backs on Israel. The MSM just keeps lying and lying and lying…
Mainstream Media’s “Flotilla” Fraud
by Joel Mowbray
While the diplomatic fallout from the botched raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla this week will not be known for some time, the mainstream media already has suffered a serious blow to its credibility. As the mainstream media told the story, a freedom-loving band of peace activists were stormed by armed Israeli commandos, resulting in the deaths of at least nine passengers.
What this narrative ignores, however, is the nature of the organizers and the mission itself. The people behind the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” have a long history with terrorists, including al Qaeda. One of the primary sponsors, the Turkish IHH, were identified by the CIA as far back as 1996 as a terrorist-tied entity with links to Iran, and French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere testified that IHH played an “important role” in the failed “millennium plot” in the U.S. in late 1999.
Also missing from the mainstream media coverage was that supplies from the flotilla could have been transported from an Israeli port by truck, after inspection, but that offer was flatly rejected. The reasoning was transparent, considering that flotilla spokeswoman Greta Berlin announced last week to the Agence France Press, “This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege.”
Most tellingly, flotilla passengers were seen on Al-Jazeera last week chanting, “Khyber, Khyber,” a favorite chant of jihadists because it recalls a battle where Mohammed’s army is said to have killed large numbers of Jews.
Had the mainstream media been truly brave, outlets could have given full context, namely that the blockade of Gaza targets the Hamas government and is a joint enterprise of both Israel and Egypt.
There is no “humanitarian crisis,” as claimed by the flotilla’s propaganda, given that approximately 100 aid trucks enter Gaza every day. “Throughout the last few months,” according to the Israel Defense Forces website, “More than 1,200 tons of medicine and medical equipment, 155 tons of food, 2,900 tons of shoes and clothing and 17 million liters of diesel fuel were transferred in to the Gaza Strip.”
The “crisis” that is brewing in Gaza is Hamas’ failing political status. Worsening economic conditions—a direct result of the Israeli-Egyptian blockade—have seriously undermined Hamas’ standing. Media reports out of Gaza in recent months indicate that Hamas can’t meet its government payroll, and ordinary Gazans are on edge.
But not surprisingly, few of these facts found their way into the mainstream media’s coverage.
In a report that could well have been written by the flotilla organizers themselves, the Associated Press wrote of the “violent takeover” and “bloody predawn confrontation” that was “yet another blow to Israel’s international image, already tarnished by war crimes accusations in Gaza and its 3-year-old blockade of the impoverished Palestinian territory.”
Not until the fifth paragraph does the AP even mention that the “impoverished Palestinian territory” is controlled by the “militant Hamas group.”
At least the AP acknowledged that the blockade is not a solo Israeli effort, but rather something the Jewish state has done in conjunction with its Arab neighbor Egypt. The Washington Post yesterday referred to various governments who have “demanded that Israel end its Gaza blockade.” Even though Egypt was mentioned in the story, the Post reporter neglected to note that the Arab state had been a full partner in targeting Hamas with the blockade.
Not to be outdone by others in the mainstream media, though, the New York Times spent considerable time on its website comparing the terrorist-tied angry mob that ambushed and attacked Israeli soldiers to the Holocaust survivors on the Exodus 1947 ship, who were seeking refuge in the Holy Land.
As biased as the media coverage has been, however, it is clear that Israel contributed to the advancement of the flotilla organizers’ propaganda.
No other nation wears a target on its back the way the Jewish state does. Israeli officials know their every action will be scrutinized and dissected under the media microscope, which makes their failure to plan for angry mobs greeting their soldiers as they boarded the boat simply mystifying. Even most Israelis believe that the situation should have been handled differently.
Israel’s inability to deal effectively with a double standard, however, does not excuse the existence of that double standard.
Much like the narrative of Israel’s “peace-loving” enemies, the story of the mainstream media’s downfall is pretty straightforward. As the news titans have continued to disregard the truth, the general public has likewise decided to disregard them.
We face international hypocrisy’
By JPOST.COM STAFF
“This was not a ‘Love Boat’, it was a hate boat.”
“Israel won’t apologize for defending itself,” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday night, as he urged the international community to stop condemning the IDF for its Monday raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla.
He spoke both in Hebrew and then in English at a special press conference in his office, called to address the wave of harsh international criticism against the raid, in which nine people were killed.
“Once again Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment,” Netanyahu said.
In his conversations with international world leaders, Netanyahu said, he had asked them a basic question.
“What would you do? How would your soldiers behave in similar circumstances? In your heart, you all know the truth,” said Netanyahu.
“This might sound like an impossible plea, request or demand,” he continued, adding, “Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself like any other state.”
If ships were allowed to sail to Gaza without inspection as flotilla organizers have demanded, nothing could stop Iran from sending high-level weapons to Hamas in Gaza, said Netanyahu.
Already, he said, Hamas has missiles that can hit major Israeli cities such as Ashkelon, Beersheba and even Tel Aviv. Very soon, their missiles will also be able to reach the outskirts of Jerusalem.
“Israel can not permit Iran to develop a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv,” said Netanyahu. He added that missiles could also be launched from there toward Europe.
“The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow,” he said.
Under international law, Israel had every right to intercept the ship, he said.
When it did so, he added, those on board viciously attacked the soldiers with knives and rods and in some cases they fired guns.
On the tape it is possible to hear them chanting “battle cries against the Jews,” said the prime minister. He said he regretted the loss of life, but that the soldiers had had a right to defend themselves and their country.
“This was not a love boat, this was a hate boat. These were not peace activists, there were supporters of terrorism,” he said.
Videotapes of the raid reflect these details, but for “many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until it is proven guilty. Israel is told it has a right to defend itself, but it is condemned every time it exercises that right,” said Netanyahu.
Netanyahu did not address the calls by the international community for an independent investigation into the incident, but government sources have said that Israel has no intention of complying with that demand.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Unfreakingbelievable! Rush Limbaugh can’t even own a small percentage of an NFL team but this man can have a human rights post???? WHAT??? He is part
Muslim extremist up for human-rights post
Ex–CAIR leader’s ties to wife-beheader, Saudi Arabia questioned
Posted: April 20, 2010
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
After nearly two weeks of raucous debate, the Jacksonville City Council rules committee this week voted 4-1 to recommend University of North Florida professor Parvez Ahmed for a seat on the city’s Human Rights Commission.
Ahmed is the former national chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim-rights group recently identified by FBI agents in federal court as a “front” for the terrorist group Hamas and its radical parent the Muslim Brotherhood.
Federal prosecutors say CAIR conspired in a multimillion-dollar scheme to underwrite Hamas terrorists, who have murdered 17 Americans and injured more than 100 U.S. citizens. As a result, the government blacklisted CAIR as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in the case.
The group remains under criminal investigation by the FBI, which has cut off all formal ties to it despite its high political profile. A federal grand jury in Washington is actively hearing evidence against CAIR.
Ahmed’s nomination now goes to the full council for approval.
Only Councilman Clay Yarborough voted against Ahmed.
“I have too much of a reasonable doubt based on the research I’ve done over the last week and a half,” Yarborough said
Voting in favor of his nomination were council members Art Shad, John Crescimbeni, Denise Lee and Bill Bishop.
The meeting was interrupted by shouting, and police had to escort at least two members of the public out of the building.
Ahmed’s nod to the human-rights panel is opposed by ACT! for America, an anti-Islamist group.
Parvez Ahmed (WOKV-TV, Jacksonville, Fla.)
Randy McDaniel, head of the group’s Jacksonville chapter, observed, “It is surprising that so many people are pushing this individual, and I would ask why.”
McDaniel, who sent a 20-page letter to Jacksonville council members opposing Ahmed’s nomination, asserted that Ahmed has “a checkered past.”
Most recently, Ahmed was criticized for a 2008 speech in which he argued the U.S. government should treat federally designated terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as part of the political process towards peace.
According to the bestselling new book, “Muslim Mafia,” which exposes CAIR and other terrorist front groups, Ahmed huddled with CAIR’s in-house lawyers to consider suing the U.S. and Israel on behalf of Hezbollah, following Israel’s military counterstrikes against Hezbollah terrorist positions in Lebanon in 2006.
Also, during a $50-a-plate CAIR fundraising dinner in 2007, Ahmed presented an award to the founder of Bridges TV – Muzzammil Hassan – who recently confessed to murdering his wife by decapitation, in what authorities believe was an honor killing based on Islamic law, or Shariah. The Islamic legal code is enforced by religious police in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
At the April 7, 2007, fundraiser held at the Hilton Philadelphia, Ahmed personally handed a plaque to Hassan for his work at Bridges, a Muslim TV network. Hassan had approached Ahmed with “a business plan” to make CAIR a partner in the venture, according to “Muslim Mafia.”
Police last year found the decapitated body of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, lying in a hallway of his TV studio in Buffalo, N.Y. Hassan later confessed to sawing off her head with a knife after she sought divorce in the wake of domestic-battery complaints.
According to the book, Ahmed now insists he didn’t know he would be giving out an award to Hassan until the last minute.
“I found out about the awardees the same time when the audience did,” he claims in a Feb. 21, 2009, message posted on Muslim feminist Zerqa Abid’s blog.
He also says CAIR can’t be expected to fully vet those it honors.
“No organization or business can pry into the private lives of those they associate with,” Ahmed says in his post. “So how can Muslim organizations be held accountable for Muzzammil’s private failings?”
CAIR is closely aligned with Saudi Arabia, a religious police state which the State Department has cited as one of the world’s worst abusers of human rights. And the group has received millions of dollars in funding from the kingdom.
In fact, Ahmed has personally solicited money from Saudi officials during fundraising trips to the kingdom, according to “Muslim Mafia,” which cites sensitive State Department cables.
One 2006 communique written by U.S. Embassy staff in Saudi Arabia reported the following after meeting with a CAIR delegation:
“One admitted reason for the group’s current visit to the (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) was to solicit $50 million in governmental and nongovernmental contributions.”
The core delegation, according to the cable, was led by Ahmed, who at the time was CAIR’s chairman.
Dismissing the idea that CAIR or its leaders have had anything to do with Hamas, the then–CAIR chairman claimed: “That’s one of those urban legends about CAIR. It’s fed by the right-wing, pro-Israeli blogosphere.”
However, a letter circulating on Capitol Hill affirms federal law enforcement’s belief that CAIR is a leading front for Hamas inside the United States.
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent the letter last month to four members of Congress who asked for details last fall on how CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror-finance trial against the Holy Land Foundation – Hamas’s fundraising arm in America – and its former officials.
Weich included trial transcripts and exhibits “which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee.” “Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas, which was designated as a terrorist organization in 1995,” the senior Justice Department official said.
The Weich letter indicates the Justice Department has not wavered in its conclusion that the internal records it possesses prove a connection between CAIR and Hamas.
Weich’s letter was requested by U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and her colleagues in direct response to explosive charges against CAIR leveled in the book “Muslim Mafia.”
“We are very concerned about this relationship in light of claims made in the recently published book ‘Muslim Mafia,'” the lawmakers wrote in their original request to the Justice Department for additional information.
Weich’s letter echoes a letter last spring from an FBI congressional liaison explaining why bureau policy bars outreach activities or any communication with CAIR outside of a criminal investigation.
In that letter, assistant FBI director Richard C. Powers said evidence “demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders (including its current president emeritus and its executive director) and the Palestine Committee.” Other exhibits showed that the Palestine Committee was a fundraising and propaganda arm in the United States for Hamas, which has been a U.S.-designated terrorist organization since 1995.
“[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas,” Powers wrote in his 2009 letter to the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner.”
Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York has asked that the FBI’s ban on CAIR be expanded “government-wide.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
And the bozo we have for a president continues to appease the terrorists…
Team Obama Bans “Islamic Radicalism” & “Jihad” From National Security Documents
Wednesday, April 7, 2010, 4:49 AM
Yesterday, he removed nukes from the equation – Today he removed “Islamic radicalism” and “jihad.”
The Obama Administration will remove the terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from national security documents in a new effort to win over Islamic countries.
FOX News reported:
President Barack Obama’s advisers plan to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism” from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say.
The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document is still being written and is unlikely to be released for weeks, and the White House would not discuss it. But rewriting the strategy document is the latest example of Obama putting his stamp on U.S. foreign policy, as with his promises to dismantle nuclear weapons and limit the situations in which they can be used.
The revisions are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change not just how the U.S. talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Liberal Violence: Five Names You Should Know
by John Hawkins
Unfortunately, there are dangerous kooks, trigger-happy wackos, and lone gunmen out there. Bad people exist. Crazy people exist — and every so often, one of them snaps and there’s a resulting body count. To most people, this is just a tragic fact of life.
However, to liberals in the media who are forever baffled by events that the average person has grasped since he was a child, these killers tend to break down into three groups. If they’re devout Muslims and are connected to terrorists, then they must have killed for some reason OTHER than their religion. If they’re conservative murderers, then they must have killed because of Glenn Beck, talk radio, the Tea Party movement, or whoever the hot conservative villain of the moment is and they’re obviously part of a wider trend. On the other hand, if they’re liberal, well then, at best the killer in question must be some random wacko who should immediately be forgotten. At worst, liberals try to paint leftward leaning killers as conservatives. They did this with Pentagon shooter John Patrick Bedell, who was a registered Democrat and the Holocaust museum shooter, James Von Brunn, who was an “anti-Christian, 9/11 ‘truther’ who hated the Bushes and ‘the neo-cons'”.
This is actually quite ironic given that openly violent groups have been tolerated, if not embraced by the Left. ELF, ALF, the Black Panthers, G8 rioters, the black bloc at anti-war rallies, and even the Weathermen are looked upon favorably by liberals.
Still, it’s not enough to simply point out that liberals wink at leftist groups that engage in violence. When the next nutjob kills someone — and regrettably, there will always be a next time — conservatives need examples to point towards when the MSM tries to once again convince the public that only right-wing wackos do that sort of thing. Here are a few worthy examples to throw back at them when they try it.
1) The Earth Liberation Front: Usually, when you point a finger of blame at domestic terrorist groups like ELF and ALF, liberals fall all over themselves to say that, “Nobody has proved that they’ve killed anyone yet.” Well, as long as they’re just engaged in arson and bombings, I guess they’re just peachy!
John Lewis, the FBI’s deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF.
…The ELF has been linked to fires set at sport utility vehicle dealerships and construction sites in various states, while the ALF has been blamed for arson and bombings against animal research labs and the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industry.
Well, certainly no one could support the actions of a group like this, right? Maybe you can ask the people at the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network about that.
2) James Chester Blanning: Do you remember James Chester Blanning? You probably don’t because his bombs didn’t go off. But, just to prove a point, I’m going to post an entire story about Blanning from the SFGate so that no one can claim I left anything out:
Gift-wrapped bombs rattle tony ski enclave
Aspen, Colo. — A onetime resident of this city who had been bitter over its transformation into a playground for the rich left four gift-wrapped bombs downtown in a bank-robbery attempt, turning New Year’s Eve celebrations into a mass evacuation, police said Thursday.
The dangerous bombs were made of gasoline and cell phone parts and came with notes warning of “mass death.” The 72-year-old man suspected of placing them in two banks and in an alleyway on Wednesday shot and killed himself a short time later, police said.
Now, here’s a detail that would have been everywhere in the press had the politics been reversed. Here’s Blanton’s note:
Do not f*** with us or there will be mass death like we have all been part of over in that f***ing quicksand trap that rove and chaney’s monkey bush put us into where so many of our soul mates and brothers died very horrible deaths.
Funny how they didn’t think the Rove and “chaney’s monkey bush” comments were worthy of publication, isn’t it?
3) The Weathermen: There’s no need to go into depth about the Weathermen because you heard it all during the 2008 presidential campaign. But here’s what is worth noting about the Weathermen: They claimed to be involved with 25 bombings, they intended to kill members of the military, and in 2001 Bill Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
What is the moral equivalent of allowing a man like Bill Ayers to teach college students and become such a big wheel in politics that he is able to befriend the President of the United States? There simply is no comparison on the right. It would be like Eric Rudolph being let out of a jail, given a teaching position at Liberty University, and running fundraisers for Mitt Romney. Conservative readers are undoubtedly grimacing in disgust at the very idea. Liberals haven’t batted an eye at doing something just as morally abhorrent.
4) Carol Anne Burger: Burger wasn’t just any old leftie — she was a writer for the Huffington Post who stabbed her roommate 222 times with a screwdriver before she killed herself. Burger’s last story for the HuffPO before she went down the memory hole? “Christian School Teacher Takes Female Students to Palin Rally.” Yes, those Christians and Palin fans — they’re the ones you have to watch out for.
5) The Animal Liberation Front: If the world were a high school class, the crazies at ALF would be voted most likely to deliberately wipe out the human race with a bioweapon to make the world safe for snail darters:
In 1993 the Departments of Justice and Agriculture issued a report to Congress on the “effects of terrorism on enterprises which use animals,” naming ALF as the most significant “radical fringe” animal rights group in the United States. The report stated that between 1979 and 1993, more than 300 incidents of break-ins, vandalism, arson and thefts had been committed in the name of animal rights nationwide. After some ALF members set a fire causing $3.5 million in damages at a veterinary lab in California in 1987, the FBI officially added ALF to its list of domestic terrorist organizations. According to the FBI, between 1995 and 2005 ALF committed some 700 criminal acts.
If some wacko goes to a Tea Party and shoots up a McDonald’s, every conservative in America is to blame, but we’re not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing domestic terrorist organizations? Give me a break.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
I am so sick of the corruption and secrecy in the Obama administration. Why did it take so long for Holder to admit that many of the lawyers he hired in the Justic Dept were Al-Qaeda lawyers?? How is it right that these lawyers who were fighting AGAINST us and on the side of our enemies (by defending terrorists) now get to make policy decisions regarding these same things?? It’s disgusting!
The ‘al-Qaeda Seven’ And Selective McCarthyism
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, March 8, 2010; 11:22 AM
Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would — and rightly so.
Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they’ve worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.
Holder stonewalled for nearly three months. Finally, two weeks ago, he admitted that nine political appointees in the Justice Department had represented or advocated for terrorist detainees, but he failed to identify seven whose names were not publicly known or to directly answer other questions the senators posed. So Keep America Safe, a group headed by Liz Cheney, posted a Web ad demanding that Holder identify the “al-Qaeda seven,” and a subsequent Fox News investigation unearthed the names. Only under this public pressure did the Justice Department confirm their identities — but Holder still refuses to disclose their roles in detention policy.
Americans have a right to this information.One lawyer in the National Security Division of Holder’s Justice Department, Jennifer Daskal, has written that any terrorist not charged with a crime “should be released from Guantanamo’s system of indefinite detention” even though “at least some of these men may … join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day.” Should a lawyer who advocates setting terrorists free, knowing they may go on to kill Americans, have any role in setting U.S. detention policy? My hunch is that most Americans would say no.
Do other lawyers in question hold similarly radical and dangerous views? Without the information Holder is withholding, we cannot know if such lawyers are affecting detainee policy.
Yet for raising questions, Cheney and the Republican senators have been vilified. Former Clinton Justice Department official Walter Dellinger decried the “shameful” personal attacks on “these fine lawyers,” while numerous commentators leveled charges of “McCarthyism.”
Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals “war criminals” and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the “al-Qaeda seven” when a Spanish judge tried to indict the “Bush six”? Philippe Sands, author of the “Torture Team,” crowed: “This is the end of these people’s professional reputations!” I don’t recall anyone accusing him of “shameful” personal attacks.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Idiot alert! When will these Hollywood idiots get a clue? What a stupid statement. Hey Tom, I believe the reason we fought the Japanese is because they BOMBED us and were trying to take over. I realize that y’all don’t know your history, but since that’s the case, then just keep your pie-holes shut!
Tom Hanks: US Wanted to Annihilate the Japanese Because They Were ”Different”
2010 March 10
by Michael van der Galien
Although I am used to Hollywood stars making the most outrageous, anti-American and downright stupid statements, I’ve got to admit that I was taken aback by this post over at Hot Air, nonetheless. Its subject: Tom Hanks said recently that America wanted to ”annihilate the Japanese because they were different.” Yes, seriously:
He is pleased that The Pacific has fulfilled an obligation to our World War II vets. He doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”
As John Nolte explains at Big Hollywood, “no matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By ‘different’ Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.” Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey adds:
I thought it was the fact that they bombed us and then fought us relentlessly across the Pacific rather than surrender, but maybe I should tune in for The Truth. So screwy is his read, in fact, that I’m not sure it’s even fair to the Japanese: As I understand it, they hit Pearl Harbor not because “our way of living was different” but because they wanted the oil in the south Pacific and needed to neutralize the American fleet before they made their move. I’m also surprised to learn that whereas the Nazis were unambiguous evil, their strategic ally in the far east — whose imperial army utterly terrorized the civilian population of mainland Asia — was merely “different,” much as jihadists are now. That sure does help me get a handle on that Iraq election held a few days ago.
Hey Tom, perhaps you should stop reading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States and buy and read a good history book instead. The United States fought Japan, because the Japanese attacked the US and tried to conquer the entire continent of Asia. Not only did they occupy other countries, they proceeded to pillage and ethnically cleanse them. They truly were ruthless. The US, on the other hand, was fighting for freedom and democracy. The Japanese were not being attacked because they were ”different,” but because they were the enemies of humanity.
Please also note that he thinks the West is fighting in the Middle East nowadays, not because Islamists – who adhere to an extreme, intolerant, violent and hateful ideology – attacked us and want to destroy our way of living, but because we’re all racists. I’m sure that makes perfect sense if you’re a cocaine sniffing megalomaniac, but to everyone else, not so much.
I don’t mind Hollywood minions having an opinion about politics, but it would be nice if they’d keep them to themselves. That way I can at least enjoy watching the latest movie without thinking about the lead actor’s stupidity.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 10 so far )
We have GOT to learn from other countries who have dealt with the Islamization of their countries. We can learn lessons from their mistakes as well as their good ideas.The article below is very interesting and shows us very well where we are headed if we keep being ‘politically correct’ and continue to ‘tolerate’ radical Islams’ demands!! Be afraid, be very afraid!!!! This article also reminds us that it is ridiculous to think that if you ban headscarves for Muslims you should also ban crosses for Christians or yarmulkes for Jews. These are very different issues and the article explains it well.
Anti-Islamization Proponents Should Take Cues from Europe
by Diana West
When the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders recently addressed voters in Almere, a Dutch city of 200,000 where his party handily won elections this week, he told them what to expect as his once-tiny, anti-Islamization party started flexing its new political muscle. Aside from lower taxes and other political staples, his plans for this city not far from Amsterdam include a ban on Muslim headscarves.
Wilders’ ban would apply to “headscarves in municipal bodies and all other institutions (that) receive even one penny of subsidy from the municipality.” He continued: “And for all clarity: This (ban) is not meant for crosses or yarmulkes because those are symbols of religions that belong to our own culture and are not — as is the case with headscarves — a sign of an oppressive totalitarian ideology.”
Here, Wilders is distinguishing between the religions of Christianity and Judaism, and the religio-political ideology of Islam, noting not only the near-indigenous nature of the former, but also the encroaching totalitarianism of the latter. This is the crucial cultural argument to make if a cultural Reconquista of Europe from Islamization is to be successful.
Certainly, we have seen glimmers. Last year, Filip Dewinter of the Vlaams Belang party of Belgium led a winning campaign to ban the hijab – what he calls “the propaganda weapon of choice for the establishment of Islamic society in Europe” — in the Flemish schools of his country, making the same vital judgment call that Wilders did.
“(He) who defends the headscarf out of reasons of tolerance and pluralism has little or no understanding of Islam,” Dewinter said. “The hidden agenda behind the veil leads to segregation,” a veritable apartheid-regime, he explained, with which Islam seeks to control and dominate the West. Equating the Muslim head scarf with the Christian cross or the Jewish yamulke is “therefore incorrect,” Dewinter continued, identifying the headscarf as “the flag of a political ideology” in which it is not the individual religious experience that is central, but rather “the realization of a theocratic society based on sharia, or Islamic law.”
Maybe that’s a lot for Americans to take in, but they haven’t lived through the Islamization Decades that their European cousins have. As Europe’s neighborhoods, banlieues and cities have repeatedly seen, headscarf-friendly zones yield to other Muslim demands, from single-sex recreation and medicine, to a refusal to tolerate certain Western texts or foods, to the institution of Islamic banking, to the acceptance of jihadist treason in the mosques, to the entrenchment of Islamic marriage (forced and polygamous), to the ultimate recognition of Islamic courtrooms run according to sharia.
But take the French approach. After determining that the Muslim headscarf inserted religion into state-run secular schools, the French government in 2003 banned the headscarf in the public schools along with the Star of David, the yamulke, “large” crucifixes and the turban of the Sikhs. This decision made it appear as though the hijab hadn’t been singled out as a symbol of a specifically Muslim way of life that seeks to extend sharia. Thus, in the name of tolerance, all religious symbols were deemed provocative. In the name of inclusion, all were banned. This is precisely how the traditional (pre-Islamic) society dismantles itself, symbol by symbol, law by law.
And this is precisely why acknowledging and affirming the differences — “discriminating” — between Western religions and Islamic religio-political ideology is so important. Alas, it is also unthinkable for the average post-modern, multicultural Westerner. Rather than reject the symbols of imperial Islam, he capitulates, further stripping his civilization of its own identity, further enabling the Islamization process.
Now, the French government seeks to ban the full veil, or burka, in public buildings, a measure, as a recent Harris Poll tells us, that garners support from a whopping 70 percent of French respondents. Large majorities also support a ban in Italy (65 percent), Spain (63 percent), and the United Kingdom (57 percent). (A burka ban draws 33 percent support in the United States.)
Notably, that support plummets when other religious symbols are included in the burka ban. French support drops to 22 percent. Italian (10 percent), Spanish (9 percent) and British (4 percent) support follows. (American support drops to about 1 percent.)
Defiance of the multicultural orthodoxy is more popular in Europe than anyone imagined.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
How much more proof do we need that Obama is sympathetic to our enemies, to the people who want to overthrow us and who want us dead? On Feb. 14, 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to his Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference.This is a man who publicly defended a terrorist.The terrorist being the Univ of South Florida professor who pled guilty to conspiracy to help Islamic Jihad and led the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization. He has also made several other pro-Islam statements. Read below for more details.
Obama has put more radicals in high gov’t positions than any other president and we are ignoring it. Let me rephrase that, the MSM and the liberals are ignoring it. What can we do about it????
Obama’s Terrorist-Shielding Envoy to the Muslim World
by Ben Shapiro
On Feb. 20, 2003, Professor Sami Al-Arian of the University of South Florida was arrested by the Department of Justice for his leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization. Al-Arian was a radical supporter of Islamic terrorism, a man who announced at rallies that he sought “victory to Islam” and “death to Israel.” He created the organization in America, designed, at least in part, to bring terrorists to U.S. soil.
On Sept. 5, 2004, law student Rashad Hussain spoke at a Muslim Student Association (MSA) conference. The MSA is in and of itself a troublesome organization, which has been repeatedly linked to terror — but that wasn’t the main problem. The main problem was Hussain’s speech, in which he explicitly defended Al-Arian, calling his prosecution “a sad commentary on our legal system … a travesty of justice … [one incident in a] common pattern … of politically-motivated prosecutions.”
On Feb. 28, 2006, Sami Al-Arian pled guilty to conspiracy to help Islamic Jihad.
And on Feb. 14, 2010, President Barack Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to his Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference.
When news broke of Hussain’s 2004 statements, Hussain immediately called reports mistaken, explaining that he had not uttered those words. Unfortunately for Hussain, Politico.com quickly recovered a tape of the MSA conference. Hussain then backtracked, stating, “I made clear at the time that I was not commenting on the allegations themselves. The judicial process has now concluded, and I have full faith in its outcome.” Very reassuring.
Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration is standing by its man, the same way they originally stood by communism-friendly Green Czar Van Jones. This is troubling not only because Obama consistently elevates those who champion anti-American causes, including Jones and Hussain, but also because of his original selection of these people for powerful posts.
The simple fact is that Hussain is not a problem merely because of his 2004 comments. He is a problem because of what he believes about the Muslim world in general.
His views are laid out in a report he did for the Brookings Institution, entitled “Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy.” First, he states that those in the United States ought to drop the term “Islamic terrorism.” “The terms ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘Islamic extremism’ validate the terrorist claim that their ideology is, in fact, rooted in Islam,” Hussain writes. For the same reason, he wants to end the use of the terms “jihadist” and “Islamofascist.” This is pure bunkum, implying as it does that the Muslim world takes its cues on how to interpret Islam from Christians in the United States. But Hussain knows that. His intent isn’t to protect the United States — it’s to protect Muslims globally (including radical Muslims) from having to face additional scrutiny at the airports or in the press.
Hussain’s argument quickly becomes more pernicious. He argues that Americans should quit asking the Muslim world to value freedom and democracy, and instead focus on working with non-terrorist imams to convert Muslims to a non-terrorist version of Islam. In practice, this means that the U.S. should “work with Muslim governments, religious leaders … on the ground in the Muslim world.” In short, cash and public relations help for governments like the Saudis, and imams sponsored by those governments. Again, this is ludicrous on its face — the idea that Muslims around the world will accept American non-Muslims or Christian-backed Muslims preaching about the true meaning of Islam is laughable. We don’t have the legitimacy to preach about Islam. We do have the legitimacy to preach about freedom and democracy.
Putting the most benign spin on Hussain’s writings, he is a Muslim who hopes to convert terrorist-leaning Muslims to non-terrorist Islam. But it is not enough to convert them to non-terrorist Islam if that version of Islam is also antidemocratic and fascistic. It is far too easy for non-terrorist, freedom-and-democracy-rejecting Muslims to slip over into terrorist Islam. Hussain provides the best example of that — after all, he himself slipped over that line in 2004 by endorsing the terrorist Al-Arian and ripping the U.S. justice system.
President Obama clearly agrees with Hussain’s plans for the Muslim world. But we in the real world do not have the luxury of pretending that such plans are either realistic or morally righteous. They are neither. They justify continued repression and evil in the Muslim world, and they leave us wide open to attack in the Western world by failing to properly recognize the enemy.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The more I hear about this incident at Fort Hood, the angrier it makes me. They KNEW this man was a radical and they did nothing about it!! That’s when ‘diversity’ and ‘political correctness’ gets us killed. It really disgusts me that this kind of thinking has seeped into the upper levels of our military. It needs to be stopped. Read below for more details on how much the army really knew about this terrorist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Numerous lives could have been saved if they had done the RIGHT thing instead of the POLITICALLY CORRECT thing!!!
The Bloody Cost of “Diversity”
Posted by Calvin Freiburger
Feb 24th, 2010
We’ve known from the start that there were warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Islamic fanaticism well before the Fort Hood shootings, signs we suspected were ignored due to political correctness. But the other night, Sean Hannity called attention to a recent Boston Globe report confirming our worst fears. The report claims that Army officials knew Hasan was a radical, but “did not act in part because they valued the rare diversity of having a Muslim psychiatrist.”
Examples of Hasan’s radical behavior have previously been disclosed in press accounts based on interviews with unnamed Army officials […] But the Pentagon’s careful documentation of individual episodes dating back to 2005 and the subsequent inaction of his superiors have not been made public before. The Globe was permitted to review the Army’s more complete findings on the condition that it not name supervisory officers who did not act, some of whom are facing possible disciplinary action.
In searching for explanations for why superiors did not move to revoke Hasan’s security clearances or expel him from the Army, the report portrays colleagues and superiors as possibly reluctant to lose one of the Army’s few Muslim mental health specialists. The report concludes that because the Army had attracted only one Muslim psychiatrist in addition to Hasan since 2001, “it is possible some were afraid” of losing such diversity “and thus were willing to overlook Hasan’s deficiencies as an officer.”
In one classroom incident not previously described by the Army – which parallels another episode around the same time that has received press attention – Hasan gave a presentation in August 2007 titled “Is the War on Terrorism a War on Islam: An Islamic Perspective.” But the presentation was “shut down” by the instructor because Hasan appeared to be defending terrorism. Witnesses told investigators that Hasan became visibly upset as a result. “The students reported his statements to superior officers, who took no action on the basis that Major Hasan’s statements were protected by the First Amendment,” the investigation found. “They did not counsel Hasan and consider administrative action, even though not all protected speech is compatible with continued military service.’’
Words are almost insufficient to convey the contemptible sickness of this situation. Thirteen American heroes are dead because of certain minds that held “diversity” to be of more worth than human lives. They wanted someone with the “potential to inform our understanding of Islamic culture and how it relates to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The question must then be asked: If you want to be informed, why not do the research yourself? Study the messages of extreme and moderate Muslims alike. Consult with experts on the subject from within and without the faith, like Irshad Manji, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and others. To suggest that these peoples’ only option in learning about Islamic culture was from one unstable soldier with known jihadist tendencies is beyond absurd. How useful did these people expect Hasan’s lessons to be anyway?
It’s hard to imagine a clearer, more damning indictment of leftist thought than the tragedy that we find at Fort Hood. The current commander-in-chief deserves serious blame for not doing something about this twisted dogma that has infected military officials. But the hard truth is that it didn’t start on his watch. For years, many people, like Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (keeper of the “nuclear football” during the 1990s) have been sounding the alarm on the sorry state that President Bill Clinton left our armed forces in, and how, in many ways, military effectiveness has taken a backseat to political correctness. And for all the good President George W. Bush did in the War on Terror, this particular crisis evidently wasn’t on his radar screen.
In the wake of 9/11, President Bush and many of his conservative supporters rightfully said we could not succumb to a pre-9/11 mindset, that we had to wrap our heads around the reality that our nation was at war. But, nine years later, with a jihadist killing spree on one of our own military bases and the Army’s top man worried not about how it happened but about “a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers,” it seems we have to ask ourselves if we really meant it.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
« Previous Entries