Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.
Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’
The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’.
Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term’.
You can read the rest of it here.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Jews’ True Friends
What will it take to wake Jews up?
The citizens of San Francisco will be voting on a proposition that seeks to ban circumcision in that city. Although I am strongly opposed to the proposition, if it passes, some good may come of it.
Let me explain. I am a passionate advocate of the Jewish ritual known as the brit (often pronounced bris) — the ritual circumcision of eight-day-old Jewish boys. I am even an advocate of circumcision generally. I was recently in Africa — in Zimbabwe and Zambia — where I delivered mosquito nets and seeds to the poorest of Africa’s poor. I saw giant billboards there, as well as in neighboring Botswana, exhorting men to get circumcised. The World Health Organization estimates that male circumcision reduces the rate of heterosexually transmitted AIDS by about 60 percent.
Regarding Jewish ritual circumcision, I can only say that I cried like a baby at the brit of my two sons. All I could think of was that, like generations of Jews who came before me, I had been given the gift of transmitting an unbroken chain of Judaism that dates back to Abraham — 3,600 years ago.
I find the arguments of those who campaign against the brit to be specious. The notion that some terrible, lasting pain is inflicted on the baby is simply ludicrous. The average time the baby cries is probably well under the time it cries than when tired, or desiring milk — and it does so far less frantically. I fully understand the conflicted feelings of the mother, and I see no reason for her to be present when the actual cutting of the foreskin takes place.
Does the baby experience pain and discomfort afterward? Yes. But it is temporary, and the baby heals quickly.
The advantages wildly outweigh the momentary pain. The brit uniquely strengthens a Jew’s religious identification, and the ceremony instills in the family and the community a profound identification with the nearly four millennia of the Jews’ world-changing history.
As for the argument that the foreskin is important, I can only say that in my most self-pitying moments I cannot recall lamenting not having my foreskin. As I have told anti-circumcision activists on my radio show, you have to be pretty bored with life to be preoccupied with not having foreskin.
One might add that the same people who are profoundly upset over the removal of foreskin rarely have a problem with the removal of a living human fetus. San Francisco considers protecting the human fetus religious fanaticism, but it is seriously considering protecting a newborn’s foreskin.
So, then, given my profound support for circumcision, what good could possibly come from San Francisco passing a ban on it?
If the most left-wing major city in America starts arresting Jews who have their children circumcised there, some American Jews might awaken to the threat to Jews posed by the Left. Obviously, San Francisco’s already-existing bans — on toys in Happy Meals, on soda in city-owned properties, on plastic bags, and the city’s proposed ban on the sale of pets, including goldfish — have not made many Jews (or non-Jews) wonder whether left-wing governance is dangerous. But perhaps a ban on circumcision will.
Of course, not everyone who is on the left — and certainly not the traditional liberal — is an enemy of the Jews. But, aside from Islamists, virtually all the enemies of the Jews are on the left.
The worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel (i.e., to pave the way for moral acceptance of Israel’s destruction) is virtually all on the left. Universities in America and elsewhere in the Western world, as well as the mainstream news-media outlets around the globe, are all dominated by the Left. They drum into the minds of their students, readers, listeners, and viewers that Israel is one of the worst societies on earth.
The anti-Israel propaganda on the left is so great and so effective that according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Many of the youths who survived the [Norway] massacre said they thought the killer, dressed as a police officer, was simulating Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories.”
Yet, most American Jews still walk around thinking that Christians and conservatives are their enemies when, in fact, they are the best friends Jews have in the world today. From the present conservative Canadian government, which is probably the most vocal pro-Israel country at present, to every major conservative talk-show host in America (including the fiercely pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Glenn Beck, who has been libeled as an anti-Semite), to the leader of Holland’s Party for Freedom and member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders (one of the most eloquent pro-Israel voices in Europe today), to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — the Right is where the Jews’ friends are.
What will it take for this generation of Jews on the left to realize what Arthur Koestler — perhaps the most prominent Jewish leftist of a previous generation — came to realize: namely, that leftism is “the god that failed”? Will it take a San Francisco ban on the oldest practice of the Jewish people? The city of Berkeley declaring Marines “unwelcome intruders”? PETA arguing that there is no moral difference between barbecuing chickens and cremating Jews? The ostracizing of the Jewish state from the world community by institutions dominated by the Left?
Whatever it takes, the sooner the better.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Islamic Supremacism Trumps Christianity at Ground Zero
By Pamela Geller
Bloomberg is lobbying for 9/11 taxpayer funds for the Islamic supremacist grifters behind the Ground Zero mosque, but St. Nicholas Church is in purgatory ten years after the worst day in modern American history.
Perhaps St. Nicholas Church should claim that it is a mosque -- then Bloomberg and New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn would probably pour the cement for its foundation. Remember: the New York Daily News reported last December that "Mayor Bloomberg's top deputies went to great lengths to help those trying to build a mosque at Ground Zero -- even drafting a letter to the community board for them."
After a Freedom of Information Act request from Judicial Watch, New York City officials released "a flurry of emails between its brass and Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam pushing to build a mosque near the sensitive site, and his supporters." It was worse than we imagined. The release of these documents, emails, and various exchanges between Mayor Bloomberg's office and the radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his motley crew of Islamic supremacists showed evidence of collusion, inappropriate political support for the Ground Zero mega-mosque, and favoritism given to the project.
Rauf is an open proponent of Islamic law, Sharia, with its oppression of women, stonings, and amputations. He is a prominent member of the Perdana organization, a leading funder of the jihad flotilla launched against Israel last year by the genocidal Islamic terror group, IHH. And he's a slumlord and grifter: Rauf snagged more than $2 million in public financing to renovate low-income apartments. He took the money, never did the renovations, and forced good people to live with vermin and dilapidation.
So why did the mayor apparently break ethical rules for a slumlord with radical ties, whose buildings were placed in receivership? And why isn't he working just as energetically for the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Church? Technically, he has no jurisdiction over the Port Authority, which is blocking the rebuilding of the church, but he could speak out more energetically for it -- and meanwhile, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver could do a great deal to help the church's cause -- but in sharp contrast to Bloomberg's work for the mosque, they haven't done a thing for the church.
Cuomo could order Port Authority Executive Director Chris Ward to stop blocking the church's reconstruction. He hasn't. Silver hasn't done a thing, either. Yet if they support the Ground Zero mosque, they should at least extend the same level of support to this church that was on the site for 85 years.
I spoke with Evan C. Lambrou, who is a former editor of the National Herald, the country's oldest and largest Greek-American newspaper, and a distinguished graduate of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston. He explained that it was "wrong for the Port Authority to take the church's original property for its purposes, in exchange for another parcel nearby; extract the church's good faith by promising to actually deliver the promised new parcel; and then not make good on that promise. In short, the Port Authority got the church to do something it didn't really want to do by promising the church something else instead, and then refused to give what was promised. That's just not right. It's morally reprehensible, in fact."
Yes, it is, and it gets worse. Lambrou continued: "It's very disgraceful that the Port Authority has compelled the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese to file a federal lawsuit just to rebuild one of our churches. And it's simply astounding that people work themselves into such a frenzy about Park 51; that so many elected officials have rushed to defend development of an Islamic community center two blocks away from Ground Zero; and that virtually no one cares about the Port Authority's plans to exclude a Christian church from Ground Zero altogether."
Lambrou skewered the double standard: "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and principles, so if elected officials are going to support religious freedom for Muslims in America, they should do the same for one of this country's Christian minorities."
"That's why I'm disappointed," Lambrou said, "in Governor Cuomo and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver." He sent them both letters and emails, but their response "wasn't even lukewarm." He received "one feel-good call from a press officer at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation assuring me that the "Cuomo Administration cares." And as for Silver, one of his aides told Lambrou that he was "concerned" about the church. That was it. Lambrou sent them both information from the American Center for Law and Justice that pointed out that in refusing to rebuild the church, the Port Authority had violated three constitutional amendments. Nonetheless, Lammbrou said, "neither Mr. Cuomo nor Mr. Silver have voiced their support for the church publicly. I have urged them to do so several times, and they still haven't yet."
Lambrou told me: "This is both a moral and a Constitutional matter. Is it really that difficult for them to release a substantive public statement of support for rebuilding this church? Is it really so hard for them to tell the Port Authority to do the right thing for the church?" When I asked him if the lawsuit that the church had filed against various New York officials might be causing the silence, he responded: "This is a no-brainer, and the lawsuit is no excuse. Anyway, the lack of response to my concerns has been deeply disheartening. Orthodox Christian rights are being violated by a powerful public entity under their watch, and the people who should be defending us are doing nothing about it."
While those of us who oppose the Islamic supremacist mosquestrosity at Ground Zero are routinely called bigots, it is St. Nicholas Church that is encountering actual bigotry. Lambrou said, "I never thought I would find myself contending with this kind of bigotry in 21st Century America, and I feel completely betrayed that those who are in a position to reverse the problem have done nothing about it. That indicates they're actually willing to relegate this innocent and historic house of worship to oblivion and, in so doing, perpetuate the tragedy of 9/11."
They are, but we aren't. Stop the Islamization of lower Manhattan. Stand with us against the Ground Zero Mosque and for St. Nicholas Church on September 11 at our Freedom Rally at Ground Zero.
What Is Going On with the Hezbollah Commander Who Killed U.S. Troops in Iraq?
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Posted on July 21, 2011 11:22 AM
Daqduq has recently been back in the news because of the Obama administration’s bull-headed determination to give the most atrocious war criminals the gold-plated due process of American civilian trials. In May, at the Long War Journal, Bill Roggio reported that Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee had gotten wind of the administration’s plan to transfer Daqduq to the United States and give him a civilian prosecution for the wartime murder of American soldiers in Iraq.
Now comes this report from the Associated Press [H/t Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.]:
A Hezbollah commander held in Baghdad by the US military and considered a threat to American troops could be transferred soon to Iraqi authorities, and US security officials worry he could escape or even be freed.
Ali Mussa Daqduq worked with Iranian agents to train Shiite militias who targeted American soldiers in Iraq, according to the US military. He was captured in 2007 and US officials have linked him to a brazen 2007 raid in which four American soldiers were abducted and killed in the Iraqi holy city of Karbala.If this report is true — and to my knowledge, it has not been confirmed that Daqduq has been or will be surrendered to the Iraqis — it would constitute one of the most irresponsible actions of the Obama presidency, and that is saying something. As Bill Roggio observed, Daqduq “is perhaps the most dangerous of the Shia terror commanders captured in Iraq” during the war. He is a veteran of nearly 30 years with Hezbollah, and he has commanded its special ops and the security detail of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. He was tasked by Hezbollah and Iran to build an Iraqi terror network that mirrored Hezbollah’s organization in Lebanon. In carrying out that mission, his main strategy was to kill Americans — and he carried that strategy out ruthlessly.
I realize that the debt-ceiling controversy is making it very hard to focus on anything else, but Daqduq must not be allowed to slip through the cracks. We need answers on what is happening, pronto.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Andrew Bostom writes this at American Thinker:
July 15, 2011
More hated than Dubya?
July 15, 2011
A recent Zogby poll asked Arabs their view of President Obama and the United States, and guess what? They're not crazy about either one.
America's approval in the Arab world has plummeted in the past two years. Just 5 percent of Egyptians view the US favorably, down from 30 percent in 2009.
"In most countries, they are lower than at the end of the Bush administration, and lower than Iran's favorable ratings," wrote pollster James Zogby.
It wasn't supposed to be that way.
In his Cairo speech two years ago, Obama promised a "new beginning," touted the "generations of Muslims" in his family tree and praised the "dignity and peace" of the Islamic faith.
But Obama himself is even more unpopular than Uncle Sam: Just 4 percent of Egyptians, 6 percent of Jordanians and 10 percent of Saudis say he's lived up to expectations.
A stunning 99 percent of Lebanese think he's a failure -- which means the warring Muslims, Christians and other ethnic groups there have finally found something they agree on.
Whatever Obama sets his hand to seems to crumble, Zogby suggested. Even killing Osama bin Laden actually hurt his popularity in the Arab world. And "the two issues on which the administration has invested considerable energy -- 'the Palestinian issue' and 'engagement with the Muslim world' -- receive the lowest approval ratings -- less than 9 percent across the board."
There's a lesson there: Even as Obama pushed Israel to the brink, it didn't buy him any new friends -- it just alienated an old one. Nor did it win him a peace accord, which is as distant as ever.
At least America's next president can take solace: It'll be hard to do worse than Obama.
It doesn’t mean I don’t care about the issues. But it’s been intensely time-consuming to keep up with just a tiny part of all that’s going on, (especially so since the Nakba of November 2008), all the more so because I try to hold myself to a decently presentable style. (Not that it helps. We bloggers are held in even lower regard now than we were five years ago). Anyhow, Vincent van Gogh once wrote to his brother Theo that even mediocrity requires a lot of hard work. As a bona fide mediocrity, I can vouch for that.
That said, don’t take my going over the wire as a sign that I don’t still care about all the things we’ve always cared about here, like free speech and resisting jihadism. But I’ll tell you I care much less now than I did five years ago about events and characters that keep reappearing over and over again without changing in any important detail.
Take the free speech situation. I stuck up for Terry Jones when he got arrested: I was impressed as hell with his closing argument at the kangaroo trial they gave him. But nothing he’s done since has added anything. Then this year I didn’t bother commenting about the Dearborn Arab American Festival. I concluded that, if you want to know what’s going on in Dearborn, the Arab-American Festival isn’t the place to look. True enough, it was reports from the 2009 and 2010 festivals that brought to light once and for all that Jack O’Reilly, Chief Haddad, and Dearborn’s civil watchdogs and churchmen are mere toadies of the city’s Muslim community. Nor has anything changed since, and in some ways they’re much worse. But the proof of that isn’t in video documentaries depicting gangs of yong Arab males bargmaking their impolite way through East Dearborn's three-day Coney Island. From what I’m reading, outsiders now see the Festival as a tourist stop promising up-close looks at Sharia from the very "belly of the beast.”
But I can hardly complain when Sharia-tourist Stuart Kaufman writes that Dearborn “is no longer part of America,” when I’ve said as much myself. Or at least I’ve said the First Amendment does not apply here.
Suffice it to say for now the situation hasn’t improved in Dearborn, including the way it’s being reported.
I’ll try to write more often, or post other material when I can’t. I do appreciate every one of you who keeps coming back to DU in spite of my long absences, and actually cares what I have to say.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
The Muslim Brotherhood and Weiner
By Eileen F. Toplansky
Far more disturbing than the salacious details of Weiner's dalliances is the fact that apparently his mother-in-law is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Furthermore, Huma Abedin's brother, Hassan, "is listed as a fellow and partner with a number of Muslim Brotherhood members." Hassan works at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) at Oxford University. The Egyptian Al-Azhar University, well-known for a curriculum that encourages extremism and terrorism, is active in establishing links with OCIS.
How is it that the Western media, with its hourly analyses of Weiner, missed this salient point, yet Arab news sources revealed this connection? Walid Shoebat, formerly with the PLO, explains that Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor in Saudi Arabia "belongs to the Sunni movement's women's division known as the Muslim Sisterhood." During the recent uprising in Egypt, which resulted in Mubarak's removal, "a special women's unit within the Muslim Brotherhood served as 'mules' to deliver messages and acted as messengers for the terrorist group."
The Muslim Sisterhood is also known as the International Women's Organization (IWO) and members are located "across 16 different countries." Its goal is to "work at all levels in accordance with the message of the Brotherhood." The Muslim Brotherhood's goal is Islamic world domination and "[i]t is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the [Muslim Brotherhood] or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution."
This chart on page four of the Domestic Intelligence Briefing by Mark Hass shows the FBI - Identified Terror Networks connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.
Which should now raise even greater concerns since Huma Abedin-Weiner is the deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State. Did any vetting occur by Clinton's people concerning Huma Abedin, her brother Hassan, or her mother Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, and any connections with known Islamists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood?
But then again, would it have troubled Mrs. Clinton? After all, during her husband's time as President, she warmly embraced Suha Arafat the wife of Yasser Arafat, arch-terrorist, right after a speech during which Suha Arafat falsely accused Israel of poisoning the Palestinian water supply.
Huma's brother has "worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on a program of "spreading Islam to the west." More intriguing is the fact that the Abedin family left Michigan for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, around 1977, which is the same year that the Muslim Sisterhood was formed.
Couple this with the Clinton family playing a key role in promoting Fethullah Gulen who has worked assiduously to overthrow Turkey's secular government. Gulen, who currently resides in Pennsylvania, has told his followers that in order for "worldwide Islamic domination to succeed, every method and path is acceptable, including lying to people."
In March of this year, the FBI was investigating the more than 120 charter schools in the United States that are linked to Gulen's movement. These schools, funded with millions of taxpayer dollars, promote Gulen's worldview that is both anti-Israel and anti-America. In fact, in 2010 it was reported that Bill Gates had given almost 11 million dollars to the Cosmos Foundation, which is a Gulen enterprise.
Moreover, one needs to question why Huma Abedin, a member of a family of devout Muslims, would ever marry a Jewish Congressman -- in a ceremony officiated by Bill Clinton. Sharia law clearly forbids Muslims from marrying non-believers, so what does this portend?
Furthermore, when Huma Abedin accompanied Hillary Clinton to the Dar El-Hekma women's college in Saudi Arabia, where Huma's mother is co-founder and vice dean, it was reported that "Hillary explained that Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office." Where was the scrutiny?
Why are so many at the highest levels of American government ignoring the methodology of Islamists like Gulen, who has declared that the best way to seize power is to lie in wait "with the patience of a spider" in order to "wait for people to get caught in the web"? Is Clinton so naïve?
Thus, Huma Abedin's position with Clinton in the State Department, as well as her marriage to Representative Weiner, has given her enormous exposure "to state secrets and access to the inner workings of Congress."
This would be unsettling enough if it were not also for Obama's latest appointee. The 44th president has just appointed Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri believes that sharia law is superior to American law. Yet, al-Hibri is only one of the pro-sharia adherents that Obama has placed in influential positions since he became president. Dalia Mogahed was one of the earliest appointees and as Nonie Darwish has written, "[t]he empowerment of Radical Islam under the Obama administration" is extremely disturbing.
Last year, Obama appointed two devout Muslims to Homeland Security. Obama's record concerning Islamic terror was alarming from the beginning of his term and it has only become more entrenched. Congressman Keith Ellison aka Keith Hakim, who converted to Islam, is already in place in Congress. His connections to CAIR are troubling.
Is the Weiner scandal really covering up a far more disturbing scenario whereby jihadists continue to infiltrate and influence American universities, military installations, homeland security, even local police forces, all while the press ignores the steady encroachment of these radicals who seek to overturn and destroy America?
The disgraceful indifference by the general press to Weiner's in-laws and their connections to the Muslim Brotherhood keeps eroding America's ability to rout those who wish to see her destroyed.
Fethullah Gulen has exhorted his followers to "move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing [their] existence until [they] reach all the power centers...until the conditions are ripe..." Can America continue to close its eyes to this deliberate hibernation strategy of our enemies?
Eileen can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The CIA’s exoneration and Holder’s reckoning
By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: July 4
This Fourth of July weekend, some of the CIA’s dedicated counterterrorism officials will be celebrating more than our nation’s freedom from oppression — they will be celebrating their own. On Thursday, after a grueling two-year investigation, the Justice Department announced that a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder found no criminal wrongdoing by the CIA officials involved in the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program.
Almost every news report led with the fact that the prosecutor, John Durham, was continuing his inquiry into two detainee deaths that took place outside the CIA interrogation program. But the real news was that, after an exhaustive look into the handling of some 100 high-value terrorists held in the CIA program, Durham found no crimes to prosecute. The agency’s interrogators, whose work stopped numerous terrorist attacks and led us to Osama bin Laden, have now been exonerated by the Justice Department for a second time.
Therein lies the outrage. During the Bush administration, career prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia conducted an exhaustive inquiry into allegations of abuse in the CIA program and decided against prosecutions in all but one case (a CIA contractor, not in the official interrogation program, who was later convicted of assault). The prosecutors drafted “declination memos” explaining precisely why they decided not to pursue charges. Not only did Holder, a political appointee, overrule the decisions of these career prosecutors, according to The Post, “Before making his decision to reopen the cases, Holder did not read detailed memos that prosecutors drafted and placed in files to explain their decision to decline prosecutions” (emphasis added).
Holder charged ahead over the vigorous objections of seven former CIA directors, who declared in a letter to President Obama that “Holder’s decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute” and “will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country.” Joining their objections was Obama’s then-CIA director, Leon Panetta, who reportedly made his views known in a “profanity-laced screaming match” at the White House.
None of this deterred Holder from pursuing his ideologically driven crusade against the CIA’s interrogators. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Holder had told the left-wing American Constitution Society that “our government authorized the use of torture” and promised the crowd, “We owe the American people a reckoning.” Now — after two years of wasted resources and untold grief for these dedicated intelligence officers — Holder has come up empty. The special prosecutor he assigned to deliver that day of “reckoning” came to the same conclusion as the career prosecutors under the Bush administration: Further investigation of the CIA’s interrogation program “is not warranted.”
The two remaining cases reportedly involve a detainee who froze to death in his cell in Afghanistan in 2002 and another who died in American custody in Iraq in 2003. As Panetta noted in a statement last week, “Both cases were previously reviewed by career federal prosecutors who subsequently declined prosecution.” According to former senior intelligence officials I spoke with, both were battlefield detentions that took place early in the war, and neither had anything to do with the CIA’s interrogation program.
The CIA created a well-run, highly disciplined interrogation and detention regime, where clear guidelines were established, the safety of the detainees was ensured, invaluable intelligence was uncovered and any deviations from approved techniques were stopped, reported and addressed. Now the special prosecutor assigned by Holder
to investigate that regime has affirmed — once again — that this program operated completely within the law.
The CIA officers who ran the agency’s interrogation program have been cleared, but their lives will never be the same. They have spent much of the decade since Sept. 11
under threat of prosecution, fighting to defend their good names even as they worked to keep us safe. As a result of the witch hunt Holder unleashed, some of our most talented, capable counterterrorism officials have left government service — and countless others, who might have contemplated such service, have chosen other careers instead. The damage this investigation has done is incalculable.
For this, the American people are indeed owed a reckoning.