For those who wish to think clearly about Iran, there are two fundamental facts:
* the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran have been at war with us ever since the overthrow of the shah in early 1979;
* the savagery they have unleashed on the people of Iran is precisely what they want to do to us.
The Iranian leaders and their terror instruments, from Hezbollah to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have been killing Americans for 30 years, from the Marine barracks in Beirut in the 1980s to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, where Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces are operating against Coalition forces. Both the history and the contemporary facts are abundantly documented.
The mullahs’ war is unrelentingly and barbarically waged. When they organize demonstrations of hatred against the United States, and lead chants of “death to America,” they mean exactly that. It is not a slogan playing to a domestic audience (we have seen in recent days that the regime is enormously unpopular), but a statement of intent. They aim to kill us, humiliate us, and eventually dominate us. Just listen to President Ahmadinejad’s words to President Obama last Saturday:You should know that if you continue (to criticize the repression) the response of the Iranian nation will be strong. . . . The response of the Iranian nation will be crushing. The response will cause remorse.
Such language is of a piece with stories alleging that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered an all-out attack on American, British, French, and German targets wherever possible.
Meanwhile, the same forces deployed against us and our allies have taken to the streets to attack freedom-seeking Iranians. The same Revolutionary Guards who operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the usual foreign thugs and proxies (Der Spiegel reported five-thousand Hezbollah “fighters” had been sent into the streets of Tehran, and there are many other stories of sadistic Arabic speakers all over the country) have been beating, axing, shooting, stabbing, gassing, and clubbing unarmed peaceful protesters. As of late last week, Evin Prison in Tehran, long the regime’s Bastille, had run out of space for arrested citizens.
The brutality in Iran today foreshadows what the mullahs intend for us. It is what the world will look like if they prevail. Iran’s Middle East neighbors know this, and dread it (with the exception of Syria, which is playing Mussolini’s Italy to Khamenei’s Nazi Germany). Yet every American president from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama has convinced himself that we can reach a workable, long-term modus vivendi with the Islamic Republic. They refused to see the mullahs’ Iran for what it is: a ruthless and determined enemy, at war with the United States.
It is an old story. Franklin Roosevelt and most Western European countries refused to see that Hitler’s treatment of the German Jews and other minorities foreshadowed his global intentions, just as we deliberately blinded ourselves to the fact that Stalin’s mass murders of his own people, whether landowners or Ukrainians, showed what Soviet expansion would bring to the captive nations after the Second World War. Indeed, America has almost always refused to see evil clearly, recognize that it would inevitably be directed against us, and act early enough to prevent an even greater disaster.
To our great shame, we were unprepared for the uprising of the Iranian people, which had become highly likely in the runup to the “election,” and which, we should have been aiding for years with better communications, strike funds for workers, open calls for freedom, and insistence that political prisoners be freed. Worse yet, in the first days following the explosion, our leaders seemed annoyed that the Iranian people had interrupted efforts to strike a bargain. The president first took credit for the “robust debate,” then suggested there was no real difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, warned that it would be counterproductive for him to be seen “meddling,” and then, when the dimensions of the street massacres were too large to ignore, criticized the repression and finally spoke warmly of Mousavi.
Iran is still simmering; there is still fire beneath the ashes of the savage repression, and no one knows what the tens of millions of anti-regime Iranians will do in the coming weeks and months. But we do know what the regime will do, both to its own people and to us: continue to wage its 30-year war. The big question is whether we will respond effectively.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The Brutality In Iran Foreshadows What The Mullahs Intend For Us
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Failure of Laicite
Sarkozy wants to ban the Burqa. The French anti-Jihad blog, GalliaWatch, thinks this is a bad idea:
As stated in my previous post, a Salon Beige reader attempted to send three comments on the topic of Islam to Le Figaro. All three were rejected. Each of the three comments is followed by a kind of refrain:
1. The burqa is not even worn in Iran. (Just look at today's news photos).
The women here wear it to provoke. They would be only too happy to have a parliamentary committee set up. Let us not give them a soap box. HALDE might rule in their favor.
However, I would like to know the real reason why André Gerin, of the Communist Party, and his colleagues, raised this question of the burqa. Rather than becoming angry at the result, they ought to have become angry at the cause: the immigration of peoples who, because of their numbers and their cultures, are not assimilable.
Note: A reminder that André Gérin, a Communist, was the initiator of the move to ban the burqa.
In the name of "laïcité" they have felled anything liable to resist the establishment of Islam in France. By denouncing the Christian roots of our civilization and rejecting the values that went with it they have opened the door to the Trojan Horse. There is no longer anything that can prevent them from achieving their ends. For Islam is a proselytizing religion that vomits on the yellow-bellied laïcité, because for Islam there is not and can never be separation from the State.
2. There is no intelligent and open-minded Islam able to adapt to European values (...)
In Islamic lands, a non-Muslim is a second-class citizen. Look at what is happening in so-called moderate countries: the Copts are bullied in Egypt, those who own Bibles are condemned in Algeria, in Turkey it is forbidden to build new churches. Elsewhere, there is condemnation of anything that displays a cross.
In the name of "laïcité", etc... (same as above)
3. Only a committed "laïciste" (i.e., a person who espouses separation of Church and State) wins the approval of web moderators who block any comment pointing to a conquering Islam facing a West that has nothing to offer in opposition except a few parliamentary committees.
In the name of secular religion, France has abandoned all the values that could effectively resist this radical Islam. Tolerance is contrary to conviction: if I tolerate everything, how can I defend my own convictions? Islam by its nature proselytizes (as any religion ought to, otherwise what would be the reality of a faith if its adherents do not wish to share it?) and vomits on the yellow-bellied laïcité because for Islam there is not and can never be separation from the State.
Le Figaro censured the comments no doubt because they are critical of laïcité.
The reader informs us that Le Figaro is staunchly pro-laïcité, which in turn implies a total rejection of religion as a weapon against another religion, i.e., a total rejection of Christianity as a force employable by the French State to combat Islam. France cannot employ Christianity because France is not only spiritually de-Christianized, France is bound by laïcité. Laïcité cannot be a weapon against Islam because it is too weak, and Islam spits on it.
Why is laïcité so weak? As the reader says, there is the absence of a specific conviction. Second, laïcité by its nature, means Church/State separation, a notion completely rejected by Islam. The French State needed, at the outset, to acknowledge the incompatiblity of Islam with the law of 1905. Instead, it chose to circumvent the law by creating a bogus Islam tailored just for France - Sarkozy's pet project was the "Islam OF France." But in addition, the existing religious forces in France, i.e., Christianity and Judaism, that could be and should be creating obstacles to the growth of Islam, are instead welcoming it as a type of salvation. So the religious forces themselves have been emasculated, and are now incapable of distinguishing an enemy from a friend.
The profound irony is that by allowing in the Trojan Horse of Islam, France has destroyed her own laïcité, and is becoming, both openly and furtively, Islamic. But Le Figaro can't acknowledge this, any more than it acknowledges the old adage that you fight fire with fire, (or religion with religion).
Would the sight of thousands of burqas all over France change anything? It might. Which is why Sarkozy may pursue this idea of a parliamentary committee, and fight "heroically" for a ban on the burqa, and appear to the Western media as a "tough" defender of Western values.
Final observation: In 2004, after years of debate on headscarves, a law was finally passed banning them in the schools. Known as the law of March 15, 2004, it banned headscraves from public elementary and secondary schools, in the name of laïcité. Such a law was superfluous because the law of 1905 already banned all religious symbols from public places such as schools and government buildings. Furthermore, banning the scarves did nothing to stop Islamic immigration. It was an empty gesture, just as banning the burqa will be.
Final note: The French State (like any Western democracy in the same situation) could ban Islam on POLITICAL grounds, rather than religious ones, since Islam is a threat to the State, not just a threat to Christianity. Why this has not happened can be attributed to the false god of egalitarianism.
Muslim Conversion Booth UK
This would just be funny if they didnt kill people who converted away from the religion of peace. If I had an 11 year old son who came home and told me he converted to Islam by saying a few foreign phrases at a conversion booth on Bloor st. I would just laugh it off as if he had told me he had become a Martian by reciting the words: “I am a Martian Martian Martian yes am I” in Hienlienistani. It would mean nothing. He hasnt converted anything even as serious as imperial to metric. The issue is the idiots who believe he would have, and would threaten to, or would kill him for reverting back to his Christian or athiest or whatver he thought of himself as.
I found this video at a Danish site thanks to GOV.
Here is the Mail UK’s take on it:
This is the shocking picture of a schoolboy being converted to Islam by a cleric linked to a radical Muslim hate preacher.
The bewildered 11-year-old, who gives his name as Sean was filmed repeating Arabic chants and swearing allegiance to Allah.
The boy is prompted throughout by controversial cleric Anjem Choudary, a follower of exiled hate-preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed.
Controversial: Anjem Choudary, left, speaks to the young boy named as Sean, right at a demonstration in Birmingham
The incident was filmed during a demonstration by Choudary’s Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah group in Birmingham city centre earlier this month.Choudary, 42, was one of the masterminds behind the protests at the homecoming parade of heroic British soldiers in Luton earlier this year.
He praised protesters who branded British troops ‘murderers’ and later appeared at a press conference flanked by thugs who took part in the demo.
Choudary defended the young boy’s ‘reversion’ to Islam but admitted his parents were not with him and were not consulted.
He said: ‘The child was genuinely interested in Islam.’
‘The boy told us he wanted to become a Muslim and, of course, some people are intellectually more mature than they are physically. I don’t see there is any harm in this.
Protest of hate: A crowd of fanatics shouted insults at British troops on a homecoming parade in Luton in March.
‘He was with his friends, but I didn’t see if his parents were there,’ he added.A message on Choudary’s website offers advice for those who become Muslim at his Islamic Roadshow.
‘Conversion packs are already provided to those who revert to Islam in the Islamic Roadshows,’ it says.
‘They include a booklet on ‘Everything a Muslim must know’ and a free DVD with a brief guide on how to pray in Islam.’
Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, is a splinter group of the controversial Al Muhajiroun sect.
Al-Muhajiroun, which has recruited hundreds of fanatics in the Midlands, fell apart in 2004 just months before Bakri was stopped from coming back to the UK under terror laws.
It has been revealed that the sect is planning to reform.
Bakri has now set his sights set on a return for the extremist group, though the Home Office is understood to be closely monitoring its activities.
News Out Of Iran Intensifying: Basij Carry Out Nighttime Raids On Homes - Mousavi Attacks Khameini
Human Rights Watch has accused Iran's volunteer Basij militia of carrying out night-time raids, destroying property in private homes and beating civilians. The New York-based group says the raids are an attempt to stop the nightly rooftop chants against the government. It also says satellite dishes are being confiscated to stop people from watching foreign news.
|
At about 9pm each day Nushin, a young housewife, performs the same curious ritual. She climbs up the stairs to the roof of her Tehran home and begins shouting into the night. Allahu akbar,” she cries, and sometimes “Death to the dictator”.
She is not alone. Across the darkened city, from rooftops and through open windows, thousands of others do the same to form one great chorus of protest — a collective wail of anger against a reviled regime that no amount of riot police and Basiji militia can stop. “It sounds like the wailing of wolves,” said one Tehrani.
And each night, as the street demonstrations are crushed with overwhelming force and the regime cracks down on all other forms of dissent, it grows steadily louder and more insistent, not just in Tehran but in other densely populated cities of the Islamic Republic.
“It’s the way we reassure ourselves that we are still here and we are still together,” says Nushin, a woman who has never dared to rebel before.
“This is what people did before the revolution and I hope it warns the regime about what could happen if it doesn’t change its way.
“And because I’m a religious person the sound resonating in the neighbourhood makes me feel better. Even my little daughter joins me, and I can see how she feels that she is part of something bigger. It is our unique way of civil disobedience and what’s interesting is that it increases every time they do something that makes people angrier.”
One has to wonder if the Wailing of the Wolves is also emboldening Mousavi, who had, in past days, been strangely silent. Today, he is openly criticizing the unassailable Ayatollah Khameini:
Supreme Court: White Firefighters Unjustly Denied Promotions
Supreme Court: White Firefighters Unjustly Denied Promotions
Monday, June 29, 2009 10:11 AM
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.
Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision, which he asserted she did not write. "Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent," said the Vermont Democrat who will preside over Sotomayor's confirmation hearings next month.
Leahy also called the high court decision "cramped" and wrong.
In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.
Ricci's father, Jim Ricci said the ruling is a victory for firefighters across the country. "Now we're going to get the best managers as far as firefighters go. That's really important," Ricci said.
Monday's decision has its origins in New Haven's need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.
Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.
The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law's prohibition on intentional discrimination.
Kennedy said an employer needs a "strong basis in evidence" to believe it will be held liable in a disparate impact lawsuit. New Haven had no such evidence, he said.
The city declined to validate the test after it was given, a step that could have identified flaws or determined that there were no serious problems with it. In addition, city officials could not say what was wrong with the test, other than the racially skewed results.
"The city could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related" or the city failed to use a less discriminatory alternative, Kennedy said. "We conclude that there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects."
But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American.
Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law's prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complementary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination.
"Today's decision sets these paired directives at odds," she said.
Obama’s deadly hand revealed
Obama’s deadly hand revealed
Jewish Chronicle, 26 June 2009
Among American Jews, a degree of ‘buyers’ remorse’ has been detected recently.
Almost 80 per cent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama as President. Those of us who warned that this man would endanger Israel were scorned.
How could that possibly be, said the secular, liberal American Jews. He’s a Democrat, he’s black and he’s pro-abortion. With this triple-lock of unassailable virtue, how can he be bad for Israel? Now some of them are getting an awful feeling that they may have made the biggest misjudgment of their lives.
As the world watched events unfold in Iran, Obama’s double standard over Israel was illuminated in flashing neon lights. How come he’s saying it is wrong for him to tell the Iranians what to do, people asked themselves, when he is dictating to Israel its policy on settlements?
Why was he so concerned not to antagonise the Iranian regime? Was it because he hopes to reach a Grand Bargain which would allow Iran to develop nuclear capability, provided it promises him ever so nicely it would never turn this into weapons — in exchange for which, Israel would be offered up on a plate?
For the past six months, while Obama has been holding out the hand of friendship to Iran, he has been showing Israel a mailed fist.
Why, people asked themselves, was he singling out Iran’s putative victim for the heavy treatment while soft-soaping Tehran? Why had he torn up the Road Map which requires the Palestinians to dismantle their infrastructure of terror before anything else can happen, telling Israel instead that its stubbornness over the settlements was the main impediment to a Palestinian state?
Why didn’t he acknowledge the blindingly obvious — that the Palestinians’ continuing, explicit refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state was the fatal impediment?
And then there was the Cairo shocker of a speech. Even the American Jews could not ignore this. Obama stated falsely that the Jews’ aspiration for a homeland was rooted in the Holocaust and their tragic history.
Airbrushing out both the Jews 3,500-year connection to their ancient homeland and the central place of Jerusalem within the religion, he thus effectively denied that Jews are in Israel as of right.
Sanitising Islam through false claims about its historic achievements and selective and misleading quotation from the Koran, he declared that it was part of his responsibility to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
Why? Did this mean therefore that he would fight against any condemnation of the theologically based Jew-hatred pouring out of the Islamic world, not least in Egypt where he was making this speech?
Did he not have a similar responsibility to fight against the negative stereotypes of Jews or Zionists that are inciting terrorism, war and genocide in the Muslim world?
Through the use of a Koranic reference, he also subtly implied that Jerusalem would become Muslim while stating that it should be home equally to Christians, Muslims and Jews.
And he referred to the region as being where Islam was first revealed. This was a revealing word to choose, implying acknowledgement of divine revelation. ‘Revealed’ is the language of a believer.
None of this proves Obama is really a Muslim. But it does all suggest that America has a pro-Islamist President.
Doubtless as a result of his constant sniping at Israel, the percentage of American voters who say they support Israel has plummeted, according to the Israel Project, from 69 per cent last September to 49 per cent this month.
The US and Israel could be heading for the greatest disagreement between the two countries in the history of their relationship, as Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek.
Even now, though, despite the outbreak of buyers’ remorse, most American Jews still don’t realise what they have done — and probably never will.
What If Obama Did Want to Help Iran's Democrats?
What If Obama Did Want to Help Iran's Democrats?
The CIA is no longer in the business of influencing politics abroad.
By GABRIEL SCHOENFELD
Thus far, debate over American policy toward Iran has revolved around President Barack Obama's various responses. When Iran's electoral crisis first erupted, he downplayed its significance, calling the two rival candidates, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi, "tweedledum and tweedledee." A week later, he sharply condemned the Islamic regime, describing himself as "appalled and outraged" by the government's actions.
But are presidential pronouncements -- however pusillanimous or intrepid -- the limit of American power?
The ayatollahs' nuclear ambitions make Iran one the most critical countries for the future of U.S. foreign policy. Beyond the immediate problem of nuclear proliferation, there is the broader issue of Iranian influence spreading via proxy forces in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. And even beyond that, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 is the original wellspring of the Islamic fundamentalism that has swept the world over the past three decades.
In a better world, toppling this vicious regime and altering the tide of history would be a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy. Yet even if President Obama miraculously came to that conclusion, how could he realize such an objective? This is a useful question to ask because it reveals how much the United States has disarmed itself in the vital realm of intelligence.
In the late 1940s through the late 1950s, the U.S. faced similar problems in various locales around the world. One of them was Italy, where there was a very real danger that the highly organized Italian Communist Party -- benefiting from huge covert subsidies from the Kremlin -- would come to power via the ballot box. Soviet funds had enabled that party to build a dense network of paid organizers that operated in every region and created front groups in every sector of society, from farmers to veterans to students.
The prospect of Italy becoming the first country in Europe to fall to Communism via subversion rather than direct force of Soviet arms was not, at the height of the Cold War, something the U.S. could abide. So the CIA was instructed, first by Harry Truman and then by Dwight Eisenhower, to stop it. It was the challenge presented by Italy's vulnerability in its 1948 election that prompted the fledgling spy agency to create its Office of Policy Coordination. The banal-sounding name was a cover for what was an aggressive tool of covert political propaganda and paramilitary operations.
Over the course of the 1950s, the CIA secretly funneled money to forces in Italy's political center. This enabled democratically oriented parties to match the Italian Communist Party activist for activist. When revealed years later, the policy was subjected to scathing criticism. But it had worked. Fragile Italy remained democratic in the 1950s and is a stable democracy today.
Harsh criticism of such operations -- beginning in the 1970s when all the CIA's secrets spilled out -- is what prompted the U.S. to dismantle its capabilities in covert political action. Interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, legions of agency critics said, was both immoral and illegal.
As a matter of law, the critics are right. Such covert action is indeed illegal. But legality is beside the point. Espionage is by definition illegal and yet all countries engage in it. This is what the Soviet Union did in Italy, and it is what Iran, by organizing terrorist structures in the Middle East, Europe and elsewhere, has been doing intensively for 30 years.
As for the moral issues involved in covert operations, they are the standard ones of balancing means and ends. Self-defense is the basic right of every state; open warfare is certainly permitted to uphold it. Covert warfare, so long as it is similarly defensive, is no different. Yet throughout our history, a higher moralism has periodically come along and led us to shun intelligence operations, as when Herbert Hoover's Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson famously declared that "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail." Stimson then shuttered his department's code-breaking operation just as terrible storms were beginning to gather across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Today, as a breaking point in the Islamic Republic appears to recede from view as a result of brutal violence, the U.S. appears utterly powerless to influence the course of events. Yet how much better off both Iran and the world would be if the CIA, operating covertly through local friendly forces, could have helped, say, to spark a general strike to topple the ruthless regime of the ayatollahs.
The great irony in all this is that even as the U.S. seeks to claim the moral high ground by not "meddling" -- to use Mr. Obama's term -- we and our allies are getting blamed all the same. "There are riots and attacks in the streets that are orchestrated from the outside in a bid to destabilize the country's Islamic regime," says Sheikh Naim Qassem, a ranking figure of Hezbollah, Iran's obedient instrument in Lebanon.
We are thus paying the price of running covert operations even as we gain absolutely none of the benefits. Rebuilding our capacity in this area cannot be accomplished overnight. Meanwhile, as Iran's nuclear ambitions continue unabated, we may in the end have to pay a high price in treasure and blood for having declined to pay the relatively low cost of mounting secret warfare.
Islam Destroys the Africaness of Africa
Here is a stinging indictment of the historical revisionism and outright denial surrounding the treatment of black Africans under Islamic regimes. "The trouble with Black Muslims," by Rudolf Okonkwo for the Examiner, June 28:
Even Obama cannot say it. But someone has to say it.
We cannot be talking about this season of hate without mentioning the steep decline into actionable hate by misguided black Muslims.
The first time I met a black Muslim in America was in the 90s. I had just arrived from England and this man wearing a bow tie and three-piece-suit approached me with a copy of the Final Call newspaper – the official mouthpiece of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam. He wanted me to buy the newspaper but I resisted. He told me it was the bestselling newspaper in America. I told him I was new in America but I was sure the Final Call could not be the bestselling newspaper in America.
“You’ve been brainwashed,” the man said to me.
“By whom?” I asked.
“By the blue-eyed white devils who run the world.”
“O’ yeah.”
“They don’t want you to know the truth.”
“Like what?”
“Like all the great things our forefathers did.”
“Like what?”
“Bro, you have to open your eyes. We have to get on with the program of our forefathers.” “And what is that program?”
That was how we began a discussion about the world and the place of the black man in it.
“Why are you a Muslim?” I asked him at one point.
“Because my people were Muslims before the blue-eyed white devils bought us and brought us to America as slaves and forced us to be Christians and to worship a blue-eyed Christ.”
“O’ yeah.”
“Yes!”
“But I am from Africa and my grandfather was never a Muslim nor was he a Christian.”
He was shocked when I said that.
“It is OK if you want to be a Muslim and follow Elijah Muhammed and changed your name to Muhammed, too. But don’t tell me you are trying to be like your forefathers,” I said. [...]
Some of these people are carrying their misguided and misrepresented history and anger out in the open and are even planning to act on them. It concerns me. And it should concern you, too.
First of all, I came from a country where there are Muslims. Those who have Arabic features assume superior position over those who are black. In many instances, the black Muslims are totally disregarded, treated as inconsequential.
I have asked black Muslims mad at how white people treated black slaves to ask themselves were the millions of slaves the Arab world took from Africa were? They disappeared. They were used and disposed of. If not, the Arab world would be booming with its own share of black men and women.
I have asked black Muslims mad at the “war” between the West and Islam to look at the genocide in Darfur and find out how Muslims treat their black brothers and sisters.
In Africa, the homeland of all black people, Islam came from the Middle East and Christianity came from Europe and they all exerted inordinate damage. But where Islam touched, there is no recognition of the ways of life of the people. Islam, being a way of life, swallowed all that was African in the people.
All black people must think before they jump from frying pan to fire. And before you pick up arms to fight for those Talibans dying in Afghanistan, spare a minute for two million children who die of malaria each year in Sub-Saharan Africa. Those are your people. For real!
FBI LEADERSHIP GUILTY OF CONSPIRING WITH ISLAMIC JIHAD: PARTNERS WITH ISNA
The FBI leadership, over the professional objections of its agents based on facts and evidence, wants outreach with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front groups (which, in and of itself, is evidence of complete malfeasance on the part of FBI leaders).
CAIR, MPAC, and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been the folks the FBI has used for years, and FBI leadership has defended them, especially CAIR - despite the fact that the FBI has been investigating them for fifteen years. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas front CAIR is taking heat (from everyone but the FBI), the FBI has made ISNA their primary POC - the same Muslim Brotherhood /Hamas front - same family different names.
Founded in 1928 by the Egyptian activist Hasan al-Banna, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is one of the oldest, largest and most influential Islamist organizations. Egypt has historically been the center of the Brotherhood's operations, though the group maintains offshoots throughout the Arab-Muslim world -- including in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, the Palestinian territories (Hamas), Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Sudan -- and is also active in the United States and Europe. Islam expert Robert Spencer has called the Muslim Brotherhood "the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda."
There should be a unified call for the removal of the FBI Director and the top leadership, as well as charges of Obstruction of Justice, Aiding and Abetting, Misprision of Treason, and, in the cases of Miller, Persichin, and Tidwell, charges of Treason: Executive Assistant Director for National Security Arthur Cummings, Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Michael Heimbach, Assistant Director for Public Affairs John Miller, Assistant Director (retired) Steven Tidwell, Assistant Director, Washington Field Office, Joseph Persichini, Former (retired) Executive Assistant Director for National Security Willie Hulon.
FBI Denies Claim Of New Relationship With Islamic Society Of North America
June 26, 2009 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Today the FBI strongly denied a claim made earlier this week [see, FBI initiates official outreach to Hamas [here], that there has been an, "official decision by FBIHQ to use ISNA as their official point of contact with the American Muslim community."
"Today, FBI Executive Assistant Director Tom Harrington is meeting at FBIHQ with Imam Majid of the ADAMS Center in Sterling,VA. Imam Majid is also the Vice-President of the Islamic Society of North America - a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial in Dallas in which all defendants were found guilty of leading the Hamas front group. This was the largest terrorism financing trial in the history of the United States.
This meeting today follows yesterday's official decision by FBIHQ to use ISNA as their official point of contact with the American Muslim community. ISNA is one of the largest and most prominent Muslim Brotherhood entities in the US. The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 with two objectives (which are their same two objectives today): implement Islamic Law and re-establish the global Islamic Caliphate. Their creed, which is still their creed today, includes "...martyrdom in the way of Allah is our highest inspiration."
Agents and attorneys aware of this decision believe it obligates them to violate US law by forcing them to work with a front group for a designated terrorist group (Hamas). It is worth reminding you all that the Hamas Covenant states Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood entity, and that Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by the US government.
The controversy is understandable from a national security standpoint, since the establishment of a formal relationship with ISNA would mean that America's premier domestic law enforcement agency was partnering with a known wing of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, in effect providing it with an official seal of approval and much undeserved legitimacy.
Contacted by PipeLineNews.org, John Miller, FBI Assistant Director, Office of Public Affairs. TX., speaking for the Bureau, vigorously denied any new relationship, stressing that the "FBI official" named in the story, " oversees the criminal and cyber programs and was in no way related to the meeting."
"1. The information as reported is factually inaccurate and generally misleading.
2. There has been no "official decision by the FBI to use ISNA," or any other organization, "as the official point of contact with the American Muslim community."
3. Imam Magid, who leads the ADAMS center in Herndon, Virginia, is a longstanding liaison contact of the FBI's Washington Field Office, and a respected member of the national capital area religious community. He met with an FBI community relations official as part of that liaison relationship.
4. The FBI official identified in the story oversees the criminal and cyber programs and was in no way related to the meeting.
5. The FBI meets with contacts from many diverse groups as part of our mission to both understand and protect the communities we serve."
There's more. Go here.
From the above article, Miller states, "3. Imam Magid, who leads the ADAMS center in Herndon, Virginia, is a longstanding liaison contact of the FBI's Washington Field Office, and a respected member of the national capital area religious community. He met with an FBI community relations official as part of that liaison relationship."
Imam Magid is the Vice President of ISNA, so Miller is admitting a long-standing, already-established relationship with the leader of ISNA (understanding that Ingrid Mattson is a figurehead). Miller's own words show that he is a full of shitnik.
As the AD for Public Affairs for the FBI, he has a professional duty, and he swore an oath to the Constitution to protect and defend it. He has based his relationship with the Muslim community on a completely counterfactual understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam in general. When he decided to use a third party (the Muslim Brotherhood) to give him and the FBI an understanding of the enemy, he decided to become a traitor.
There's much more over at Atlas Shrugs. Go read it.
Dallas Cops Side with Muslims
Small gathering protests group's Muslim Family Day at Six Flags
ARLINGTON – Ten anti-terrorism protesters confronted thousands of cars streaming into Six Flags Over Texas on Sunday for a Muslim Family Day.
ELIZABETH M. CLAFFEY/DMNPeter Reyes of Fort Worth(left) and Dorrie O'Brien (right) of Grand Prairie sift through signs Sunday in preparation for a protest of the Islamic Circle of North America's Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Over Texas in Arlington. The protest was organized by Joe Kaufman (standing, center), chairman of Florida-based Americans Against Hate, who claims thatICNA has ties to terrorist organizations.Demonstrators said the sponsor of the event – the Islamic Circle of North America – funds overseas terrorism. Local Muslims denied the accusation.
"There's no evidence to support their claims," said Mohammad Barney, president of the Dallas-area group. "I know that we Americans all have a right to protest, but I wish they would do their homework before spreading lies."
Joe Kaufman, chairman of Florida-based Americans Against Hate, who wore a dark suit and a flag-patterned tie, said he was pleased by the media coverage. There were more reporters than protesters at the event.
"This is a success because the media came out and covered it," said Mr. Kaufman. "That's the way the public get educated about this organization's ... ties to overseas terrorism."
Mr. Kaufman says the Islamic Circle of North America was founded three decades ago as an American arm of the terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan, and funnels money to Hamas.
Protesters walked back and forth near the entrance to the theme park holding signs that read, "Americans Against Hate."
One young man leaned out the window of a gold-colored SUV, pumped his fist, and responded: "Long live Palestine. Long live Palestine."
Brenda Jernigan of Duncanville said she isn't positive the Muslim group holding Sunday's event is tied to terrorism. But she's positive her conservative Christian values are under attack.
"There's a moment when you have to decide whether you're going to do something, even if it's just stand here and hold this sign," she said. "It's a statement that we're just not going to let people come in and take over our country."
Three Arlington police officers stood, arms crossed, and watched the protest. .
Sgt. Robert Vorpahl joked that many visitors to the theme park expressed a form of digital disgust with the protest. "I've seen quite a few hand signs," he said.
