Sunday, January 30, 2011

Beheading in Kiel

Politically Incorrect Blog

Whether good or bad, one is getting used to such scenes in Germany. A 30-year-old Kurd from Iraq was given a full-blown execution by a group of Lebanese Kurds on Friday behind a bakery in Kiel-Gaarden. The victim first had to kneel down before his tormentors before his throat was slit in cold blood. The head of the local SPD advisory board Bruno Levtzow, however, had nothing better to do than to warn “insistently against hasty generalizations” that might affect “the great majority of law-abiding immigrants unjustly”: “I see the danger that now anyone having black hair will be thrown into the same pot.”

Again on Friday, the Kieler Nachrichten headlined “Knife stabbing in Gaarden: Attorney remains silent” – today, three days later, after more details about the horrible crime are available, the headline reads “A full-blown execution”:

“This was not a stabbing, but a full-blown execution.” With these words, an expert on the Kiel immigrant scene explains why great anxiety has spread among immigrant circles, since a man was murdered in front of a business in the township of Gaarden. The worries are going around that this situation could escalate.

Official posts are as stingy as ever with information about this case; random witnesses of the crime reported to our above-cited informant, however, of a horrible scene. According to them, the victim, a roughly mid-30s Kurd from Iraq allegedly knelt before his pursuers in the area behind the bakery before his throat was slit in cold blood. “Such a thing holds a new quality,” a Turkish resident of Kiel states in horror. This kind of brutal approach brings to mind the methods of the Lebanese terror organization Hezbollah and by far crosses the bounds of the normal level of quarrels between clans or cliques.

Meanwhile, the concern that the fatal conflict needs to be explained in the context of a national or ethnic background is unwarranted. According to all of our newspapers, present information deals much more with a crime of passion. About a half year ago, a conflict arose because a deserted husband didn’t want to accept the fact that his the woman who was still his wife had entered a new relationship with the man who has now lost his life.

Sensible forces are meanwhile warning of further escalations. “I detest such actions; these people have nothing to do with our association,” stresses Dr. Hussein Anaissi, head of the Arabian Society in Kiel. He is calling on the prosecuting authorities to proceed with all determination against such brutal expressions of private differences in opinion: “The law must show its full severity here.”

“It can’t be this way,” said the supervisor of the local Gaarden SPD advisory board, Bruno Levtzow. Nobody is allowed to dismiss the law in order to exercise feelings of frustration and jealousy in such barbaric ways, and put the rest of the population in fear and trembling by doing so. In Levtzow’s opinion, the people’s feeling of security is being impaired because the perpetrators are acting in groups and out in the open. However the supervisor insistently warns against hasty generalizations that might unjustly affect the great majority of law-abiding immigrants: “I see the danger that now anybody with black hair will be thrown into the same pot.” has more information regarding the progression of events:

We found out from our scout what the police and press are suppressing: In Kiel-Gaarden, an Iraqi Kurd who worked as a hairdresser at the Vinetaplatz was executed by Lebanese Kurds that allegedly were members of the Kiel Miri clan while he was being held down by several individuals. The victim had had an extramarital affair with the wife of the perpetrator! The victim had been asked many times beforehand to put an end to it. At the same time, the wife was the cousin of the husband.

(Photo above: The Iraqi Kurd was executed in the Kiel pedestrian passage between Karlstal and an inner court in Gaarden on Friday / Hat Tip: Michael B / Translation: Anders Denken)

Andrew Klavan: The Highway to Hell, Leftist Remix Edition

The past two years has witnessed a massive increase of debt brought on by the massive spending programs of the Socialist Obama and his Regime. Now Obama is back again with Cap & Trade. American can't afford anymore socialist programs.

Nouriel Roubini: Jobs a Problem for Years

Saturday, January 29, 2011

‘Happy New Year’ Message Killed a Suicide Bomber

A Muslim suicide bomber was killed when her bomb exploded unexpectedly on New Year’s Eve. After further investigation, Russian authority revealed that the bomb was detonated because the cell phone company unexpectedly sent her a ‘Happy New Year’ text Message.

The woman is believed to be a part of the same organization that attacked Moscow airport recently.

Muslim terrorists In Russia use cell phones as detonators. While a suicide bomber simply carries explosives and walks into a crowd, another person detonates the bomb with the help of a cell phone. In this instance, the bomber was preparing in a safe house but an unexpected text message from the phone company blew up the bomb prematurely.

Special Report: The Revolt in Egypt and U.S. Policy

This article was published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) as an e-note and it is available here. I have made a number of additions in the version below and present it here for your convenience.

By Barry Rubin

There is no good policy for the United States regarding the uprising in Egypt but the Obama Administration may be adopting something close to the worst option. This is its first real international crisis. And it seems to be adopting a policy that, while somewhat balanced, is pushing the Egyptian regime out of power. The situation could not be more dangerous and might be the biggest disaster for the region and Western interests since the Iranian revolution three decades ago.

Experts and news media seem to be overwhelmingly optimistic, just as they generally were in Iran's case. Wishful thinking is to some extent replacing serious analysis. Indeed, the alternative outcome is barely presented: This could lead to an Islamist Egypt, if not now in several years.

What's puzzling here is that a lot of the enthusiasm is based on points like saying that the demonstrators are leaderless and spontaneous. But that's precisely the situation where someone who does have leaders, is well organized, and knows precisely what they want takes over.

Look at Tunisia. The elite stepped in with the support of the army and put in a coalition of leadership, including both old elements and oppositionists. We don't know what will happen but there is a reasonable hope of stability and democracy. This is not the situation in Egypt where the elite seems to have lost confidence and the army seems passive.

Can Omar Suleiman, long-time head of intelligence, as vice-president and former Air Force chief (the job Mubarak himself used to have) Ahmed Shafiq as prime minister stabilize the situation? Perhaps. He is an able man. But to have the man who has organized repression running the country is not exactly a step toward libertarian democracy.

There are two basic possibilities: the regime will stabilize (with or without Mubarak) or power will be up for grabs. Now, here are the precedents for the latter situation:

Remember the Iranian revolution when all sorts of people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.

Remember the Beirut spring when people poured out into the streets to demand freedom? Hizballah is now running Lebanon.

Remember the democracy among the Palestinians and free elections? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.

Remember democracy in Algeria? Tens of thousands of people were killed in the ensuing civil war.

It doesn't have to be that way but the precedents are pretty daunting.

What did Egyptian tell the Pew poll recently when asked whether they liked "modernizers" or "Islamists"? Islamists: 59%; Modernizers: 27%. Now maybe they will vote for a Westernized guy in a suit who promises a liberal democracy but do you want to bet the Middle East on it?

Here’s the problem.

On one hand, everyone knows that President Husni Mubarak's government, based on the regime that has been running Egypt since the morning of July 23, 1952, is a dictatorship with a great deal of corruption and repression.

This Egyptian government has generally been a good ally of the United States yet has let Washington down at times. For example, the Mubarak government has continued to purvey anti-American propaganda to its people; held back on solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict (it did not endorse the 2000 Clinton plan, though I have good sources saying Mubarak said later he regretted that decision); has not taken a strong public stance on pressuring Iran; and so on.

For a long time it was said that Egypt was the most important U.S. ally in the Arabic-speaking world. There is truth in this but it has been less true lately, though due more to passivity in foreign policy than to hostility.

Clearly, though, Egypt is an American ally generally and its loss to an anti-American government would be a tremendous defeat for the United States. Moreover, a populist and radical nationalist—much less an Islamist—government could reignite the Arab-Israel conflict and cost tens of thousands of lives.

So the United States has a stake in the survival of the regime, if not so much that of Mubarak personally or the succession of his son, Gamal. This means that U.S. policy should put an emphasis on the regime’s survival. The regime might be better off without the Mubaraks since it can argue it is making a fresh start and will gain political capital from getting rid of the hated dictator. Given the weakness of designated successor, Gamal Mubarak, who is probably too weak to deal with the situation the regime might well be a lot better off.

On the other hand, the United States wants to show that it supports reform and democracy, believing that this will make it more popular among the masses in the Arab world as well as being the “right” and “American” thing to do. Also, if the revolution does win, the thought is, it is more likely to be friendly to America if the United States shows in advance its support for change.

Finally, the “pro-democracy” approach is based on the belief that Egypt might well produce a moderate, democratic, pro-Western state that will then be more able to resist an Islamist challenge. Perhaps the Islamists can be incorporated into this system. Perhaps, some say (and it is a very loud voice in the American mass media) that the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t really a threat at all.

So in this point of view, U.S. policy should favor the forces of change.

Of course, it is possible to mix these two positions and that is what President Obama is trying to do.

Thus, Obama said:

"I've always said to [Mubarak] that making sure that they are moving forward on reform -- political reform, economic reform -- is absolutely critical to the long-term well-being of Egypt, and you can see these pent-up frustrations that are being displayed on the streets….Violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt, so the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there's certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal: freedom of speech, freedom of expression -- people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns."

On paper, this is an ideal policy: Mubarak should reform; the opposition should not use violence; and everything will turn out all right. Again, this is the perfect policy in theory, and I’m not being sarcastic at all here.

Unfortunately, it has little to do with reality. For if the regime does what Obama wants it to do, it will fall. And what is going to replace it? And by his lack of support--his language goes further than it might have done--the president is demoralizing an ally.

And it is all very well to believe idealistically that even if Egyptians are longing to be free, one has to define what "free" means to them. Also, the ruler who emerges is likely to be from the best organized, disciplined group. People in Russia in 1917 were yearning to be free also and they got the Bolsheviks. In Iran where people are yearning to be free, the Obama Administration did nothing.

No matter what the United States says or does at this point, it is not going to reap the gratitude of millions of Egyptians as a liberator. For the new anti-regime leaders will blame America for its past support of Mubarak, opposition to Islamism, backing of Israel, cultural influence, incidents of alleged imperialism, and for not being Muslim. If anyone thinks the only problem is Israel they understand nothing.

This is not the first time this kind of problem has come up and it is revealing and amazing that the precedents are not being fully explained. The most obvious is Iran in 1978-1979. At that time, as I wrote in my book Paved with Good Intentions: The American Experience and Iran, the U.S. strategy was to do precisely what Obama is doing now: announce support for the government but press it to make reforms. The shah did not go to repression partly because he didn’t have U.S. support. The revolution built up and the regime fell. The result wasn’t too good.

There is a second part of this story also. Experts on television and consulting with the government assured everyone that the revolution would be moderate, the Islamists couldn’t win, and even if they did this new leadership could be dealt with. So either Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini couldn’t triumph—Islamists running a country, what a laugh!—or he couldn’t really mean what he said. That didn’t turn out too well either.

Even more forgotten is that, regarding Egypt, that’s how the whole thing started! Back in 1952, as I wrote in my book, The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, U.S. policymakers supported—don’t exaggerate this, it was not a U.S. engineered coup but they were favorable—to an army takeover. The idea was that the officers would be friendly to the United States, hostile to the USSR and Communism, and more likely to enjoy mass support.

In other words, policymakers and experts are endorsing a strategy today that has led to two of the biggest disasters in the history of U.S. Middle East policy. And now it is even worse, since we have these precedents and particularly the point about what happens when Islamists take power.

There is no organized moderate group in Egypt. Even the most important past such organization, the Kifaya movement, has already been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Since 2007 its leader has been Abdel Wahhab al-Messiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a virulent antisemite.

Muhammad el-Baradei, leader of the reformist movement, makes the following argument against my analysis:

“Mubarak has convinced the United States and Europe that they only have a choice between two options -- either they accept this authoritarian regime, or Egypt will fall into the hands of the likes of bin Laden's al-Qaida. Of course that is not exactly true. Mubarak uses the specter of Islamist terror to prevent a third way: the country's democratization. But Washington needs to know that the support of a repressive leadership only creates the appearance of stability. In truth, it promotes the radicalization of the people.”

This is a reasonable formulation. But one might also say that nothing would promote the radicalization of the people more than having a radical regime. Even el-Baradei says that if he were to be president he would recognize Hamas as ruler of the Gaza Strip and end all sanctions against it.

That is not to say that there aren’t good, moderate, pro-democratic people in Egypt but they have little power, money, or organization. Indeed, Egypt is the only Arab country where many of the reformers went over to the Islamists believing—I think quite wrongly—that they could control the Islamists and dominate them once the alliance got into power.

Nothing would make me happier than to say that the United States should give full support for reform, to cheer on the insurgents without reservation. But unfortunately that is neither the most honest analysis nor the one required by U.S. interests. In my book, The Long War for Freedom, I expressed my strong sympathy for the liberal reformers but also the many reasons why they are unlikely to win and cannot compete very well with the Islamists.

I have pointed out that the Brotherhood’s new leader sounds quite like al-Qaida and has called for war on both Israel and America.

And here is Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, who proves that you don’t have to be moderate to run in elections:

“From my point of view, bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.…[On the other hand,] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!”

A study of the Brotherhood members of Egypt’s parliament shows how radical they have been in their speeches and proposals. They want an Islamist radical state, ruled by Sharia and at war with Israel and the United States.

Then it is also being said that the Brotherhood is not so popular in Egypt. Then why did they get 20 percent of the vote in an election when they were repressed and cheated? This was not just some protest vote because voters had the option of voting for secular reformers and very few of them did.

The mass media is full of “experts” who also argue that the Brotherhood is not involved in terrorism. Well, partly true. It supports terrorism against Americans in Iraq and against Israelis, especially backing Hamas. In major cases of terrorism in Egypt—for example the assassination of Farag Fouda and the attempting killing of Naguib Mahfouz—Brotherhood clerics were involved in inciting the violence beforehand and applauding it afterward.

The deeper question is: why does the Brotherhood not engage in violence in Egypt? The answer is not that it is moderate but that it has felt the time was not ripe. Knowing that it would be crushed by the government, and its leaders sent to concentration camps and tortured or even executed, as happened under Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s, is a deterrent. It is no accident that Hamas and Hizballah—unrestrained by weak governments—engaged in violent terrorism while the Muslim Brotherhood facing strong and determined regimes in Egypt and Jordan did not.

Having said all of this, U.S. influence on these events, already rejected by Egypt’s government, is minimal. It is morally good to speak about freedom and seem to support the protestors but also quite dangerous and will not reap the gratitude of the Egyptian masses in the future. After all, aside from the likely radicalism of their leaders, a revolutionary regime would be hostile toward the United States since America would be blamed for supporting the Egyptian dictatorship for decades. President Obama will not charm them into moderation.

The Egyptian elite wants to save itself and if they have to dump Mubarak to do so—as we saw in Tunisia—the armed forces and the rest will do so. But if the regime itself falls creating a vacuum, that is going to be a very bad outcome. If I believed that something better could emerge that would be stable and greatly benefit Egyptians, I’d be for that. Yet is that really the case?

Consider this point. Egypt’s resources and capital are limited. There aren’t enough jobs or land or wealth. How would a new regime deal with these problems and mobilize popular support? One route would be to embark on a decades-long development program to make the desert green, etc. Yet with so much competition where would the money come from? How could Egypt try to gain markets already held by China, for example?

More likely is that a government would win support through demagoguery: blame America, blame the West, blame Israel, and proclaim that Islam is the answer. That’s how it has been in the Middle East in too many places. In two cases—Lebanon and the Gaza Strip—democracy (though other factors were also involved) has produced anti-democratic Islamist regimes that endorse terrorism and are allied to Iran and Syria.

Is America ready to bet that Egypt will be different? And on what evidentiary basis would that be done?

The emphasis for U.S. policy, then, should be put on supporting the Egyptian regime generally, whatever rhetoric is made about reforms. The rulers in Cairo should have no doubt that the United States is behind them. If it is necessary to change leadership or make concessions that is something the U.S. government can encourage behind the scenes.

But Obama’s rhetoric—the exact opposite of what it was during the upheavals in Iran which he should have supported—seems dangerously reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 regarding Iran. He has made it sound—by wording and nuance if not by intention—that Washington no longer backs the Egyptian government. And that government has even said so publicly.

Without the confidence to resist this upheaval, the Egyptian system could collapse, leaving a vacuum that is not going to be filled by friendly leaders.

That is potentially disastrous for the United States and the Middle East. There will be many who will say that an anti-American Islamist government allied with Iran and ready to restart war with Israel “cannot” emerge. That’s a pretty big risk to take on the word of those who have been so often wrong in the past.

Suggested Readings

Barry Rubin, Islamic Fundamentalism in Egyptian Politics, Second Revised Edition Palgrave Press (2002, 2008).

Barry Rubin, The Muslim Brotherhood: A Global Islamist Movement (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2010)

For the Brotherhood’s political views on supporting Hamas “by any means necessary”

MERIA Articles


Adel Guindy, "THE ISLAMIZATION OF EGYPT", Vol. 10, No. 3 (September 2006)


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at and of his blog, Rubin Reports,
We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

CAIR's Deceptive Spin on FBI Support

IPT News

January 21, 2011

Officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are painting a deceptively rosy picture of the organization's relationship with the FBI. The spin follows the group's decision last week to remove an anti-FBI graphic posted on its San Francisco chapter's website.

The graphic depicts a sinister-looking FBI agent walking down a street as doors slam shut. "Build a Wall of Resistance," it reads. "Don't Talk to the FBI." CAIR issued a clarification statement calling it "inconsistent with CAIR's policy of constitutionally-informed cooperation with law enforcement agencies." The group had included the graphic as part of a "Know Your Rights" event it co-sponsored in response to several FBI raids conducted during September 2010.

Corey Saylor, CAIR's national legislative director, said on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, that he is "troubled" by the media's critical reaction. "I can speak of a number of different occasions of CAIR's consistent policy of cooperating with law enforcement," he said.

O'Reilly didn't press Saylor very hard. There was no mention of CAIR's 2009 announcement that it had joined a coalition threatening to cut ties with the FBI. Saylor also wasn't asked about his organization's founding executives' ties to a U.S. Hamas support network, which resulted in the FBI suspending formal relations with CAIR.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper touted CAIR's "consistent policy of positive and constructive engagement with law enforcement officials." He promised that nothing "negative" would come from the lips of CAIR representatives at the event advertised.

While he acknowledged it should not have been posted, Hooper "refused to renounce the artwork," instead blaming "a cottage industry of Muslim bashers" for the poster controversy.

Even if their cited reasons for removing the poster were genuine, generalizations by Saylor and Hooper about a healthy relationship between CAIR and law enforcement are less than accurate.

CAIR has a long track record of criticizing terrorism financing and support cases brought by the US government. Its officials called the conviction of the Holy Land Foundation for funneling money to Hamas "based on fear-mongering," despite the evidence. The HLF trial publicized links between CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad and the Palestine Committee, an umbrella organization of U.S. Hamas support groups. CAIR was listed itself as a component of the committee in internal documents. The government named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial. The presiding judge later said there was "ample evidence" tying CAIR to Hamas.

Likewise, the group's Maryland chapter criticized 2004 convictions in the Virginia "paintball jihad" case, in which several men were convicted of charges related to supporting Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, by alleging "selective enforcement of laws and disparate sentencing treatments when the accused happens to be a Muslim or Arab." Similarly, CAIR Dallas-Fort Worth spokesmen called the 2004 conviction of the Elashi brothers for illegally shipping technology to countries listed as state sponsors of terrorism a "witch-hunt against the Muslim community by way of selective prosecution."

The underlying premise driving CAIR's "Know Your Rights," campaign is that the FBI has bad intentions and Muslims should not cooperate unless they have no other choice:

At a March 2009 "Know Your Rights" seminar in Anaheim, CAIR-Los Angeles staff attorney Ameena Qazi warned attendees not to submit to voluntary questioning by law enforcement. "Don't," she advised, "offer them your life story and all the information about your immigration history and everything." National Lawyers Guild representative Jim Lafferty told the audience, "No, the FBI is not your friend." He added, "If you stand up to the FBI you will be striking a blow for freedom for us all."

Last August, CAIR-California advertised it had provided assistance to a woman approached by FBI agents about her interactions with American born radical cleric and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki. No mention was made about the importance of providing information on Awlaki, now considered the inspiration behind many recent terrorist attacks in the U.S. It did note that CAIR provides free legal services for those approached by the FBI.

During a 2009 khutbah (sermon) given in Anaheim, Calif., CAIR-Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush said that just because there are "bad apples in the FBI," Muslims "should not start suspecting each other." Ayloush told the audience to report anyone acting in a "suspicious way," but added that "otherwise, we should not be spreading rumors." Ayloush encouraged the audience to "report any FBI contact or harassment that you receive to the CAIR offices."

The Minneapolis Somali community even protested CAIR's "Know Your Rights" efforts in response to FBI investigations into missing Somali-American youths. Family members of a Minnesota boy believed to have been killed in Somalia after being recruited by the terrorist group al-Shabaab handed out flyers at a CAIR protest rally. The flyers countered that CAIR's actions "have led many in the Somali American community to believe that they are intentionally shielding from prosecution members of a network which has been providing material support to a terrorist group," al-Shabaab, which has been involved in the "trafficking of American youths."

Often, CAIR officials even blame the FBI for creating terrorists and radicals:

Last month, CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid said that "the FBI, by using informants acting as agent provocateurs, has recruited more so called extremist Muslims than al-Qaida themselves." As the Investigative Project on Terrorism previously reported, Walid has rewritten stories behind FBI operations to make the FBI look like it created plots. Walid has also cited purported "facts" about the FBI's actions during a 2009 raid in Detroit.

In April 2009, Ayloush told mosque attendees in Anaheim that the FBI shouldn't send agents in mosques. "Our Koran is off limits. Our youth, who they [the FBI] try to radicalize are off limits."

Speaking about the case of the "Bronx Four," CAIR-Chicago Executive Director Ahmed Rehab claimed that the "radicalization 'tipping factor,' if you will, was none other than a paid government agent-provocateur." Rehab called the use of informants, such as in the Bronx case, "self-deluding initiatives that seem to seek terror-case quotas." The Bronx Four were convicted in October 2010 on seven counts related to a plot to destroy a synagogue and Jewish center and to shoot missiles at military planes.

In December 2010, Zahra Billoo, director of the same California chapter that posted the controversial anti-FBI flyer, responded to the FBI's use of informants to foil plots in Oregon and Maryland saying, "What the FBI came and did was enable them to become actual terrorists, and then came and saved the day." The FBI "is creating these huge terror plots where they don't exist."

Just like the message sent by the image of a lurking, unidentifiable FBI agent as portrayed in the now-removed CAIR website poster, CAIR coaches its members to believe that the FBI is out to "get you," especially if you're a Muslim:

In July 2010, CAIR-Connecticut Executive Director Mongi Dhadoudi told an audience at a New York event that the "FBI keeps coming after the weak" and those who are "afraid" or "intimidated."

CAIR-Ohio's Julia Shearson authored an April 2009 article criticizing new FBI guidelines. "Outspoken Muslim leaders and groups continue to be demonized and marginalized," she claimed, by the FBI's, "infiltrations," "abuses," and "provocations."

In 2003, Hooper alleged that the Department of Justice has a "general policy of targeting Muslims because they are Muslims."

In 2004, When FBI Director Robert Mueller asked the nation to be on the lookout for seven terrorism suspects, Hooper told the Detroit Free Press, "It's part of the 'round up the usual suspects' mentality. When you don't have any other leads, you gather up the Muslims."

On the recent O'Reilly Factor, Saylor cited examples to back up his claim that CAIR is a friend of the FBI's.

In one of Saylor's cited cases, the case of Ahmadullah Niazi, brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden's security coordinator, CAIR focused on its disapproval of the FBI informant to distract from the merits of the investigation. According to the U.S. government, Niazi lied on his naturalization application and to U.S. officials, including failing to disclose his associations with terrorist organizations, other names he had been known as in the past and a trip abroad to Pakistan. The Muslim community reported the FBI informant to the FBI.

Yet the informant wasn't the only source of information in the case. FBI Agent Thomas Ropel III testified that Niazi said it was a duty to perform "jihad" and discussed with Ropel sending the informant to training camps in the Middle East. Also, according to Ropel's testimony, Niazi called Osama bin Laden "an angel." CAIR's Hussam Ayloush said that the informant in the Niazi case was hired by the FBI to "instigate acts of violence to ruin the reputation of the Muslim community."

In a second case, in which CAIR connected families of the Zamzam Five, five missing Virginia youth, with the FBI in November 2009, CAIR officials quickly began toning down their description of the facts of the case. At first, Executive Director Nihad Awad described a video tape left by the boys as a "farewell" that made him "uncomfortable." Later, Awad argued that, should they be sent back to the U.S., the government should not prosecute the five young men who disappeared from the suburban Washington, D.C. neighborhood, only to turn up in Pakistan hoping to join the jihad against American troops.

The government has to show some appreciation for the actions of the parents and the community," Awad said. "That will encourage other families to come forward."

A Pakistani court rendered the issue moot in June 2010, when Ramy Zamzam, Umar Farooq, Ahmed Abdullah, Waqar ul Hassan and Hassan Yasir, were convicted of conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Read more at:

Undercover Mosque

This video will shock you into understanding the threat we all face from Islam.

In Memoriam Aleksander Litvinenko (Jos de Putter, VPRO 2007)

Thanks to Kitman TV for providing this Video

Pat Condell: The Criminal Truth about the Religion of Hate

Tell the truth about Islam, and you are guilty of hate speech in many parts of the world. That includes many european countries. Will we see a hate speech law here in America? Obama wants it, and has sided with the UN to push for hate speech. But that hate speech only goes for those who speak out against Islam and its evil sharia laws.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Muslims stay home!

Say NO to Muslim immigration into the United States. Thats means NO to Muslim Obama and his efforts to import thousand more of these Muslims from Somalia and other Muslim dominated countries.

Jeff Dunham - Achmed the Dead Terrorist

Monday, January 24, 2011

Flotilla Probe: Israel acted in accordance with international law in raid

Thanks to IsraeliGirl blog

The inquiry committee appointed by Israel to investigate the events that occured on May 31st on the Mavi Marmara has released its report.

Headed by Honorable Supreme Court Justice Emeritus Jacob Turkel and and including jurists and world-renowned experts as well as international observers, the committee determined unequivocally that Israel acted in accordance to international law imposing and enforcing a blockade in international waters. The events that folded that day were a result of direct attack on IDF soldiers, an attack that took them by surprise.

This conclusion is based on testimonies of 27 witnesses in person and 12 witnesses in camera.The testimony was supported by a great deal of material that was submitted for the committee’s perusal. Among the witnesses there were also human rights organizations and two Israeli citizens who participated in the flotilla.

The committee focused on examining the circumstances and the legality of the Israeli soldiers’ seizure of the Mavi Marmara and the other vessels. Major General (Res.) Giora Eiland conducted an in-depth operational IDF investigation. The Eiland report and all its appendices were submitted to the committee, after which the committee instructed the IDF to conduct additional investigations for the purpose of filling in some details. A professional military team was made available to the committee to enable it to conduct a more in-depth operational investigation. The team did so in full coordination with the committee, under the guidance of staff acting on the committee’s behalf. In the course of these intensified investigations, testimony was taken from 39 soldiers and other IDF personnel who were directly involved in the events. Afterwards, additional written testimony was taken from another 23 soldiers and 23 other soldiers were questioned again.

Here are the main findings of the report:

•The marine blockade was imposed due to security needs and meets the requirements of international law. Israel is upholding its international humanitarian obligations in the situation of a naval blockade on Gaza, as evident by the fact that vessels are allowed to pass into Ashdod Port to unload humanitarian equipment.

•The policy towards the Gaza Strip complies with international and humanitarian law - Israel does not prevent the entry of supplies essential to the civilian population, and provides as much humanitarian and medical assistance as is necessary according to the rules of international law. Israel cooperates with the Palestinian Authority and the international community in these realms.

•The takeover of the Marmara was done in accordance with international law - According to international law, if it may be determined that a vessel is intentionally trying to breach a blockade, it is permitted to overtake it wherever it is located, even in international waters. The possibility of stopping vessels, especially large ones, at high sea is extremely limited. Therefore, lowering soldiers from helicopters was an appropriate tactic that suits international law, and is consistent with the experience of other navies.

•The instructions for opening fire were not to shoot except in the case of a real and immediate threat to life. The soldiers took action only after they were violently attacked by the ship’s passengers. The IDF did not anticipate that the flotilla participants would not be innocent civilians but rather direct participants in hostilities. The soldiers were violently attacked with shots, knives, clubs, hammers, blows and more. Nine soldiers were injured during the attack, including from live bullets, and others from stabbings. Three soldiers were seized and dragged to the ship’s hold.

•Conduct of the passengers - there were 2 groups on the Mavi Marmara - peace activists, who boarded the ship in Antalya following a security inspection, and a “hard core” of 40 IHH activists who boarded in Istanbul without any security inspection and behaved as a separate group. They were joined by 60 other activists who participated in the violent events. When the ship’s captain ordered the passengers to return to their places below deck, the IHH activists remained on deck, put on life jackets and armed themselves with axes, chains, knives, hammers, etc.

•The committee was convinced that the IHH activists used live weapons. Their intention was to breach the marine blockade and thereby provide Hamas with an advantage in its armed struggle against the State of Israel.

•Handling of the passengers - After the takeover was completed, the stage of treating the wounded began. Eighteen doctors, six paramedics, and 70 combat medics and one senior physician were involved in this event. Some of the wounded resisted the administration of medical treatment but none died of their wounds after medical treatment commenced. The passangers were treated according to international law at all times.

Despite the attempt by various parties to accuse Israel of war crimes, the findings prove that Israel stated the truth and acted in accordance with the law. Gaza is open to the entry of all types of goods and products. Any organization wishing to transfer products to Gaza can do so through the existing border crossings. There is no need for additional flotillas, which in fact comprise a provocation and have no connection to humanitarian aid.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

English man filming dawa threatened with death

Thanks to Gates of Vienna Blog

The Englishman who made this video was threatened with death for filming Muslims engaging in dawah on a public street.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this video. KGS helped Vlad construct a composite of the face of the fellow who made the threat. This image may be of use to the British police — if, that is, they ever take time off from arresting “Islamophobes” and actually look for the guy:

Why are Muslims hell bent on defying the laws of the land. In England it is still lawful to videotape a public place without being harrassed by stinking Muslims.

Shakira wins big at NRJ Music Awards

The annual NRJ music awards kicked off in France last night

STARS flocked to the South of France to attend the NRJ Music Awards in Cannes last night.

Shakira looked dazzling on the red carpet, with Black Eyed Peas star, Usher and David Guetta also at the glam event.

The 33-year-old songstress sparkled in a glistening little black dress and killer peep toe shoes, picking up two awards at the do.

Shakira won gongs for International Female Artist of the Year and International Song of the Year for her World cup anthem of last summer,

The star also performed at the bash, singing from her album from last year Sale El Sol and her World Cup tune, Waka Waka.

Other winners included pop poppet Justin Bieber, who won International Revelation Of The Year and Black Eyed Peas who won Best International Group and Concert Of The Year.

Usher landed International Male Artist Of The Year and David Guetta grabbed Hit Of The Year for Club Can't Handle Me and the Award Of Honour.

Thank goodness she doesn't wear a Burqa. lol


These are the times when you can affect change. These are the events that make a difference. Meet me downtown on February 3rd to protest the Ground Zero mosquestrosity. The appointment of the latest imam, one with ties to WTC bomber co-conspirator Siraq Wahhaj, is another assault in the continuing 911 attacks on America. The Ground Zero stealth jihadists have applied for taxpayer funds to build their flag of conquest.


Inside at the Hearings

NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn is a shrill mosque shill. She and Bloomberg's toolbox are refusing to allow jobs and lower prices in Manhattan but are stumping for a victory mosque at Ground Zero. Who do these officials represent?

Over ninety pages of e-mails dating back to 2009 show that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan relied heavily on Bloomberg for advice and assistance in getting their mosquestrosity approved. Bloomberg is still withholding incriminating docments that he refuses to release.

After the pair presented their vision to Community Board 1’s Financial District Committee in May, Nazli Parvizi, commissioner of the mayor’s Community Affairs Unit, ghostwrote a letter from Khan to CB1 Chairwoman Julie Menin, thanking Menin for supporting the project.

After several back-and-forth e-mails tweaking the letter, Parvizi advised Rauf to get it to Menin as soon as possible to "keep her on your good side."

Menin said she never received the letter. [Methinks she's a liar -- Atlas]

Full story at blog

CAIR Oklahoma's Director Muneer Awad bristles over Muslim Brotherhood questions

Read the book Muslim Mafia to learn how deep CAIR is involved with the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Hamas.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Silenced in Kansas

Gates of Vienna blog

People have been sending in suggestions today for me to include in the Roster of the Silenced. One of the additions is from Kansas, and I’m featuring it here because it may form part of a pattern.

Last August Pastor Mark Holick was arrested and charged because he proselytized for Christianity on the sidewalk in front of a mosque. Unlike many European countries, the United States doesn’t have any “incitement of religious hatred” laws to help suppress such behavior, so Americans who insult the prophet have to be dealt with by other means. If you think the First Amendment is any impediment to shutting them up, then think again: there are statutes against loitering and failure to obey the police which will serve just fine — and then there’s always contempt of court if the victim has the temerity to resist.

I referred to the “Dearborn Four” last night, and there may be more of these cases than most Americans realize — as it grows, the Roster of the Silenced will help us to determine exactly how many there actually are.

There are a lot of all-purpose public order laws that are designed to allow the police to handle nuisances: breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, loitering, blocking the sidewalk, and so on. Most instances in which people speak their minds about Islam in public, attempt to convert Muslims, or otherwise offend believers could be covered by these statutes.

Whether they realize it or not, our public authorities are well on the way to internalizing Islamic rules of conduct:

No one may attempt to convert anyone out of Islam.

No one may say critical things about the Islamic religion in public.

No one may mock Mohammed or Islamic beliefs.

No one may fail to display the utmost respect for Islam and its believers.

Existing statutes are being utilized to enforce these rules, so that we needn’t disturb our legislators with the annoying task of passing explicit laws to achieve the same effect.

Our public servants now see it as part of their job to enforce sharia in the United States of America. Who could have imagined it would ever come to this?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The full particulars of the Mark Holick case are below. Many thanks to Egghead for supplying the information.

USA Name: Pastor Mark Holick

Initial charge: August 27, 2010

Disposition or final date: November 19, 2010 (subsequent charge)

Offense: Set up a Gospel distribution project on the public sidewalk in front of a mosque. Then defended self in court, asked cogent questions, brought 30 church members to court

Statute: Loitering, Failure to Disperse, and Contempt of Court

Link: The Forum Site:


First Arrest: Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center of Wichita, Kansas, was arrested on August 27, 2010, during Ramadan. “Police were called when Islamists witnessed Holick and 13 others handing out packets that included the Gospel of John, the Book of Romans in English and Arabic, and a DVD with testimonies of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity.”

Second Arrest: “‘Then we had a number of our members there and it’s just my opinion that he’s not used to that. At one point the judge began to talk about how people were attempting to intimidate him,’ Holick continued.’ ‘Holick told WND the result of the recent hearing in Kansas’ Sedgwick County District Court was that he was cited for contempt when he angrily responded to court restrictions on his attempts to introduce his arguments. What we think happens next is that this case has been set aside and is going to have to be retried, I’m guessing. The next thing is that I have a hearing for a contempt of court charge,’ Holick stated.”

The initial charge was Loitering and Failure to Disburse. The subsequent charge was Contempt of Court.

Additional links:

"Watching Freedom Burn" by

Nice Way to end the day.

Marine Le Pen: Islamism and Globalism are both Totalitarian - Vive La France!

Ground Zero Mosque Special Video

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Joseph Douglass on Narco-Communism´s war on the Free World

Sarah Palin Blood Libel

Now we know why Palin, Limbaugh and Beck are being blamed. lol

Australian Burka debate turns violent

oz burka rally turns violent

Australia is for Australian's and not for Muslims wanting to push their ideology on Australia.

Two Christian women beaten, humiliated in Pakistan over 'false' blasphemy allegations

Karachi News.Net

Saturday 15th January, 2011 (ANI)

Two Christian women were beaten and publicly humiliated by an angry mob in Pakistan over apparently frivolous blasphemy allegations, and subsequently, the duo, along with the family, has gone in hiding over fears of being killed.

The incident took place at a time when minority communities in Pakistan are said to be living in fear, following the Asia Bibi case and liberal politician Salman Taseer 's assassination.

"None of our relatives is ready to let us stay with them. They fear the wrath of the extremists, particularly after the assassination of Salman Taseer," The Express Tribune quoted a male member of the family, as telling over the phone from an undisclosed location.

According to the family, the blasphemy allegations stemmed from a dispute between a Muslim woman and her sister-in-law, who is a Christian, in an East Lahore locality.

A day after the two got into an argument, the Muslim woman walked out onto the street and started shouting that her sister-in-law had abused the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

A short while later, a group of men forced their way into the house and started slapping the Christian woman, said another of her brothers.

"Other men and women from the neighbourhood started gathering at the house too and they beat up my sister and mother. They were the only people in the house," he added.

A participant in the beating said that the women's faces were blackened, and that they were made to wear necklaces of shoes and paraded around the locality on donkeys to humiliate them. The women denied blaspheming and repeatedly touched their feet, seeking mercy, he added.

A member of a religious organisation, with which Taseer's assassin Malik Mumtaz Qadri is also associated, said he was very proud that his wife beat the Christian woman "more than anyone else"

"Her hand is so swollen that she hasn't been able to make rotis since the day of the incident. I've been getting my meals from a restaurant," he added.

An NGO worker helped the family flee the locality after they were attacked. "Apparently there was no blasphemy, just an argument between two women," he revealed.

He said that after hearing of the incident, he reached the scene to find the women being attacked.

He asked the mob if anyone had heard the Christian woman utter any blasphemous remarks, to which they all replied in the negative, said the NGO worker, adding that he then persuaded them to let the women go while he investigated the matter.

He said that he then helped relocate the family temporarily, and also convinced the mob not to involve the police. (ANI)

Muslims once again doing what they do best. Beating helpless, defenseless Christians. What brave men you muslims must think you are. Shame! Shame! Shame!

How can I divorce my Muslim husband?

~ Everything You Need to Know about Islam


I’m from Melbourne Australia. I’m a Muslim Shia and I’ve been married for 14 years. I have been separated NOW for 4 years and am finding hard to get a Muslim Shia divorce. All the sheiks here won’t give me one because it has to come from my husband, and what he says goes. They all know how he is. Islam is a man’s religion. I say it’s not fair. I have 3 kids and they live with me. I get no financial support, which I don’t want and yet my husband is making my life hell.

I lived in hell for 13 years. He says, he will never divorce me so he can ruin me. He says he will never let me remarry again. Why is it so hard for a woman to get divorced? I left him because I had no financial support from him. I worked all my life and he was very verbally abusive even in front of the children. My daughter suffered depression and was seeing a counselor at the age of 8. I’m 34 years of age and I’m entitled to find love and HAPPINESS. Please! I’m begging you to help me get out of this hell and help me get my divorce please.


An example of what we can expect if we allow Sharia laws to be used here in America. Muslim men have full control over ever aspect of their wives life. And the same for their daughters. Disobey the husband and you can become a victim of an Honor Killing.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

India: Muslims Rob Hindu Pilgrims, Hindus subsidize Hajj Pilgrims

Left: Kaba, the holiest site in Islam. Right: Hindu Saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Preaching

A group of Muslims plundered buses full of Hindu pilgrims heading towards Mayapur, one of the holiest cities in Hindu tradition. Mayapur is about 80 miles from Calcutta and it is the birthplace of a Hindu Saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Every year, millions of Hindus visit this holy city.

The Muslim Mafias attacked the buses, beat the passengers and looted gold jewelries and cash. It happened last year also. Local Hindus believe that the local Muslim organizations support the gang to weaken the Hindus.

Although, robbers may come from any race and religion, when Muslims rob a non-Muslim, they do so because it was instructed by the prophet of Islam. Mohammed himself looted several caravans and it is permissible for Muslims to rob an idol worshipper. In fact, it is prescribed as a holy act in Islamic books.

Ironically, the government of India spends a substantial amount of money towards Hajj pilgrims. According to Hindustan times, the Ministry of External Affairs admitted to spent US $ 85,348,837 in 2006, US $ 90,697,675 in 2007 and US $ 192,093,023 in 2008. The ministry does not subsidize any other religion.

Is it the third mandate of the Fed now to foster a rising stock market?

John Mauldin: Thoughts From the Frontline

The Fed Adds a Third Mandate

The Fed has two mandates: keeping prices stable and creating an economic climate for low unemployment. I am sure I was not the only one to listen to Steve Liesman’s interview of Ben Bernanke this week and shake my head at the spin he was giving us. First, let’s set the stage.

In a paper with Alan Blinder early last decade, Bernanke made the case for the Fed to target a specific inflation number, and the number that came to be accepted as his target was 2%. In his famous helicopter speech in late 2002, he assured us that inflation could not happen “here,” even if the short-term rate was zero, because the Fed would move out the yield curve by buying large amounts of medium-term bonds. This would have the effect of lowering yields all along the upper edge of the curve. This became known as quantitative easing. In Jackson Hole last summer, he made very clear his intention to launch a second round of liquidity-injecting quantitative easing (QE2). In that speech, in later speeches in the fall, and in op-ed pieces he said that such a program would lower rates.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to QE2: long-term rates began to rise all over the developed world. As Yogi Berra noted, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." It’s got to be driving Fed types nuts to see the theory of QE, so lovingly advanced and believed in by so many economists, be relegated to the trash heap, along with so many other economic theories (like that of efficient markets). The market has a way of doing that.

So, Liesman asked Bernanke about one minute into the clip (link below) about the little snafu that, following QE2, both interest rates and commodity prices have risen. How can that be a success? Ben’s answer (paraphrased):

We have seen the stock market go up and the small-cap stock indexes go up even more.”

Really? Is it the third mandate of the Fed now to foster a rising stock market? I wonder what the Fed’s target for the S&P is for the end of the year? That would be an interesting bit of information. Are we going to target other asset classes?

Understand, I am not against a rising stock market. But that is not the purview of the Fed. And certainly not a reason to add $600 billion to the balance sheet of the Fed when we clearly do not understand the consequences. If it looks like they’re making up the rules as they go along, it’s because they are.

A Rational Voice in Dallas

Richard Fisher is the president of the Federal Reserve branch in Dallas and a voting member this year of the FOMC committee. (Also a true gentleman, one of the nicest guys you could want to meet, and my neighbor, just a few blocks down the street.) But being a nice guy doesn’t keep him from espousing some strong and dissenting views about Fed policy. He recently gave a speech to the Manhattan Institute that should be required reading (link below) for all policy makers at all levels of government, and not just Fed types. As an anecdote to the Bernanke spin above, let me quote a few paragraphs:

“The new Congress and the new staff in the White House have their work cut out for them. You cannot overstate the gravity of their duty on the economic front. Over the years, their predecessors — Republicans and Democrats together — have dug a fiscal sinkhole so deep and so wide that, left unrepaired, it will swallow up the economic future of our children, our grandchildren and their children. They must now engineer a way out of that frightful predicament without thwarting the nascent economic recovery.

“I have been outspoken about the limits of monetary policy as a salve for the nation’s fiscal pathology. The Fed has done much, in my words, to provide the bridge financing until the new Congress gets to work restructuring the tax and regulatory incentives American businesses need to confidently expand their payrolls and capital expenditures here at home.

“The Federal Reserve has held rates to nil. We have expanded our balance sheet to unprecedented levels. After much debate — which included strong concern expressed by one member with a formal vote and others, like me, who did not have voting rights in 2010 — the FOMC collectively decided in November to temporarily undertake a program to purchase U.S. Treasuries that, when added to previous policy initiatives, roughly means we are purchasing the equivalent of all newly issued Treasury debt through June.

“By this action, we have run the risk of being viewed as an accomplice to Congress’ fiscal nonfeasance. To avoid that perception, we must vigilantly protect the integrity of our delicate franchise. There are limits to what we can do on the monetary front to provide the bridge financing to fiscal sanity. Last Friday, speaking in Germany, [European Central Bank President] Jean-Claude Trichet said it best: ‘Monetary policy responsibility cannot substitute for government irresponsibility.’

“The entire FOMC knows the history and the ruinous fate that is meted out to countries whose central banks take to regularly monetizing government debt. Barring some unexpected shock to the economy or financial system, I think we have reached our limit. I would be wary of further expanding our balance sheet. But here is the essential fact I want to emphasize today: The Fed could not monetize the debt if the debt were not being created by Congress in the first place.

“Those lawmakers who advocate ‘Ending the Fed’ might better turn their considerable talents toward ending the fiscal debacle that has for too long run amuck within their own house. The Fed does not create government debt; fiscal authorities do. Deficits and the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are not created by the Federal Reserve; they are the legacy of those who control the purse strings — the Congress, working with the president. The Fed does not earmark taxpayer money for pet projects in local communities that taxpayers themselves would never countenance; only the Congress does that. The Congress and administration play the dominant role in creating the regulatory environment that incentivizes or discourages job creation.

“… A reader of Shakespeare will recall the dialogue between Glendower and Hotspur in Henry IV. Glendower claims, ‘I can call spirits from the vasty deep.’ And Hotspur replies, ‘Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?’

“We shall see if the new Congress will prove worthy of the power the American people have ‘loaned’ them, and, together with the president, actually draw the spirits of fiscal reform and sanity from the ‘vasty deep’ to at long last implement meaningful fiscal and regulatory policy that incentivizes private-sector job creation here at home while arresting the hemorrhaging of our Treasury. If they do, then more Americans will find work and be better off, better paid, and freer to make their own decisions about the economy.

“If they don’t, then woe to our children, their children, and the American Dream.”

Let us hope President Fisher will find support within the FOMC. I commend his speech to you: . And now on to Europe.

Foreign Funded Demonstrations in Tel Aviv

Posted by Jameel @ The Muqata at 1/15/2011 08:42:00 PM

In probably the biggest Leftist demonstration in recent history (that didn't require a free concert), thousands have swarmed into Tel-Aviv to protest "anti-democratic trends in the Knesset".

The "anti-democratic trends in the Knesset" they are referring to is a newly passed bill requiring a Knesset committee to investigate the sources of funding for 16 leftist organizations in Israel that have been at the forefront of de-legitimizing the IDF and Israel.

The rather poorly kept secret is that Foreign Governments are behind much of the funding for these organizations that contribute to anti-IDF and anti-Israel activity.

And while it's been known for a while that European governments are funding some of these groups, Im Tirtzu recently exposed that Arab countries are also funneling money to some of these Israeli NGOs.

The reasons these organizations are so terrified of this investigation is three-fold: not only the possible loss of the bulk of their funding, but it would prove to the average Israeli that these organizations aren't "grassroots", but are simply foreign funded organizations who have Israel's worst interests at heart, and third, it will be near impossible for the organizations to continue to attack Israel in the international media based on the claim that they are actually native Israeli organizations.

Could the bulk of the these organizations even continue to operate and exist if they had to rely on Israeli/Jewish funding only?

                                   Palestinian Flags at tonight's Demonstration
                                   (photo credit, Tomer Levy, 9:01 PM)

"Hadash Chairman Mohammad Barakeh said, "We are at a dangerous crossroads where democracy is concerned. Democracy is collapsing, not because of Lieberman but because of the support he is receiving from the prime minister. Jews and Arabs who care about democracy cannot fail at this time." (YNET)

In a brilliant tactical move this evening, PM Netanyahu announced that the Knesset would also investigate the funding sources of right-wing organizations.

Personally I think that's a wonderful idea, as I'd be thrilled to know if any foreign governments are helping to fund:

- the restoration of Jewish Hebron

- organizations like El-Ad and Ateret Cohanim that are helping Jews buy homes in Jerusalem,

- organizations in favor of promoting "freedom of religion and equality of prayer for Jews on the Temple Mount"

Is there even one country in the world that is helping "Civil Rights for the Residents of Judea and Samaria" organization or perhaps, Honeinu, the legal rights fund for residents of Judea and Samaria?

Somehow, I don't think foreign governments are behind them... and the above organizations are a thousand times more "grassroots" than any of those demonstrators in Tel-Aviv this evening.

In the US, there is a law called FARA.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was enacted in 1938. FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons in light of their function as foreign agents. The FARA Registration Unit of the Counterespionage Section (CES) in the National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Act.

Yet, no one is calling the US anti-democratic.

I would add, this new Israeli law does not impede the actions or activities of these NGOs. It merely exposes them as the foreign agents they are.

It's no surprise that the "New" Israel Fund is leading tonight's demonstration.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Former Muslims Speak Out

Jay Sekulow talks with three former Muslims who have converted to Christianity.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Replacing the System With Islam

Gates of Vienna Blog

Sunday, January 09, 2011
Replacing the System With Islam

This is one of the most refreshing videos I’ve seen in a long time. This guy, Abu Mounisa, is a lot like Anjem Choudary — he doesn’t pussyfoot around. Forget the taqiyya, forget the kitman, forget telling the kafir all those sweet pretty lies he longs to hear!

This is the real stuff, the full monty, a big barrel of pure unadulterated one hundred proof Islamic supremacist moonshine, served out for everyone to see and hear:

British salafi Abu Mounisa - The Islamic Awakening Conference

How come he doesn’t get arrested for “inciting religious hatred”?

Yes, I know, I know. That was a rhetorical question.

I understand the rules in Modern Multicultural Britain all too well. There are two sets of them: one for Muslims, and one for everyone else

Fucking Muzzies can say anything and its ok with the British establishment. Anyone saying anything about Islam, and they end up being prosecuted for hate speech. Britian is lost to the Muzzies.

Live to Die (for virgins in the sky) BANNED by Youtube

Live to Die (for virgins in the sky) BANNED by Youtube from Joe Dan on Vimeo.

Is Youtube bending to the wishes of Muslims? You decide.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Christians Arrested in Dearborn Michigan Comment on Their Arrest

Its clear that the Dearborn Police department were the ones violating these christians rights. Now Dearborn is trying to wiggle their way out of the mess they got themselves in. Since when is it a crime to videotape Muslims at a festival?

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constition

Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?

35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

You can also add your signature to a petition supporting the proposed amendment by clicking on this link:

Thank you

'Qaeda 7' att'y eyes NYC job

An embattled former Obama administration appointee -- who was part of a group of attorneys accused of being terrorist sympathizers for defending "enemy combatants" -- is under consideration for a post at the US Attorney's Office in Brooklyn, The Post has learned.

Tali Farhadian was one of several private attorneys who created a rift between conservatives and more-moderate Republicans last spring when President Obama assigned them to posts within the Justice Department.

Although they were handling unrelated matters in Attorney General Eric Holder's office, a political watchdog group accused Obama of overloading his office with officials sympathetic to enemy combatants.

Their appointments even prompted Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, to dub them the "al Qaeda Seven."

Those siding with Cheney included prominent neo-conservative William Kristol. Other Republicans, including Sen. Lindsay Graham (SC), defended the attorneys.

Farhadian, 35, served as counsel to Holder until her departure in June. Before joining Holder's office, Farhadian worked at a law firm that wrote legal briefs for two organizations, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First.

Jessica Smith, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said yesterday that Farhadian is still with the department but that she has been on unpaid personal leave since June.

Smith defended Farhadian's actions as a private attorney.

"One of the hallmarks of our nation's legal system is that attorneys provide faithful representation to all sorts of clients," Smith said.

Farhadian is a Rhodes scholar who served from 2004 to 2006 as a law clerk to US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

She completed her undergraduate degree at Yale and also received a master's in oriental studies from Oxford University in England.

Farhadian would not comment.

Read more:

The Meaning Of 'Allah Akbar!'

Investors Business Daily Posted 01/05/2011 07:06 PM ET

Political Correctness: "Allah Akbar!" cheered Egyptian Muslims while trampling the remains of dozens of Christians eviscerated in last Friday's suicide bombing. Yet we're assured that the phrase has nothing to do with Islam.

Video taken at the gruesome scene outside a church in Alexandria, Egypt, clearly shows local rubberneckers whooping it up as they shout "Allah Akbar!" — Arabic for "Allah is greatest!" We heard the same celebratory chant from Palestinians and other Muslims around the world as the Twin Towers burned.

The list of Islamic terrorists heard shouting the phrase before launching attacks is long. The 9/11 hijackers themselves screamed "Allah Akbar!" before crashing their planes. More recently, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was heard crying "Allah Akbar!" before massacring 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

Never mind all that, say apologists intent on separating Islam from terror. The expression is benign, they insist.

"The guy who gets up on the plane and says 'Allah!' or whatever and then blows the plane up is not making a statement about his faith," American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee head James Zogby said last year, speaking to congressional staffers.

Zogby says it's more an expression of frustration, like Christians blurting out their Savior's name after accidently hammering their thumb. "Somebody says 'Jesus Christ!' they're not making a statement of faith," he explained. "They're saying, I'm really mad right now."

The comparison is absurd.

Muslims say "Allah is greatest" to exalt their God. When Christians mutter "Jesus Christ," they in contrast are taking their Lord's name in vain. There's no corresponding "Jesus Christ is greatest!"

Zogby wins the prize for post-9/11 fig-leafing. He made his remarks in August as a panelist at a little-known Hill forum on the "image of Muslims in America," sponsored by the Congressional Muslim Staff Association, or CMSA. A transcript of the event shows attendees clearly upset over polls showing growing numbers of Americans holding negative views about Islam.

Other panelists included Salam al-Marayati, who was kicked off an anti-terror panel in 1999 by then-House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt for his inflammatory rhetoric. He now watches what he says.

He and other "moderate" Muslim panelists said Americans have it all wrong, that they've been fed "misinformation." They maintained that Islam is "tolerant," that "democracy is at the heart of Islam," and that women who wear the Islamic headscarf are "liberated." They also claimed that the Ground Zero mosque is "actually intended to develop interfaith understanding."

Who's misinforming whom?

The moderator noted at the end of the program that CMSA is run by "Mr. J. Saleh Williams." Turns out the "J" stands for Jihad. Williams is a convert to Islam, and that's the name he chose. Of all the Arabic names, that's the one he picked.

Recent reports reveal that these Muslim staffers over the years have invited a parade of radical Muslims to speak on the Hill, including terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Now a fugitive al-Qaida leader, he led prayers and spoke after 9/11 — and after privately counseling some of the "Allah Akbar!"-shouting hijackers.

Such disinformation lulls Americans into a false sense of security about the threat from Islamism. That it is allowed to emanate from Congress is an outrage.

Muslims shouting Allah Akbar during Bomb explosion at Egyptian church kills at least 7

So when Muslims hit their thumb accidentally with a hammer, they yell out Allah Akbar? What crap. When Major Nidal murdered 13 Americans at Fort hood, was he yelling Allah Akbar because his trigger finger was hurting from firing at so many innocent men and women in uniform?  Its total bullshit. Muslims are prasing Allah when they are murdering Christians.

Gov. Kills Immigration Laws In Name Of Economic Growth

Judicial Watch Blog

Last Updated: Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:11pmRhode Island’s new governor has killed crucial measures to crack down on illegal immigration for the sake of statewide economic growth and prosperity in “immigrant-rich areas.”

Just a few days on the job, Democrat Lincoln Chafee wasted no time issuing executive orders to accommodate illegal aliens, assuring that “Rhode Island can grow economically by being a tolerant place to do business.” He also took action so that “immigrant-rich areas” could prosper throughout the state, which has an estimated 40,000 illegal aliens mingled in its population of a little over 1 million.

With a scribble on a paper Chafee rescinded a 2008 law requiring public agencies and vendors that do business with the state to use a federal database—known as E-Verify—to check the legal status of their workers. The governor also ordered Rhode Island State Police to stop participating in a federal program that allows officers to enforce immigration laws. The executive order calls the laws agents of “divisiveness, incivility and distrust among the state’s citizens.”

It’s simply part of the governor’s mission to create civil state with a “vibrant, diverse community that is free of political, cultural and ethnic division.” During his inauguration speech Chaffee vowed to implement an era of “cultural and ethnic acceptance” that will bring the state immediate prosperity. He took the opportunity to also say that his predecessor’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration caused “needless anxiety within our Latino community.”

The immigration laws were implemented to soften the huge financial toll that illegal aliens are having on Rhode Island taxpayers amid federal inaction. The Republican governor (Donald Carcieri) who enacted the measures said he was forced to because the flow of illegal immigrants had become “epidemic” and state taxpayers were getting stuck with the enormous tab.

There were also serious concerns of escalating violence by illegal immigrants with criminal histories. The same year the immigration control laws were enacted, an illegal alien with an extensive criminal record kidnapped and raped a woman in Providence, despite his repeated encounters with local law enforcement officers for driving drunk and domestic assault. Had local authorities contacted federal immigration officials, the Guatemalan man would have been deported long ago.

Once again, a Liberal politician recinds laws that were in place to preserve jobs for Americans, jobs that will now be going to Illegals. One more reason why we must continue to fight against the election of Socialists to higher government positions.

Extremist group announces suicide attack to kill Asia Bibi

01/07/2011 16:13


Extremist group announces suicide attack to kill Asia Bibi

by Jibran Khan

Pakistani intelligence says Moaviya group is planning a suicide attack against Sheikhupura Prison, where the woman has been held since 2009. In Lahore, the first hearing for the murder of Punjab Governor of Salman Taseer opens amid hugging and showering of flowers for his assassin.

Islamabad (AsiaNews) – An extremist Islamist group calling itself ‘Moaviya’ might be planning a suicide attack against Sheikhupura Prison in order to kill Asia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death for blasphemy, this according to a report by Pakistani intelligence. Ms Bibi has been held in the prison since 2009. Punjab police and prison authorities have tightened security, especially in the wake of the assassination of the provincial governor, Salman Taseer, last Tuesday.

A few days ago, Mgr Lawrence John Saldanha, president of the catholic Bishops’ Conference of Pakistan, said, “it is clear that anyone that opposes the blasphemy law is at risk.”

Mgr Rufin Anthony, bishop of Islamabad-Rawalpindi, told AsiaNews that religious fundamentalism and intolerance are spreading in the country.

Increasingly, Muslim religious leaders are actually offering rewards to anyone willing to carry out attacks and violence against those who criticises the blasphemy law.

Between 1990 and 2011, as many as 35 people accused of blasphemy or opposed to the law were murdered in extrajudicial killings or found dead in dubious circumstances.

Such deaths tend to cause rejoicing among some Muslims, as evinced by the demonstrations in favour of Taseer’s murderer, Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri.

When he was arraigned in court last Tuesday, dozens of his fans hugged and kissed him, showering him with rose petals.

More than 2,000 people have also joined a Facebook group that backs the murder. Only 70 people have expressed an opinion against him.

According to US-based LifeSiteNews, more than 500 Muslim scholars have praised Qadri’s deed.

“It is shocking that the murderer of a governor is being honoured,” said Fr Daniel Habib, a Lahore priest. “Hundreds of lawyers are proudly presenting themselves to save Qadri; this is barbarianism. Instead of condemning such an act, he is being made a hero.”

Muslims extremists brainwashed into thinking Muhammad was some kind of Messiah. Muhammad was a pedophile that liked to play with little girls when he wasn't butchering Christians and Jews. Sharia Blasphemy laws is just another of many reasons why Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate to America. Euope is finding out the mistakes they made by allowing Muslims to immigrates to their countries. Now Muslims wans to push Sharia on all of Europe. They are making that same move on America.