The Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam

[vector7]

Florida based Communists, Radical Islamists and Unions go after TEA Party Members

By Dr. Richard Swier | 01/10/10 | 09:46 AM EDT | 2 Comments

I recieved an interesting e-mail from the local Glenn Beck Meet-up Group about A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida. It seems A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida recently sent out an e-mail to all its members stating in part:

"Racism is like anything else in this world: in order to make it fall, you must smash it! That is why we are calling on all people to come out tomorrow, to organize a militant confrontation with the so-called “tea baggers.” Beating back these forces will require us to organize together, take the streets, fight the racists wherever they show their faces and drive them out of every community." [Emphasis added]
So what is A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida and why do they want to "organize a militant confrontation with the so-called 'tea baggers'"?

A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida is the local branch of International A.N.S.W.E.R. and the ANSWER Coalition. ANSWER was established by the International Action Center (IAC), which was founded by former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark and the Communist Workers World Party. Many of ANSWER's leaders were members of Workers World Party (WWP) at the time of ANSWER's founding, and are current members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist-Leninist organization that was founded in 2004 by people who had left the WWP.

Who sits on the Florida Statewide ANSWER Steering Committee? The following individuals according to the A.N.S.W.E.R. Florida website:

Jamal Alian, Muslim Student Association, Florida State University, Tallahassee (NOTE: MSA at FSU is a member of FSU Amnesty International)
Lex Foster, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Daytona Beach
Naveen El-Nawawy, Muslim community activist, Tampa
Michael Prysner, March Forward, Tampa
Antonio Franco, ANSWER-UCF, Orlando
Emmanuel Lopez, member, Unite Here, Local 355, Palm Beach
John Daly, Exec. Board, AFSCME Local 3041, Fort Lauderdale
Muhammed Malik, South Florida Palestine Solidarity Network Miami Dade, Miami
Nadia Abdallah, Palestinian American Organization, FAU, Boca Raton

What is unusual about this leadership group? Note that four Steering Committee members represent Islamic organizations, some of which like the Muslim Students Association, have been directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. Muhammed Malik, representing the Palistinian Solidarity Network, supports the dissolution of Israel. Two are members of Marxist/Leninist organizations, another a member of the anti-war veterans group March Forward, which demands an end to the existing officer corps and reparations to the "victims" of the U.S. military. Finally, two are members of Florida based hospitality industry labor unions.

Florida was home to eleven of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Three of those terrorists learned how to pilot the airplanes that they flew into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania in Venice, FL about 20 miles from my home. When ever is see any organization calling for its members to "smash" another organization I begin to get worried. I worry if a combination of Floridians and students attending Florida's universities who believe in ideologies that are the nemesis of our form of government should be allowed to make statements like the above without investigation.

Finally, I wonder if a toxic mix of Marxism, radical Islamism and union workers is dangerous to our safety and well being. I wonder if our U.S. Department of Homeland Security is as worried as I am about what A.N.S.W.E.R Florida is doing. Are these organizations creating an environment where a home grown terrorist will be radicalized and one day decide to strike in the name of one of these ideologies? I wonder why the main stream media is not covering this group and its radical agenda, given the recent attacks by radical Islamists. What do you think?

[vector7]

How Members of Congress Are Advancing Anti-Muslim Hysteria to Push a Radical Legal Agenda

AlterNet / By Liliana Segura
January 28, 2010

Islamophobes in Congress like Joe Lieberman are trying to set the U.S. on a path
to establish a different set of legal standards for Muslims.

By Liliana Segura, AlterNet
Posted on January 28, 2010, Printed on January 29, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145425/


Roughly one month after the massacre at Fort Hood and a little over a week after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the "underwear bomber") tried to blow himself up over the city of Detroit, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Congress, South Carolina Representative Gresham Barrett, re-introduced a sweeping piece of legislation that he first rolled out in 2003 as a freshman on Capitol Hill.

The Stop Terrorists Entry Program (STEP) Act was originally introduced on September 11 (naturally), 2003 "to bar the admission of aliens from countries determined to be state sponsors of terrorism, and for other purposes." At the time, these countries included Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Cuba. The bill not only sought to bar presumed enemies of the state from entering the U.S., it also would have forced "nonimmigrant aliens" -- visitors with a temporary visa -- to leave the country, within 60 days of its passage.

In other words, they would be deported.

The STEP Act never got very far. But a few days into the new year, Rep. Barrett decided to try again. "Twice in the past two months, radical Islamic terrorists have attacked our nation and the administration has failed to adapt its national security and immigration policies to counter the renewed resolve of those who seek to harm our citizens," he announced. "In light of these unfortunate facts, the Step Act of 2010 bars the admission of aliens from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism and Yemen."

Iranian advocacy groups were especially vocal in their alarm over the re-introduced bill. In an open letter to Barrett on January 9, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), described his bill as an attempt to "make discrimination against Iranians into United States law."

"You have said you are reintroducing the STEP Act in response to the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit," Parsi wrote. "We hope you recognize that no Iranian has been involved in any of these attacks, or the 9/11 terrorist attacks for that matter. The individuals who carried out the Fort Hood attack and the Christmas day attempt -- an American Army major and a Nigerian national -- would not have been affected in the slightest by the sweeping provisions offered in your bill."

This point was reiterated by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, who crowned Barrett one of his "Worst Persons" on his January 12 segment. Pointing out that Major Nidal Hasan was born in Arlington, VA and went to high school in Roanoke, Olbermann said, "I guess, congressman, you need to expand your STEP program to stop aliens from infiltrating our homeland from such nests of terror as Interstate 81 in Virginia."

The day before Barrett officially re-introduced the STEP Act, NIAC delivered thousands of letters to his office, urging him to reconsider.

"Your bill punishes innocent Iranians and implies that 'stopping terrorists' means barring them from entering the U.S. to visit family or go to school," the letters read.

Surprisingly, hours after the letters were delivered, Rep. Barrett's office said he would get rid of the language that would lead to the deportation of immigrants from Iran and other countries. "Unfortunately, many have been misinformed on the true nature of this legislation,"

Barrett claimed in a statement released alongside the bill. "Contrary to some reports, the STEP Act does not contain any language that calls for deportation of citizens from countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States … Citizens from these countries who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States will not be affected by this legislation."

NIAC declared this "a major victory," but warned that the fight is not over. The revised version of the bill still basically criminalizes Iranians and others, banning them from obtaining U.S. visas.

The STEP Act may be a uniquely bad -- not to mention far-fetched -- example of legislative efforts to install blatantly discriminatory policy into American law books in the name of national security. But the danger it represents, even in its softened version, is hard to overstate. "That people even consider dropping those pieces of legislation is pretty troubling," Corey Saylor, legislative director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told AlterNet. At a time when blatant and far-reaching anti-Muslim measures are being enacted in other parts of the world -- such as the Swiss ban on minarets or the campaign to ban the hijab in France -- new attempts to target Muslims in this country are cause for concern. "I think we're headed in a very disturbing direction, in which anti-Muslim hysteria is growing, and I think it's something that we all need to address," CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet.

The issue should be addressed sooner rather than later. Within days of Abdulmutallab's foiled bomb attempt, the White House announced that citizens of 14 predominantly Muslim countries -- Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Somalia and Cuba -- would now be subject to additional screenings at airport security, a policy that will remain in place "indefinitely." As with the STEP Act, this effectively criminalizes whole global populations, feeding into the "clash of civilizations" narrative that has fueled so many destructive post-9/11 misadventures. Nawar Shora, the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the 14-country directive "extreme and very dangerous."
"All of a sudden people are labeled as being related to terrorism just because of the nation they are from," he told the New York Times.

In a statement released by CAIR, executive director Nihad Awad argued that the policy amounts to racial profiling (a practice candidate Obama vowed to abolish as president). "Under these new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling."

Is 'Homegrown Terrorism' on the Rise?

Soon after the shooting at Fort Hood, Sen. Joseph Lieberman's Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing titled "The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment." Lieberman has been one of the most vocal members of Congress stressing the threat of "homegrown terrorism," which, by his definition, takes the form of radicalized Muslims within the U.S.

Lieberman was one of the first to call the shooting at Fort Hood an act of terrorism. "We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," Lieberman said in an interview on Fox News on November 11.

Whether to label Hasan a "terrorist" versus a violent criminal may sound like a semantic debate, but the policy implications are very real. As with the recent heated debate over the fate of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab -- conservative commentators insist he deserves no right to due process, and a group of U.S. Senators are peddling a bill that would require civilian officials to consult with intelligence authorities when taking an alleged terrorist into custody -- what is at stake is the question of whether, ultimately, we could see a different, undemocratic set of legal standards for Muslims who commit violent crimes. By the logic of today's right-wingers, the Beltway snipers could potentially have been labeled terrorists and tried before a military commission rather than the ordinary criminal justice system. (Although, given that John Allen Muhammad was executed late last year, it's hard to imagine that a military trial would have led to a tougher sentence.)

Of course, there is some truth to the "homegrown terrorist" meme. Lieberman's hearing took place just before news broke that five young men from Northern Virginia, ages 18 to 24, had been arrested as part of a terrorist probe in Pakistan, allegedly attempting to help plan jihadist attacks against their own country. Earlier last year came the news that young Muslim American men from Minnesota have been radicalized into traveling to Somalia to join the Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group Al Shabab. These stories have led to numerous media reports with headlines like "Homegrown Terror on the Rise."

Meanwhile, on the home front, the case of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam who shot and killed two military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas last year, took a turn for the bizarre when the 24-year-old changed his plea from "not guilty"to "guilty" in a letter to his presiding judge in which he claimed to have connections to al-Qaeda. According to MSNBC, "Muhammad also called himself in the letter a member of Abu Basir's Army," a reference to the alias of Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, the Yemeni group's leader.
"This was a jihad: attack on infidel forces," Muhammed wrote. His lawyer was skeptical. "He's said lots of things. None of them seem to be real consistent with each other."

Nonetheless, these cases have lent themselves to an easily woven narrative, in which terror cells are being planted all over the country, with dastardly plots in the works.

"There's definitely a rise in jihad recruits and volunteers in the United States, whether they're concerning plots here in the U.S. or whether they involve material support to terror plots overseas," Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, told Fox News in December.

At least one recent study suggests that the homegrown Islamic terrorist narrative is overblown. In a report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and published this month, North Carolina-based researchers David Schanzer, Charles Kurzman and Ebrahim Moosa write: "In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere around the world, a key counterterrorism concern is the possible radicalization of Muslims living in the United States. Yet, the record over the past eight years contains relatively few examples of Muslim-Americans that have radicalized and turned toward violent extremism."

While the report found relatively low numbers of radicalized Muslim-Americans, it discovered an "increased Anti-Muslim bias."

"Muslim-Americans perceive a stronger anti-Muslim bias from both their day-to-day interactions and the media, a bias that is confirmed in public opinion polling. While Muslim-Americans understand and support the need for enhanced security and counterterrorism initiatives, they believe that some of these efforts are discriminatory, and they are angered that innocent Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of the impact of these policies."
"Muslim-American communities and law enforcement agencies,” the authors concluded, "must make efforts to cooperate more closely to overcome mutual suspicions and achieve common goals.”

Unfortunately, law enforcement's ties to Muslim communities remain strained. Last year the FBI officially severed ties with CAIR over allegations that the group had ties to Hamas, an ironic decision given the fact that, most recently, it was CAIR who brought the recent case of the five would-be terrorists from Northern Virginia to the attention of the FBI.

Writing about Lieberman's November hearing, author Chip Berlet called it "an example of flawed, biased, or discredited scholarship being used in a zealous propaganda campaign that will do little to enhance public safety and much to expand bigotry against Muslims in the United States." Berlet continued:

The main thesis of Lieberman's renegade Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is that there is a looming threat of "homegrown terrorism" by domestic "Jihadists." To use the tragic shootings at Fort Hood to further promote this biased propaganda as part of an ongoing political campaign is grotesque.
At issue is the validity of the concept of "Leaderless Jihad" and the idea that "extremist ideology" somehow has created squads of anti-American terrorists lurking in domestic Muslim communities where "Leaderless Resistance" cells and "lone wolfs" are even now plotting acts of "Jihadist" violence -- just like the right-wing domestic terrorists in the 1980s and 1990's which culminated in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995.
Sounds scary.
The Oklahoma City bombing, however, was not the act of a "lone wolf," and while it involved a clandestine terror cell, it was not an example of "Leaderless Resistance." In fact, there is no evidence that "Leaderless Resistance" was adopted as a successful terror strategy by the ultra-right in the 1980s and 1990's, which undermines the whole concept of "Leaderless Jihad" being peddled by Lieberman.

Nevertheless, Lieberman and committee ranking minority leader Susan Collins have long been pushing this theme. In May 2008 they released a controversial report titled "Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat" warning that "the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise, aided by the Internet's capacity to spread the core recruitment and training message of violent Islamist terrorist groups." Lieberman subsequently went after YouTube in an attempt to get videos taken down that he considered to be spreading a dangerous message. Some 80 videos were removed from the site.
Among the critics of Lieberman's targeting of YouTube was the New York Times editorial page:

While it is fortunate that Mr. Lieberman does not have the power to tell YouTube that it must remove videos, it is profoundly disturbing that an influential senator would even consider telling a media company to shut down constitutionally protected speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the "Homegrown Terrorism" bill and related efforts "could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet."

Bigots On Capitol Hill
Beyond Congressional hearings that push the "homegrown Islamic terrorist" narrative -- or even repressive pieces of legislation like the STEP Act -- CAIR's Corey Saylor says the alliances formed by members of Congress like Barrett with members of the anti-Muslim right are far more dangerous.

"It's less the legislation and more the legitimacy that's offered to some of the anti-Muslim bigots by members of Congress," he says.

One example Saylor cites is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican member of the House from Georgia. Broun recently invited a man named David Yerushalmi to testify at a hearing on Capitol Hill. "Yerushalmi belongs to an organization that once called for adherence to Islam to be punishable by 20 years in prison," says Saylor.

Yerushalmi is the president and founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which, in addition to seeking to criminalize Islam, has statements on its Web site such as: "There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote."

"This man has the right to free speech, he has the right to believe what he believes," says Saylor. "But he gets legitimized because someone like Paul Broun invites him to Capitol Hill and gives him a platform … That allows him to go out and push his hate speech."

Two days before Christmas, CAIR sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to address what it described as a "rise in Anti-Islam hate, Islamophobic incidents, and rhetoric targeting ordinary American Muslims." Among these incidents was "an attack on a Sikh youth in Texas who was mistaken for a Muslim," "a Colorado sheriff who called the U.S. Marines 'Travel agents to Allah,'" and "a spate of vandalism incidents at mosques nationwide." It also listed a disturbing number of anti-Muslim incidents among supporters of and aspiring elected officials, as well as elected officials themselves.

Most memorable, perhaps, was the attempt last year by right-wing members of Congress to convince the public that CAIR itself was engaged in a sinister conspiracy to infiltrate and take over Congress, by dispatching interns to Capitol Hill. Last October, U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina, was joined by Rep. Broun as well as Arizona Republicans John Shadegg and Trent Franks in issuing a call for a federal investigation into CAIR's attempts to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security. The accusation was inspired by a book titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America, written by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist who posed as an intern for CAIR in an attempt to prove that the group is trying to infiltrate Congress. (Rep. Myrick wrote the introduction to the book.)

The backlash against Myrick and her co-conspirators was swift. "These charges smack of an America of sixty years ago where lists of 'un-American' agitators were identified,"wrote Reps. Michael Honda, D-CA, Barbara Lee, D-CA and Nydia Velazquez, D-NY in a letter on behalf of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and signed by 87 members of Congress.

"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America."

The Obama administration didn't have much to say about the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory, perhaps making the strategic decision to simply let the rumor die. But the White House did not respond, either, to CAIR's December letter asking Obama to address the trend toward anti-Muslim sentiment.

"I don't know why they don't respond," CAIR executive director Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet, "but all we can do is ask."

While Myrick and her supporters -- whom Hooper refers to as "the usual suspects" peddling anti-Muslim bigotry -- have not really been taken seriously outside the right-wing blogosphere, they have had some effect. "I think they've made the whole administration rather skittish about associating in any way with Muslims or Islam," Hooper says. (Certainly, the ugly fear-mongering and lies that sought to portray Obama as a "secret Muslim" were on full display even before his election.)

Corey Saylor says that although the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory pushed by Myrick has mostly gone away, it's not dead. "They've been working on sort of retooling their message and it's slowly starting to crop back up again," he says. In Myrick's case, this means repositioning herself as an ally of moderate Muslims.

"We're trying to work with mainstream Muslims and help give them a voice and hear where people stand and help them think about the issues," she recently told the Charlotte Observer.

Saylor says Myrick is simply trying to insulate herself from further accusations that she is prejudiced against Muslims. "Keep in mind," he says, "she's the one whose on the record as saying [after 9/11] that we need to take a look at who's running our convenience stores."

According to the Observer, "Myrick met with Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, shortly after the Fort Hood shooting to address what Hough said were inflammatory remarks by Myrick to local media about Islam."

"A part of me thinks that she means well, but that doesn't mean her message is well-meaning," Hough told the Observer, noting that she has softened her rhetoric. "She's being more careful."

Liliana Segura is an AlterNet staff writer and editor of Rights & Liberties and World Special Coverage. Follow her on Twitter.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

[vector7]

Osama bin Laden joins Al Gore in fighting manmade climate change

anuary 29, 10:37 AMClimate Change ExaminerTony Hake



Former Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore found an unlikely ally in his mission to save the world from the ravages of global warming – Osama bin Laden. In a new audiotape released by Al Jazeera, the terrorist warns that it is industrialized nations that are to blame and urged “drastic solutions" to solve the climate change crisis.

Bin Laden echoes many who believe the manmade climate change theory saying, "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact." The comments are akin to the oft-repeated ‘the science is settled’ argument.

It is the industrialized world and of course primarily the United States that is to blame for global warming. “All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming," he says on the tape.

According to bin Laden, it is the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States that has caused global warming to impact the world. He said, "Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this agreement only to satisfy the big companies."the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.

The treaty was ratified by 187 nations but not by the United States. Since then, it has become widely accepted that the agreement did nothing to curb emissions in the nations that did ratify it.

Offering his solution, bin Laden suggests by working on concert, other nations can collapse the U.S. dollar and thus force about a solution. "I know that there would be huge repercussions for that, but this would be the only way to free humankind from slavery... to America and its companies."

[vector7]

Obama favors an unholly alliance between Marxism and Islam

Ted Belman - 4/5/2008

In "Obama’s Muslim connection"I wrote, that Obama’s foreign policy favours accommodation to Islam. Here's more information about the Democrats' likely nominee:

1 He surrounded himself with advisers who believe that US foreign policy is controlled by Jews and this must end.

2. Obama plans to organize a Muslim summit

3. Obama Defends Columbia’s Ahmadinejad Invite

4. Obama; I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad

5. Obama: Don’t Stay in Iraq Over Genocide

6. Barack Obama Would Let Shoaib Choudhury Die

7. “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds change in an ugly direction”. BARACK OBAMA from The Audacity Of Hope which is titled in Indonesia “Assualt Hope: From Jakarta To The Whitehouse”?. It is arguable that “Assault Hope” means “Jihad”.

8. Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers

9. Obama Served On Board That Funded Pro-Palestinian Group

10. Obama - Rezko - Auchi - Saddam Hussein?

11. Obama’s Church Gives Platform to Hamas Terrorists, Questions Israel’s Legitimacy

12. Obama absented himself from the Senate when Senate names Iran’s army “terrorist organization“ but later said he was opposed.

13. Obama’s Iraq War

14. “Bomb Pakistan”

Apparently he wants to get out of the war in Iraq and increase the war in Afghanistan. Maybe I missed the point. He wants to kill al Qaeda in Pakistan but leave them to take over in Iraq?

Maybe I still don’t get it.

Maybe he wants to bomb with much “collateral damage” rather than invade and occupy. He did say last summer, something to the effect that the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

What have we to make of his overall foreign policy goals. To understand where he wants to lead the US and with what principles, we must look to his chief foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, asks in Brzesinsky/Obama Axis

1. I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?
   
   It was reported in the New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussain Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.
   Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts.
   [..] Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts.
   The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.
   With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government.
   Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or trans-historical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another.
   Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.
   II. Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States
   With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state.
   As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state . His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation . The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity . It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.
2. 
   “That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.”
3. Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism. ”
4. 
   Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise. ” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism . Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran.
5. 
   Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.
   This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel’s Third Commonwealth. Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski. The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish!
   But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum. Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government. But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction. A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country. A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history.
   Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites.
   Will Israel be the target of CHANGE — the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussain Obama?

It is important to note that when Carter had Brzezinski as his foreign policy adviser, he undermined the Shah paved the way for the Islamic Revolution in Iran, al Qaeda was created to fight the Soviets and Islamist terrorists were supported to destroy Yugoslavia which was a Russian ally. These plans involved Britain, Saudia Arabia and Germany.
Sultan Knish offers us a taste of things to come in his article Zbignew Brezezinksi, Barack Obama and America as the Headless Chicken,

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan was to counter the rise of pro-Soviet left wing regimes with a string of Islamic regimes, countering Marxism with Islamism finally culminating in an Islamic overthrow of the USSR (replacing one monstrous regime with another monstrous regime). His dabbling in Afghanistan would eventually give birth to Taliban rule and Osama Bin Laden and September 11th, something he blames Israel and Neo-Cons for. In Iran, Zbigniew Brzezinski backed a policy that would support the Ayatollah Khomeni as America’s new ally.To show its affinity for the Mullahs, the Carter Administration had lifted a 1978 ban on arms sales to Tehran. The exiled Shah was barred from entering the United States to seek medical treatment. The United States even promised to defend Iran against the Soviet Union. Zbigniew Brzezinski met with the Ayatollah Khomeni’s Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan and offered the new regime a strategic relationship with the United States. It took five months before a rescue attempt was made and when Zbigniew Brzezinski planned out the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw it was sabotaged from the start by the chains placed on the operation from the Carter White House.

This is an indication of the change Obama wants.
This is the unity he hopes to achieve.
Ted Belman also writes for Israpundit.com

[vector7]

Understand the Left In Depth: The 10 Most Important David Horowitz Books to Read

2010 August 9

by David Swindle

tags: David Horowitz, News, Politics, Radical Son, The Politics of Bad Faith
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

The most important section of Unholy Alliance is titled “The Mind of the Left.” Here David traces the evolution of anti-Americanism from Old Left Stalinists through his generation of New Leftists up through today’s so-called “progressives.”

Read this section and you’ll understand why the term “neo-communist” is accurate and necessary. Today’s progressives have the same understanding of America and foreign policy as David’s communist parents.

Thus, “neo-communist” is born.

David was really the first to sound the alarm about this disturbing theme of leftists siding with Islamists. (Something we see quite clearly in the defense of the 9/11 mosque.) Since Unholy Alliance there’s been both Jamie Glazov’s United in Hate and Andy McCarthy’s The Grand Jihad which have expanded the argument.

Purchase on Kindle here for $9.99
Purchase in the Freedom Center online book store here.
Continue reading page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[vector7]

Muslims are protected in USA….It’s now OK to persecute American Christians

[vector7]

Think of it as ACORN reborn, with a slice of Jihad on the side.

On August 31, this coming Tuesday, the Muslim Brotherhood-associated “Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations” (CCMO) will bring 25-30 Muslim leaders of 20 national Muslim groups to attend a special workshop presented by the White House and U.S. Government agencies (Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services etc.) to provide the groups “funding, government assistance and resources.” The workshop will apparently provide special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizations: the organizers pledge to provide “direct access” and “cut through red tape.” Government and Muslim groups will hold an Iftar dinner (breaking the fast of Ramadan) after the workshop.



The event was announced in an email newsletter sent August 27 by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, long associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamist network (great backgrounder here from Hudson Institute).

Here are three key paragraphs from the email (the entire article on the August 31 event from the ISNA email is pasted below this post as reference):

This year, a phenomenal next step has been made where government iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community.

The US Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010.

…Leaders from Muslim organizations around the nation, particularly social service organizations, are invited to a workshop with representatives from the DOA, Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Health and Human Services, the White House, Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and more. Twenty five to thirty Muslim leaders representing 20 Muslim organizations are expected to attend the workshop.

According to a representative of CCMO, this workshop is designed to clarify how Muslim nonprofits, mosques, Islamic centers, and social service organizations can strengthen their communities through more direct access to opportunities provided to social service agencies at the Federal level. “It will hopefully help cut through some of the red tape and shine light on the many opportunities for funding, government assistance, and resources that we just don’t know about at the local level,” said Elsanousi.

The Problem: Your Money, redistributed to the Muslim Brotherhood

This workshop constitutes an abdication of their professional responsibility by all government participants – and a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing Shariah law on all nations and institutions. Their credo is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Why do we think some of these groups attending, possibly all, may be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Because the sponsoring organization – the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO), co-sponsoring with the Department of Agriculture – has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood. They also signed a 2009 American Muslim Task Force statement threatening to “suspend” relations with the FBI, because the FBI was investigating possible links to homegrown terrorism in mosques and other Muslim organizations.

Not so evident on the current website, of course. This happens all the time with groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood – the current CCMO website has a LOT less information than the older ones preserved at archive.org (aka “The Wayback Machine”).

Here are the previous websites for the CCMO from 2004-2008. The pre-whitewashed CCMO websites are highly revealing. They expose the degree to which this Administration intends to direct taxpayer money (and “reduced red tape”) to Muslim Brotherhood-associated organizations in the U.S.

The Administration has not revealed which 20 groups and 25-30 leaders will attend the special workshop, but if they include the 41 CCMO members listed in 2007, the attendees could include the following groups , which I’ve linked to descriptions published by The Investigative Project (please support their work):

The Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorism Finance trial, and the source of Friday’s email promoting this CCMO/Department of Agriculture Event;

The Council on American Islamic Relations, shunned by the FBI, several of its leaders indicted or convicted for terrorism, a possible violator of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, sued for fraud by Muslim, Hispanic and African-American families, named as an unindicted co-conspirator (CAIR fundraiser advertised at the CCMO site);

The International Institute of Islamic Thought , the “think tank” of the Muslim Brotherhood, described at that link by The Grand Jihad author and former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. One of the current and longest serving officers of CCMO is Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, founder of the educational arm of IIIT, the Fairfax Institute and the Director of Outreach Program for Dar-ul Hijrah “Terror” Mosque – more on him below.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee , exposed in that linked 88-page IPT report particularly for their defense of terrorists and terrorist financers.

MPAC advertised here at the CCMO site for an event co-sponsored by Islamic Free Market Institute, the latter described in Paul Sperry’s pathbreaking book Infiltration)

The Dar al Hijrah Mosque (known as the “Terror Mosque” in Northern Virginia for its links to imprisoned, indicted or wanted terrorists as vividly described by Frank Gaffney), advertised here at the CCMO site.
The Muslim American Society “Freedom Foundation” run by three-time felon Mahdi Bray (MASFF Fundraiser advertised at the CCMO site). The Muslim American Society was originally founded as the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. MAS leader Mahdi Bray was elected on September 7, 2003 to the Executive Committee by over 40 CCMO member organizations.

I suggest that the Administration knows these groups are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

They think that’s a good thing.

This isn’t incompetence; it’s intentional.

The CCMO Officers: Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

These are not just your garden-variety Muslim Brotherhood operatives. The CCMO officers include leading national and international figures in the Muslim Brotherhood, settled in the Washington DC suburbs to enjoy “direct access” to the Administration and Congress. CCMO is a major U.S. node in the loosely coordinated Muslim Brotherhood network. Just the fellows to give your tax dollars as stimulus money!

CCMO appears to have started as an umbrella organization in the late 1980s, when so many Muslim Brotherhood organizations were expanding. According to this 2005 article at Washington, DC’s Muslim Link Newspaper, CCMO was 18 years old in that year, making the start date around 1987.

Who are these CCMO officers? We could write a book on each of them; their personal biographies are the tale of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing “Project” to bring Shariah Law to America. Here are brief sketches on a few (Mahdi Bray, previously a CCMO officer and linked above, is not on the current CCMO board):

Dr. Iqbal Unus


Unus, like fellow CCMO officer Anwar Haddam below, holds the position currently of “Member at Large” on the CCMO board. Daniel Pipes notes that Unus unsuccessfully sued anti-terrorism researcher Rita Katz, and that his house was searched in the Green Quest investigation. He’s a leader in an alphabet soup of groups named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial, or known to be associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Just review his published biography ( pdf ) from a 2007 “Islamophobia Conference” in Turkey (here’s the conference program in Google translation to English).

Several of the organizations he directs are listed in “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial’s most famous document (p. 32), which I noted in brackets below in Unus’ bio below:

Dr. Iqbal Unus is director of The Fairfax Institute (TFI), the instructional division of International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)
[listed on p. 32], located near Washington, D.C., U.S.A., where he has also served as director of human development and director of administration since 1989. Between 1995 and 1998, he taught and worked at the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences as dean of students and registrar.

Prior to joining IIIT, Dr. Unus served as secretary general of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
[listed on p. 32] after having worked as director of administration and assistant secretary general since 1977.

Between 1980 and 1982, Dr. Unus taught in the applied sciences and nuclear engineering departments at King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Iqbal Unus has had a wide ranging volunteer service experience in the Muslim community in the United States for over 37 years. Some of the prominent offices he has held include president of the Muslim Students Association
[listed on p. 32] of the United States and Canada (1975), several offices including president of the Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers (AMSE)
[listed on p. 32], member of Majls ash Shura of Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
[listed on p. 32], trustee of Amana Mutual Funds Trust, working committee member of International Council of Awqaf and Non-Governmental Organizations (ICANO), board member of Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations in Washington Area (CCMO), and trustee of All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS).
In his lecture at the 2007 Islamophobia conference, Unus stated, “Western academic institutions must reevaluate their curriculum on all levels and purge material that may encourage or promote violence or hatred towards others through Islamophobia and xenophobia.”

Why this is important: the Department of Education will attend the August 31 workshop to provide “direct access” to grants. Americans have a right to know if the DoE will be talking to Unus on August 31 about funding projects to purge school curricula according to Unus’ standards.

Johari Abdul-Malik


Johari is a convert to Islam; he was formerly Winslow Seale of Brooklyn New York. Johari is currently CCMO Treasurer, and he has previously been Chairman of CCMO. He is the Director of Outreach at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center near Washington DC. Dar al Hijrah is exposed in this report from the Investigative Project, in which the Department of Treasury’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS) records describe it as “a mosque operating as a front for Hamas operatives in U.S.,” “is associated with Islamic extremists,” “has been under numerous investigations for financing and proving aid and comfort to bad orgs and members,” has “been linked to numerous individuals linked to terrorism financing,” and “has also been associated with encouraging fraudulent marriages.”

Furthermore, his history of statements defending terrorist recruiter and trainer Al-Awlaki, promoting violence against Israel, and claiming that Islam will be the “first religion” in America are standard Muslim Brotherhood doctrine. His advocacy of terrorism against Israel in 2001 was particularly troublesome: he enthuses over specific acts of terrorism, with a passing nod to avoiding civilian casualties, almost as murderous as the violent guerrilla warfare in Algeria endorsed by CCMO officer Anwar Haddam (see below):

I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies… the water supply, you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.

In the last two months, after highly critical media exposure on the radicalism of the Dar al Hijra Mosque, Johari has suddenly modified his behavior. On June 8, 2010, Johari announced his resignation from a variety of openly- Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations, remaining as a representative of those interests on interfaith boards.

He resigned from:

1. Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA)
2. Muslim Council of America (MCA)
3. American Muslim Task-Force (Representative of MANA)
4. MELD/EVEN START
5. North American Imams Federation (Founding Board member)
6. Georgetown U – Chaplain Advisory board
7. University of MD-Chaplain Board

Also to his credit, on June 20, he published a post urging the removal from Islamic store Halalco.com (also his neighborhood store) of two sets of publications or recordings: 1) those by Dar al-Hijrah’s previous Imam, terrorist Al -Awlaki, and 2) the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christian Broadcasting Network had just exposed the Halalco.com bookstore for carrying radicalizing materials.

Whether Johari’s statements reveal a tactical retreat, in the face of public exposure of the Muslim Brotherhood associations of his prior directorships, or a genuine rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, remains to be determined, since he retained his leadership positions in CCMO and Dar al Hijrah. This administration reportedly has favored Dar al Hijrah previously with a government contract from the U.S. Census Bureau costing taxpayers $23,000/month since November 2008, and serious questions should be asked about how much “direct access” Dar al Hijrah will have at the August 31 workshop.

Anwar N. Haddam

Haddam is listed at the CCMO website as Member-At-Large on the Board (a title held earlier by Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation head Mahdi Bray). Prominently displayed in the menu of the CCMO websites from 2004-2008 (but whitewashed from the current site) is this report – First Impressions: American Muslim Perspectives on the 9/11 Commission Report – sponsored by CCMO, published by IIIT (see above) and edited and authored by another coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups, the American Muslim Task Force. Of the several authors for the Report, one to note is Anwar N. Haddam.

According to his bio in the “First Impressions” book, Haddam is a long-time and currently listed board member of CCMO, “elected to the Algerian Parliament in December 1991… currently Advisor to the Islamic Front for Salvation (FIS-Algeria)… involved with the Algerian Islamic Movement.”

What the bio doesn’t mention is that the Clinton Administration kept Haddam detained for four years, based on classified evidence. He had already been banned from Algeria. In late 2000, in spite of efforts to prevent his release from detention by Attorney General Janet Reno and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), he was granted asylum in the U.S. by the Board of Immigration Appeals. That decision, according to an assessment at Sheikh Qaradawi’s islamonline.net, was due to “political pressure from the Muslim community in Europe and the US, as well as from members of the US Congress.”

Earlier, in 1996, Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson had conducted an extraordinary in-depth interview with Haddam, published in the Middle East Quarterly, which exposes his absolute dedication to imposing an Islamist State in Algeria based on Shariah law, regardless of the costs in human life or liberties. Haddam himself wrote a revealing memoir of his leadership of the banned Islamic Front for Salvation. Algeria is an example of what happens when a somewhat secular Muslim-majority country is targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood – in this case, Haddam’s Islamic Front for Salvation – to force it to become an Islamic state.

Decades of civil war, over 200,000 dead – and under this administration, a remorseless leader invited to the White House for “direct access” to grants using your money.

Here’s the abstract of a speech Haddam made in 2009, in which he describes himself (and the nature of his political party) in words relevant for the August 31 meeting: “The author of this paper – who has been in charge of the international relations of one of the first contemporary political parties of Islamic obedience…” Just to drive the point home here, that means he considers himself in the U.S. in official capacity (detained or not), representing a political party that is a leader in creating the Islamist state: “political parties of Islamic obedience.” And to connect the dots, that would be the same “Shariah-Compliant State” – also known as a state of “Islamic obedience” – that Ground Zero Mosque Imam Rauf is promoting for the U.S. and worldwide through his Shariah Index Project.

Congress should ask: will CCMO be given “financial assistance” to help further Haddam’s political goals for Algeria, working among the expatriate community here in the U.S. – or his goals for America?

Faizul Khan

Faizul Khan is Assistant Secretary-Treasurer for CCMO. He was the imam, recently replaced, at the Maryland Muslim Community Center Mosque attended for years by Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan, until Hasan moved to Texas and shortly after killed thirteen people and wounded dozens. (He also reportedly attended services at CCMO-related Dar al Hijra Mosque in northern Virginia.) Khan is also on the board of ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism finance trial.

In interviews after the shootings, Imam Feizul Khan referred to Hasan as “very devout.” This is, to say the least, an understatement. In fact, it’s not unlike another CCMO officer (and Dar al Hijrah spokesman) Johar minimizing the radicalism of al-Awlaki when the latter attended Dar al Hijrah. Somehow, terrorists Hasan and al-Awlaki were merely devout in these two CCMO-related mosques right before they went completely jihadist on America.

Stephen Schwartz exposed the radical associations of Khan’s mosque in November 2009 in this article in the NY Post. Schwartz found that Faizul’s Mosque website advertises for the Shariah Compliant “Amana Mutual Fund” which he states is still under investigation by the FBI. Faizul’s Maryland mosque also “hosted at least four talks by Enver Masud, the founder of The Wisdom Fund, the main Muslim ‘truther’ group in America.”

So, what is to be done between now and Tuesday, August 31?

Let’s review.

CCMO – the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations – is co-sponsoring the August 31 event with the Department of Agriculture. CCMO has deep and broad ties, possibly dating since 1987, to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The issue: If the Obama administration is preferencing one religion over others for special workshops, “direct access” and cutting red tape for financial assistance, that’s not only wrong, it may be unconstitutional; combining the funding workshop with an Iftar dinner just makes it worse.

One solution: Cancel this meeting, and schedule one for all religious organizations. If government grants are to be given to religious groups (a policy some question, but set that aside here), then all grant applicants of all religions, including Muslims should be treated equally. And if Muslim social service groups attend, they should be ones without ties to the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamist groups dedicated to imposing Shariah law in the U.S.

An alternate solution: Keep the event as currently planned – apparently arranged and dominated by CCMO – but open it up to the media (including network, cable, radio, Big Peace, bloggers, etc.) as well as organizations with expertise on the Muslim Brotherhood, like the Investigative Project, the Middle East Forum, NEFA Foundation, Hudson Institute, the Center for Security Policy and many others. Let the sunshine in…

After all, surely this administration – and CCMO - have nothing to hide?

——————————
Here’s the email in entirety:

Iftar with Our Government:

Serving up Resources for American Muslim Communities

In celebration of Ramadan, ISNA leadership and staff have been busy attending iftars hosted by the White House, State Department, Federal and State Agencies, Embassies, elected officials and interfaith partners.

“These iftars are a place to celebrate the diversity of America with our partners in the government and interfaith communities,” said ISNA Director for the Office of Interfaith and Community Alliances Dr. Sayyid Syeed. He adds, “They are also evidence that Muslims and our traditions are more regularly incorporated into the mosaic of cultures and traditions that form the foundation of American life.”

Although these iftars are important symbols of the transition of Muslims into mainstream American culture, according to ISNA Director of Community Outreach Mohamed Elsanousi, they are also a very important place for brainstorming and the development of practical ideas to help the Muslim community.

“Muslim community members have been asking for more from these iftars for years now. They have contacted ISNA and requested that we work with our partners in government to make the dinners more useful to our communities at the local levels,” said ISNA Director of Community Outreach Mohamed Elsanousi.

This year, a phenomenal next step has been made where government iftars become coupled with workshops to provide resources and benefit the Muslim community. The US Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) have paired the first of such events, scheduled for August 31, 2010.

“ISNA is happy to join other nation-wide Muslim organizations and participate in this workshop. We absolutely expect that there will be more of these paired iftars and workshops in future Ramadans,” said Elsanousi.

The Workshop: So what exactly is this workshop, you may ask. Leaders from Muslim organizations around the nation, particularly social service organizations, are invited to a workshop with representatives from the DOA, Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Health and Human Services, the White House, Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and more. Twenty five to thirty Muslim leaders representing 20 Muslim organizations are expected to attend the workshop.

According to a representative of CCMO, this workshop is designed to clarify how Muslim nonprofits, mosques, Islamic centers, and social service organizations can strengthen their communities through more direct access to opportunities provided to social service agencies at the Federal level. “It will hopefully help cut through some of the red tape and shine light on the many opportunities for funding, government assistance, and resources that we just don’t know about at the local level,” said Elsanousi.

The Iftar: Following the workshop, the DOA will host an Iftar to acknowledge and thank Muslim employees for their dedication and to the DOA. Keynote speakers will discuss the issues of increasing access to healthy foods for all communities and the powerful communal and sacred aspects of food. In addition to the DOA employees and representatives of various Muslim organizations, the DOA also invited Muslim employees from various other government agencies. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is also scheduled to attend.

[vector7]

As Glenn Beck outlined in Live Free or Die documentary the history of Stalin, Karl Marx, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Che all have ties to the progressive Leftist movement.

Heinrich Himmler's Remarkable Admiration For Islam: "It Promises Beautiful Women In Heaven"

May 26, 2009

Heinrich Himmler's Remarkable Admiration For Islam: "It Promises Beautiful Women In Heaven"

By EMERSON VERMAAT

Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945), Hitler's notorious "Reichsführer SS" (Federal leader of the SS) and chief of the German police, is one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century. Not only was he directly responsible for the death of at least six million Jews but also for the death of countless others most of whom belonged to so-called "inferior races" or simply despised Nazism. Moreover, a lot of German enemies and political opponents of the "Third Reich" also died in concentration camps and prisons – as a result of the brutal practices of SS and State Security Police or "Gestapo." (Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller had once visited Russia where he had been impressed by the methods of Stalin's secret police.)

Less well known is the fact that the same Heinrich Himmler warmly embraced Islam or "Mohammedanism" as it was called then. He admired the religion of the Muslims because it promised that there will be "beautiful women in paradise for those who die in battle." (Many of today's suicide bombers – often sexually frustrated young males – have also deluded themselves into believing that 72 smiling "Huris" or virgin beauties are waiting for them in paradise.)

Felix Kersten (1898-1990) was Himmler's personal masseur and confidant. It was seven years after the war that Kersten published his sensational memoirs, "Totenkopf und Treue." The Kersten memoirs were also published in English but, unfortunately, the original chapter on Himmler's "Enthousiasm for Islam" ("Begeisterung für Islam") was conspicuously lacking in the English edition. Although some of Kersten's claims are exaggerated, other parts of his memoirs seem to be fairly reliable. Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, two leading Himmler biographers, believe that Kersten "became the most powerful influence in Himmler's life after the death of Heydrich." There is no doubt that Kersten met Himmler quite often and that they were very close friends.

This is apparent, for example, from the numerous references to Kersten in Himmler's 1941/42 office diary/appointment book ("Dienstkalender"), published in Hamburg in 1999. On March 21, 1945, Himmler wrote a very friendly letter to Kersten, thanking him for a recent visit:

"This time I was again delighted when you came here and used your tremendous medical skills as a token of (our) long friendship. In the many years we know each other we discussed many problems."

Kersten kept notes of everything Himmler told him. He was the only man whose "miraculous hands" could relieve Himmler's pain. Himmler's health was rather poor as he was suffering from severe stomach cramps. "The moment he was relieved of pain, Himmler began to unburden his mind," Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel write.

The fact that Himmler did not hesitate to nearly exclusively confide in Kersten was not appreciated by other high ranking SS officers. It seems that Himmler was well aware of this. He personally warned SS Security Service chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner, that should Kersten be murdered, he, Kaltenbrunner would not survive Kersten longer than 24 hours.

Kaltenbrunner's predecessor Reinhold Heydrich did not like Felix Kersten either. He thought the Finish masseur was a spy. But Heydrich, too, could not have Kersten arrested or killed since he knew that the Finnish masseur enjoyed Himmler's personal protection. (As he was traveling in an open car Heydrich was attacked by two British supported partisans in Prague in May 1942 and later died in hospital.)

Kersten was not a spy, but he did have high level contacts both in Germany and Sweden. It was through his efforts and personal influence on Himmler that 3500 Jews could be transferred from Nazi concentration camps to Sweden. And this was not the only thing Kersten did to save those who suffered under Nazi persecution. On December 12, 1945, the World Jewish Congress sent a letter to Kersten thanking him for his successful efforts to save the 3500 Jews as well as for his generous willingness to help whenever he could.

Himmler: "Islam is a practical and sympathetic religion for soldiers"

British historian Peter Longerich recently published a 1035-page study on Himmler quoting, inter alia, from documents in the German Federal Archives in Berlin ("Bundesarchiv Berlin"). Longerich quotes Himmler as saying in November 1944 that Islam is "a practical and sympathetic religion for soldiers." "It promises that those who fall in battle will go to heaven."

We find similar quotes in Kersten's 1952 book. On December 1, 1942, Himmler told Kersten:

"Mohammed knew that most people are terribly cowardly and stupid. That is why he promised two beautiful women to every courageous warrior who dies in battle. This is the kind of language a soldier understands. When he believes that he will be welcomed in this manner in the afterlife, he will be willing to give his life, he will be enthousiastic about going to battle and not fear death. You may call this primitive and you may laugh about it, but it is based on deeper wisdom. A religion must speak a man's language."

Himmler, whose parents were devout and conservative Bavarian Catholics, publicly left the Catholic Church in the summer of 1936. In his conversations with Kersten he later lashed out against the Catholic Church, the Vatican and Christianity in general. Christianity does not promise anything to the soldiers and warriors who die in battle, Himmler said. They either go to hell or heaven – there is just no reward for fighting bravely. "And now compare this, Herr Kersten, to the religion of the Mohammedans, a religion of people's soldiers."

In other words, Himmler admired the Muslim concept of martyrdom: if you die on the battlefield as a jihadist (Muslim holy warrior) and so become a martyr, you will be amply rewarded in the afterlife ("paradise"). This is precisely what Haj Amin Al-Husseini told the Muslim soldiers in the SS.

It was in the first half of 1942 that Himmler and an SS officer named Adolf Eichmann befriended this firebrand cleric – the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whom the Nazis had welcomed to Berlin. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, whose hatred of the Jews equalled that of the Nazis, arrived in Nazi Germany in November 1941 and was received by Hitler that same month. The Grand Mufti wanted the Nazis to approve his plan for a pro-Nazi Muslim fighting force or "Arab legion." Hitler initially declined, but Himmler was enthousiastic about the idea. In November 1943, the SS Reichsführer sent a telegram to the Grand Mufti, saying there existed "a natural bond between National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom loving Mohammedans throughout the world."

Earlier that year, a special Muslim unit had been created inside Himmler's "Waffen-SS" (the combat arm of the SS). It was called the "SS-Handschar Division" and largely consisted of Bosnian Muslims. In 1944, the Handschar Division committed serious war crimes in Yugoslavia killing Serb civilians.

(After the war, Yugoslav leader Marshall Tito wanted Al-Husseini for war crimes but the French and the British had no intention of upsetting the Arab world.) Al-Husseini traveled to Sarajevo in October 1944 to address his men from the Handschar Division. He said that the National Socialist and the Islamic world view largely ran parallel. "The Germans are the real friends of the 400 million Muslims," he added. In April 1944, the SS founded its own "Imam training school" in Guben, near Cottbus. Himmler strongly supported this initiative and the Grand Mufti gave the opening ceremony speech.

Himmler told his masseur Felix Kersten on December 2, 1942, that he was reading serious books on the "Mohammedan religion." When the war was over, he said, he wanted to visit the Islamic countries himself with a view to continuing his studies. "Look, how wise ("vernünftig") this religion is."

Himmler: "Let us assume that the Turkish Muslim armies would have conquered Vienna and Europe in 1683..."

Five days later, Himmler told Kersten that he regretted the fact that the Turkish Muslim armies had not been able to conquer Europe in 1683:

"Let us assume that the Turks in whose ranks Europeans were fighting as well, even in high positions, would have conquered Vienna and Europe in 1683 instead of having been forced to withdraw. If the Mohammedans would have gained the victory at the time and Islam would have swept victoriously over Europe, then the Christian churches would have been depoliticized. (...) For the Turks were religiously tolerant, they allowed each religion to continue to exist, provided it was no longer involved in politics – otherwise it was finished."

This view comes close to the Muslim concept of the so-called "Caliphate" or Allah's kingdom on earth. The same concept is also embraced by many terrorists belonging to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri repeatedly said they strongly regretted that the Muslims had been driven out of Spain ("Al-Andalus") in the late Middle Ages. They call on Muslims to reconquer "every stolen Islamic land, from Palestine to Al-Andalus and other Islamic lands that were once lost because of the betrayals of rulers and the feebleness of Muslims." Many militant Muslims believe that Europe can also be conquered though massive immigration flows from the Muslim world.

Polygamy

There is something else that Himmler and the militant Muslims have in common. Both believe in polygamy and having lots of the children.

Indeed, the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself, "is usually said to have had fourteen wives in the strict sense, of whom nine survived him," W. Montgomery Watt, a British expert on Islam, writes. (Montgomery Watt then identifies the names and age of thirteen wives or concubines.) Himmler once told Kersten: "The multiple marriage ("Mehrehe") also exists in other countries, so why shouldn't this be the case here?" Katrin Himmler, Heinrich Himmler's great-niece, recently published an excellent book on the three Himmler brothers. Himmler was officially married to Marga Boden, but Hedwig Potthast was his mistress, she writes.

Himmler and Miss Potthast who was his secretary once, lived as if they were married. They had two children. Himmler told his SS men to follow his example: the more "Aryan" children they would beget, the more women they would make pregnant, the better. "We must show courage and act decisively in this matter, even if it means arousing still greater opposition from the Church," Himmler told Kersten.

It is not very strange that some high ranking SS criminals later found refuge in the Muslim world. Alois Brunner, for example, lived in Syria for many years. (He is problably no longer alive.) Others went to Egypt.

Militant Muslims, but also many Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis, embrace a virulent kind of anti-Semitism. Osama bin Laden, whose father was from Yemen but later settled in Saudi Arabia, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian, call on their followers to kill Jews and Americans wherever they can be found. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who coordinated the 9/11 attacks and is currently in Guantanamo Bay, made no secret of his anti-Semitism when he proudly announced at a hearing that he "decapitated with his blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl."

If Himmler – like Eichmann and Brunner – would somehow have managed to escape from Nazi Germany, he would probably have tried to reach a safehaven in a Muslim or Latin American country. Instead, he committed suicide on May 23, 1945, now 64 years ago. He was a coward who did not want to face his judges and answer for his manifold and terrible crimes.

[vector7]

PHOTOS AND DOCUMENTS

CLICK ON ANY PICTURE TO ENLARGE

CLICK HERE TO VIEW VIDEOS

See how these photos tie together - visit our home page

Pre-World War II
Amin Al Husseini as officer of Ottoman Empire - 1915	1931 Amin Al Husseini is founder and President of the World Islamic Congress. After WWII, it will actively shape the agenda of the Muslim world.	1920 - Jerusalem, Palestine. Amin Al Husseini inciting the riots that pitted Palestinian Arab against Palestinian Jew.
World War II
Muslim Soldiers reading German Propaganda. The name of the book is Islam Und Judentum (Islam and Judaism in German)	Amin Al Husseini with one of his Nazi Muslim Troops - 1943 Hanzar SS Division.	Amin Al Husseini meets Heinrich Himmler, Head of Nazi SS.
Berlin-1942 Amin Al Husseini spends WWII by Hitler's side.	Amin Al Husseini inspecting Nazi Muslim troops - 1943	Nazi officer inspecting Muslim Bosnian SS troops.
Rashid	Amin Al Husseini inspects his Muslim Nazi Hanzar troops 1943	Nazi propaganda poster featuring Amin Al Husseini recruiting young Muslims.
Muslim soldiers with hat showing Nazi insigna- WW II.	Bosnian Nazi Muslim Flag under Amin Al Husseini - 1943	Amin Al Husseini in Berlin during World War II.
Amin Al Hussseini meets Croat Nazi A.Artukovic and M,Budak, planning Serbian genocide.	Amin Al Husseini inspecting his Nazi Muslim troops- 1943	Bosnian Soldier posting picture of Amin Al Husseini - 1943
Amin Al Husseini at Nazi meeting in Berlin during WW II.	Muslim Nazi troops in traditional Muslim prayer -1943	Muslim Nazi troops in traditional Muslim prayer -1943

Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division	Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division	Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division
Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division	Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division	Amin Al Husseini Head of SS Muslim Hanzar Division

POST World War II

Amin al Husseini at Arab League meeting at its creation- 1944	1946. Key Picture of Amin Al Husseini with the Muslim Leaders of Post-WWII era.	1951. Karachi, Pakistan.
Pakistan 1951. Amin Al Husseini is guest of honor as President of World Islamic Congress.	Karachi, Pakistan. 1951.	Amin Al Husseini with Egyptian President Nasser.
Leading and representing the Muslim Community: Amin Al Husseini.	1969. Amin Al Husseini with Prime Minister of Malaysia Rahman, First Secretary-General of (OIC) Organisation of Islamic Conferences..	1966. Karachi, Pakistan. Amin Al Husseini continues to be central figure in Pakistani leadership.
1970. Karachi, Pakistan. Husseini with Pakistani leader.	Yasser Arafat (far-right) at Amin Al Husseini's funeral (with Mufti of Lebanon). 1974	Palestinian soldiers under Yasser Arafat doing Nazi salute- today
	Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Distributed by Palestinian Authority- 2003

DOCUMENTS Here is a premiliminary list of documents. This list will be updated often so please check back.

---

Minutes of the meeting with Hitler and Husseini. Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, pp.881 ff. German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini: Zionism and the Arab Cause (November 28, 1941) Haj Amin al-Husseini, the most influential leader of Palestinian Arabs, lived in Germany during the Second World War. He met Hitler, Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East. Record of the Conversation between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin. The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany. The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home. A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order form Berlin. With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor. The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Palestine. France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933. In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it. The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends. The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews. The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be. Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east. The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart: 1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe. 2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia. 3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration. Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs. He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out. The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world. The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer. The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration. The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause. SCHMIDT

- Return to top -

H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE ‘S APPEAL TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AGAINST THE FASCIST INVASION OF ETHIOPIA 1936 I, Haile Selassie I, Emperor of Ethiopia, am here today to claim that justice which is due to my people, and the assistance promised to it eight months ago, when fifty nations asserted that aggression had been committed in violation of international treaties. There is no precedent for a Head of State himself speaking in this assembly. But there is also no precedent for a people being victim of such injustice and being at present threatened by abandonment to its aggressor. Also, there has never before been an example of any Government proceeding to the systematic extermination of a nation by barbarous means, in violation of the most solemn promises made by the nations of the earth that there should not be used against innocent human beings the terrible poison of harmful gases. It is to defend a people struggling for its age-old independence that the head of the Ethiopian Empire has come to Geneva to fulfil this supreme duty, after having himself fought at the head of his armies. I pray to Almighty God that He may spare nations the terrible sufferings that have just been inflicted on my people, and of which the chiefs who accompany me here have been the horrified witnesses. It is my duty to inform the Governments assembled in Geneva, responsible as they are for the lives of millions of men, women and children, of the deadly peril which threatens them, by describing to them the fate which has been suffered by Ethiopia. It is not only upon warriors that the Italian Government has made war. It has above all attacked populations far removed from hostilities, in order to terrorize and exterminate them. At the beginning, towards the end of 1935, Italian aircraft hurled upon my armies bombs of tear-gas. Their effects were but slight. The soldiers learned to scatter, waiting until the wind had rapidly dispersed the poisonous gases. The Italian aircraft then resorted to mustard gas. Barrels of liquid were hurled upon armed groups. But this means also was not effective; the liquid affected only a few soldiers, and barrels upon the ground were themselves a warning to troops and to the population of the danger. It was at the time when the operations for the encircling of Makalle were taking place that the Italian command, fearing a rout, followed the procedure which it is now my duty to denounce to the world. Special sprayers were installed on board aircraft so that they could vaporize, over vast areas of territory, a fine, death-dealing rain. Groups of nine, fifteen, eighteen aircraft followed one another so that the fog issuing from them formed a continuous sheet. It was thus that, as from the end of January, 1936, soldiers, women, children, cattle, rivers, lakes and pastures were drenched continually with this deadly rain. In order to kill off systematically all living creatures, in order to more surely to poison waters and pastures, the Italian command made its aircraft pass over and over again. That was its chief method of warfare. Ravage and Terror The very refinement of barbarism consisted in carrying ravage and terror into the most densely populated parts of the territory, the points farthest removed from the scene of hostilities. The object was to scatter fear and death over a great part of the Ethiopian territory. These fearful tactics succeeded. Men and animals succumbed. The deadly rain that fell from the aircraft made all those whom it touched fly shrieking with pain. All those who drank the poisoned water or ate the infected food also succumbed in dreadful suffering. In tens of thousands, the victims of the Italian mustard gas fell. It is in order to denounce to the civilized world the tortures inflicted upon the Ethiopian people that I resolved to come to Geneva. None other than myself and my brave companions in arms could bring the League of Nations the undeniable proof. The appeals of my delegates addressed to the League of Nations had remained without any answer; my delegates had not been witnesses. That is why I decided to come myself to bear witness against the crime perpetrated against my people and give Europe a warning of the doom that awaits it, if it should bow before the accomplished fact. Is it necessary to remind the Assembly of the various stages of the Ethiopian drama? For 20 years past, either as Heir Apparent, Regent of the Empire, or as Emperor, I have never ceased to use all my efforts to bring my country the benefits of civilization, and in particular to establish relations of good neighbourliness with adjacent powers. In particular I succeeded in concluding with Italy the Treaty of Friendship of 1928, which absolutely prohibited the resort, under any pretext whatsoever, to force of arms, substituting for force and pressure the conciliation and arbitration on which civilized nations have based international order. Country More United In its report of October 5th 193S, the Committee of Thirteen recognized my effort and the results that I had achieved. The Governments thought that the entry of Ethiopia into the League, whilst giving that country a new guarantee for the maintenance of her territorial integrity and independence, would help her to reach a higher level of civilization. It does not seem that in Ethiopia today there is more disorder and insecurity than in 1923. On the contrary, the country is more united and the central power is better obeyed. I should have procured still greater results for my people if obstacles of every kind had not been put in the way by the Italian Government, the Government which stirred up revolt and armed the rebels. Indeed the Rome Government, as it has today openly proclaimed, has never ceased to prepare for the conquest of Ethiopia. The Treaties of Friendship it signed with me were not sincere; their only object was to hide its real intention from me. The Italian Goverment asserts that for 14 years it has been preparing for its present conquest. It therefore recognizes today that when it supported the admission of Ethiopia to the League of Nations in 1923, when it concluded the Treaty of Friendship in 1928, when it signed the Pact of Paris outlawing war, it was deceiving the whole world. The Ethiopian Government was, in these solemn treaties, given additional guarantees of security which would enable it to achieve further progress along the specific path of reform on which it had set its feet, and to which it was devoting all its strength and all its heart. Wal-Wal Pretext The Wal-Wal incident, in December, 1934, came as a thunderbolt to me. The Italian provocation was obvious and I did not hesitate to appeal to the League of Nations. I invoked the provisions of the treaty of 1928, the principles of the Covenant; I urged the procedure of conciliation and arbitration. Unhappily for Ethiopia this was the time when a certain Government considered that the European situation made it imperative at all costs to obtain the friendship of Italy. The price paid was the abandonment of Ethiopian independence to the greed of the Italian Government. This secret agreement, contrary to the obligations of the Covenant, has exerted a great influence over the course of events. Ethiopia and the whole world have suffered and are still suffering today its disastrous consequences. This first violation of the Covenant was followed by many others. Feeling itself encouraged in its policy against Ethiopia, the Rome Government feverishly made war preparations, thinking that the concerted pressure which was beginning to be exerted on the Ethiopian Government, might perhaps not overcome the resistance of my people to Italian domination. The time had to come, thus all sorts of difficulties were placed in the way with a view to breaking up the procedure; of conciliation and arbitration. All kinds of obstacles were placed in the way of that procedure. Governments tried to prevent the Ethiopian Government from finding arbitrators amongst their nationals: when once the arbitral tribunal a was set up pressure was exercised so that an award favourable to Italy should be given. All this was in vain: the arbitrators, two of whom were Italian officials, were forced to recognize unanimously that in the Wal-Wal incident, as in the subsequent incidents, no international responsibility was to be attributed to Ethiopia. Peace Efforts Following on this award. the Ethiopian Government sincerely thought that an era of friendly relations might be opened with Italy. I loyally offered my hand to the Roman Government. The Assembly was informed by the report of the Committee of Thirteen, dated October 5th, 1935, of the details of the events which occurred after the month of December, 1934, and up to October 3rd, 1935. It will be sufficient if I quote a few of the conclusions of that report Nos. 24, 25 and 26 "The Italian memorandum (containing the complaints made by Italy) was laid on the Council table on September 4th, 1935, whereas Ethiopia's first appeal to the Council had been made on December 14th, 1934. In the interval between these two dates, the Italian Government opposed the consideration of the question by the Council on the ground that the only appropriate procedure was that provided for in the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928. Throughout the whole of that period, moreover, the despatch of Italian troops to East Africa was proceeding. These shipments of troops were represented to the Council by the Italian Government as necessary for the defense of its colonies menaced by Ethiopia's preparations. Ethiopia, on the contrary, drew attention to the official pronouncements made in Italy which, in its opinion, left no doubt "as to the hostile intentions of the Italian Government." From the outset of the dispute, the Ethiopian Government has sought a settlement by peaceful means. It has appealed to the procedures of the Covenant. The Italian Government desiring to keep strictly to the procedures of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of 1928, the Ethiopian Government assented. It invariably stated that it would faithfully carry out the arbitral award even if the decision went against it. It agreed that the question of the ownership of Wal-Wal should not be dealt with by the arbitrators, because the Italian Government would not agree to such a course. It asked the Council to despatch neutral observers and offered to lend itself to any enquiries upon which the Council might decide. Once the Wal-Wal dispute had been settled by arbiration, however, the Italian Govemmcnt submitted its detailed memorandum to the Council in support of its claim to liberty of action. It asserted that a case like that of Ethiopia cannot be settled by the means provided by the Covenant. It stated that, "since this question affects vital interest and is of primary importance to Italian security and civilization" it "would be failing in its most elementary duty, did it not cease once and for all to place any confidence in Ethiopia, reserving full liberty to adopt any measures that may become necessary to ensure the safety of its colonies and to safeguard its own interests." Covenant Violated Those are the terms of the report of the Committee of Thirteen, The Council and the Assembly unanimously adopted the conclusion that the Italian Government had violated the Covenant and was in a state of aggression. I did not hesitate to declare that I did not wish for war, that it was imposed upon me, and I should struggle solely for the independence and integrity of my people, and that in that struggle I was the defender of the cause of all small States exposed to the greed of a powerful neighbour. In October, 1935. the 52 nations who are listening to me today gave me an assurance that the aggressor would not triumph, that the resources of the Covenant would be employed in order to ensure the reign of right and the failure of violence. I ask the fifty-two nations not to forget today the policy upon which they embarked eight months ago, and on faith of which I directed the resistance of my people against the aggressor whom they had denounced to the world. Despite the inferiority of my weapons, the complete lack of aircraft, artillery, munitions, hospital services, my confidence in the League was absolute. I thought it to be impossible that fifty-two nations, including the most powerful in the world, should be successfully opposed by a single aggressor. Counting on the faith due to treaties, I had made no preparation for war, and that is the case with certain small countries in Europe. When the danger became more urgent, being aware of my responsibilities towards my people, during the first six months of 1935 I tried to acquire armaments. Many Governments proclaimed an embargo to prevent my doing so, whereas the Italian Government through the Suez Canal, was given all facilities for transporting without cessation and without protest, troops, arms, and munitions. Forced to Mobilize On October 3rd, 1935, the Italian troops invaded my territory. A few hours later only I decreed general mobilization. In my desire to maintain peace I had, following the example of a great country in Europe on the eve of the Great War, caused my troops to withdraw thirty kilometres so as to remove any pretext of provocation. War then took place in the atrocious conditions which I have laid before the Assembly. In that unequal struggle between a Government commanding more than forty-two million inhabitants, having at its disposal financial, industrial and technical means which enabled it to create unlimited quantities of the most death-dealing weapons, and, on the other hand, a small people of twelve million inhabitants, without arms, without resources having on its side only the justice of its own cause and the promise of the League of Nations. What real assistance was given to Ethiopia by the fifty two nations who had declared the Rome Government guilty of a breach of the Covenant and had undertaken to prevent the triumph of the aggressor? Has each of the States Members, as it was its duty to do in virtue of its signature appended to Article 15 of the Covenant, considered the aggressor as having committed an act of war personally directed against itself? I had placed all my hopes in the execution of these undertakings. My confidence had been confirmed by the repeated declarations made in the Council to the effect that aggression must not be rewarded, and that force would end by being compelled to bow before right. In December, 1935, the Council made it quite clear that its feelings were in harmony with those of hundreds of millions of people who, in all parts of the world, had protested against the proposal to dismember Ethiopia. It was constantly repeated that there was not merely a conflict between the Italian Government and the League of Nadons, and that is why I personally refused all proposals to my personal advantage made to me by the Italian Government, if only I would betray my people and the Covenant of the League of Nations. I was defending the cause of all small peoples who are threatened with aggression. What of Promises? What have become of the promises made to me as long ago as October, 1935? I noted with grief, but without surprise that three Powers considered their undertakings under the Covenant as absolutely of no value. Their connections with Italy impelled them to refuse to take any measures whatsoever in order to stop Italian aggression. On the contrary, it was a profound disappointment to me to learn the attitude of a certain Government which, whilst ever protesting its scrupulous attachment to the Covenant, has tirelessly used all its efforts to prevent its observance. As soon as any measure which was likely to be rapidly effective was proposed, various pretexts were devised in order to postpone even consideration of the measure. Did the secret agreements of January, 1935, provide for this tireless obstruction? The Ethiopian Government never expected other Governments to shed their soldiers' blood to defend the Covenant when their own immediately personal interests were not at stake. Ethiopian warriors asked only for means to defend themselves. On many occasions I have asked for financial assistance for the purchase of arms That assistance has been constantly refused me. What, then, in practice, is the meaning of Article 16 of the Covenant and of collective security? The Ethiopian Government's use of the railway from Djibouti to Addis Ababa was in practice a hazardous regards transport of arms intended for the Ethiopian forces. At the present moment this is the chief, if not the only means of supply of the Italian armies of occupation. The rules of neutrality should have prohibited transports intended for Italian forces, but there is not even neutrality since Article 16 lays upon every State Member of the League the duty not to remain a neutral but to come to the aid not of the aggressor but of the victim of aggression. Has the Covenant been respected? Is it today being respected? Finally a statement has just been made in their Parliaments by the Governments of certain Powers, amongst them the most influential members of the League of Nations, that since the aggressor has succeeded in occupying a large part of Ethiopian territory they propose not to continue the application of any economic and financial measures that may have been decided upon against the Italian Government. These are the circumstances in which at the request of the Argentine Government, the Assembly of the League of Nations meets to consider the situation created by Italian aggression. I assert that the problem submitted to the Assembly today is a much wider one. It is not merely a question of the settlement of Italian aggression. League Threatened It is collective security: it is the very existence of the League of Nations. It is the confidence that each State is to place in international treaties. It is the value of promises made to small States that their integrity and their independence shall be respected and ensured. It is the principle of the equality of States on the one hand, or otherwise the obligation laid upon smail Powers to accept the bonds of vassalship. In a word, it is international morality that is at stake. Have the signatures appended to a Treaty value only in so far as the signatory Powers have a personal, direct and immediate interest involved? No subtlety can change the problem or shift the grounds of the discussion. It is in all sincerity that I submit these considerations to the Assembly. At a time when my people are threatened with extermination, when the support of the League may ward off the final blow, may I be allowed to speak with complete frankness, without reticence, in all directness such as is demanded by the rule of equality as between all States Members of the League? Apart from the Kingdom of the Lord there is not on this earth any nation that is superior to any other. Should it happen that a strong Government finds it may with impunity destroy a weak people, then the hour strikes for that weak people to appeal to the League of Nations to give its judgment in all freedom. God and history will remember your judgment. Assistance Refused I have heard it asserted that the inadequate sanctions already applied have not achieved their object. At no time, and under no circumstances could sanctions that were intentionally inadequate, intentionally badly applied, stop an aggressor. This is not a case of the impossibility of stopping an aggressor but of the refusal to stop an aggressor. When Ethiopia requested and requests that she should be given financial assistance, was that a measure which it was impossible to apply whereas financial assistance of the League has been granted, even in times of peace, to two countries and exactly to two countries who have refused to apply sanctions against the aggressor? Faced by numerous violations by the Italian Government of all international treaties that prohibit resort to arms, and the use of barbarous methods of warfare, it is my painful duty to note that the initiative has today been taken with a view to raising sanctions. Does this initiative not mean in practice the abandonment of Ethiopia to the aggressor? On the very eve of the day when I was about to attempt a supreme effort in the defense of my people before this Assembly does not this initiative deprive Ethiopia of one of her last chances to succeed in obtaining the support and guarantee of States Members? Is that the guidance the League of Nations and each of the States Members are entitled to expect from the great Powers when they assert their right and their duty to guide the action of the League? Placed by the aggressor face to face with the accomplished fact, are States going to set up the terrible precendent of bowing before force? Your Assembly will doubtless have laid before it proposals for the reform of the Covenant and for rendering more effective the guarantee of collective security. Is it the Covenant that needs reform? What undertakings can have any value if the will to keep them is lacking? It is international morality which is at stake and not the Articles of the Covenant. On behalf of the Ethiopian people, a member of the League of Nations, I request the Assembly to take all measures proper to ensure respect for the Covenant. I renew my protest against the violations of treaties of which the Ethiopian people has been the victim. I declare in the face of the whole world that the Emperor, the Government and the people of Ethiopia will not bow before force; that they maintain their claims that they will use all means in their power to ensure the triumph of right and the respect of the Covenant. I ask the fifty-two nations, who have given the Ethiopian people a promise to help them in their resistance to the aggressor, what are they willing to do for Ethiopia? And the great Powers who have promised the guarantee of collective security to small States on whom weighs the threat that they may one day suffer the fate of Ethiopia, I ask what measures do you intend to take? Representatives of the World I have come to Geneva to discharge in your midst the most painful of the duties of the head of a State. What reply shall I have to take back to my people? June, 1936. -RETURN TO THE TOP-

[vector7]

Democrat Gregory Meeks helped 'jihad' flier

By ISABEL VINCENT and MELISSA KLEIN

Last Updated: 6:46 AM, September 19, 2010
Posted: 1:41 AM, September 19, 2010

US Rep. Gregory Meeks scolded immigration officials for questioning a Muslim scholar whose nonprofits have been linked to financing terrorism.

The Queens Democrat contacted federal agencies -- finally appealing to then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff -- asking why Anwar Hajjaj faced "unwarranted scrutiny" when he returned to the United States from trips abroad through JFK Airport.

Meeks described Hajjaj as a "highly regarded" professor of Islamic studies who leads Friday Muslim prayers at the Capitol.

Meeks said Hajjaj was "a pioneer in distance-based learning of Islam" through the American Open University in Virginia, according to a copy of the Sept. 30, 2006, letter to Chertoff, which was obtained by The Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.

But The Post has learned Hajjaj also headed the Taibah International Aid Association, a charity that has been accused of funding Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The group was co-founded by Abdullah A. bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's nephew, who has been investigated for his ties to groups that have funded al Qaeda and Hamas.

Hajjaj is also director of another Virginia-based nonprofit, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth International, or WAMY. It was also founded by bin Laden's nephew and said to support al Qaeda. The group's 2005 federal tax form, the most recent available, is signed by Hajjaj, who is listed as director.

Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said WAMY has been a financial and ideological supporter of Islamic terrorist organizations. A WAMY publication lists people who have attacked Israelis as "heroes of Palestine" and referred to Jews as "humanity's enemies," according to a 2003 affidavit by a customs special agent.

Both organizations are named as defendants in several ongoing civil lawsuits filed on behalf of families of 9/11 victims.

A 2004 complaint filed in one of the suits alleges that although Taibah "purports to be a humanitarian organization, the Taibah International Aid Association furthers the aims and materially supports Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."

Hajjaj is not specifically named as a defendant in the suit, but the complaint does say Taibah's directors and officers, including Hajjaj, are material sponsors and co-conspirators of al Qaeda and international terrorism.

The complaint says WAMY, founded in Saudi Arabia in 1972, has been identified by the FBI as a suspected terrorist organization since 1996.

In a decision in the lawsuit made last week, US District Court Judge George Daniels refused to dismiss WAMY as a defendant, saying the allegations against the group are "sufficient to demonstrate that they are knowingly and intentionally providing material support to al Qaeda."

Hajjaj was not arrested when he entered JFK after visiting the Middle East, but was pulled aside and questioned.

Meeks defended his letter: "As a member of Congress and a proud New Yorker who deeply feels the loss of all families afflicted by the 9/11 attacks, my No. 1 priority is to do everything in my power to ensure the safety and security of all Americans.

"At the same time, I also adamantly believe that securing our homeland must be done without risking the unfair or discriminatory treatment of any in our society as is our constitutional duty. To that end, several years ago it was brought to my attention that several Muslim American citizens faced what they felt was undue scrutiny from Department of Homeland Security officials at many US airports, including JFK.

"I sent letters to inquire about the treatment of two Muslim American citizens in particular that felt they were treated unfairly at US ports of entry."

Hajjaj, 65, told The Post that he was routinely harassed and sometimes missed flights when he traveled to and from Saudi Arabia for the pilgrimage to Mecca.

"It was an awful experience under the Bush administration," he said. "Now under Obama, I have no complaints."

He said he asked Meeks to write a letter on his behalf. He said he knew the Democratic lawmaker through Jameel Aalim-Johnson, Meeks' chief of staff from 2006 to early 2008.

[vector7]

Helen Thomas receiving lifetime achievement award from CAIR

By Bridget Johnson - 09/18/10 05:33 PM ET

The longtime White House correspondent who resigned from Hearst newspapers in June in the wake of comments she made about Israel will receive a lifetime achievement award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR is honoring Helen Thomas, who is of Lebanese descent and now 90 years old, at its Leadership Conference and 16th Annual Fundraising Banquet on Oct. 9 in Arlington, Va.

Speakers will also include Oxford Islamic studies scholar Tariq Ramadan.
Thomas started at the White House as a reporter during the Kennedy administration. In a video interview captured at a White House Jewish heritage event for RabbiLIVE.com that spread quickly across the Internet, Thomas advised Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else."

The White House Correspondents Association and the White House rebuked Thomas, and President Obama said she made the right call in stepping down for the "offensive" remarks.

Thomas later apologized, saying: "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”

The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.

Comments (45)

[vector7]

San Francisco "Anti-War" Rally: The New Communist/Truth/Jihad Alliance

March 20, 2010


On March 20, a coalition of communist groups, 9/11 "Truth" activists and anti-Israel extremists gathered in San Francisco to protest against -- well, just about everything.

The event was in theory an "anti-war" rally timed to coincide with the seventh anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, but since that war is basically over, the anti-war movement now has not only evaporated almost completely but has also lost its focus, as a plethora of tangential issues and petty gripes have taken center stage.

And so, without the veneer of faux-pacifism to disguise the protesters' true feelings, one stance has emerged as the unifying philosophy:


Anti-Americanism.

The glory days of the 21st-century anti-war movement were in 2003 and 2004, when tens of thousands of naive "average Americans" would show up at each anti-war event. Then, as I documented extensively over the years at zombietime, far-left and extremist groups quickly seized control of the movement and tried to lead the middle-of-the-road protesters leftward politically. But as the radicalism escalated with each successive protest, the sane people all stopped coming, the rallies started getting smaller and smaller, and from 2004 onward it's been a continuous downward slide.

Now we've reached rock bottom. Only a couple thousand people showed up for this year's protest, all of whom were hardcore radicals. Gone are the naive hangers-on, or anyone in the central 98% of the political spectrum. All that's left of the anti-war movement are the revolutionaries, the diehards and the crazies.


When I say that the rally was composed of "communist groups, 9/11 'Truth' activists and anti-Israel extremists," I'm not exaggerating or mischaracterizing the nature of the participants. These people are stone-cold, self-admitted and unapologetic communists. And in equal numbers, Truthers who think the United States perpetrated 9/11 intentionally. And jihad-sympathizers who want Israel to disappear.

Below, I present the photographic evidence proving the presence and dominance of these three groups, along with a new emerging class: people disappointed in and angry with Obama (for being insufficiently left-wing). And at the end of this report we'll see some other reports of a similar rally in Los Angeles that mirrored this one almost exactly in every respect.

But before we get to these "theme sections," let's take a quick tour among the unaffiliated San Francisco eccentrics.


Many of the protesters presented very persuasive and carefully thought-out arguments against the war. For example, this woman really got me to thinking with her message that "War Is Stupid! Stupid!!"


And how can you argue with the logic of "Military Industrial Bullshit!!"?


I weep for my country.


There's naiveté, but this is something way beyond mere naiveté. What's the word I'm looking for? Idiocy?


Speaking of terminal naiveté: Give Iraq back to whom? Saddam Hussein's corpse? Haven't the Iraqis by now had several elections leading to democratic self-government -- which was the whole point behind our intervention in the first place? Or do we just hand it over to the Islamists and former Ba'ath Party fascist henchmen so the Iraqis can spend another 40 years in a totalitarian hell? No, this is not naiveté; this is malevolence.


Not everyone on the left side of the spectrum is in favor of revoking "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. These folks oppose gays serving in the military -- because they don't want anyone to serve in the military. Interestingly, they're also against gay marriage -- because they hate marriage of any kind, as their Web site explains: "We do not think queers or straights should be in the military of a society like the u.s., or probably any government, and we feel that the queer liberation position is to oppose marriage as the central institution of patriarchy, not to try to get married ourselves."


During a speech by a particularly belligerent black nationalist, a blonde woman in the crowd became very excited and started throwing up gang signs and giving the black power salute.


To make her tattoo more visible, I've flipped the photo upside-down and zoomed in on her arm, on which are tattooed the words "Thug Life 666."

When they said "It takes all kinds," they weren't kidding.


The rally was put together by ANSWER, a communist/Islamist revolutionary group. On stage you can see the two main organizers, Richard Becker (in the black cap holding the mike) and Palestinian activist Jess Ghannam (with the sunglasses and kaffiyeh).


Daniel Ellsberg showed up too, and gave an embarrassing speech about how great the anti-war protests of the '60s were, and how we should copy their success. Some people just remain frozen in time.
(Notice, also, the La Raza militia member behind him.)


Ellsberg brought along with him a large contingent of several hundred SEIU labor activists to whom he had been speaking at a separate event. They gladly joined the rally, but their presence confused the issue of whether this was a protest against the current American power structure or in affirmation of it.


But not to worry! Code Pink says "relax."


Don't poke the sleeping giant. You might not like what he does when he awakes.

Communists, Truthers, Israel-Bashers, Obama Ex-Fans

And so we come to the evidence for my statement that the rally was little more than a mini-convention for four groups which seem to have little in common but which rely on each other to supply warm bodies and thus the appearance of greater popularity. A rally of nothing but devoted communists would look embarrassingly small, as would a rally of nothing but Truthers, or a rally of Israel-haters. But if you hold a single event like this one for the newly forged communist/Truth/jihad alliance, then you can get a fairly decent-sized crowd (if you consider 2,000 people decent). Toss in the Obama ex-fans and you've got an instant party!

Let's take a look at each faction in turn:

Communists

There were at least 13 different communist political factions co-sponsoring the rally, and various unaffiliated fellow travelers. And by "communist," what I mean is "communist," such as...


...The International Bolshevik Tendency...


...The Party for Socialism and Liberation...


...The Revolutionary Communist Party...


...The Humanist Workers for Revolutionary Socialism...


...The International Communist League...


...The ever-so-mild Marxist-Humanists...


...The Socialist Organizer, who, true to their name, were very organized...


...The Revolutionary Workers Group...


...Socialist Action...


...The Industrial Workers of the World, better known as "Wobblies"...


...The Freedom Socialist Party...


...the Marxist/Anarchist Haymarket Books...


...World Can't Wait (an offshoot of the Revolutionary Communist Party)...


...and any number of wildcat individual communists, such as this famous local anti-Semite who for once toned down the Jew-hate and instead focused on politics...


...and a group of younger activists who deemed it wise to parade around with a Soviet flag.

Truthers


Truthers were one of the dominant contingents in the march after the rally.


Truthers were stationed with huge banners right next to the main stage -- with the permission of the rally organizers.


Truther booths lined the concourse at the center of the rally.


They were far and away the most popular booths; people crowded around soaking up more Truth throughout the day.


The Truther movement is mature enough to now have a variety of specialty sub-movements, such as "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth."


You just knew this convergence was bound to happen sooner or later: Truthism and Climate Change.


Truth banners were everywhere.


Some made more sense than others.


Many of the audience members patiently listening to the communist claptrap spouted from the main stage were actually more interested in Truth.


Why didn't you tell me this before? If Cindy believes, then I'm convinced!


This guy has become a fixture at Bay Area rallies in recent years -- same hair, same glasses, same sign, same everything.


One of the reasons Truthism has grown so popular is that it is so forgiving as an ideology -- any and all ancillary beliefs are accepted, regardless of the kook factor.


The flipside of his sign is just as entertaining.


After a while, it all began to blend together -- Truth, socialism, pacifism, conspiracy thinking -- coalescing into a unified belief system.

Obama Disappointment


The most popular article of clothing at the rally was this shirt which read, "Is it really OK if Obama does it?" around a big bomb called "OBOMBA."


It seemed like everywhere I turned, someone was wearing one.


Was it a coordinated plan, or has disappointment in Obama grown to such an extent that everyone just happened to show up wearing the same shirt?


Mostly the crowd was angry that Obama didn't instantly end all wars, as promised.


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Some LaRouchite cult members showed up with Obama-Hitler signs. Will the Left now be accused of bigotry, intolerance and hate crimes because someone who showed up at their rally put a Hitler mustache on the President? Signs point to "No."


This was quite an interesting discussion, as a hyper-self-confident LaRouchite tried to explain to an Obama fan why the president needs to be impeached. I had a feeling that, at conversation's end, not many minds had been changed.

Israel-bashing


As always at these leftist rallies, Israel was singled out for the protesters' irrational fury. The Israel-haters have now settled on a consistent narrative: Israel is committing genocide and a new Holocaust against Palestinians.

Needless to say, the accusation is completely baseless, an outrageous lie.


What was once merely a metaphorical comparison has now become a direct literal accusation: Israel is repeating the Holocaust, this time as the perpetrators.


Not only is Israel committing genocide, but the U.S. is too, against...ummmm...against...against Mumia!


Of out which woodwork do these people crawl?

Ali Abunimah (the person quoted on the sign) is a Paestinian-American activist who claims that Obama is secretly pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, but that he kept his views secret during the campaign in order to get elected.

Considering recent diplomatic developments, maybe Ali Abunimah was at least telling the truth about something!


This large banner dominated the central area of the rally.


The ever-popular Dome-of-the-Rock-cape is back in style.


Various people paraded around with Palestinian flags.


And, as always, the International Solidarity Movement was on hand to recruit human shields for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

---

Back to our regularly scheduled non-thematic programming.


During the march, I hung out (as is my usual practice) with the Code Pink contingent. By now they probably think I'm a regular member! If only they knew.


One of my fellow Code Pinkers had every base covered.


OK, now don't go blaming me for this: Someone brought along their dog named "Barak."


During the march, a grand total of three counter-protesters showed up to declare their support for America. A small group surrounded them and briefly heckled them, but mostly they were ignored as irrelevant.


Someone had created and put on display several upside-down flags condemning "The United Snakes of AmeriKKKa."


"Obummer is Dick Cheney's Cuz." Heh.


See you next year!

---

The Los Angeles Anti-War Rally

The rally in San Francisco was only just one of several rallies being held on the same day around the country. Fellow photojournalist site Ringo's Pictures covered the Los Angeles edition:

The Annual March of the Moonbats - March 20, 2010.

Interestingly, in his report Ringo notes the exact same crowd compostion in L.A. as I saw in S.F., namely communists, Truthers, Israel-bashers, and people disappointed in Obama. It seems to be a consistent trend nationwide. But there was something extra in Los Angeles which far exceeded anything on display in San Fransisco: jaw-dropping overt anti-Semitism. Here's just a sampling of Ringo's pictures from the Los Angeles rally:







Blood boiling yet? Curiosity piqued? Click HERE to see the rest of Ringo's report. And more coverage of the L.A. rally can be seen at American Power Blog.

[vector7]

Black Liberationists, Marxists, Islamists and El-Baradei All Call for Democracy in Egypt Let’s look at who is calling for democracy in Egypt. Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed El-Baradei wants it, but wants “Barack Obama” to impose it. “Obama,” the world’s most famous adherent of genocidal Black Liberation Theology, supports it. Alinskyite Marxist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports it. And the Muslim Brotherhood, which assassinated Anwar Sadat 30 years ago, and is dedicated to the worldwide imposition of shariah, supports it. Why, with that kind of support, democracy can’t miss! “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”—Muslim Brotherhood Mohamed El-Baradei acts as though he wants “Barack Obama” to act as a dictator or supreme commander, depose Egypt’s lawful leader, and install El-Baradei as president, yet he sees this as a blueprint for “democratic” reform? El-Baradei really needs to take his irony supplement. The news reports I read initially either ignored the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the rioting, or said the group was keeping a low profile, and though some mentioned that it supports imposing shariah, none that I saw mentioned that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In fact, some sites ludicrously reported that the Brotherhood has “renounced violence.” And Al Qaeda is just a Koran study group. The Brotherhood has now agreed to support El-Baradei as the “lead spokesman” (elsewhere described as “leader”) of pro-democracy forces, but if Mubarak surrenders power, the Brotherhood will sweep El-Baradei away like so much dust. Another voice in favor of “democracy” comes from our friends at The Daily Beast, who tell us, Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood The secretive Islamic opposition group has long renounced violence and may be the most reasonable option…. The prospect of change in Egypt inevitably raises questions about the oldest and strongest opposition movement in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood , also known as Ikhwan. Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government? The short answer is it is not our decision to make. Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians’ rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. But our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome. Understanding the Brotherhood is vital to understanding our options…. After the army seized power in 1952, [the Brotherhood] briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it. Nasser and his successors, Anwar Sadat and Mubarak, have alternatively repressed and demonized the Brotherhood or tolerated it as an anti-communist and right-wing opposition…. [“Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood,” by Bruce Riedel, The Daily Beast, January 27, 2011.] Bruce Riedel’s claim that we have always had buyer’s remorse when we picked rulers is not true. Not in South Vietnam, and not in Iran. The former CIA officer also somehow neglected to mention that Nasser’s brutal suppression of the Brotherhood followed their assassination attempts on him, or that the group assassinated Sadat. Note the non sequitur: “Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government? “The short answer is it is not our decision to make.” The answer to what? Riedel’s answer is to a different question, whether America should have any say in the governing of a country that gets $1.5 billion in annual aid from us, and he admits that “our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome.” Beyond that, as he well knows, Egypt is essential to regional stability. Riedel never answers his question, because the answer is “no,” but he does not want to come clean with his true loyalties. He also ignores the fact that the democratic Egyptian El-Baradei wants America to intervene, and “to pick Egyptians’ rulers.” The notion that America should be passive in the face of a possible Islamist takeover in Egypt, and in much of North Africa, is completely inimical to America’s interests. Then again, Riedel’s orientation clearly is anti-American: He supported the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and supports an Islamist takeover of Egypt and North Africa. You might as well say, “Don’t Fear Al Qaeda.” Alinskyite Marxist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also seeks to install “a transition that will meet the needs of the Egyptian people and that will truly establish democracy…,” in accordance with the expressed wishes of her boss, a devotee of genocidal Black Liberation Theology. Eight years ago, Zeev Chafets observed that Arab Moslems don’t march in favor of more democracy, but for less of it. They don’t march for peace, but for war. Mohamed El-Baradei may have fallen in love with his press clippings, but Bruce Riedel and Hillary Clinton know these truths better than I do. Democracy is not an option. Nicholas Stix

[vector7]

Unholy Alliance

Share9 Share Post Print
January 31, 2011 Posted by John at 10:54 AM

If the Mubarak government collapses, the Muslim Brotherhood is the organization most likely to fill the vacuum. Haaretz reports: "Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood eyes unity gov't without Mubarak."

Gamal Nasser, a spokesman for the Brotherhood, told DPA that his group was in talks with Mohammed El Baradei - the former UN nuclear watchdog chief - to form a national unity government without the National Democratic Party of Mubarak. ...

Speaking to CNN later Sunday, El Baradei said he had a popular and political mandate to negotiate the creation of a national unity government.

"I have been authorized -- mandated -- by the people who organized these demonstrations and many other parties to agree on a national unity government," he told CNN.

An Egyptian government in which the key players are the Muslim Brotherhood and El Baradei would be a terrible development for us; for Egypt, perhaps a catastrophic one. Some are now arguing that the MB is a relatively benign force to which we should not be opposed. Andy McCarthy explains in detail why we should fear the Muslim Brotherhood--the organization that has spawned most of today's terrorist groups--but really, all you need to know is the Brotherhood's motto:

Allah is our objective, the Prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, and dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu akbar!

That pretty well sums it up.

El Baradei, meanwhile, has a long history of anti-American activism. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which is often repeated in the press as though it were a good thing. As is so often the case in recent years, El Baradei's prize was a reward for sticking his finger in America's eye, as we noted back in 2005:

When the Nobel Peace Prize, which has become more or less a badge of infamy, was awarded to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director-General Mohamed El Baradei, many suspected that the award was--once again--an implied rebuke to the United States. It turns out that this wasn't just paranoid suspicion by us conservatives:

The speculation at the United Nations was that the Norwegian Nobel committee was sending its own message to the U.S. administration for its refusal to take meaningful steps on nuclear disarmament and for its continued militaristic policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

El Baradei achieved his greatest renown in connection with the pre-war weapons inspections in Iraq, which he headed on behalf of the IAEA.

One particularly discreditable moment in his tenure, which sheds considerable light on El Baradei, requires a walk down memory lane.

You probably don't remember the Al Qaqaa affair, but it dominated the last days of the 2004 Presidential campaign. In a last-ditch effort to pull out the race, John Kerry and the Democrats fabricated a story that was intended to undermine President Bush's national security credentials they claimed that the U.S. Army had failed to secure 377 tons of explosives at a weapons depot near Baghdad (Al Qaqaa) that subsequently disappeared, presumably into the hands of terrorists.

The story turned out to be a lie, and the day after the election it was completely forgotten--having failed to serve its purpose--but in the last week before the election, the liberal media gave it all the play they could. The Washington Post reported on October 27, 2004:

The disappearance of nearly 400 tons of explosives in Iraq dominated the presidential race for a third straight day on Wednesday, as Democratic nominee John F. Kerry accused President Bush of evading responsibility and the Republican said Kerry was making unsubstantiated charges.

Kerry, traveling in Iowa, scrapped plans to talk about domestic policy to accuse Bush of trying to cover up the failure to secure the explosives in Iraq. "This is a growing scandal and the American people deserve a full and honest explanation of how it happened and what the president is going to do about it," Kerry told supporters in Sioux City.

Instead, he said, "we're seeing this White House dodging and bobbing and weaving . . . just as they've done each step of the way in our involvement in Iraq." ...

Bush's remarks produced a furious response from Democrats. In a conference call arranged by the Kerry campaign, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) issued an extraordinary rebuke of the administration. Because of missing explosives, "my kid and a lot of other kids might get their ass over there and get blown up by these because of their civilian incompetence," he said, his voice rising to a shout.

Campaigning in Florida, Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), kept the emphasis on the missing explosives.

The whole Al Qaqaa issue was a complete fraud; the explosives, if they ever existed, were gone by the time U.S. forces captured the depot.

Once the election was over, not a single moment was wasted by anyone, worrying about the "missing" weapons. But here is the point: who started the Al Qaqaa fraud? Mohammed El Baradei. The Democrats' claim was based on a letter from the IAEA that was leaked. We noted in 2004:

Clifford May at the NRO corner says that the New York Times story on the missing explosives was ginned up by the IAEA to undermine the administration, which wants to deny IAEA head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, a second term. May relies on this message from an unamed government source:

The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The combination of the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed El Baradei in control of Egypt would be deadly indeed.

[vector7]

Glenn Beck Illustrates the Left's Unholy Alliance with Islam

Glenn Beck Part 1 The Muslim Brotherhood II 2/4/2011




Glenn Beck Part 2 The Muslim Brotherhood II 2/4/2011




Glenn Beck Part 3 The Muslim Brotherhood II 2/4/2011




Glenn Beck Part 4 The Muslim Brotherhood II 2/4/2011

[vector7]

Glenn right, Glenn haters (Chris Matthews) wrong!

Friday, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM EST


Leftists have been rushing to debunk Glenn’s “lunatic” conspiracy theories, but as quick as they are to put the American people back to sleep something comes along to wake them up again. A headline from The Blaze shows more leftists working with radical Muslims, and Glenn gave his reaction on radio this morning.

“I want you to please do me a favor because the left is coming hard for the things that we have shared with you this week, and they’re coming at a different angle. I haven’t seen this one since the very beginning. They were saying that I was crazy. Remember that? And I was a madman?” Glenn asked.

“The communist left, the uber socialist left and the Islamic radicals are in bed together, period. Look it up. It’s called Islamic socialism. Now, I’m sorry that we can’t have an actual dialogue anymore in this nation, but the left, who is extraordinarily well financed, has put a machine around themselves to be able to just say ‘He’s crazy,’” Glenn said.

Glenn’s request? Look it all up. Do your own homework and just tell your friends what you find. But, of course, there are those rushing to call Glenn crazy without finding any facts to counter with, simply name calling.

Chris Matthews, the hardly watched MSNBC host, mocked Glenn’s theory when he said, “Socialists, who he identifies with the president; communists, who he identifies with our president, are the ones behind all this. Here he is, they are behind the trouble in Egypt. Here he is on the radio today talking about the Caliphate and the socialists and communists who, of course, the Obama people working together with extreme Islam.”

But a new video on The Blaze shows Communists, Socialists, and Union members speaking at the same rally as radical Muslims chanting against Israel and The United States. Furthermore, the video shows the connections between these same groups and those groups organizing pro-Egypt rallies in America over the past few weeks.

But, of course, Glenn must be crazy. Chris Matthews said so. It was on TV! Someone had to have seen it (note: Even though most people don’t watch MSNBC, I did see a clip on Chris’s website).

Glenn’s response to the video? “I appreciate all the free advertising from Chris Matthews and if he would just urge his people like I do to find out the truth for themselves, they would easily ‑‑ well, you’ve seen [the video].”

[vector7]

Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

Obama and Ahmadinejad

Amir Taheri 10.26.08, 1:33 PM ET

Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?

The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."

In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."

Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

Obama's election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad's entourage claim that his "steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan" was a factor in helping Obama defeat "hardliners" such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

"President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president. "This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power." The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago.

A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an "enemy of Islam." A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama "a better choice for everyone." Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic "prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House" next year.

Tehran's penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a "sunset" (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a "sunrise" (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America--attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

Seen from Tehran, Obama's election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show "understanding of Muslim grievances" with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the "Iranian solution for Palestine," which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.

[vector7]

Glenn Beck-02/08/11-A



Glenn Beck-02/08/11-B



Glenn Beck-02/08/11-C




Glenn Beck-02/09/11-A



Glenn Beck-02/09/11-B



Glenn Beck-02/09/11-C

[vector7]

Glenn takes the gloves off!!!

Glenn Beck-02/10/11-A




Glenn Beck-02/10/11-B





Glenn Beck-02/10/11-C

[American Patriot]

That picture above says it all about Leftists.