Doc's Talk: An Islamist's Crocodile Tears

Sunday, March 13, 2011

An Islamist's Crocodile Tears

Daniel Greenfield

We'll never know if Congressman Keith Ellison (AKA Keith Hakim, AKA Keith X Ellison, AKA Keith Ellison-Muhammad, AKA BooHoo Kaboom) brought along an onion with him, a pinch of snuff or just thought of all the CAIR campaign contributions he risked losing if the hearings fulfilled their intended purpose,to be able to let loose the waterworks. However he did it, Ellison finally succeeded at one thing. Crying on cue.

The big boohoo let Ellison sell his sob story to a sympathetic public already primed by thousands of attack pieces run against King. A campaign conducted by a top Democratic public relations firm, which had done work for such clients as J-Street and the Carter Center. A campaign premised on the idea that it was wrong to ask questions about Islamic radicalization, but completely okay to accuse King of being an IRA terrorist. But Ellison's Legend of Mohammed Salman Hamdani ignored a simple piece of arithmetic. On September 11, 2001, twenty Muslims tried to murder Americans. One NYPD cadet who happened to be a Muslim died along with thousands of other non-Muslims. Those numbers alone justify King's hearing. And a thousand like it.

Mohammed Salman Hamdani did not do what he did because he was a Muslim, instead he acted as a paramedic and an NYPD cadet. And that is to his credit. But the 19 hijackers did what they did because they were Muslim. Because they wanted to see Islam triumph over the Dar Al-Harb, to fulfill the dictate of the Koran; "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

The infidels resisted and thousands of Americans died, as millions other have died before them under the sword of the Jihad. Countless Christians, Jews, Hindus, Zoroastrians and Buddhists. There is a reason we call it Islamic terrorism, and it isn't because we falsely attribute motives to the terrorists, but because Islam is the stated purpose and aim of the terrorists.

Before Congressman Keith X Hakim Muhammad Ellison decided to exploit 9/11 in order to stop an investigation into Islamist organizations, he was using that same day to suggest that the United States government was behind the attacks. In a throwback to his Nation of Islam days, Ellison in 2007 compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and compared Bush to Hitler.

After replying to an audience member question of, "Who benefited from 9/11" with "You and I both know", Ellison went on to compare it to the Reichstag fire, a common analogy used by 9/11 Truthers, and closed with, "I'm not saying [September 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you."

And if not for the nut-ball box, Muhammad Hakim X Ellison would be saying it. But Ellison has come a long way from 1997, when he was calling himself Mohammed and defending the Nation of Islam's Antisemitic bigotry. He's learned to stay out of the nut-ball box and sit squarely in the victim box instead, even if he has to give his suit an eye wash every time someone mentions the word 'terrorism'. When Ellison traded up from Farrakhan's crazy racist science fiction version of Islam (there are UFO's and a mad scientist who invented white people), to the more mainstream violent version practiced in the Middle East, he picked up the respectability that a whole lot of money can buy.

Ellison's crocodile tears weren't for Mohammed Salman Hamdani, one of hundreds of rescue workers who rushed to the Twin Towers, but for the network of Muslim Brotherhood front groups who were the real targets of this hearing. It was on their behalf that the cobbled together coalition of leftist Christian and Jewish clergy, most of whom had already been collaborating with them on everything from promoting the Ground Zero Mosque to denouncing American and Israeli self-defense against Islamic terrorism, came together to attack Congressman King for singling out Muslims. Rather than you know, Buddhists.

Contrary to the never-ending stream of lies in the media, King's hearings were actually about investigating Muslim Brotherhood front groups which law enforcement officials have accused of radicalizing American Muslims and discouraging them from cooperating in terrorism investigations.

You could spend hours reading mainstream media stories about the hearings (all of them either focusing on hurt Muslim feelings or dread warnings about how singling out Muslims will actually cause terrorism) without hearing that simple truth. Ellison's salty discharge was the trump card in diverting attention from those groups. A tactic for which there is ample precedent.

Back during the 1950's, hearings on Communism were successfully hijacked by Communists posturing as victims. That they were members of an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States, the enslavement of the entire country, and the execution of millions of Americans was never reported. Only the self-pity by wealthy men and women who had supported Stalin's mass murders and even spoken out for Hitler during the Hitler-Stalin pact made news. Today there are numerous plays and films made about the victims of the 'blacklist', and hardly anyone about the millions murdered by Communism. The term 'McCarthism' is a popular insult, and Communist mass murderers are popular t-shirts.

The real story is not Hakim X. Ellison's ability to leak on demand, but his longstanding ties to CAIR. CAIR remains an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist charity case. And CAIR has fundraised for Ellison, and Ellison has fundraised for CAIR. And CAIR was a natural target of the hearings, as it has been accused of discouraging cooperation with law enforcement. One CAIR chapter even hung up a poster reading, "Build a Wall of Resistance - Don't Talk to the F.B.I."

That's the real story here and it's not one that the media will touch. Ellison has put on a full court press, not in defense of American Muslims, but in defense of CAIR. And every reporter and clergyman who has pounded the keys and issued press releases denouncing the singling out of Muslims, has been helping cover CAIR's ass.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, has been quoted as saying that he; "wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." The thought of America's freedoms being exchanged for the sword and the hangman's noose, of women having acid thrown in their faces for not wearing a burqa, churches and synagogues burned down and the Constitution being traded for the Koran-- now there's something to really cry about.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk