Sunday, May 31, 2009

Stopping Settlement Construction Won’t Help Construct a Diplomatic Settlement

Barry Rubin

Although somewhat quieted by the successful Netanyahu-Obama meeting, a predominant theme in current talk about U.S. Middle East policy is that there will soon be a U.S.-Israel confrontation. This is so expected that there are daily misinterpretations or fabrications of events implying some anti-Israel step by the Obama administration. Such things might well—almost inevitably will—happen at some point. But by the end of May 2009, there had still been no material action hostile to Israel undertaken by the administration.

What is curious, and counterproductive for the administration, is the one area which might be the scene of direct confrontation: the settlement issue.

Israel does not start new settlements. The issue is a narrower one: adding a building or even rooms or floors onto buildings in existing settlements. A second potential issue is over construction in the east Jerusalem area.

So far, there is a consensus in Israel that the same policy as has been held since 1993 should continue: no new settlements but construction on existing settlements.

From the administration’s standpoint, making this the big push doesn’t make sense and is likely to lead to looking foolish in the future no matter how it comes out.

First, if Israel refuses, is the United States going to apply disproportionate diplomatic force on the issue? Will huge threats or actions be deployed to make a small change?

Second, there is no implication of an enforced reciprocity. That is, Israel is not being offered anything for making such a concession on a policy held by the last six prime ministers. The United States, for example, urged the Palestinian Authority (PA) to stop incitement for murdering Israelis in its media and other institutions but there was no statement that this was a high priority or that the United States would punish the PA for not doing so.

How, then, will the United States get Israel to take steps of much greater importance it will want in future if a lot of political capital is used up on this one?

If the United States fails to force a change in Israeli policy it will look foolish. But what if it succeeds? The PA will just move to the next item on its list: refusing to negotiate with Israel unless Netanyahu explicitly endorses a “two-state” solution.

And the PA will do or give nothing in exchange for a cessation of Israeli settlement construction. Neither will the Arab states. They will not help it more on the Iran issue or meet any other U.S. request.

On the contrary, they will say that now the United States has demonstrated it can get Israel to do what it wants. Thus, Washington has no excuse for not ordering Israel to withdraw from all the West Bank, agree to an independent Palestinian state without preconditions, and do whatever else the Arab regimes want. Indeed PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said that in his interviews while in Washington.

In short, the United States will have reaped zero advantage from achieving its current number-one priority on the peace process.

And what will it do if the PA refuses to cooperate even after a settlement freeze, threaten to cut off aid or withdraw the military training mission?

The administration has already signalled the PA that the Palestinians are doing America a favor by taking the dollars. After all, doesn't Obama say that the peace process and good relations with the Palestinians are the keystone of U.S. Middle East policy? Hasn't Washington accepted the notion that keeping the PA happy is the way to get Arabs and Muslims to love America? So it has already given away the leverage needed to get anything done.

As usually happens nowadays, I’m unaware of any government, media or analytical response to the points made here. Something like “stop settlement activity” becomes a mantra which involves no serious thought, longer-term strategy, or response to criticisms like the ones I’m making here.

Stopping settlement activity will not advance a diplomatic solution. That’s a fact.

Israel Prepares for War: 5-Day 'Turning Point 3' Exercise Begins

Yehudah Lev Kay

The largest emergency drill ever to take place in Israel, dubbed ‘Turning Point 3’, began Sunday morning after months of planning.

Representatives from 70 nations are participating as observers in the drill, which simulates a war with Hamas, Hizbullah, and Syria that also leads Arabs within Israel to riot and commit terrorist attacks.
Turning Point 3 involves the IDF, police, emergency medical services, government offices, and all of the nation’s civilians. Some Arab countries, nervously watching Israel prepare for the exercise, have claimed that the exercise is just a front for an Israeli attack.

The drill is intended to prepare the Jewish State for the worst possible scenario, beginning with a war that ignites in Gaza after a three-month escalation, bringing Israeli civilians in the Negev under rocket bombardment. The fighting then spreads to Israel’s northern border, where Hizbullah opens a second front and initiates rocket fire reaching all parts of the country.

The war next engulfs Syria, and at the same time authorities must deal with uprisings among the local Arab population, including terrorist attacks against Israeli targets. At the same time, emergency services will train for other disasters such as an earthquake, an epidemic outbreak, or a hazardous materials spill.

As far as the general population is concerned, Turning Point 3 reaches its peak on Tuesday, when a nationwide siren sounds at 11:00 a.m., sending civilians to the nearest bomb shelter. The Home Front Command recently released a map showing that every Israeli citizen has come under rocket threat from either Hamas or Hizbullah, and explaining how much time a person has to reach a shelter based on his location.

Five Days of Intensive Simulations

The different components of Turning Point 3 are spread out over five days this week.

On Sunday, the drill began during the weekly cabinet meeting as government ministers were walked through the steps the state would take in a time of war. The simulation is expected to continue throughout the cabinet meeting.

Monday sees the exercise expand to defense and emergency services, as the IDF, police, National Emergency Authority, and Home Front Command begin simulations. All government offices open emergency centers, while the Emergency Economic Command meets to handle the economic home front during war time.

On Tuesday, local governing councils are presented with emergency scenarios and respond accordingly. At 11:00 a.m., the nationwide siren is activated, sending civilians to bomb shelters in offices, schools and shopping centers. Citizens in apartment buildings and private homes are strongly urged to practice seeking the safety of bomb shelters and safe rooms at this time as well.

Wednesday sees drills at the National Security Cabinet and tests of the national information and data management system. Emergency forces in Kiryat Gat practice evacuating wounded from a collapsed building prepared specially for the drill.

On Thursday, IDF units drill field exercises while the Home Front Command continues the simulation at its headquarters. The police practice the evacuation of a skyscraper as Turning Point 3 comes to a close.

Seventy Nations Look On, Arabs Wary

Representatives of 70 different countries, including the U.S., Turkey, Japan, France, Germany, Uruguay, and Hungary are set to observe the drill. They will also share their impressions on the success of ‘Turning Point 3’ with Israeli authorities.

Several Arab states, however, have expressed concern with the Israeli exercise; Hizbullah terrorists have claimed that it is a front designed to conceal a planned Israeli attack .

Defense Minister Ehud Barak countered the claims last week, saying that Turning Point 3 “is a standard Home Front Command drill which was planned will in advance.” Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai added, however, that the drill represents a very real scenario that could occur in wartime.

The IDF Spokesperson’s Office said, “Turning Point 3 is a standard exercise which has taken place each year for the past three years. The purpose of the drill is to improve Israel’s readiness and cooperation among forces for an emergency situation. The exercise will reveal areas that need improvement and point towards proper solutions.”

Why West Bank Settlements Must Stop

Vel Nirtist
American Thinker

"He wants to see a stop to settlements - not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth' exceptions," Secretary Clinton announced on behalf of President Obama during her recent press-conference in Egypt. "That is our position. That is what we have communicated [to Israeli government] very clearly." Why no Israeli settlement activity should be allowed? Because Palestinians want that land for their future state, we are being told. To continue settlement activity, we are being told further, would pre-judge the results of future negotiations.

All of which is fine and good, except for the fact that Israelis are not the only ones who build on the disputed land to accommodate for ‘natural growth,' thus "pre-judging" the outcome of diplomacy. Palestinians do, too -- and the Obama administration, to be fair or at least consistent in its concern that "facts on the ground" should not adversely affect final-status negotiations, should put equal pressure on the Palestinians to stop all their building in the West Bank, too -- for when the Palestinians build in the West Bank, they also create "facts on the ground," erecting their structures on the land which Israelis may want to be part of their state. Is it only legitimate for the Palestinians to want certain part of the disputed territory to belong to them? Is it illegitimate for the Israelis to want the same disputed land to be theirs?

That simply doesn't make any sense, and our new and determined President should show his impartiality by pressuring both sides into avoiding steps that would pre-judge the results of future negotiations. If Jews' normal lives in the West Bank impede fair solution of the conflict by pre-judging the outcome of negotiations, it is only fair to remind ourselves that Palestinians' normal lives do so, too.

Because the West Bank is a disputed territory, not the land intrinsically belonging to the Palestinians but currently occupied by the Israelis. It is worth repeating yet again that before the West Bank was "occupied" by the Israelis in 1967 when they beat off the Arab aggression, it was under Jordanian occupation that started in 1948, and that prior to that it was occupied by the British who had the mandate to do so from the League of Nations; and that prior to that it was part of the Ottoman Empire. "Palestinian state" never existed, and cannot claim any territory as legitimately its own.

This is not to say that it is unnatural of the Palestinians to want West Bank to be their own -- but exactly the same is true of the Israelis, too. After all, when Arabs arrived in the area in 634 AD, they came as conquerors, as builders of an empire that eventually spread from the borders of France to those of India -- and would have spread much farther had not Charles Martel checked Arab expansion into the Western Europe by crushing their invasion into France, and Byzantine emperor Leo the Isurian checking their advance into Asia Minor and Central Europe. The land we call "Palestine" today was in possession of others for many millennia before the Arabs invaded -- not least, it was a Jewish country for over fifteen centuries as Judea and Samaria, with Jerusalem as its capital. Jews have a legitimate title to that land by any measure -- and are perfectly entitled to seeing Palestinian Arabs as illegitimate settlers on the Jewish land.

Well, having a legitimate title is one thing, but being cognizant of the "facts on the ground," the fact of heavy Arab presence in the West bank is another -- and time and again, the Israelis were willing to negotiate, compromise, share the land. Somehow, this willingness got translated into a bizarre notion that the West Bank is Arab by right, and that the only solution to the conflict is for the Israelis to withdraw. "Illegal Israeli settlements on the occupied Palestinian land which prevent the solution of Arab-Israeli conflict" became an integral part of the political discourse. Hence, the desire to remove those "barriers to peace," stifling their growth as demanded by President Obama through Secretary Clinton being the first step in that process.

But, Mr. President, the factual premise of your demand is simply wrong. In fact, there are two sides, Israelis and Palestinians, building in the disputed West bank. If you do indeed believe that creating "facts on the ground" in the West bank is an obstacle to negotiated peace, than indeed demand the end to all settlement activity in that disputed land until negotiations resolve the entire dispute - and the word "all" means that Palestinian settlement activity in the West bank, "natural growth" including, must be stopped, too.

Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of "The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly." His blog is at

Page Printed from: at May 31, 2009 - 08:37:05 AM EDT

Islamic Speakers Bureau Backed By Radical Profs

Jonathan Schanzer
The American Thinker
May 31, 2009

A California nonprofit dedicated to "teaching about Islam & Muslims" at U.S. high schools and college campuses features a board of advisors that is stacked with some of the most controversial activist professors in the field of Middle Eastern studies today. The imprimatur of these scholars may signal a troubling shift toward the support of proselytizing efforts and the further unraveling of Middle East Studies in America.
The board of Islamic Networks Group (ING) is a veritable Who's Who of Islamist apologists and activists. Leading the list is John Esposito, the founding director of the Saudi-funded Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He famously stated that the suicide-bombing Hamas organization engages in "honey, cheese-making, and home-based clothing manufacture."

Joining Esposito on the ING board is Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan, who was a trustee at the North American Islamic Trust and worked with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both un-indicted co-conspirators in the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation.

There's also Ingrid Mattson, a convert to Islam, who is a professor at the Hartford Seminary and president of the un-indicted co-conspirator ISNA. While much of her work is controversial, she is famous for a CNN chatroom interview in 2001 in which she stated that the radical Saudi Wahhabi ideology is "a reform movement" that "really was analogous to the European Protestant reformation."

Hamza Yusuf Hanson, who is not a scholar but sits on the ING board, publicly declared his own extremism at an ISNA convention. In 1991, he reportedly delivered a speech titled "Jihad is the Only Way" to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which is an arm of the radical organization Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan.

While Maha El-Genaidi, the founder, president and CEO of ING, does not appear openly to embrace radicalism, she reportedly has worked with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), also an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. El-Genaidi also participated in an event sponsored by the Muslim Students Association with Siraj Wahhaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

ING's reach is wide. Its web site lists more than a dozen affiliated organizations in North America. They reflect a broad network involved in Islamic outreach (da'wa), otherwise known as proselytizing.

The list of ING affiliates includes such Muslim outreach organizations as: The Islamic Speakers Bureau of Nebraska; the Islamic Resource Group in Minnesota; the Islamic Education and Resource Network in Michigan; the Islamic Center of Cincinnati; the Organization of Islamic Speakers Midwest Illinois; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Atlanta; the Kentucky Islamic Resource Group; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of San Diego; and the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Vancouver.

Because ING charges nothing for its campus speeches, hosts aren't deterred by financial needs. Thus, with a modest 2007 budget of $356,000, the latest figure available via public tax returns, ING made an astonishing 750 classroom visits in one year, a figure that doesn't include visits to churches, senior centers, corporations, and forums for policemen and healthcare workers. According to a recent ING newsletter, the group reached 14,000 students and adults after public schools and universities responded to a large-scale ING direct mail campaign.

ING also disseminates its message through the printed word. Access to the ING online store is now denied for reasons unknown, but a few of the organization's publications are available on the Internet. Among them is Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture by Jack Sheehan, a former communications professor at Southern Illinois University who was also a visiting professor at Esposito's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. Another title is Presenting Ramadan and Eid in Elementary School: Grades K-6 Kit for Parents and Teachers, designed to generate excitement about these Muslim holy days through art, music, and "lunar activities."

ING also appears to have created a curriculum about Islam for grades 7 through 12. It also appears that the State of California, at least at one point, used ING curriculum. However, the ING links on the California Department of Education website are now dead.

There is nothing even vaguely radical on the ING website. The organization's behavior appears to be consistent with its message of pluralism. One might only observe that the organization attempts to whitewash the radical strains of the religion (a common theme in the work of Esposito and Mattson).

Without challenging ING's freedom to preach, two important observations should be made.

First, it is now clear that some Middle Eastern Studies professors have ceased being observers of Islam and are now engaging in its propagation. Countless analysts have noted that Middle Eastern Studies professors substitute scholarship with apologia for radicalism. Still others openly agitate against the United States or Israel. However, it is rare to see scholars openly lend their support to proselytizing efforts of this kind.

It is too early to know whether the scholars on the ING board represent an anomaly or a trend. The motivations of Mattson and Sherman - both converts to Islam - are somewhat understandable. Esposito, a non-Muslim, is more of a mystery.

On a more practical level, elementary school, high school, or college administrators mulling a free visit from El-Genaidi's group should be forewarned about the academic engine that powers ING. ING's leading thinkers have a history of cavorting with apologists for radicalism-and the radicals themselves.

Jonathan Schanzer, an adjunct scholar at Campus Watch, is deputy executive director for the Jewish Policy Center, and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave, Nov 2008).

Israel is a sovereign nation that has earned its right to exist and prosper for its own good and the good of its allies

Nidra Poller

An address delivered at the AMCHA rally in Washington DC May 18th in the distant presence of Bibi and Barack Hussein

Israel will act in its own interests

Defend itself when attacked

Live by its own values

Criticize its own faults and take hope in its sterling qualities

If Israel's neighbors want to live in peace with a sovereign Jewish state they do not need a peace process, they do not have to obtain painful concessions, they do not need help from the international community

They can simply begin to live in peace

That includes cutting ties with jihad forces such as hamas and hizbullah
Ending incitement to hatred and destruction of israel and the jews and that includes fatah

Being satisfied with what they have, making it fruitful, developing civil society

Their hope lies in the full honest acceptance of Israel the Jewish homeland not in vain hopes of its destruction. Israel is a precious ally to the united states, One of the most faithful allies we will ever have

An alliance based on shared values and shared interests

The American people know this. We know that talking tough to israel is a sign of dismal weakness

Talking tough to israel, putting pressure on israel is a fool's game that strengthens the enemies of the free world Western civilization is based on values that judaism revealed, cherishes, and sustains

When a civilized nation turns against the Jews it is turning against itself

Israel is point man of a lonely batallion on the front lines of a global conflict

Israel is a bulwark

Badgering Israel with flimsy geopolitical claptrap is suicidal for the free world. Don't do it

I live in France where i witness the destructive effect of anti-Zionism. Obsessive systematic criticism of Israel feeds virulent violent Jew hatred. 350 anti-Semitic acts were recorded in France in January 2009

Why were jews attacked in france when israelis defended themselves against persistent attacks from Hamas-ruled Gaza?

Why? Because anti-Zionism is the modern form of anti-Semitism. Guilt free as long as decent people refuse to recognize its true nature. At this very moment in France the self-named gang of barbarians is on trial for the brutal kidnapping of Ilan Halimi tortured for three weeks finished off and left to die by the railroad tracks in Genevieve sous bois Because two of the perpetrators were just under 18 at the time they committed this savage crime. The trial is being held in huis clos behind closed doors out of the eye of the publicM neighbor in 2003

Thousands of Jews have been attacked beaten stomped stabbed within an inch of their lives since the palestinian authority refused the offer of a state in September of 2000 and declared war against israel

Johanna Justin-Jnich was murdered in Middletown CT because she was Jewish and American media did not even dare investigate this telltale crime they reported briefly and turned away in shame?

Was it too horrifying to wonder if a change in discourse at the highest levels of our government could lead to a deterioration in the condition of American Jews?

Pro-Hamas activists in FT lLauderdale Florida shouted "the Jews to the ovens" in January.

Do not ask us to believe that one more warmed over second hand totally unrealistic plan will pacify the forces of destruction that will engulf all the free world

Not only israel

Not only the jews

Not only westerners

But all who wish to live honorably decently in blessed freedom

These are my notes on the media coverage of the murder of Ms Justin-Jinich. - When people disparage the NY Post and blogs, be thankful that they exist for that is where All the News that's Fit to Print actually appears.

A Jewish co-ed was killed at Weslyan University. NYTimes coverage: Ms. Justin-Jinich was from Timnath, Colo., a town of 200 southeast of Fort Collins. Though her family was Jewish, Justin Bours, who shared an apartment with her at Wesleyan, said Ms. Justin-Jinich regarded herself as an agnostic, and was politically liberal.

She attended a Quaker boarding-preparatory school, the Westtown School in Pennsylvania. At Wesleyan, where she enrolled in 2006, Ms. Justin-Jinich was described by friends as intellectual and passionate about her studies, pursuing a double major, one in Iberian studies and an interdisciplinary major in history, philosophy and literature. She quoted Nietzsche, Epicurus and Rousseau, and was a fan of the Chilean writer-politician Pablo Neruda and the Spanish poet Rafael Alberti Merello, they said. The NYTimes made no mention that the killer had written about killing Jews in a journal found at the crime scene.

The Huffington Post failed to use the word JEW in their coverage of the brutal murder. Associated Press writers Dave Collins in Hartford and John Christoffersen in New Haven contributed to this report.

NY POST, a mere 'rag' by NY Times standards, dug a little deeper into the dead woman's background and noted: Justin-Jinich, then a 19-year-old English/philosophy major from a wealthy Jewish family in Fort Collins, Colo. -- her grandmother is a Holocaust survivor -- was interning at Planned Parenthood in SoHo while taking the NYU course, according to her online journal.

Tenured-radical blog Lays out the perpetrators hatred of Jews in its opening paragraph This story suggests that, prior to gunning her down in cold blood yesterday, Stephen Morgan had been stalking Johanna Justin-Jinich since 2006, but also that there is evidence that this attack was part of a broader plan to harm Jewish students and Wesleyan University. No wonder they want us to stay home until they can locate this guy blog Second sentence-targeting Jews Suspect In Wesleyan Slaying Had Plans For Campus Shooting Spree The man suspected of shooting a Wesleyan University student turned himself in yesterday. Police say he was stalking his victim and planned to go on a shooting spree, targeting both Jews and Wesleyan students.

The Hartford newspaper, The Hartford Courant, reported the crime as an anti-Semitic act immediately and in their following reports

Bail Raised To $15 Million For Suspect In Wesleyan Shooting

Stephen Morgan Held On $15 Million Bail In Shooting Of Wesleyan Student


The Hartford Courant

May 9, 2009,0,5526228.story


Stephen Morgan packed up all of his belongings Tuesday and told his father he was moving to Newport, R.I.

But police said he had a different plan - to gun down Wesleyan University student Johanna Justin-Jinich. He also wrote in a journal of a killing spree targeting Jewish people and "beautiful and smart" Wesleyan students, according to an arrest warrant affidavit released Friday following Morgan's arraignment in Superior Court on a charge of murder.

"Kill Johanna," Morgan wrote the day of the shooting in a journal found at the crime scene, the affidavit states.

"She must Die."

The six-page affidavit offers a glimpse of what Morgan allegedly was doing - and possibly thinking - in the hours leading up to the deadly shooting Wednesday of Justin-Jinich, a 21-year-old junior at the school who police say had been harassed and stalked by Morgan in the past.

The court record also recounts in chilling detail how police said Morgan carried out the attack on Justin-Jinich, of Fort Collins, Colo., who police said was shot several times in the head and body with a 9mm semiautomatic pistol while she worked in the cafe at Broad Street Books.

Citing the serious nature of the case, Superior Court Judge Mary-Margaret Burgdorff Friday raised Morgan's $10 million bail to $15 million during an emotional arraignment hearing.

Morgan's mother and father and two sisters held each other as they sat crying in the gallery. His father, James Morgan, and his sister, Diana, called out "Steve!" as he was being led away by judicial marshals. Stephen Morgan, dressed in a blue jumpsuit, shoeless and shackled, briefly looked back at them.

The afternoon shooting prompted a nearly two-day campus lockdown and nationwide search for Morgan, who, according to a New York City police report, allegedly threatened Justin-Jinich in 2007, when they were attending a New York University summer program.

Morgan, 29, a former Navy petty officer, turned himself in to police late Thursday after public pleas from his family to surrender. Morgan walked into a Meriden convenience store sometime before 10 p.m. Thursday, bought a smoothie and asked a clerk for a phone so he could call police.

Richard R. Brown, Morgan's defense lawyer, said Morgan did not give a statement to police. He called Morgan's bail excessive and said he would argue for a reduction at a May 19 court hearing.

Morgan, Brown said, has no prior convictions, is not a flight risk and the evidence shows there were no other weapons found.

"This is a person that turned himself in when he didn't have to," Brown said.

Moreover, Brown said that Morgan "denies any effort to target the Wesleyan campus or anywhere" in general. Brown said Morgan and Justin-Jinich had been classmates in New York. He said he didn't know if they knew each other before then, or about the nature of their relationship.

"Obviously they knew each other, obviously they communicated with each other - anything beyond that, I don't know."

The warrant sheds little light on the relationship between Morgan and Justin-Jinich. Her father, Daniel Jinich, told detectives his daughter was "having problems with a male stalking her" in 2007. The affidavit cites the New York City Police Department report saying Morgan was harassing and threatening Justin-Jinich through calls and e-mails.

According to the affidavit, James Morgan told police he last saw his son at 11 p.m. Tuesday. On Wednesday, Stephen Morgan traveled to Connecticut in a 2001 Nissan and checked into Room 206 at the Best Way Inn in Middlefield.

That same day, Morgan shared his thoughts in a composition notebook he kept in a computer bag. Around 11 a.m., Morgan recalls "seeing all the beautiful and smart people" at Wesleyan, according to the affidavit. "I think it okay to kill Jews, and go on a killing spree at this school."

And then he mentions one Jewish person in particular, the warrant states.

"Kill Johanna. She must Die."

At about 1 p.m., witnesses at Broad Street Books reported hearing loud "popping" noises and seeing a man wearing what looked like an ill-fitting wig, a baseball cap and eyeglasses running from the first floor to the basement.

Steven Hebenstriet, the general manager of the store, told police he saw the shooter "do a somersault and then jump off" a conveyor belt in the basement. At one point, the men came face to face. The gunman pointed the firearm at Hebenstriet and warned: "Don't say anything or I'll shoot."

Morgan shed his disguise before police arrived, according to the warrant, and talked briefly to Middletown police Officer William Porter. When questioned, Morgan gave his name and told the officer he was from Boulder, Colo. Police took his information and let him go.

Inside the store, Justin-Jinich lay seriously wounded behind the cafe sales counter, "moaning and shaking." She was taken to Middlesex Hospital, where she was later pronounced dead.

Police found a wig, eyeglasses and a black T-shirt with a handgun wrapped inside it in the building. Outside, Morgan's car was still in the parking lot, the affidavit states. Inside the car, police found a handgun case and ammunition.

Early Wednesday morning, Massachusetts police went to the Morgan's family's home in Marblehead, Mass., where his father identified his son as a man carrying a firearm in a surveillance photo taken at the store at the time of the shooting.

James Morgan told police his son was a loner, quiet and had few friends.

"James said that his son kept a journal and he has known him to make anti-Jewish comments," the affidavit states.

Morgan graduated in 1998 from St. John's Preparatory School, an all-boys Catholic school in Danvers, Mass.

Outside the courtroom Friday, James Morgan said he talked briefly to Stephen - who has six siblings - after his arrest. When asked how he was doing, James Morgan simply shook his head and declined to comment further.

Brown said that Morgan's parents feel the accusation of murder is inconsistent with the person they know and that they feel "very, very bad" for Justin-Jinich's family. He said his client is also struggling.

"Not that anybody would have any sympathy for him," Brown said.

A few Wesleyan students attended Friday's court hearing.

Justin Bores, a junior from Bethesda, Md., said Justin-Jinich had mentioned Morgan previously, but only in passing. "She was a wonderful person," he said.

His friend, Seth Halpern, a senior from New Haven, said, "I was very close to her, and I felt the need to be here."

To: Mr. Obama, Mr. Abbas-Abu-Mazen, World Leaders and the Citizens of the World

Nurit Greenger

May 30, 2009

Why is there no where to find a morsel of history about the “country of Palestine? Or ”Palestinian State”?

Who was the previous leader of this mysterious ‘country’ or ‘state’ before Arafat?

Can you define this ‘country’ or ‘state’s’ historical borders?

What form of government it had before the terrorist Yasser Arafat took control of this ‘country’ or ‘state’? What was its national monetary system or the name of its capitol?

Please define this ‘country’ or ‘state’s’ religion.
Does any museum hold even one artifact from this ‘country’ or ‘state’?

The answers to all these questions are no, with capital ‘N’. And please, don’t for one moment refer to or try connect these ‘Palestinians’ to the biblical Philistines; there is no connection whatsoever!

The name "Palestine" comes, via Greek and Latin, from the Philistines.

When dealing with this ‘Palestinian’ issue, here is some history that you must learn and be familiar with: In 732 BC, the ancient Philistines lost their independence to Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria. Later on, Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon conquered all of Syria and the Kingdom of Judah, and the former Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. There are few references to the Philistines after this time period. However, Ezekiel 25:16, Zechariah 9:6, and I Macabees 3 make mention of the Philistines, indicating that they still existed as a people in some capacity after the Babylonian invasion. Eventually all traces of the Philistines as a people or ethnic group disappear and subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Jews--Hasmonean Kingdom, Greeks-Seleucid Empire, Romans, and subsequent empires that ruled in the region.

I challenge as well as urge every human being on earth to search the history of the “Palestinians.’ We all know that the people who chose to call themselves “Palestinians” are just Arabs who came to the region, particularly to the Land of Israel, from all parts of the Arab world seeking better economic conditions. For some unknown reason since the turn of the 20th Century, these Arabs have been rejected by the entire Arab world, which has used them and is still using them only as a pawn to fight Israel as well as in their own going wide scheme to acquire money and power so they can try keep the word of Allah and achieve Islam domination in the world.

Now that I have brought the truth to light, can you please explain to me why on earth so may political leaders are willing to negotiate with people—Arafat and now Abbas-Abu Mazen—who are by far not leaders of a real country, and are openly two-faced slimy liars?

Arafat then and now Abbas keep on telling world leaders one thing in English and then turn the microphones to their people and in Arabic tell an about-face story or a totally different story. Because of its advanced technology, the world we live in today seems to be much smaller, and you can no loner fool the masses so easily. We read, see and hear the actual truth. So why don’t you do the very same?

Fatah, PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and the majority of the Arab world general population agree that Israel must be exterminated, and that their ultimate goal, as commanded by Allah and plainly described in the Qur’an, is to rule the world. There are only some minor differences as to how and how fast this goal can be accomplished. If you still doubt my writing, any Islamist will be only glad to provide you with a copy of the Qur’an for you to read and become ‘enlighten.’

The true history of this Arab group, now calling themselves “Palestinians” is so horrific it deserves nothing but the gallows.

It is obvious that the Arab world is rewriting history in order to blame it on the Jews.

You want to make history? Please help Israel and the Arab nations to have these Arabs settle in any and all of the 22-Arabs countries or have them settle in Jordan its population is already made of mostly Arab-‘Palestinians.’ In Jordan they will have no problem to acclimate as they will automatically be among their own people.

Can you please tell me why the so very rich Arab nations do not help out their own people to come out of their hopeless condition? Makes no sense to me; does it make any sense to you? Reality is that they do not wish to help their brethren. They want them to remain the front line working to destroy Israel. They feed them with more hate and supply them with rockets and weapons to use against Israel as part of their advancement to world domination.

We have seen videos where Hamas has brutally murdered their own people and Fatah members, or how proud they were throwing bound and blindfolded men off 3 story buildings, or killing a wedding party because they played music! Why is the world ignoring these facts? Why the media avoids telling the truth? Why don’t we hear the truth from you?

It appears as if the world is OK with Arabs killing Arabs and with Arabs killing Jews, but it is no OK when Jews, forced to defend themselves, kill few Arabs.

Can you please tell me what happened to the Christian-Arabs once lived in these ‘Palestinian’ areas? Do you know what the ‘Palestinians’ did to the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem? Do you know that only a week ago these ‘Palestinians’ desecrated Christian graves? On second thought, perhaps you choose not to know the truth.

The most amazing part is how easy it was to feed these lies and history revision to the world and the media that is in fact liberal or even far left activists has helped them, in many ways, to spread those lies.

I wonder how those in political positions of power, including you, can look themselves in the mirror when they know they deny the truth and openly support the agenda of ruthless despotism, and jihadism. After all Islam, that is by far not a ‘religion of peace,’ is at war with the western world and other civilizations and since the time of Muhammad the Muslims have slaughtered some 270 million human beings and they are still at it.

Mr. Obama, again, please tell me why and for what purpose you are meeting and dealing with Abbas-Abu-Mazen, a man who denies the Holocaust and has publicly declared Israel must be driven into the sea as well as repeatedly and very recently stated that he will not recognize Israel as a Jewish State?

Lastly, please do the world a great favor; don’t tie the 2-state solution ridiculous notion to the mega problems we have with Iran. Even the Arab nations are terrified of nuclear Iran as you should be too. If you do not immediately deal with Iran [and North Korea] forcefully and with heavy hand your legacy will be a US President who brought about a nuclear WWIII!

With kind regards,

Airlift of 3,000 Secret Servicemen to Cairo to secure Obama speech to Muslims

US president Barack Obama has not yet decided whether his historic speech reaching out to the Muslim world will be delivered on June 4 from a lecture hall at Al Azhar University in Cairo or its main mosque, DEBKAfile's Middle East sources report. If the second, his address will take place in the presence of Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, the Sunni Muslim world's greatest religious authority. In any event, Al Azhar is the most eminent school of Islamic learning in the world and the US president therefore expects its impact to far outweigh his first address to Muslims from Istanbul. His arrival from a meeting with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on June 3 is planned to add extra weight to Obama's dramatic outreach to Muslims, since the king officiates as Custodian of the Holy Places to Islam.

Radical Muslims will therefore have all the more reason for rejecting it.

Giant transports have been landing at Cairo airport, unloading a fleet of armored vehicles, White House helicopters, counter-terror weapons and the vanguard of the 3,000 Secret Service officers backed by CIA and FBI personnel who will secure the US president during his stay in Egypt. Cairo will soon be in turmoil as forces are deployed from a command center at the American Embassy to control sections of downtown Cairo, with guard posts on the Nile River's banks, the international airport, main railway terminals and approaches to the city.

Some 30,000 Egyptian security personnel including army units stationed in Cairo have been placed on special duty until the American president leaves. Their names and those of the welcoming party at Al Azhar University were submitted to the US presidential security center.

Obama is due to land in Cairo Thursday at 10 a.m., drive to the Abidin Palace to meet President Hosni Mubarak and proceed from there to Azhar University. His convoy will be escorted by vehicles equipped with sensors for detecting firearms and explosives and covered by Marine helicopters overhead.

Until the last minute, the president's routes to the university have been withheld from Egyptian security authorities as a safeguard against leaks to hostile elements.

Comment: I do not want to hear, ever again, from the Democrats, any friends of mine who told me day after day how they despised Mr. Bush about the spending of Republicans. Does anyone know how much this singular event costs? How about the carbon footprint? I guess the Obama folks mean the rest of us show sacrifice so he can spend our carbon chits. Finally, what does this say about the security in a Muslim country? We should should be friends with this group? How about a novel idea, they demonstrate peaceful behavior, for, let us say 10 yreas and then we might believe they have no evil intentions against the infidels of the West. Good grief America, are you paying attention?

J'lem fumes as Abbas undermines PM

May. 31, 2009

Senior Israeli officials were dismissive and defiant on Saturday night, following Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's visit to Washington, highlighted by a report in which PA officials said the leadership is waiting for US pressure to bring down the Netanyahu government.

The report in Friday's Washington Post came a day after Abbas's White House meeting with US President Barack Obama.
"It will take a couple of years" for this American pressure to force Netanyahu from office, the Washington Post quoted one of Abbas's officials as saying, presumably bringing opposition head Tzipi Livni to power.

"With all due respect to the United States, our strategic ally, we are an independent democratic country, and our political leadership is chosen by internal democratic processes," coalition chairman and Likud MK Ze'ev Elkin said on Saturday night.

A senior government official recalled former foreign minister Abba Eban's declaration that the Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Let that not happen this time as well."

"It would be a pity if the Palestinian leadership threw away the very real chance that exists to move forward with this Israeli government on our proposed three-track approach of political, economic and security issues. If they decide they don't want to work to move the process forward, they'll have no one to blame but themselves," the official added.

According to the report, Abbas and his leadership believe the government would likely fall if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu surrendered to American demands for a total freeze on construction in West Bank settlements.

"If it is true that Abu Mazen [Abbas] believes Livni will be a more comfortable negotiating partner for the Palestinians, then it shows the wisdom of the Israeli voter, who decided to place someone else in charge," Elkin declared.

He insisted the government was stable - "I think every member of the coalition is responsible enough to enable this government to last its appointed term" - and that it would not easily give in to American demands.

"Our experience with American dictates in the very recent past has not been a good one," he said. "It was the United States that insisted on allowing Hamas to run in the Palestinian elections. I don't think this government will very easily cave to demands that are not carefully considered and responsible, no matter how much we value our strategic partnership with the United States."

Abbas was interviewed the day before his Thursday meeting with the US president, during which Obama reiterated his calls on Israel "to stop the settlements, to make sure that we are stopping the building of outposts, to work with the Palestinian Authority in order to alleviate some of the pressures that the Palestinian people are under in terms of travel and commerce."

Setting out what the newspaper called "a hardline position," the Palestinian leader conditioned a resumption of talks with Israel on Netanyahu's agreement to a halt in all settlement building and formal Israeli government acceptance of Palestinian statehood.

Abbas added that he would not even assist Obama's special envoy, George Mitchell, in trying to encourage Arab states to begin warming relations with Israel until Israel accepted these conditions.

"We can't talk to the Arabs until Israel agrees to freeze settlements and recognizes the two-state solution," Abbas was quoted as saying. "Until then, we can't talk to anyone."

However, the Washington Post went on, "Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze - if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while US pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office.

"'It will take a couple of years,' one official breezily predicted."

Abbas "rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession - such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees," the article continued.

Abbas intends to remain passive, he told the paper.

"I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements… Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality... The people are living a normal life."

Abbas also told the Washington Post that former prime minister Ehud Olmert accepted the principle of a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees and offered to resettle thousands of Palestinians in Israel. He said Olmert proposed a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank, and showed him its contours on a map.

Abbas said he turned down Olmert's peace offer because "the gaps were too wide."

"What's interesting about Abbas's hardline position," wrote the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl, who conducted the interview along with a colleague, "is what it says about the message that Obama's first Middle East steps have sent to Palestinians and Arab governments."

While the Bush administration placed the onus for change in the Middle East on the Palestinians, Diehl wrote, the Obama administration had shifted the focus to Israel.

The upshot is that "in the Obama administration, so far, it's easy being Palestinian," Diehl wrote.

Under George W. Bush, the Palestinians knew that "until they put an end to terrorism, established a democratic government and accepted the basic parameters for a settlement, the United States was not going to expect major concessions from Israel," wrote Diehl.

But Obama, with his repeated demands for a settlement freeze, "has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud."

Diehl wrote that Netanyahu and the Likud Party had not reconciled themselves "to the idea that Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank and evacuate tens of thousands of settlers" for a permanent accord.

"But Palestinians remain a long way from swallowing reality as well," he added. "Setting aside Hamas and its insistence that Israel must be liquidated, Abbas - usually described as the most moderate of Palestinian leaders - last year helped doom Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, by rejecting a generous outline for Palestinian statehood."

Olmert's offer "was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton," wrote Diehl. "It's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further."

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's spokesman Tzahi Moshe confirmed on Saturday night that the foreign minister would go to Russia and Belarus on Monday for talks "that are part of the special strategic connection which the minister believes Israel has with Russia."

In Moscow, Lieberman will meet with President Dmitri Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, "and will discuss many issues, including Iran and the strengthening of Israel's relationship with 'Eastern bloc' countries," Moshe said.

Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1243346507103&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Covering for the radicals: The Mainstream Media's "Usual Bunch"

IPT News
May 29, 2009 (first posted)

A prominent Muslim American leader issued a stern warning to the FBI. Informants should never breach the grounds of a mosque. No matter what.

"Our Koran is off limits," said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Los Angeles office said at an Anaheim mosque in April. "Our youth, who they try to radicalize, are off limits. Now is the time to tell them, 'we're not going to let this happen anymore.'
It was the lead element in a Los Angeles Times story by Paloma Esquivel. The story described the sense of betrayal felt by Muslim activists like Ayloush after "the FBI sent an informant into a mosque in Orange County, surveilled community leaders and sent an agent to UC Irvine – caus[ing] some to begin questioning the FBI's real intentions."

The story never names the person agents wanted the informant to approach; much less the man's family ties to Osama bin Laden or his efforts to conceal his continuing relationship with the relative. Nor does it explain to readers that CAIR may have some sour grapes toward the FBI, which cut off access to CAIR last summer in light of court evidence showing the group, which touts itself as the nation's largest Muslim civil rights organization, was born to serve a Hamas-support network in the U.S.

It's just one example of reporters favoring a good quote over the old shoe-leather approach of tracking down a paper trail. For some veteran journalists, it can be too much to take. Mary Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter now operating her own website, called out "the usual bunch of uninformed reporters" who seem glad to serve as a megaphone for CAIR and other apologists for terror.

Jacoby wrote some stories for the Investigative Project on Terrorism before launching Among them was her story breaking the news of cut off from FBI contact, tracking down written proof and obtaining formal confirmation from the FBI. Contrast that with stories in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Detroit News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch which seem to accept any claim about FBI behavior that comes forward yet seem to run out of space before explaining what the record says about people like Niazi and groups like CAIR.

"It's easy to believe the worst about the FBI," Jacoby wrote. "But in this case, the Bureau has bent over backwards to be fair. But it's stopped bending – and rightly so." Jacoby noted that Richard Powers, assistant director of the Bureau's congressional affairs office, revealed in a letter why the FBI ended contacts with CAIR's national leadership: because evidence in the federal government's terrorism prosecution case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) showed that CAIR had ties with Hamas. In a recent letter to three U.S. senators, an FBI congressional liaison indicated that the Bureau wasn't sure whether that relationship ever ended:

"Nevertheless, until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner," the letter said.

CAIR was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, which ended with the November 2008 convictions of five former HLF officials on all charges for conspiring to raise $12 million for Hamas. Two of the defendants received 65-year prison terms, with the others sentenced to terms between 15 and 20 years.

Those are pretty serious allegations from the nation's top law enforcement agency. Yet, Detroit News reporter Greg Krupa can't seem to bring himself to report them to his readers. Krupa didn't mention the FBI cut off for nearly three months. When he finally did, he offered scant details about the evidence prompting the FBI decision, and cast doubt on some of it.

For example, in a conversation recorded in 1993 by the FBI, Hamas members and supporters discussed creating a new political organization to help their cause. Transcripts and other records identify CAIR founder Omar Ahmad in attendance and the FBI says co-founder and current CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad was there, too. Krupa said that identification is based solely on "the sound of his voice." Yet, an examination of what "Nihad" said shows it was Awad. In addition, Awad has never contested the allegation since an FBI agent first said it during testimony in August 2007.

For good measure, Krupa adds:

"Officials of CAIR and defense lawyers in the Muslim charity case say no evidence was presented that CAIR intended to work on behalf of Hamas or that it was established as a result of the recorded conversation.

While the U.S. and other governments consider Hamas a terrorist group, many Muslims and Arabs consider it a resistance group, and say Palestinians have a right to resist Israel."

By any measure, the Holy Land Foundation trial and its aftermath have been disastrous for CAIR's spin campaign to convince people it is a moderate civil rights organization. Since the trial, CAIR and its allies have sought to discredit the FBI. CAIR is part of a coalition calling itself the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, which has staged a series of news conferences denouncing the FBI for violating Muslim rights by conducting surveillance in mosques. That has garnered sympathetic coverage across the country, including the Los Angeles Times article mentioned earlier.

These organizations seized on the case of Ahmadullah Niazi, who was arrested in February for allegedly lying on his U.S. application for naturalization, obtaining a passport through fraud and lying to federal investigators. Niazi, a naturalized U.S. citizen, drew attention from the FBI because his brother-in-law, Amin al-Haq, had served as Osama bin Laden's security coordinator and was named as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the U.S. government in 2001. Niazi was accused of failing to disclose his links to terrorists when he applied for naturalization in 2004 and of lying about his travels to Pakistan – where he met with al-Haq in 2005. A search warrant affidavit also indicates Niazi is suspected of illegally structuring financial transactions to avoid detection by law enforcement.

Testifying at Niazi's February 24 bond hearing, FBI agent Thomas Ropel III said it was Niazi who initiated conversations about jihad – not the FBI informant. Niazi said that holy war was an Islamic duty, Ropel added. Niazi also discussed sending the informant to terror training camps in either Yemen or Egypt and had instigated conversations about "conducting terrorist attacks and blowing up buildings."

Moreover, according to Ropel, Niazi lied to the FBI about the number of times he discussed jihad with the informant: Niazi claimed that the pair had spoken about the issue once or twice, when agents already possessed "at least 15 or 20 such conversations."

Niazi, of course, has not been convicted of any crime and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the FBI's allegations against him are serious ones, and they are critical to understanding why the Bureau was investigating Niazi. Yet they were virtually ignored in media accounts of the case that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Detroit News and St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Niazi's name was not even mentioned in any of the stories.) The media coverage amounted to a propaganda windfall for the Islamists, courtesy of the people Mary Jacoby skewers as "the usual bunch of uninformed reporters."

These are not isolated examples. Another of Jacoby's former employers, the St. Petersburg Times, has repeatedly exhibited a blind spot toward admitted Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) member, Sami Al-Arian. He pled guilty in 2006 to conspiring to provide goods and services to the PIJ. As part of his plea, Al-Arian admitted lying about his PIJ connection and knowledge of the organization. At his sentencing, the judge blasted Al-Arian for lying about his support for terror and his work on the PIJ's governing board.

He now is fighting criminal contempt charges, claiming the plea agreement absolved him of complying with a federal grand jury subpoena in a Virginia terror financing case.

In a March 6 story, reporter Meg Laughlin claimed a new prosecution filing in that contempt case proved Al-Arian's argument:

"For the first time, federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., have acknowledged that when Sami Al-Arian took a plea deal in early 2006, federal prosecutors in Tampa believed — as did Al-Arian — that it exempted him from testifying in other cases."

That would be shocking. But it's simply not true and the proof is in the same document Laughlin cited. It summarizes findings of an internal review of the case and includes this passage:

"To the contrary, the evidence shows that (1) MD FL [Middle District of Florida] and DOJ [Department of Justice] prosecutors did not equate cooperation and compelled testimony … did not believe that Al-Arian or his experienced attorneys thought that his plea immunized him from compelled testimony." [Emphasis added]


"The government attorneys who negotiated the plea agreement in Florida clearly understood that the plea agreement barred EDVA [the Eastern District of Virginia] from prosecuting Al-Arian for any offense then known to the government, but did not understand any provision in the plea agreement to bar EDVA from compelling Al-Arian's testimony. Not only was such a provision never requested by defense counsel, it would have required a global agreement difficult to achieve, and no such provision had ever been the subject of an agreement within their experience." [Emphasis added]

Either the reporter misread something, failed to read the entire document, or ignored the prosecution's representation.

Similarly, Time magazine ran a March 18, 2009 article by reporter Wendy Malloy titled, "Despite Acquittal, a Florida Terror Suspect's Legal Saga Continues," which depicts al-Arian as a "victim" of the U.S. legal system even though he was convicted of the material-support charge – a terrorism-related felony. Al-Arian had no shortage of opportunities to have his case heard, but lost in four different federal courts: district court, two appellate courts and even the Supreme Court.

Then there's New York Times reporter Neil MacFarquhar, who has repeatedly whitewashed the extremist records of Islamist groups such as CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). In one article, he dismissed criticism of the Justice Department's presence at a 2007 ISNA convention. MacFarquhar ignored disturbing information about ISNA that came out during the HLF prosecution, including evidence of its foundations in the Muslim Brotherhood and its multiple contributions to Hamas through its subsidiary, the North American Islamic Trust.

In his story, MacFarquhar allowed ISNA keynote speaker, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), to launch a specious, unrebutted attack on two of his colleagues, Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sue Myrick (R-NC) for writing a letter challenging the Bush Justice Department's official participation in the ISNA conference. Their letter, Ellison said, was "ill informed and typical of bigoted attacks that other minorities have suffered."

But Ellison's argument was a cheap shot: Hoekstra and Myrick never criticized Islam or minorities. Instead, they criticized ISNA as an organization – a Muslim Brotherhood front group with an extensive record as apologists for terror groups. MacFarquhar then went on to quote Zaid Shakir, who he described as "an African-American imam with rock-star status." Shakir complained about hearing comments on talk radio from people who were "Making stuff up about Islam."

MacFarquhar's "rock star" was the same person who told a different ISNA conference in Texas months earlier: "We Muslims are weak because we don't have planes and trains and bombs and nuclear weapons and the Kaafir [infidel] are strong because they have all that in abundance." The Times story neglected to mention a speech at a 2005 convention in Canada in which Shakir said of America:

"And the finger of blame will be pointed at all of those real or imagined terrorists scattered all over the world, and no mirror will be held up to see the terrorism that is being inflicted on the people of the world because of the policies of the United States of America."

In a subsequent piece, MacFarquhar portrayed Amir Mertaban, a radical leader of the Muslim Students Association, as an "inclusive" moderate based on his willingness to admit a coed wearing a miniskirt into the MSA to the consternation of more traditionally minded members. MacFarquhar overlooked comments Merteban had made a year earlier during a speech at U.C. Berkeley. A Muslim man is allowed to have four wives, Merteban said, and no matter what Osama bin Laden may – or may not -- have done, Muslims are obliged to defend him "to the end."

MSAs routinely invite radical Islamic speakers who justify suicide bombing and make anti-American and anti-Semitic statements. Speaking at an April 2002 MSA event at San Francisco State University, Imam Abdul Malik Ali demanded that Muslims stop using the term "suicide bombers:"

"When a person commits suicide, they are depressed! When a person commits suicide, they are without hope! When a person commits suicide they are losing their patience. They are in a state of despair! These brothers -- and sisters –before they go out on their martyr missions, are doing videotapes, and they are saying 'Yeeeuuhh! I'm doing this! I'm doing this!' And their mothers are right next to them saying, 'Go ahead and go!' "

Israel, Ali added approvingly, was in "serious trouble" and because it could not defend its people against such attackers:

"You cannot win against a people like this! Because you have Israelis whose ideology is so bankrupt –You never hear an Israeli talking about 'I hope I'm going to die.' They want to live, they want to live. And once you go up against a people who love death more than you love life, you in trouble, man [sic]."

MacFarquhar did not report this or any other radical statement by Malik Ali that can be found with a simple Google search.

Balance is a noble pursuit in journalism. But true balance requires more than presenting "both sides" of an issue. Stories about terrorism and extremism are complex and sensitive. But when there is a record to document many of the allegations – it requires more effort than simply asking two sides to comment.

State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem

David Bedein, Middle East Correspondent
Friday, May 29, 2009

Jerusalem — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.

The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.
There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.

Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”

That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.

“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.

One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.

Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.

Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”

David Bedein can be reached at

Guest Comment:Enough is Enough!

This should outrage every single Israeli, and Jew. If not killing the Jews in Pogroms or Holocaust Obama has found a new method to curtail the number of Jews in the world: the U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Will the USA demand that the Arabs cease their growth too?

Obama’s on going demands to stop W. Bank expansion includes Jerusalem elicited strong Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reaction who said: "I admire residents of Iroquois Territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem."

This is the most appropriate reply I have heard after the last one from Gilad Erdan, Minister of Environmental Protection who said, in responding to Obama’s statement in which he reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to all previous understandings between Israel and the Palestinians, including the process launched at Annapolis in 2007: “Israel does not take orders from Obama.”

Israel needs to ask Obama if he will be permitted to demand and apply such policy in all the USA territories, which is most of the USA land. How about what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will Obama tell Israel next how many children each Israeli family is allowed to have?

Obama and Clinton, tutored by their own chosen ignorance, denial of truth and bizarre acceptance of the Arabs lies along with Obama’s Islamist trends and his zealous desire to appease the Muslims are pointing political spears and daggers at Israel. Obama must learn that Israel is not the USA 51st State neither it is the USA punching bag

For those who do not know: Iroquois is a member of Native North American people; he is a member of a former six Native North American people’s confederacy, the Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Tuscarora. Originally settled along the Hudson River Valley, many Iroquois now live in urban areas.

With kind regards,

An Open Letter to M. Nicolas Sarkozy, President, The Republic of France

Rabbi Israel Vana, Dr. Arnold Pock and Jerry Gordon

May 29, 2009

President Nicholas Sarkozy of France:

It is with great respect that we write you regarding undivided Jerusalem, capitol of the Jewish State of Israel. This is a matter of utmost importance to all Jews, including those valued citizens of France. As someone intensely proud of your Greek Jewish relatives who fought in the French Resistance during World War II, you should have more than a passing interest in this matter. Your position on the status of Jerusalem and the mass deportation of Israeli citizens from both Judea and Samaria ignores both G-d’s covenant with his people and the legal mandate of the San Remo Conference of 1920 that defined the Jewish Homeland under the auspices of League of Nations.
The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for more than 3500 years. After the brutal destruction of the Jewish republic in 135 C.E. by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, the Jewish people had no sovereignty, until the establishment of the State of Israel in May, 1948 under the UN partition plan. For two thousand years, we lived as despised second class subjects under the sufferance and degradation of Christian rulers in Europe. We have been murdered, burned and tortured in the tens of millions, culminating in the Shoah. Six Million Jewish men, women and children, including many French citizens were murdered during the Holocaust. Our people were fed to the lions, our women were raped and many were forced to convert to Christianity. Our people were placed in prisons for crimes that they did not commit. Blood libel accusations were leveled against our people. Tens of thousands of Jews were murdered in the Crusade periods and hundreds of thousands were expelled from Spain, as a result of the Reconquista in 1492 and the Portuguese expulsion in 1497.

France, starting with Napoleon in the 19th Century was a beacon of enlightenment, freedom and liberty for Jewish citizens and protected many Jews in the Ottoman Empire.

Islam propelled by the Quranic doctrines of the Prophet Mohammed, the self styled messenger of Allah, arose in a bloody Jihad against Jews and Christians 1400 years ago. His successor, the Caliph Omar had the audacity to build the Al Aksa mosque on the holiest place significant to our people, the Temple Mount. The Jihad and hatred of Jews inherent in Islam has persisted and is the basis for threats to extinguish the Jewish State of Israel. Jews are despised by Muslims including those in France as the ‘sons of apes and pigs’.

Given this history of Jewish persecution and hatred, the Christian West and the Muslim believers thought that Judaism was finished. G-d however, had different plans. The Jews returned after the Shoah to our ancestral homeland. Jews returned from the far reaches of the Diaspora-Europe, America, India, and the Arab Middle East- to build a Jewish nation. Jews are there to stay!

The most important issue for all Jews, especially the citizens of Israel is Jerusalem! Do you really think we have any obligation to divide Jerusalem after its re-unification as a result of the 1967 Six Days of War? Do you think it will appease Palestinians or those irredentist Israel Arabs in their quest to establish a state in Israel’s midst? Would you like to see Paris and other major cities in France divided into self governing ‘no go zones’ just to appease the significant minority Muslim community? As a former Interior Minister involved in combating Muslim extremists burning their districts and murdering French Jewish citizens you should know better.

In 1935 Hitler annexed the disputed Saarland occupied by France under the Treaty of Versailles as a security zone. France did nothing. If anything, it gave Hitler the appetite for more acquisitions. As his aggression grew, Austria and Czechoslovakia, the latter at Munich in 1938, were swallowed up by the relentless Nazis. France still wanted to preserve the peace. However, peace was nowhere to be found! British Prime Minister Chamberlain also stated “I have saved the peace” just as Hitler and his murderous machine marched into Poland. In 1940, Hitler demanded the return of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. Vichy France allowed Germany to annex it for the sake of peace. Peace did not come.

If for the sake of peace we capitulate to the Palestinian Hamas terrorist regime in Gaza and the corrupt PA regime in Ramallah that refuses to recognize the Jewish State of Israel, then Muslims in France and many European countries could separate from their host countries.

Did President Abraham Lincoln allow the South to split the Union? No! In a devastating Civil War a unified America was preserved.

Should Russia have allowed Chechnya to separate? Should Sri Lanka have permitted the Tamil Tigers in a 25 year civil war to form a separate state? The answer is a resounding, no.

Should England allow London to split, just because there are Muslims who want their own capitol under Islamic Sharia Law? As President of France would you tolerate the formation of self-governing Muslim districts in Paris, Lyon or Marseilles?

So too for Jerusalem. Jerusalem was a Jewish capitol long before any other nation conquered or occupied it. For the past 3000 years Jerusalem has been the center of the Jewish World. Either it was a Jewish capitol or it lay dormant or destroyed until our people returned. This is G-d’s statement to the world! “Jerusalem is my capitol and must remain in the hands of the Jewish people.”

The second issue you raised at the Israeli Knesset was the return of Arab refugees to Israel. Every conflict creates refugees. (WW I, WW II, and other wars). Those refugees were resettled. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has resettled tens of millions of refugees from all conflicts, save that between Israel and Arab invaders whom the Jewish state had defeated. The UNHCR gave refugees new passports that enabled them to start a new life. Did you notice that the only refugees who were not allowed to resettle in new countries were the Arab refugees in the UNWRA program that France, the US and many other Western countries subsidize as ‘donors’? Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and many other Arab nations, did not allow their brothers and sisters to settle in their countries. Instead these Arab refugees languished in UNWRA camps denied basic civil and human rights by their Arab host countries. Why? Because these Arab countries never wanted to resettle Arab refugees. They wanted the plight of the Arab refugees to live on forever. In this way, the refugees were kept in inhumane conditions. Such suffering which the Arabs inflicted on their brothers and sisters helped strengthen their embittered attitude toward Israel and perpetuated the Arab Israeli conflict for decades. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, called upon the Arab refugees to return to their homes. Some did return but the majority did not under the delusion that Arab armies would re-conquer their lost lands.

At the same time, the Arabs evicted and expelled 900,000 Jews from Arab countries, among them Yemen. Jews have lived in Yemen for 2600 years, long before Moslems ever existed. We did not hear you mentioning their rights. Is it because they are Jews and thus are not entitled to international protection or reparations for lost property, assets, and most importantly, their lives?

The world has become accustomed to hateful attitudes toward the Jewish people resulting in systematic genocide. The Muslim world feels they can do without the Jews. Is that the reason that 900,000 Jews were expelled from Mizrahi lands?

What about the remnants of millions of Jews systematically murdered during the Shoah? Witness the pogrom that killed Polish Jews in Kielce, Poland in 1946, when they attempted to return to their homes.

You came to Israel a land that was the haven for Holocaust survivors, the remnant of the “Shoah”, Mizrahi refugees from Arab lands and émigrés from the Diaspora. Yet, you stood in the well our Knesset in Jerusalem and said that Israel should divide our eternal capital. In the same breath, you expect Israel to accept countless numbers of Arab refugees, while you did not say a word about helping Jewish refugees.

Six million of our people, your people, were exterminated during the Shoah by the Germans and their helpers: French Vichy Fascists, Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Austrians, Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims, I’m sorry to say that even your revered predecessor, President Charles de Gaulle gave sanctuary to Hitler’s house guest, the infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Haj Amin al Husseini. Husseini was the sponsor of Muslim Waffen SS units that hunted down and killed hundreds of thousands of Jews and Serbs in the Balkans. We cry out just thinking of the magnitude of the crimes against our people in the last 2000 years in Europe.

Thus, we find it galling that you, as President of France with Jewish forbearers are telling fellow Jews in Israel to remove their citizens by force just like Vichy France did in WW II. You do all this while having the temerity of professing friendship with the Jewish State of Israel. You are publicly concerned about Iran. What will you do to protect Israel from a nuclear armed Iran? May I remind you, that it was former French President Chirac who supplied the nuclear reactor to the late Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Israel’s pilots took out the Osirak reactor near Baghdad in June, 1981. World opinion chastised Israel, only later to thank it for this preemptive life saving action. France was among the first to condemn Israel after the bombing of the reactor in Iraq.

M. President Sarkozy, our hope is that this letter will embolden you to support a United Jerusalem. You can help the peace process by assisting in the absorption of Palestinian Arab refugees in Arab lands and by supporting the increase of Jewish homes in Israel. Arabs who reside in Israel are welcome to stay and contribute to the country, but not assist in treasonous acts to destroy it.

May the memory of your grandfather z’l (of blessed memory) spur you to reconsider your statements and become a leader in support of Jewish Israel in the ancient homeland of G-d’s covenant with his people.


Rabbi Israel Vana, Arnold Pock and Jerry Gordon

Rabbi Vana is spiritual leader of B’nai Israel Synagogue, Pensacola, Florida, Dr. Arnold Pock and Jerry Gordon are co-editors of the synagogue’s newsletter, The Shofar’s Voice.

Guest Comment: This is an incredible letter that must be read and forwarded to all on your list. Also be sent to all those leaders who are relentlessly trying to dictate to Israel how to manage its affairs.

The plight of Israel and Jews in particular, is laid out in the letter to perfection.

A speech like this is most humiliating, provocative and disrespectful a foreign nation leader can deliver to the Parliament-Knesset of sovereign State of Israel. Can you imagine if Netanyahu stood in front of the French Parliament and delivered this sort of speech?! What the Israel's Knesset members should have done is stopped Sarkozy and escorted him out with his first sentence about the division of Jerusalem or the Arabs 'right of return.'

Unfortunately, in the eyes of the world, Jewish blood remains cheap; unfortunately there is one set of rules that is applied to the entire world and another set of rules that is applied to Israel only; unfortunately, what is good for the entire world is not applicable and good for Israel! Israel does not deserve it.

Is anyone listening? NO! WHY!? Because to the ‘enlighten’ world Jews are STILL second class citizens!

So this is the ultimate lecture for Israelis and all Jews and non-Jews, no matter where they live, who see Israel to be the home of the Jewish Nation: (1) The ‘peace’ the Arabs do not really want, neither can deliver, and the two state solution negotiations the Arabs will 'negotiate' on their terms only have become an industry of fruitless diplomatic meetings, thus must stop, and (2) Jews can no longer afford to be second class residents/citizens anywhere in the world; Israel is the only place on earth where Jews are no longer guests, thus the Jewish Nation must be preserved Israel for eternity at all cost!


With kind regards,

Crucifixion: Justified in Islam?

Jihad Watch

"Saudi Arabia says it is implementing Islamic sharia law to the letter and that sharia ensures full rights for Muslims and non-Muslims." "Saudi Arabia puts executed on display as deterrent," from Reuters, May 29: RIYADH, May 29 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia executed a man for double murder on Friday and displayed his body in public as a deterrent, state media said.

The body of the man, beheaded by sword, was put on a cross in the Saudi capital Riyadh, state news agency SPA said, quoting the interior ministry.

Rights activists said authorities only rarely use this form of deterrent in a bid to stop crimes spreading.

Ahmad Adhib bin Askar al-Shamalani al-Anzi had been convicted of killing a man and his 11-year old son in a shop in Riyadh, SPA said.

Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, usually carries out executions by public beheading for murder, rape, drug smuggling and, increasingly, armed robbery.

Saudi Arabia says it is implementing Islamic sharia law to the letter and that sharia ensures full rights for Muslims and non-Muslims, who must abide by the laws of the desert country....

Comment: Do you hear any reactions from the Obama Whitehouse? Any human rights groups screaming how cruel this is? No, but our own use of water boarding used to save American lives, oi vey! The hypocrits know no boundary.

This is change you want? White House moves to restrict free speech and stifle dissent from Obama policies

Right now they're talking about restricting free speech in connection with dissent from the stimulus bill. Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform (of all things), writes this: "Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence," from the Blog, May 29 (thanks to James): Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.
First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

OMB will be consulting with agencies, outside experts and others about these principles and will publish detailed guidance, but we wanted to update interested parties on the outcome of the initial review. We consulted very broadly both within and outside of government (including as reflected in previous posts on the White House blog) and we are grateful to all those who participated in the process.

In "White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects" at the Washington Examiner, May 30 (thanks again to James), Mark Tapscott explains the implications:

This is the Camel's nose under the tent, being poked because of special circumstances. Let government restrict political expression - i.e. lobbying of government officials regarding policy - in one small, supposedly specialized area and not long after the specialized area starts expanding. Eventually, all political expression regarding all policy will become subject to government regulation.
More on this as it develops. And trust me, it will develop.

With the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) making an all-out international effort to restrict free speech about Islam, including speech designed to alert non-Muslims to the motives and goals of the global jihad movement, and Obama making conciliatory gestures toward the OIC, it is not at all difficult to look down the path and see the day coming when it will Sharia provisions restricting speech about Islam will be in place in the United States of America, and it will be illegal to speak about the Islamic supremacist agenda.

Most, of course, will dismiss such concerns the way they always dismiss them: with a wave of the hand and an invocation of the First Amendment -- as if the First Amendment were some kind of inviolate shield that cannot itself ever in any way be impeached or impugned. Would that it were so. But the Obama Administration is already showing how little it cares for free speech and open dissent. And with an Obama-compliant Supreme Court judging cases that challenge their actions and interpreting the First Amendment for us, what's to stop the Administration from playing ball with the OIC and building wonderful new bridges with the Islamic world in this way?

Anti-jihad efforts outrage Muslims in Miami and Seattle

Jihad Watch

See a pattern?

Feigning outrage and claiming discrimination -- it's a very effective tactic to deflect criticism and scrutiny.

"Florida Case Angers Muslim Groups," by Joel Millman for the Wall Street Journal, May 30 (thanks to Twostellas):
A federal immigration judge denied bail Friday to a 23-year-old engineering student from Tampa who has been charged by the U.S. government for engaging in terrorism.
The defendant, Youssef Megahed, has already been acquitted by a federal jury of related charges. But now, he faces essentially the same charges again in an immigration court, where if he is found guilty he faces deportation back to his native Egypt.

The case has inflamed Muslim immigrant groups, and has become a cause célèbre in Egypt, where President Barack Obama makes a much anticipated trip next week. The issue: Whether an immigrant defendant who is acquitted in one U.S. court can be detained and then retried in an immigration court, without invoking protection against double jeopardy, which forbids prosecutors from trying defendants more than once on the same evidence.

The undergraduate from the University of South Florida was arrested in 2007 in South Carolina with a companion, another USF student from Egypt named Ahmed Mohamed, driving a car that allegedly had explosives in the trunk. Mr. Megahed's companion explained the lengths of PVC pipe and chemical compounds were simply home-made fireworks that Mr. Mohamed planned to detonate for fun during a vacation. Mr. Mohamed later agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge of providing material support to terrorism -- and submit to a 15-year sentence -- while six charges of transporting explosives were dropped.

Mr. Megahed decided to fight those charges in court and was acquitted April 3 on four criminal counts stemming from the arrest. He had already served nine months in jail before making bail prior to the opening of his trial in March in Tampa.

But three days after the acquittal, Mr. Megahed was arrested a second time by federal agents at a local Wal-Mart store where he was shopping with his father. Mr. Megahed was charged under the Immigration and Naturalization Act as someone a U.S. official "knows, or has reason to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage" in terrorist activity. He was also designated for deportation to Egypt, the country he emigrated from in 1998, when he was 12 years old....

More on this story. "Police training program upsets Seattle Muslims," from Associated Press, May 30 (thanks again to Twostellas):

A Seattle police training program has upset some Muslims because it comes from a Jewish group they accuse of spreading fear about Islam.
The racial awareness program, "Perspectives on Profiling," was produced by the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles. It's known for Holocaust education work and tracking down Nazi war criminals.

Muslim critics are unhappy about films on Islamic extremism the Wiesenthal Center has distributed.

Arsalan Bukhari, president of the Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says the group "has an anti-Muslim agenda."...

Nothing, of course, about CAIR's unindicted co-conspirator status, etc.

This "American Freedom Thing" Makes People Uncomfortable

Austin Hill
Sunday, May 31, 2009

American freedom is spiraling out of control, and it needs to be reigned-in.


I don’t know any American who would actually say such a thing - at least not in so many words. But far too many Americans have succumbed to a certain “sickness” these days. It’s the perverse notion that their lives will be improved, and that they will be made to “feel better,” when the freedom of other American individuals and groups is diminished.
This nonsense not only makes for some nasty politics, but is also shaping the ways in which many Americans view the world around them.

Ever since the release of my first book “White House Confidential - The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History,” I frequently get asked if our modern-day politics are the nastiest in American history. The answer is clearly “no.” In terms of nasty behavior among politicians and candidates, things have been far uglier in previous generations.

For example, most Americans would be shocked to learn that a former U.S. Vice President (Aaron Burr) once got in such a heated argument with the former U.S. Treasury Secretary (Alexander Hamilton), that the V.P. ended up shooting and murdering the Treasury Secretary. And it may be “news” to some that while campaigning for re-election in 1828, President John Quincy Adams was so ugly in his attacks on his opponent‘s wife, Rachel Jackson became emotionally debilitated during the campaign, and died from a heart attack days after Andrew Jackson won the election (she was, quite literally, buried in the dress that she intended to wear at her husband’s inauguration).

But those are examples of politicians and candidates beating-up on each other. Today, private American citizens want to do damage to other private American citizens, and politicians are all-too- happy to “play” us for all we’re worth.

Our current President ran an incredibly successful campaign, driven in no small part by his promises of punishing certain groups of Americans. “Rich people,” “overpaid corporate executives,” “the oil companies,” and “pharmaceutical manufacturers” were all targets of Barack Obama’s vicious attacks.

And his message to the rest of us about these select groups of Americans was clear: I’ll make your life better, by constraining their freedom - - making “rich people” less free to create and possess wealth, making companies less free to produce a profit, limiting how much an individual can earn at their job, and so forth. These ideas make for absurd economic policy, in that no President, not even dear leader Barack, can simply re-distribute the nation into prosperity - at some point, somebody has to actually “produce wealth.”

But as political rhetoric, it resonates, which means that at least some Americans really like the idea of taking away other people’s freedom.

In my current hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, there is further evidence of this sickness. After the irrational run-up in Phoenix area real estate prices earlier this decade, followed by the devastating foreclosure crash over the past 18 months, homes in Phoenix are finally starting to sell again. But one of the challenges facing realtors and buyers is what to do with the “damaged” foreclosures.

It’s a bit of an epidemic. Americans, living in Arizona, who, upon losing their otherwise nice, suburban house, on their way out the door go about breaking all the windows, stealing hardware and appliances, and in some instances - - just to “get even,” I suppose - - urinating and defecating on carpets, and burning walls and cabinetry with matches and lighters. Once again, evidence of “the sickness” presents itself - -“I’ll feel better by restricting somebody else’s freedom” - in this case, the next owner’s freedom to enjoy the house.

The sickness also impacts the ways in which some Americans view the world. While hosting talk radio at Phoenix, Arizona’s Newstalk 92-3 KTAR, I spoke last Friday about Recording Artist Tyrese Gibson’s absurd performance of “The Star Spangled Banner” at the Los Angeles Lakers’ NBA playoff game the night before. Where the lyric reads “the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there..,” Gibson sang “..that our Lakers were still there..” It was disrespectful, it was nonsensical, and I said as much on the show.

But talk show caller Darren, an Army veteran, declared that he fought for “everything that flag represents” - and then explained that Gibson should be “imprisoned for six months” for his stupidity.

“When you were in the Army, were you protecting and upholding the U.S. Constitution?” I asked.

“Of course I was” Darren explained.

“Did that include the First Amendment, or did you leave that one out?” I asked. After a few more seconds of discussion, I thanked Darren for his service in the Army, and assured him that constraining somebody else’s First Amendment rights - - even if that person is “an idiot” - - does NOT make his life any better.

Americans need to become “okay” with freedom again - - not only their own freedom, but that of their fellow Americans.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Why Obama is losing The Third Jihad

Kevin McCullough
Sunday, May 31, 2009

As I pen these words not more than sixty miles north of where I sit, a radical Islamist breeding ground is churning out hate, weapons training, and radical Wahabi indoctrination. To date President Barack Obama's administration has done zero about it.
In fact as you spend today doing whatever pleases you, it is imperative for you to understand that that there are thirty additional compounds to this one that are spread throughout the nation in blue states like New York and red states like Virginia. And in each place the residents have been observed or overheard testing explosives, firing weapons, and engaged in the same type of activities as what those who have abandoned Islamberg have confessed to.

Cutting to the chase let it be plainly said, there are thirty-one bases of operation in which strongly questionable use of weapons and militant jihad are being taught and trained, here on U.S. soil. They are actively supplying clerics to serve in the prison chaplain systems across several states, and in many instances those who do are also actively recruiting new members for the future Islamic State of North America. Their stated goal on one of the chaplain's websites is for that state to be in existence by 2050.

Since the compound, known as Islamberg, has more than 200 residents, and since it took less than ten percent of that to kill over 3000 Americans on 9.11.2001, we would assume our nation's authorities would shut it down.

Of course the whole "shutting entire compounds down" thing is a bit tricky for this President. On the campaign trail he pledged to do as much for Gitmo, a base he now supposedly controls. Yet increasingly he appears to be leaning towards leaving it open for some time to come.

I guess it would also be of comfort for the administration to square with the American people that Islamberg is owned and operated by Sheikh Mubarik Ali Hasmi Shah Gilani a known terrorist who currently funds and owns all 31 of the camps known as "Al Fuqra." The Pakistani terror leader remains out of the nation, but regularly provides instructions for those who operate these bases as to how to combat the attempt by mere local law enforcement, to turn our laws on their ears, and to insure that they never gain legal access to the compounds.

Federal authorities have yet to address these compounds with any serious attention.

It is not surprising then that the makers of a new film "The Third Jihad" are so obsessed with letting Americans know what is happening, behind our backs, down the streets, and in the open rural areas we love. Enemies of America are seeking our destruction.

The compounds however present only part of the challenge. A much larger one has been unearthed by the FBI but little has yet been done to combat it.

Through a series of violent protests in Western Europe over things like the Allah cartoons, journalists, media outlets, and eventually whole government systems began to make compromises to the protestors. In each case free speech was allowed to have limitations placed upon it, and in some cases such as Great Britain justice in muslim neighborhoods is being wholesale exported to Sharia law systems.

In America while hundreds of thousands of muslims would argue they have no desire to see Sharia law become the way of American society, nearly 25% of those same muslims say they do believe that taking the life of the innocent is allowable to perform the will of Allah--their bastardized substitution for the God of the Bible. And honor killings are on a sharp increase amongst American muslim families.

"The Third Jihad" is an important film because the host of the documentary is an American muslim, and one of the extremely few who has had the courage to speak out against the violent radical elements in his faith community in America.

Every American needs to understand the patiently persistence with which the Islamic State of North America is being built with. Every American needs to understand that the U.S. government is at this moment asleep to the concern of the problem that is festering here.

And with President Obama's plan to cut intelligence, defense, and national security spending we've a very real reason to be concerned.

This is especially true given the boldness with which others such as the tyrannical terrorists in Iran, and the crazed and extremely dangerous nuclear power of North Korea have dusted any concern with America aside while Obama is at the helm.

In my city just two weeks ago four men who had been recruited by elements of Sheikh Gilani's crew were caught attempting to place what they believed was a dangerous amount of C4 and a missile they wished to use to bring down an airliner, and blow up a prominent Jewish landmark.

The threat is real friends, "The Third Jihad" documents it all, and every American should view it and pass on their copy to their neighbor. (

Perhaps one could even make its way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who just this week at a burger joint learned about a whole wing of intelligence operations that he had never heard of before.

Trust me, our enemies knew who they were, why didn't President Obama?

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.