The Power Of CAIR

In re: Michael Graham's suspension from D. C. talk-radio station WMAL

CAIR's official website, however, provides some interesting information in their news release of Friday, July 29, 2005, excerpted below:

"The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today applauded a Washington, D.C., radio station’s decision to suspend without pay a talk show host who stated repeatedly that 'Islam is a terrorist organization.' CAIR said WMAL-AM morning host Michael Graham should be fired for his Islamophobic remarks, for other statements made before and after the most recent controversy and for his refusal to apologize for those comments.

"When first contacted by CAIR, WMAL stood behind Graham, but changed its position after hundreds of people responded to the group’s action alerts bycontacting the station and its sponsors. In a statement, WMAL President and General Manager Chris Berry said that Graham would be suspended... 'We do not condone his position and believe his statements were irresponsible,' said Berry. (WMAL is owned by the Walt Disney Co.)....

"The Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group this week initiated a public campaign against WMAL and the station’s advertisers after receiving complaints from Muslim listeners who heard Graham..."

Yesterday, Michael Graham posted the following on his website:

"As a talk show host, author and columnist, I've repeatedly criticized the current state of Islam and called for its reform. As for the "controversial" statement that 'Sadly, as it is constituted today, Islam IS a terrorist organization, but the good news is that the major of Muslims--who don't support terror--can change that and take back their religion,' I first made that statement on the air last Thursday.

"Did I get suspended Thursday? No. Friday? No. Monday? No.

"It wasn't until CAIR launched its campaign against me in the mainstream media..."

On his website, Graham gives information as to how to support him and also states,

"Trust me: CAIR is not playing games. They are making threats and shaking down our advertisers and trying to intimidate everyone concerned. The worst part is that, in the past, it has almost always worked for CAIR. They've managed to scare a lot of people into silence.

"But not everyone."

Graham is correct that not everyone is scared into silence. Just look at the blogosphere! Whether or not CAIR's tactics will work in Graham's case remains to be seen. Could it be that, this time, citizens will check into exactly what kind of organization CAIR is? Or will Americans' short memories allow Graham's case to be forgotten?

At the end of the CAIR news release is a list of contacts, the first of which is Ibrahim Hooper. According to Daniel Pipes,

"Ibrahim Hooper...told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: 'I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.'

Mr. Pipes also has provided information about other individuals affililiated with CAIR:

"Randall Royer, CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was indicted on charges of conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearm-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.

"Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in July 2004 along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. In April of 2005, Elashi and two brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader and Specially Designated Terrorist. He continues to face charges that he provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), America's largest Islamic charity.

"Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and for passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism related activities.

"Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded; in October 2002, GRF was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to a CAIR complaint, Homam Albaroudi, a member of CAIR's Michigan chapter and also a founding member and executive director of the IANA also founded the Free Rabih Haddad Committee.

"Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.

"Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims' can never be full citizens of this country,' referring to the United States, 'because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.'

"Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that 'Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.'"

CAIR presents itself as a representative of mainstream Islam. Do those statements represent mainstream Islam? If so, we are in deep, deep trouble.

I urge interested readers to visit the above article written by Daniel Pipes. If you visit, have a look at the comments too.

Note (August 1, 2005, 8:22 A.M.): Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR has today published a commentary in Front Page Magazine; the article also provides links to explore. As Mr. Whitehead is currently involved in a lawsuit brought against him by CAIR, he may have some insights which have not been published elsewhere.

Continue reading....

No Freedom Of Speech For Michael Graham

CAIR is a powerful organization! First, CAIR manages to get Fox to back off the story-line in a "24" script because the story line 'offends' Muslims. Now, this!

The following information, posted here word for word, came to me from anti-CAIR:

ABC DISNEY BACKS DOWN TO THREATS FROM CAIR,

FIRES CONSERVATIVE TALK HOST OVER STATEMENTS REGARDING ISLAM AND TERRORISM

Conservative talk-show host Michael Graham was suspended without pay today by ABC Disney after threats from the Council for American-Islamic Relations over his on-air comments regarding terrorism and Islam.

Despite repeated statements of support for Graham's free-speech rights by management at 630 WMAL in Washington, D.C. ----- the ABC-owned radio station where Graham works as mid-morning host ---- he was summarily suspended pending an "investigation."

"I honestly don't know what Disney is investigating me for, unless it's for doing a compelling talk show that gets people's attention," Graham said. "I thought that was my job." Graham has been harshly criticized by CAIR for public comments linking the current theology and structure of Islam to the repeated acts of terror in its name. CAIR sent mass e-mails to its members urging them to contact ABC and demand the company to punish Graham for his remarks.

The statements at the heart of the controversy reflect Graham's opinion that, as he puts it, "Because of the mix of Islamic theology that --- rightly or wrongly --- is interpreted to promote violence, added to an organizational structure that allows violent radicals to operate openly in Islam's name with impunity, Islam has, sadly, become a terrorist organization. It pains me to say it. But the good news is it doesn't have to stay this way, if the vast majority of Muslims who don't support terror will step forward and re-claim their religion."

Ironically, CAIR announced today that a group of US Muslim scholars were issuing a fatwa against terrorism. According to Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR, the fatwa was issued in part due to criticism from talk radio hosts like Michael Graham.

"Nearly four years after the World Trade Center fell, CAIR is participating in a blanket denunciation of terrorism, and my attitude is "better late than never." If our conversation on 630 WMAL helped CAIR finally take this long-needed step, then we've done something good for the future of Islam," Graham said.

Graham acknowledged that his statement has upset some people, but he refuses to recant. "Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, an Iraqi-American who has taught Arabic and Islamic studies at Harvard, wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week about a prominent Egyptian moderate who criticized the Islamists and their influence on all of Islam, and was threatened with death. He recanted and promised to be silent to save his life."

"I can't blame him."

"But I'm an American, and if fighting for free speech and for the truth in the war on terrorism means getting fired by some corporate suit at ABC Disney who can't stand up for free speech ----so be it. But I will not recant," Graham said.

To contact ABC Radio in Washington and express your opinion about their decision to cave into pressure from CAIR, call the General Manager, Chris Berry, at 202-686-3100 or email here.*

ACAIR Note: (Listen to Michael Graham's full Tuesday show from link below)

http://wmal.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=323805&PT=630%20WMAL%20On%20Demand

*Thanks to Jason over at Liberty and Culture for correcting this link!

PS: This morning, on CBS Morning News, who appears but Ibrahim Hooper, representative of CAIR. He wasn't speaking about the Graham censorship but rather against profiling of Muslims. Hooper's position seems to be that anything 'offensive to Muslims' is taboo. Who is speaking for the rest of us?

Note (07/30/05): According to the Washington Post, Moore Cadillac, the largest Cadillac/Hummer dealer in Northern Virginia, would not completely cave into CAIR's demands. "One advertiser, Moore Cadillac Hummer, wrote a letter to CAIR denouncing Graham's statements but did not say it would pull its ads..." Please contact Moore Cadillac here. Inform Moore Cadillac that the dealership should be pulling ads IN SUPPORT of Graham, not tacitly supporting CAIR.

If the above link to Moore doesn't work, try the link below:

http://www.moorecadillac.com/contact_form.htm?bhcp=1

or go to www.moorecadillac.com and click on "Contact."

Continue reading....

My Letter To WMAL

Pursuant to my blog entry earlier today, I have emailed the following to WMAL's website:

I support Michael Graham's right to freedom of speech and urge you not to cave in to the criticisms of CAIR--which is, at least in part, Saudi-funded. And Saudi is the home to Wahhabism, that branch of Islam from which the jihadists spring.

All over the world, militant Islamists spout off and foment murder and destruction. It's way past time to consider how Islam itself gives rise to and supports terrorism. Furthermore, Mr. Graham's excellent analogy, comparing Islam and the BSA, is a thought-provoking one.

Continue reading....

The Radical American Street?

At times, we hear what the views are of "The Arab Street." A few days ago, Michael Graham of Washington, D.C.'s WMAL-AM talk radio publicly uttered the words which many Americans may be thinking. So far, the station's management has taken no steps to reprimand Michael Graham.

The story about Graham's controversial words appeared in the Style Section of the Tuesday, July 26, 2005 edition of the Washington Post:

"...The show host touched off the flap during a discussion of the Muslim community's response to recent acts of terrorism. Graham suggested the fault lies with Muslims generally because religious leaders and followers haven't done enough to condemn and root out extreme elements. 'The problem is not extremism,' Graham said, according to both CAIR and the station. 'The problem is Islam.' He also said, 'We are at war with a terrorist organization named Islam.'"

According to the Post article, Graham posted the following on WMAL's website:

"'If the Boy Scouts of America had 1,000 Scout troops, and 10 of them practiced suicide bombings, then the BSA would be considered a terrorist organization. If the BSA refused to kick out those 10 troops, that would make the case even stronger. If people defending terror repeatedly turned to the Boy Scout handbook and found language that justified and defended murder --and the scoutmasters responded by saying 'Could be' -- the Boy Scouts would have been driven out of America long ago.'

"'Today, Islam has whole sects and huge mosques that preach terror. Its theology is openly used to give the murderers their motives. Millions of its members give these killers comfort. The question isn't how dare I call Islam a terrorist organization, but rather why more people do not.'"

Whether or not the above comparison of the BSA and Islam is valid , Graham's words made me stop to consider what he was saying. He is taking the if-it-walks-like-a-duck-and-quacks-like-a-duck position, but goes further than using that old saw.

Is Graham implying violence against all Muslims? If so, are his words promoting hate crime? Do his words, in and of themselves, constitute a hate crime? If his words constitute a hate crime, then do the words of Wahhabists constitute a hate crime?

WMAL, owned by the Walt Disney Company (There's an irony!) and whose talk shows include the syndicated programs of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, takes the position that Graham's on-air words need to be considered in context:

"A station executive, Randall Bloomquist, said yesterday that Graham's comments were 'amped up' but justified within the context of the program....

"Bloomquist...went on to defend Graham, saying, 'Remember that this is talk radio. We don't do the dainty minuet of the newspaper editorial page. It's not "Washington Week in Review." It depends on pungent statements to drive it. Michael is rattling the cage. It's designed to start and further a conversation, and it has certainly done that.'"

Apparently, Graham has a reputation as an activist. The article provides the following information near the end of the article;

"Graham made waves earlier this year when he scuffled with Montgomery County police after he tried to attend an event for illegal immigrants while wearing a T-shirt that read "INS (I Need Border Security)." He also recently led a rally in front of The Washington Post's building in the District seeking the dismissal of Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, who wrote a story that inaccurately reported on alleged abuses of the Koran in the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (Newsweek is owned by The Washington Post Co.)."

Since the National Elections of 2004, WMAL has been having problems with its audience ratings--a drop of some 25%. Even so, statistical figures show that the station reaches 116,600 individual listeners every week.

Is Michael Graham attempting to resurrect the station's ratings? Or is he saying what he believes? And how many on the American Street agree with him?

Continue reading....

The Dogs Of War

Both by nature and because of scheduling problems, I am a confirmed cat-owner, but I love dogs, too. Below, reproduced in full and without further comment from me, is this story , which appeared in the Metro section of the Washington Post:

Tysons Pet Spa Works to Equip the Dogs of War
By Aymar Jean
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 24, 2005; C03

At her Army base in Mosul, Iraq, where temperatures can exceed 100 degrees, Maj. Jennifer Damko contends with burdens of war on a daily basis. But while working to keep her troops alive and well, Damko also nurtures the camp's war dogs, which sniff out bombs and enemies and are often on the precipice of danger.

"Right now, we have 7 dogs and 3 three more are on the way. The room is getting cramped so you can imagine the daily grumblings over the toys, " Damko wrote in an e-mail.

"There is nothing better than forgetting for a moment that I'm in a war zone and just 'hang' with the dogs. Don't get me wrong, the handlers are great soldiers and sailors, but nothing can replace the look in the dog's eyes when you stop playing with him and his toy."

A Tysons Corner dog spa, Happy Tails, is reaching out to officers such as Damko and the war's often overlooked dogs. The spa has been collecting donations for war dogs and their handlers, sending more than 300 pounds of donated items and planning to send about 400 more. They have sent such supplies as dog biscuits and bones, lip balm for handlers and dogs, and magazines for handlers to camps in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today, it will hold its first charity dog wash to raise money for more sophisticated war dog equipment, mainly cooling devices and dog goggles -- called "doggles" -- for Iraq's sandstorms.

"These dogs love their jobs, but they didn't have a lot of choice in the matter," said Amy Nichols, chief executive of Happy to be Here Inc., the Happy Tails franchise company.

Happy Tails, having raised about $400, is hoping to raise more than $1,000 today for the equipment. Doggles cost about $15 a pair, Nichols said, while cooling vests for dogs cost upwards of $50. The spa figures that with four bathtubs and volunteer washers and dryers, they can wash about 150 dogs. There is a suggested donation of $10, though a typical wash costs $25 at Happy Tails. The event will take place at the spa, on Tyco Road off Route 7, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Ron Aiello, president of the United States War Dogs Association, estimates that there are more than 100 dogs in Iraq and Afghanistan. These dogs sniff out bombs, find booby traps and detect hidden enemies in war zones, services particularly useful in Iraq, said Aiello, who was a Marine dog handler in Vietnam. The United States, he said, has been using war dogs since World War I.

"If they're a good dog team, and they're doing their job properly, nobody should get hurt," Aiello said. He said his unit suffered no casualties in Vietnam thanks to him and his dog, Stormy.

The War Dogs Association has been collecting items and money since troops went to Afghanistan, collecting and distributing sunscreen -- for dogs and handlers -- toys and even beef jerky. The group has sent 250 care packages.

"It lets them know there are people back in the United States who care about them and wish them a safe return," Aiello said.

His group has collected donations from other dog spas across the country. Classy Clippe Pet Salon in Lancaster, Pa., has given $1,500, all of which went for cooling equipment. Classy Clippe owner Gaye Albright-Rock, 42, said she was motivated because her husband, Brian Rock, is in the Army National Guard.

"The dogs are really suffering from the heat. Apparently, it's 130 degrees over there," Albright-Rock said.

Happy Tails employee Kasey Perry, 19, of Alexandria said she feels particularly moved by this fundraiser. Her husband is based at Fort Myers.

"It hits me closer to the heart I guess, because I know how it is," she said. "And the guys who are over there handling the dogs are away from their families, and the doggies are also away from the places that they're used to."

Continue reading....

On The Topic Of Treason

My friend Mustang has written an excellent article!
Visit www.socialsense.blogspot.com to read what he had to say.

Continue reading....

I'm Sick, But I Have To Blog This One

After the second round of London mass-transit bombings within two weeks, a comforting headline appeared above the fold on the front page of the Washington Post on July 22, 2005: Metro Patrols Grow As Security Tightens.

Much of the article focused on the feasibility of bag searches of the type which the NYC Police are conducting. Apparently, Washington, D.C., is going to wait to see how the random bag-searches work in New York before employing such searches here.

Meanwhile, Metro has issued some guidelines for the public to follow, including the following:

"Federal agents and police officials urged citizens to look for suspicious behavior on the area's Metro and rail systems..."

Metro's official guidelines contain these words, directed to the riders themselves:

"Be observant. Watch what people bring onto trains. Look to make sure they don't leave behind packages or bags....To report such incidents, use the intercoms, call transit police or call 911."

Yet, when, on the very next day, Metro riders reported one such package left behind, response on the part of Metro was delayed:

"Jittery about the bombings in London and told to be vigilant, Metro riders spotted an unattended backpack yesterday on the last car of a Blue Line train and did exactly as officials have been urging. They alerted the train operator.

"But the suspicious bag stayed on Train 401 as it rolled through two more stations Metro Center, a major hub, and McPherson Square, a few blocks from the White House -- before Metro officials took the train out of service and inspected the backpack...."

Blessedly, the abandoned backpack turned out to be a false alarm and contained two baseball bats belonging to a forgetful child. Nevertheless, the incident shows just how vulnerable Metro is--not only because it is a mass-transit system but also because the proper steps were not taken. In fact, when one of the riders contacted a security officer after the train had already proceeded unchecked through two stops, the officer contacted at that point admitted that he had received no previous notification of a suspicious package.

In what may be the ultimate irony, Donnelly had the following experience after the incident was resolved:

"Shaken by yesterday's incident aboard the Blue Line train, Donnelly sent an e-mail complaint to Metro. She received an automated reply, thanking her for her e-mail.

"The reply also reminded her to report anything suspicious on the Metro system."

Even before the incident cited above, Metro riders seemed to have adopted a fatalistic attitude, as found in the first article:

"At Metro Center yesterday afternoon, James Washington, 54, of Brookland changed trains for a trip to Silver Spring. He had heard about the bombings, but the news did not change his plans.

"'There's not much you can do,' Washington said. 'These people have shown that even if you prepare for it, if they want to do something they're going to do it. It doesn't matter if you have all kinds of security or not. You have to keep going.'

"Nearby, Chad Pipan and his wife, Julie, of Modesto, Calif., said that they had just heard the news over lunch and that they hesitated only momentarily before getting on another train to head to Arlington National Cemetery.

"'If they want to bomb something, there's not really something we can do about it,' Chad Pipan said."

Is this an attitude one that our Founding Fathers would endorse? Just accept this way of life? Hunkering down for a crisis to pass is one thing; indefinitely living in a state of siege is another.

We must, somehow, turn around the crisis-management mode in which we've become locked.

Step One is the renewal of the Patriot Act. As Robin Leach said on Fox News on July 22, 2005:"We are living in war conditions." In wartime, civil liberties sometimes have to be temporarily curtailed in the interest of national and personal security.

Step Two is to follow through on security guidelines. It is inexcusable for those who have sworn to enforce security to assume a lackadaisical attitude, even in the face of false alarms. Just because bombings such as London has endured have not occurred here does not mean that they won't. Denying the enemy soft targets requires constant vigilance from citizens and from security officials. Any break in the chain of security will eventually have fatal consequences.

Step Three is to employ criminal profiling. Seditious and treasonous words, including but not limited to what goes on inside mosques and Islamic centers, should result in rapid and effective prosecution. With free speech come responsibility and certain limitations, and in wartime, that responsibility and those limitations assume grave importance. Cutting off the funding of jihadists is a corollary to step three, and relying on Saudi oil-supplies funds to the Wahhabists.

Step Four is to control our borders.* Allowing Wahhabists to immigrate to our nation is unacceptable and threatens personal and national security. To believe that immigrants today do not include those sworn to our destruction is the height of naivete--and downright stupid.

Talking about understanding Islam and about reform within Islam is just so many words, not a proactive step. Furthermore, such reform is not a step we Westerners can take. Islam must reform itself. And those who are not jihadists cannot afford to wait too long for such hypothetical reform to take place. Reform is a process, not a definitive turning point in and of itself.

In the meantime, I won't be riding Metro.

*Thanks to LA Sunsett for reminding me of this very important step! See Comment #12.

Continue reading....

Good News And Bad News

Below is an excerpt from the July 18, 2005 edition of Newsweek Magazine:

How We Can Prevail
New hope: Defeating terror requires Muslim help—and much more than force of arms.
By Fareed Zakaria

"Muslims are finally, slowly, moving toward recognizing that there is a great dysfunction in the world of Islam, which has allowed Muslims to concoct wild conspiracy theories, blame others for their problems and, worst of all, condone grotesque violence.

"Now things are changing. The day before the London bombs, a conference of 180 top Muslim sheiks and imams, brought together under the auspices of Jordan's King Abdullah, issued a statement forbidding that any Muslim be declared takfir—an apostate. This is a frontal attack on Al Qaeda's theological methods. Declaring someone takfir—and thus sanctioning his or her death—is a favorite tactic of bin Laden and his ally in Iraq, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. The conference's statement was endorsed by 10 fatwas from such big conservative scholars as Tantawi; Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani; Egypt's mufti, Ali Jumaa, and the influential Al-Jazeera TV sheik, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Signed by adherents of all schools of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), it also allows only qualified Muslim scholars to issue edicts. The Islamic Conference's statement, the first of its kind, is a rare show of unity among the religious establishment against terrorists and their scholarly allies.

"This hardly puts an end to the struggle within Islam. The same day the Jordanian statement was issued, Al Qaeda in Iraq said that Egypt's ambassador to that country, Ihab al-Sherif, would be killed as an apostate. The day of the London bombings, an Internet message purportedly from Zarqawi's group said the 'ambassador of the infidels' had been killed.

"These kinds of events will continue. There should be much, much greater condemnation from mainstream Islam. Moderates must adopt a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism, regardless of what they think of Iraq, Palestine or any other policy issue. But those clamoring for such condemnations should bear in mind that this will not solve the problem. Even if the moderates win and overwhelm the extremists, there will always be some number of unconverted jihadists, who either out of depravity or conviction seek to do evil. If 99.99 percent of the Arab world rejects terrorism, that still leaves 20,000 people to worry about. If 99.9 percent of the Muslim world is against the terrorists, there's 1 million people out there who are dangerous. And the technologies of destruction ensure that they will, on occasion, be successful."

With all the oil dollars pouring into Saudi Arabia, home to Wahhabism, the most radical of Islamic sects, reformation will be difficult to achieve and a long time in coming. In his 2003 book Preachers of Hate:Islam and the War on America, Kenneth Timmerman asserted that Saudi pours dollars into the madrassahs of Pakistan and into mosques and other Islamic centers throughout the world. Is Saudi still funding those institutions?

In effect, Zakaria points out that we are locked into the crisis-management syndrome. World history is filled with crisis-management situations because hate-filled ideologies require only a minority of followers to wreak havoc, even if that havoc is on a limited scale. But to families who have lost loved ones in terrorist attacks, havoc on a limited scale is small consolation.

Continue reading....

Sleeper Cells May Not Be The Problem

Two interesting commentaries appeared today in the July 15, 2005 edition of the Washington Post, here and here.

A few excerpts from the first commentary "Europe's Native-Born Enemy," written by Charles Krauthammer:

"...The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terrorist acts in their own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates Sept. 11, 2001. What Europe had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face....

"...One of the reasons Westerners were so unprepared for this wave of Islamist terrorism, not just militarily but psychologically, is sheer disbelief. It shockingly contradicts Western notions of progress. The savagery of Bouyeri's act [Bouyeri was the slayer of Theo van Gogh], mirroring the ritual human slaughter by Abu Musab Zarqawi or Daniel Pearl's beheaders, is a return to a primitiveness that we in the West had assumed a progressive history had left behind.

"Our first response was, therefore, to simply sweep this contradiction under the rug. Put the first World Trade Center bombers on trial and think it will solve the problem. Even today there are many Americans and even more Europeans who believe that after Sept. 11 the United States should just have done Afghanistan depose the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda's sanctuary -- and gone no further, thinking that would solve the problem...."

In his commentary "From Average Joe to Jihadist," Eugene Robinson writes the following:

"...What's so chilling is that you can't really call these men a terrorist 'sleeper cell.' They were home-grown: the maniacs next door.

"Something changed these ordinary men, and I'd sure like to know what that was. In retrospect, friends told reporters, they had become more religious in recent months...What made these men so receptive?..."

Both Krauthammer and Robinson make the point that most Muslims are not followers of radical Islam. On its face, that point may be true. But Krauthammer asks two important questions:

"Where are the fatwas issued against Osama bin Laden? Where are the denunciations of the very idea of suicide bombing?"

In a previous news article in the Washington Post is the following:

"...Shamin Khan, a 24-year-old student of Pakistani origin, condemned the bombings, and violence in general, but said Muslims were daily being oppressed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and killed in Iraq, and were understandably angry.

"'People are asking why are other Muslims getting killed, how come no one does anything about that?' he said. The bombings 'are happening because of oppression against Muslims,' he added. 'People have no choice -- they're fighting for freedom.'"

From what I have learned about Islam (I'm not referring to Islamism, but to Islam itself), the jihadist martyr in the one who is assured of the best place in Paradise--the promise of 72 virgins.

I believe that the Koran states these words:

“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”

Therefore, I ask this question: Do many Muslims not speak out against terrorism because they fear jeopardizing their own hope for eternal life?

Continue reading....

The Truth About Teddy

Mary Jo Kopechne would have been 65 years old this year. Remember the following, sent to me by one of my in-laws, as the senior U.S. senator from Massachusetts weighs in on various issues:

When Sen. Ted Kennedy was merely just another Democrat bloating on Capitol Hill on behalf of liberal causes, it was perhaps excusable to ignore his deplorable past. But now that he's become a leading Republican attack dog, positioning himself as Washington's leading arbiter of truth and integrity, the days for such indulgence are now over.

It's time for the GOP to stand up and remind America why this chief spokesman had to abandon his own presidential bid in 1980 - time to say the words Mary Jo Kopechne out loud.

As is often the case, Republicans have deluded themselves into thinking that most Americans already know the story of how this "Conscience of the Democratic Party" left Miss Kopechne behind to die in the waters underneath the Edgartown Bridge in July 1969, after a night of drinking and partying with the young blonde campaign worker. But most Americans under 40 have never heard that story, or details of how Kennedy swam to safety, then tried to get his cousin Joe Garghan to say he was behind the wheel.

Those young voters don't know how Miss Kopechne, trapped inside Kennedy's Oldsmobile, gasped for air until she finally died, while the Democrats' leading Iraq war critic rushed back to his compound to formulate the best alibi he could think of.

Neither does Generation X know how Kennedy was thrown out of Harvard on his ear 15 years earlier -- for paying a fellow student to take his Spanish final. Or why the US Army denied him a commission because he cheated on tests.

As they listen to the Democrats' "Liberal Lion" accuse President Bush of "telling lie after lie after lie" to get America to go to war in Iraq, young voters don't know about that notorious 1991 Easter weekend in Palm Beach, when Uncle Teddy rounded up his nephews for a night on the town, an evening that ended with one of them credibly accused of rape.

It's time for Republicans to state unabashedly that they will no longer "go along with the gag" when it comes to Uncle Ted's rants about deception and moral turpitude inside the Bush White House.

And if the Republicans don't, let's do it ourselves by passing this forgotten disgrace around the Internet to wake up memories of what a fraud and fake Teddy really is.

The Democratic Party should be ashamed to have the national disgrace from Massachusetts as their spokesman.

Continue reading....

Who's Minding the U.S. Universities?

The blogosphere is aroil with articles about the July 7, 2005 London bombings. This day of atrocity happened "across the pond," but signs points to the strong possibility that another 9/11 will happen here in the United States.

According to the following excerpts from an article in the U.K.'s Times Online, univerisites are fertile ground for the recruitment of terrorists:

"AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.

"A network of 'extremist recruiters' is circulating on campuses targeting people with 'technical and professional qualifications', particularly engineering and IT degrees....

"Most of the Al-Qaeda recruits tend to be loners 'attracted to university clubs based on ethnicity or religion' because of 'disillusionment with their current existence'. British-based terrorists are made up of different ethnic groups, according to the documents.

“They range from foreign nationals now naturalised and resident in the UK, arriving mainly from north Africa and the Middle East, to second and third generation British citizens whose forebears mainly originate from Pakistan or Kashmir.

“In addition . . . a significant number come from liberal, non-religious Muslim backgrounds or (are) only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.”...

"The former Scotland Yard chief, who retired earlier this year, said that on one weekend more than 1,000 undercover officers had been deployed, monitoring a group of suspected terrorists. He said that he believed last week’s attackers were almost certainly British-born, 'brought up here and totally aware of British life and values'.

“'There’s a sufficient number of people in this country willing to be Islamic terrorists that they don’t have to be drafted in from abroad,' he said."

Take the above excerpts and selectively substitute American for British. Then think about all the universities in the United States.

Continue reading....

Searching For Causes

I respect Tony Blair. He has voiced strong support of Western civilization and Western ideals. He understands that Islamist terrorists are barbarians who seek to impose their Shari'a tyranny on the entire globe.

I believe, however, that using Western logic to understand the causes of the jihadists' fury is an exercise in futility. I fear that we are making assumptions which do not apply.

According to an Associated Press article carried by the July 9, 2005 edition of the Washington Post, Tony Blair has identified three causes of terrorists' strikes:

"LONDON -- In an address on British Broadcasting Corp. radio Saturday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain must defend against terrorism --but must also strive to understand the underlying causes of the violence, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

"'I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots,' Blair said. 'As well as dealing with the consequences of this--trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can --you have to try to pull it up by its roots.'

"That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said."

The deprivation-as-a-cause-for-terrorism theory is an interesting one. But Yaroslav Trofimov's Faith at War does not support that theory. The author, a journalist from the Wall Street Journal, was in the Middle East on 9/11--in Egypt, I believe--and he observed that those who most rejoiced when the WTC Towers fell were not the Egyptians living in poverty. Rather, the rejoicers were those who were prosperous professionals, many of whom had been educated in Western countries. Furthermore, according to Trofimov's eyewitness account, the ones who most railed against the United States were those who had experienced the Western way of life, a way of life which we cherish.

We Westerners believe that if someone experiences our freedoms, he will love those ideals so much that he will subscribe to them. Such is not always the case. As much as we Americans love and value our freedoms, we are showing arrogance when we believe that all feel the same way.

While democracy may be the cure for terrorism, as Mahdi Obeidi believes and so stated in a March 2005 speaking engagement in a Fairfax County Public Library, to believe that poverty and the Palestinian question are the causes of terrorism is naive and flies in the fact of historical facts. The justification for jihad and the murder of infidels are delineated within the Koran itself:

"And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!" -Quran 48:13

"When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." - Qur’an 9:5

"Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes." - Qur’an 8:12

I do not pretend to be an authority on the Koran, but a question begs to be asked: Are the above isolated verses, or are they the essence of Islam?

Some valuable information which may help to answer the above questions can be found here, here, here and here. And if the answer is what I think it is, all Western leaders need to do some important reading.

The time for wishful thinking is long, long past.

Continue reading....

Mass Murder In London

I don't want to hear non-Muslims say "Islam has been hijacked by a radical minority." I want to hear Muslims say those words. I want Muslims to act on those words.

From Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet (Regina Orthodox Press, Inc., 2002, 300-301):

"...[Moderates] are rarely important. Religions, like political ideologies, are pushed along by money, power, and tiny vocal minorities. Within Islam, the money and the power are all pushing the wrong way. So are the most active minorities. The urgent need is to recognize this. Our problem is not prejudice about Islam, but folly in the face of its violence and cruelty. And in any case, the willingness of moderates to be what are objectively bad Muslims, because they reject key teachings of historical Islam, may be laudable in human terms but does nothing to modify Islam as a doctrine.
"Islam is a collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to compromise with such madness is to become part of the madness oneself....Islam, in Muhammad's texts and its codification, discriminates against us. It is extremely offensive...Islam discriminates against all 'unbelievers.'...Secularists and believers of all other faiths must act together before it is too late."

I repeat, "Islam is a collective psychosis seeking to become global....Secularists and believers of all other faiths must act together before it is too late."

I see a cyclical pattern to these attacks:
1. The strike is a surprise, and many innocents die.
2. The media and the authorities don't jump to conclusions as to who perpetrated the attack. Instead, and judiciously so, they wait for some group to "claim credit." [I prefer "accept blame" as better terminology.]
3. The rescue personnel and the forensics investigators rush to the scene as we watch the television screen. The carnage is hidden, whenever possible, underneath tarps and behind sheets.
4. Alert levels are evaluated and possibly altered.
5. The talking heads, pundits, and experts caution us not to blame Muslims. In doing so, some of these speakers blame any ideology other than that of Islam. I've noticed that few of these opiners are Muslims; nevertheless, they take it upon themselves to speak for the "moderate Muslims."
6. There is little to no discussion of the tenets of Islam.
7. Condolences are offered.
8. We are reminded that "An attack was inevitable."
9. We are encouraged to go on with our normal, everyday lives.

Years ago, when my elderly grandmother's health took a serious downturn, I naively asked my mother, "When will this get better?"
My mother replied, "This is from now on."

The conflict between militant Islam and Western civilization has been an ongoing one, and the warfare, open and covert, began very early after the founding of Islam. The reason is not a complex one. The principles of Islam and the principles of freedom and democracy have long been in conflict. Whitewashing the facts doesn't make them less true.

Continue reading....

Prepare For The Media Blitz

One of the most influential powers of the President is the capacity to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court, which, according to Article III of the Constitution, is the only federal court that must exist. These justices, appointed for a lifetime term or until date of resignation, are the untouchables in our system of checks and balances. No absolutes restrain their rule, and judges and justices become a law unto themselves. According to Thomas Jefferson (Andrew Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson, 1983, page 500):

"It has long...been my opinion...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall by usurped."

In ABeka's American Government Teacher's Guide (1997, pages 44-45) are the following notes:

"...[I]n recent decades the Constitution has been changed frequently through the actions of activist judges. Rather than interpreting the constitution based on the originial understanding of the document as established by our founders, these judges subvert the rule of law in America by subjecting the Constitution to their own perception of society's needs. This practice of making law from the bench, rather than interpreting the law, places American citizens at the mercy of an activist judiciary.

"Much of modern legal theory, including judicial activism, is founded on the tenets of legal positivism. Legal positivism is the doctrine of stating law in relativistic, empirical terms, not in absolute metaphysical or theological terms....[L]egal positivism first manifested itself at Harvard Law School...and has at least these four characteristics: denial of divine absolutes, the relativity of law, the evolution of law, and the case law method of legal education."

Of the relativity of law, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said,

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

The above statement evinces arrogance and states, in very clear words, that the judciary system is a governmental branch of unbridled power. Furthermore, since the early 1900's, law schools have stopped using the Constitution and Blackstone's works as texts of study; instead, these schools promote studying the previous decisions and previous rulings, thus compounding possible judiciary errors.

There are two theories as to the function of the judiciary: interpretivism, also known as strict constructionism, the underlying premise of which is basing rulings on ideas which are plainly discoverable within the Constitution; and noninterpretivism, also known as activism, which promotes that courts should go beyond the Constitution. The latter, in effect, remakes the Constitution. Robert Bork gave the following caution in The Struggle Over the Role of the Court:

"If the theory of noninterpretivism--that judges can draw their constitutional rulings from outside the document--achieves entire intellectual hegemony in the law schools, as it is on the brink of doing, the results will be disastrous for the constitutional law of this nation. Judges will feel justified in continually creating new individual rights, and those influential groups which form what might be called the Constitution-making apparatus of the nation--that is, the law professors, the courts, the press, the leaders of the bar--will support the courts in doing this..."

Sandra Day O'Connor's unexpected announcement of her retirement from the bench has set off a frenzy. And while the matter of appointment to the Supreme Court is a serious one, the ensuing announcements as to who will fill the vacancy took on a comedic tone as all the different interest groups rushed to weigh in, on the very first day.

Washington Post
:

Word From O'Connor Sets Off Pre-Fourth Fireworks
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Saturday, July 2, 2005

">

"Well, yes and no.

"O'Connor's announcement caught just about everybody by surprise -- even the White House, which rushed to schedule a Rose Garden appearance for President Bush...Reporters and staff on the Hill arrived for work in blue jeans, hoping to slip away early for the holiday.

"But in a sense, Washington could not have been better prepared for O'Connor's announcement. Liberals and conservatives alike have been drilling for months in preparation for the vacancy, and they responded with an impressive blend of logistical precision and ideological excess.

"Eighteen minutes after O'Connor's retirement became public, Frist was on the Senate floor reading a 1,600-word statement. Forty-nine minutes later, the first television ads were announced. Eighteen minutes after that, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) became the first senator to disparage the Reagan-appointed O'Connor, for 'self-indulgent judicial activism.'

"Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) caught a flight back to Washington to give a news conference. Within hours, hundreds of organizations and lawmakers had issued statements and news releases -- the liberal People for the American Way issued four -- with the choicest political hyperbole: 'Devastating,' 'historic,' 'ominous,' 'critical,' 'freedoms hang in the balance,' 'reinventing monarchy,' 'state of emergency,' 'save the court.'

"And Bush hasn't even nominated a successor....

"But beneath the official posturing was a simple truth: O'Connor is the tiebreaking vote on a range of hot-button social issues, and the battle to replace her will be in many ways a referendum on legal abortion. So it's no surprise that, starting at mid-morning, the O'Connor succession fight became the only game in town.

"10:21. The first Associated Press bulletin crosses the wire...

"10:30. The conservative Becket Fund for Religious Liberty announces that its lawyers are standing by...

"10:31. People for the American Way...

"10:33. The White House -- which evidently knew nothing of O'Connor's intentions when Bush's press secretary briefed reporters at 8:30 a.m. --announces that Bush will speak at 11:15.

"10:34. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) rushes out a preemptive attack on the opposition....

"10:39. Frist, on the Senate floor...

"10:40. Planned Parenthood issues a press release...

"11:01. Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid, stuck at home in Nevada, issues his statement...

"11:07. The liberal Alliance for Justice...Not to be outdone, the ACLU warns at 11:11...

"11:16. Sweat-soaked journalists wait in the sweltering Rose Garden as television correspondents struggle for words to describe the drama to their viewers....

"11:21. GOP Chairman Ken Mehlman bemoans 'the inevitable protest from far-left special interest groups.' Democratic Chairman Howard Dean answers 57 minutes later...

"12:41. Frist's office serves notice that Supreme Court vacancies over the past 30 years have been filled in 72 days on average....

"12:49. The conservative Committee for Justice vows guilt by association....

"1:42. The liberal Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary weighs in...Twenty minutes later, the conservative Family Research Council holds a news conference...[T]he group's chief, Tony Perkins, says. 'We will seize this opportunity.'

"But he had better pace himself."

While I had a good laugh over some of the above material in the Washington Post article, the appointment which our President will soon make is of extreme importance. Just recently, we've seen the Kelo decision, in which the Supreme Court apparently ruled in favor of a special-interests group through the justices' broad interpretation of eminent domain--a 5-4 ruling in which Justice O'Connor was in the minority and a ruling about which she cautioned because, in her opinion, Kelo could affect all property owners.

Americans would do well to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson and of Robert Bork. Much is now at stake, and all factions have already begun jockeying for position. I wonder what our Founding Fathers, many of whom were opponents of the two-party system, would think of all this jockeying; they'd be aghast, I believe.

Meanwhile, this summer is going to be one long haul as the media feeding-frenzy follows the story--with talking head after talking head and with "breaking news," most of which would properly be called "breaking speculation." Gird your loins, and lay in a supply of DVD's and some light reading, so as to escape the media blitz.

Note: Please see my friend's take on this same issue @

Social Sense

Continue reading....

The American's Creed

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies."

The American's Creed was written in 1918 by William Tyler Page, in the course of a nation-wide contest.

William Tyler Page (1868-1942), for twenty-two consecutive years, led the Continental Congress of the Daughters of the American Revolution in reciting the Creed. He died October 18, 1942, the day after he led the recitation of the American's Creed at the 50th anniversary celebration of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Note: I intend to enjoy this long Independence Day weekend and to take advantage of the forecast break in the steamy weather. But I am mindful that our troops in combat and our law-enforcement officials, especially those in the Department of Homeland Security, will have no such break. This weekend, every time I see the American flag, which will be prominently displayed on this national holiday, I will be thankful that I live in a free nation, a nation which remains free because of the vigilance of the brave and because of the patriotism of those who believe in the American ideals succinctly stated in The American's Creed.

Unabashed patriotism? You bet!

Addendum, July 2, 2005: Visit this site and send an email...

America Supports You

Continue reading....