Archive for May, 2009


Cartoon: Sotomayor (Latina)

May 29, 2009


Supreme Court Selection: Sotomayor

May 29, 2009

From my friend Phil Whitaker:

Dear friends, for your edification,

You will not learn about this in CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC.

ð       President Obama recently announced the nomination of federal court judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, 54, will succeed retiring Associate Justice David Souter if she is confirmed by the Senate.

ð       Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American “Exceptionalism” and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights

ð        THOMAS JEFFERSON in a letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821 said the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.

You can object to Sonia Sotomayor being approved as your next Supreme Court Justice by contacting your US Senator.

You can find your officials @


Martinez, Mel – (R – FL)

(202) 224-3041
Web Form:
Nelson, Bill – (D – FL)
(202) 224-5274
Web Form:

Commercial Aircraft Cools, But Military…..

May 28, 2009

Let’s pray that Washington gets it’s act together – Our military equipment is wearing out.  Obama should pay attention to our Military.  We may soon need it.  D.

TransDigm makes replacement parts that keep the F/A-18 Hornet, shown here refueling, in the air.


Chu’s Whitewash

May 28, 2009

CHU is neglecting his duty! D.

Chu’s Whitewash


Energy Savings: Steven Chu sees a dark roof and wants it painted white. Are we to understand that the U.S. secretary of energy believes that a function of his office is to bat about impractical ideas?

Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist running the Obama Energy Department, suggested this week that — in terms of the greenhouse effect — painting roofs and bleaching road surfaces worldwide would have the same impact as taking every car off the road for more than a decade.

“If you look at all the buildings, and if you make the roofs white, and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color, if you do that uniformly, that would be the equivalent of . . . reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years — just taking them off the road for 11 years,” he told a Nobel symposium in London.

The idea is that the white roofs and light roads would reflect heat back into space where it wouldn’t contribute to the global warming that’s alleged to be occurring. White roofs would also lower energy use in air-conditioned structures with dark roofs that absorb heat.

Doesn’t America’s energy czar have better things to do than throw out loopy ideas about solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

This country didn’t have an energy secretary until Congress, at the urging of Jimmy Carter, created the Energy Department in 1977, and it got along fine before the position was established.

But now that we have one and it isn’t going away, it seems that an energy secretary’s time should be spent ensuring that the nation has a steady supply of affordable energy — opening markets and sources, not closing them — rather than chasing windmills.

But then, talking about increasing wind and sun power is what passes for Chu’s efforts to ensure the nation’s energy supply isn’t interrupted.

We’re not questioning whether white roofs on buildings and cars can save energy. But we have reservations about how that goal would be reached. Would white roofs be required by law? And what would the costs be? We don’t know and, as far as we can tell, Chu doesn’t say.

What we do know, however, is that this country has plenty of oil and coal, cheap sources that can keep the nation moving ahead for decades. Any energy secretary who does not actively try to unlock these resources is neglecting his or her duty.


Is China As Suicidal As We Are?

May 28, 2009


Energy Policy: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes to China seeking help in fighting climate change. It’s doubtful the world’s No. 1 polluter will agree to follow us over the economic cliff.

In the summer of 2007, a report by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency announced that China had officially become the world’s biggest polluter after its CO2 emissions rose an astounding 9% the year before. Since then, China has shown no signs of slowing down in its commitment to both economic and energy growth.

Between 1980 and 2006, China increased its carbon emissions by 321%. China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity capacity annually. That’s like adding the entire capacity of the United States every three years. The irony is that this powers Chinese factories that export goods to the energy-starving and economically beleaguered U.S.

This isn’t all China exports. As Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation reports, , sulfur from China alone reaches 10% to 15% of the EPA’s allowable levels in California, Oregon and Washington. Estimates are that a third of California’s air pollution and a fifth of Oregon’s come from China. Sensors in the Sierra Nevada Mountains have identified huge Chinese pollution clouds that traverse the Pacific.

Apparently tired of breathing exported Chinese pollution in her San Francisco district, Speaker Pelosi found herself on Tuesday attending the U.S.-China Clean Energy Forum.

She brought along other members of Congress, including Ed Markey, D-Mass., co-author of an economy-killing cap-and-tax bill that just passed a key House committee.

This is the latest effort trying to persuade the Chinese to adopt the U.S. policy of restricting economic growth by accepting draconian caps on carbon emissions with no scientific evidence that it will measurably affect global temperatures. So far the Chinese aren’t buying it.

As Fareed Zakaria notes in his book “The Post-American World”: “The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords.”

So why are we sacrificing our economic growth to fight their pollution?

China is exempt from Kyoto as a “developing” nation, which is one of the reasons the U.S. Senate once voted 97-0 not to consider it for ratification. China doesn’t mind seeing the U.S. economy handcuffed as it races to make this century a Chinese century. As it is, our states and taxpayers struggle to clean up imported Chinese pollution.

In fairness, China is pursuing other, cleaner forms of energy. It has 11 nuclear power plants on line. Another 22 are under construction. Fu Manchang, the secretary-general of the Chinese Nuclear Society, says: “We have the ability to raise our nuclear power capacity to at least 60 or 70 gigawatts.”

China’s all-of-the-above energy approach to exploiting all its resources is part of its commitment to both economic and energy growth and stands in stark contrast to our none-of-the-above approach to proven energy sources. We are committed to pricing coal and other fossil fuels out of existence with no feasible substitute.

We are reminded of Vice President Joe Biden’s comment in a rope line during the campaign:

“We’re not supporting ‘clean coal.’ Guess what. China’s building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.” He went on to say, “No coal plants in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them, over there. Make them clean.”

They are building them over there and not here. That’s not an energy policy. That’s economic suicide. Clean energy and economic growth are not incompatible.

We should be trying to get China to reduce its pollution. But we should also be expanding our own domestic energy resources, including building at least as many nuclear power plants as China is.

China is unwilling to commit economic suicide. Why are we?


Cartoon: US Missile Defense Cuts

May 28, 2009

Perhaps we should reconsider the missile defense cuts.

North Korea Nukes White House


Are We Crazy?

May 28, 2009

U.A.E Video Slows Nuclear Pact in U.S.

Wall Street Journal 15 May 09


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is delaying submitting legislation to Congress on U.S. nuclear cooperation with the United Arab Emirates because of a graphic video showing an Abu Dhabi sheikh abusing an Afghan trader, officials said.

Any protracted White House delay could imperil efforts by U.S. power companies to win contracts estimated at $20 billion that the U.A.E. is scheduled to award by this fall.

General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Co. are among the U.S.-based companies competing with French and South Korean firms to build the Emirates’ first fleet of nuclear reactors. The agreement authorizing cooperation between the U.S. and U.A.E. needs to be passed into law before U.S. companies can sell nuclear technologies to the Emirates.

“It would harmful for both the U.A.E.’s and U.S.’s long-term interests if American firms were to be taken out of the competition at this stage,” said Yousef Al Otaiba, the U.A.E.’s ambassador to Washington. He added that several U.S. firms made it through the qualification phase and were in contention for the final contract.

The U.A.E. is seeking formal assurance from Washington in the coming weeks that U.S. firms will be able to participate.

President Barack Obama has touted the U.A.E. deal as a model for peaceful development of nuclear power and previously was expected to submit the cooperation bill to Congress last month, said officials involved in the deliberations.

However, the airing of the video on U.S. television networks in recent weeks has generated outrage among some U.S. lawmakers and led to the White House delaying the bill’s submission.

In the 2004 video, Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a half-brother of Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, is seen abusing an Afghan trader who allegedly cheated him in a business transaction.

Sheikh Issa, with the assistance of uniformed men, abuses the Afghan man with a cattle prod, forces sand into his mouth, beats him with a wooden plank with a nail, and pours salt in his wounds. A sport-utility vehicle then repeatedly runs over the man in an undisclosed desert location. The man survived.

The Abu Dhabi government says it detained Sheikh Issa and opened a formal criminal investigation into the incident. It established a unit within its Public Prosecutors’ Office to investigate and prosecute human-rights complaints.

A number of U.S. lawmakers say they still doubt Emirati courts will deal with the matter properly. They have seized on the issue to question whether the U.A.E. can be trusted to safely run a nuclear-power program.

“A country where the laws can be flouted by the rich and powerful is not a country that can safeguard sensitive U.S. nuclear technology,” Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) said Wednesday.

A congressional commission on human rights convened Wednesday to focus on the Sheikh Issa video and the issue of U.A.E. human rights.

White House and State Department officials declined this week to set a firm timeline for submitting the U.A.E. legislation to Congress, saying the agreement is under review.

They also said nuclear cooperation and the U.A.E.’s human-rights record should be kept separate. “We think it’s an important agreement, but, as I said, we are right now in the stage of having consultations with Congress,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Wednesday.

U.S. officials and industry executives said they remain confident that the White House will eventually move the legislation forward, given its importance to American companies and President Obama’s wider nonproliferation agenda. Officials said the legislation could still be submitted to Congress this month.

U.S. officials praise the U.A.E.’s nuclear program because, unlike Iran, it is adhering to standards set by the United Nations atomic-energy agency.

The U.A.E. has agreed not to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, significantly eliminating the possibility that nuclear fuels could be diverted for military purposes.

—Tim Alberta contributed to this article.


Obama/Israel: Obsessive, Delusional Behavior

May 28, 2009

Israel must realize that only Almighty God can protect this tiny State – that even this is only a portion of the Promised Land.

Excellent article – but we must remember – Israel can never trust any agreement with Islam – remember HUDAIBIYYA!


Strip away the smiles from the Obama-Bibi press conference and we are Left with obsessive, delusional behavior

By Caroline B. Glick | Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday was baptism of fire for Israel’s new premier. What emerged from the meeting is that Obama’s priorities regarding Iran, Israel and the Arab world are diametrically opposed to Israel’s priorities. During his ad-hoc press conference with Netanyahu, Obama made clear that he will not lift a finger to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And acting as Obama’s surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it.

Obama showed his hand on Iran in three ways. First, he set a non-binding timetable of seven months for his policy of appeasement and engagement of the ayatollahs to work. That policy, he explained will only be implemented after next month’s Iranian presidential elections. And those direct US-Iranian talks must be given at least six months to show results before they can be assessed as successful or failed.

But Israel’s military intelligence has assessed that six months may be too long to wait. By the end of the year, Iran’s nuclear program may be unstoppable. And Iran’s successful test of its solid fuel Sejil-2 missile with a two thousand kilometer range on Wednesday merely served to show the urgency of the situation. Obviously the mullahs are not waiting for Obama to convince them of the error of their ways.

Beyond the fact that Obama’s nonbinding timeline is too long, there is his “or else.” Obama made clear that in the event that in December or January he concludes that the Iranians are not negotiating in good faith, the most radical step he will be willing to take will be to consider escalating international sanctions against Teheran. In the meantime, at his urging, Congressman Howard Berman, Chairman of the House International Affairs Committee has tabled a bill requiring sanctions against oil companies that export refined fuel into Iran.

Finally there was Obama’s contention that the best way for the US to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program is by convincing Israel to give away more land to the Palestinians. As Obama put it, “To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.”

This statement encapsulates the basic lack of seriousness and fundamental mendacity of Obama’s approach to “dealing with a potential Iranian threat.” Iran has made clear that it wants Israel destroyed. The mullahs don’t care how big Israel is. Their missiles are pointing at Tel Aviv not Beit El.

As for the international community, the Russians and Chinese have not been assisting Iran’s nuclear and missile programs for the past fifteen years because there is no Palestinian state. They have been assisting Iran because they think a strong Iran weakens the US. And they are right.

The Arab states, for their part are already openly siding with Israel against Iran. The establishment of a Palestinian state will not make their support for action to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to dominate the region any more profound.

On the face of it, Obama’s obsessive push for a Palestinian state makes little sense. The Palestinians are hopelessly divided. It is not simply that Hamas rules the Gaza Strip and Fatah controls Judea and Samaria. Fatah itself is riven by division. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s appointment of the new PA government under Salam Fayyad was overwhelmingly rejected by Fatah leaders. Quite simply, today there is no coherent Palestinian leadership that is either willing or capable of reaching an accord with Israel.

And as for the prospects for peace itself, given that there is little distinction between the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Gaza by Hamas-controlled media, and the anti-Semitic bilge broadcast daily in Judea and Samaria by the Fatah/Abbas/Fayyad-controlled media, those prospects aren’t looking particularly attractive. That across-the-board anti-Semitic incitement has engendered the current situation where Hamas and Fatah members and supporters are firmly united in their desire to see Israel destroyed. This was made clear on Thursday morning when a Fatah policeman in Kalkilya used his US-provided rifle to open fire on IDF forces engaged in a counter-terror operation in the city.

Given that the establishment of a Palestinian state will have no impact on Iran’s nuclear program, and in light of the fact that under the present circumstances any Palestinian state will be at war against Israel, and assuming that Obama is not completely ignorant of the situation on the ground, there is only one reasonable explanation for Obama’s urgent desire to force Israel support the creation of a Palestinian state and work for its establishment by expelling hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes. Quite simply, it is a way to divert attention away from Obama’s acquiescence to Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

By making the achievement of the unachievable goal of making peace between Israel and the Palestinians through the establishment of a Palestinian terror state the centerpiece of his Middle East agenda, Obama is able to cast Israel as the region’s villain. This aim is reflected in the administration’s intensifying pressure on Israel to destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. In portraying Jews who live in mobile homes on barren hilltops in Judea and Samaria — rather than Iranian mullahs who test ballistic missile while enriching uranium and inciting genocide — as the greatest obstacle to peace, the Obama administration not only seeks to deflect attention away from its refusal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is also setting Israel up as the fall guy who it will blamed after Iran emerges as a nuclear power.

Obama’s intention to unveil his Middle East peace plan in the course of his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, like his decision to opt out of visiting Israel in favor of visiting a Nazi death camp, make clear that he does not perceive Israel as either a vital ally or even as a partner in the peace process he wishes to initiate. Israeli officials were not consulted about his plan. Then too, from the emerging contours of his plan, it is clear that he will be offering something that no Israeli government can accept.

According to media reports, Obama’s plan will require Israel to withdraw its citizens and its military to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. It will provide for the free immigration of millions of Israel-hating Arabs to the Palestinian state. And it seeks to represent all of this as in accord with Israel’s interests by claiming that after Israel renders itself indefensible, all 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (including Iran) will “normalize” their relations with Israel. In short, Obama is using his peace plan to castigate the Netanyahu government as the chief destabilizing force in the region.

During his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu succeeded in evading the policy traps Obama set for him. Netanyahu reserved Israel’s right to act independently against Iran and he conceded nothing substantive on the Palestinian issue. While itself no small achievement, Netanyahu’s successful deflection of Obama’s provocations are not a sustainable strategy. Already on Tuesday the administration began coercing Israel to toe its line on Iran and the Palestinians by engaging it in joint “working groups.” Then too, the government’s destruction of an outpost community in Judea on Thursday was perceived as Israeli buckling to US pressure. And it doubtlessly raised expectations for further expulsions in the near future.

So what must Netanyahu do? What would a strategy to contain the Obama administration’s pressure and maintain international attention on Iran look like?

Under the present circumstances, the Netanyahu government’s best bet is to introduce its own peace plan to mitigate the impact of Obama’s plan. To blunt the impact of Obama’s speech in Cairo, Netanyahu should present his peace plan before June 4.

Such a plan should contain three stages. First, in light of the Arab world’s apparent willingness to engage with Israel, Netanyahu should call for the opening of direct talks between Israel and the Arab League or Israel and the OIC regarding the immediate normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab-Islamic world. Both Obama and Jordan’s King Abdullah claim that such normalization is in the offing. Israel should insist that it begin without delay.

This of course is necessary for peace to emerge with the Palestinians. As we saw at Camp David in 2000, the only way that Palestinian leaders will feel comfortable making peace with Israel is if the Arab world first demonstrates its acceptance of the Jewish state as a permanent feature on the Middle East’s landscape. Claims that such an Israeli demand is a mere tactic for buying time can be easily brushed off. Given Jordanian and American claims that the Arab world is willing to accept Israel, once negotiations begin, this stage could be completed in a matter of months.

The second stage of the Israeli peace plan would involve Israel and the Arab world agreeing and beginning to implement a joint program for combating terrorism. This program would involve destroying terror networks, cutting off funding for terror networks, and agreeing to arrest terrorists and extradite them to the Hague or the US for trial. It should be abundantly clear to all governments in the region that there can be no long term regional peace or stability for as long as terrorists bent on destroying Israel and overthrowing moderate Arab regimes are allowed to operate. So making the implementation of such a join program a precondition for further progress shouldn’t pose an obstacle to peace. Indeed, there is no reason for it to even be perceived as particularly controversial.

The final stage of the Israeli peace plan should be the negotiation of a final status accord with the Palestinians. Only after the Arab world has accepted Israel, and only after it has agreed to join Israel in achieving the common goal of a terror-free Middle East can there be any chance that the Palestinians will feel comfortable and free to peacefully coexist with Israel. And Israel, of course, will feel much more confident about living at peace with the Palestinians after the Arab world demonstrates its good faith and friendship to the Jewish state and its people.

Were Netanyahu to offer this plan in the next two weeks, he would be able to elude Obama’s trap on June 4 by proposing to discuss both plans with the Arab League. In so doing, he would be able to continue to make the case that Iran is the gravest danger to the region without being demonized as a destabilizing force and an enemy of peace.

Whether Netanyahu advances such a peace plan or not, what became obvious this week is that his greatest challenges in office will be to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while preventing the Obama administration from blaming Israel for the absence of peace.


Is Obama That Stupid?

May 28, 2009

The World According to Garzon

Wall Street Journal 8 April 09

Judge Baltasar Garzón, an ambitious Spanish jurist, last month ordered prosecutors to investigate six men who served in the Bush Administration on criminal charges related to “torture.” None of the prospective defendants are accused of torturing or ordering the torture of anyone — only of arguing for legal positions of which Judge Garzón disapproves. He asserts that the principle of “universal jurisdiction” gives him the authority to try U.S. officials for alleged violations of international law.

At a State Department briefing last week, a reporter asked Gordon Duguid, the acting deputy department spokesman, for the Obama Administration’s position. His reply: “I’m not aware of any contact with the Spanish Foreign Ministry on this. It’s a matter in the Spanish courts, as I’m given to understand. I don’t have a comment for you on it at this time. The Obama Administration’s position on the matters that are under discussion, I think are quite clear.”

This is about as unclear a response as one can imagine. Far from being a mere “matter in the Spanish courts,” Judge Garzón’s action is an assault on American sovereignty and the integrity of the U.S. legal system. And while some in the Obama Administration may be tempted to cheer him on for partisan reasons, they risk helping to set a precedent that could easily come back to hurt them.

While President Obama has politically repudiated many of his predecessor’s antiterror policies, his Justice Department has stood by many Bush legal arguments in national security cases. If former officials can be investigated — and, at least in theory, indicted, arrested and tried — on Judge Garzón’s say-so, what is to stop him or some other freelancing foreign judge from one day putting current officials in the dock for reaching supposedly faulty legal conclusions?

Even if the principle of national sovereignty leaves Mr. Obama and his appointees cold, the imperative of self-preservation ought to concentrate their minds and make clear that Judge Garzón’s meddling in American policy is unacceptable.


Muslim Brotherhood Falters As Egypt Outflanks Islamists

May 28, 2009

Wall Street Journal 15 May 09

By Yaroslav Trofimov

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is on the defensive, its struggles reverberating throughout Islamist movements that the secretive organization has spawned world-wide.

Just recently, the Brothers’ political rise seemed unstoppable. Candidates linked with the group won most races they contested in Egypt’s 2005 parliamentary elections, gaining a record 20% of seats. Across the border in Gaza, another election the following year propelled the Brotherhood’s Palestinian offshoot, Hamas, into power.

Since then, Egypt’s government jailed key Brotherhood members, crimped its financing and changed the constitution to clip religious parties’ wings. The Brotherhood made missteps, too, alienating many Egyptians with saber rattling and proposed restrictions on women and Christians. These setbacks have undermined the group’s ability to impose its Islamic agenda on this country of 81 million people, the Arab world’s largest.

“When we’re not advancing, we are retreating. And right now we are not spreading, we are not achieving our goals,” the Brotherhood’s second-in-command, Mohamed Habib, said in an interview.

Across the Muslim world, authoritarian governments, Islamist revivalists and liberals often fight for influence. Egypt is a crucial battleground. A decline of the Brotherhood here, with its shrill anti-Israeli rhetoric and intricate ties to Hamas, strengthens President Hosni Mubarak’s policy of engagement with the Jewish state. It could also give him more room to work with President Barack Obama, who is scheduled to visit Egypt next month, on reviving the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Brotherhood leaders caution against reading too much into the current troubles, saying the 81-year-old group has bounced back from past challenges. Others say the government’s suppression of the Brotherhood, Egypt’s main nonviolent opposition movement — paired with arrests of Mr. Mubarak’s secular foes — can unleash more radical forces.

“If it continues this way, it’s very dangerous and could lead to the return of extremism and terrorism in Egypt,” says Ayman Nour, a liberal politician who ran for president against Mr. Mubarak in 2005 and was later imprisoned on campaign-fraud charges that the U.S. government condemned as politically motivated.


The Limits Of Mideast Diplomacy

May 28, 2009

IBD 20 May 09

Middle East: After chiding Israel, President Obama gets called a liar by Hamas. An Iranian general threatens to “wipe Israel out of existence” in 11 days. Clearly, Islamist hard-liners will never accept their Jewish neighbor.

One of the most delightful moments in Oscar Hammerstein and Jerome Kern’s 1936 film “Showboat” is Paul Robeson’s mischievous serenade of Hattie McDaniel.

“No matter what you say,” dock worker Joe sings to his hard-working sweetheart, Queenie, “I still suits me.”

That’s a perfect description of the attitude of much of the Islamic Middle East towards Israel. No matter what Israel or its most important ally, the United States, says, be it conciliatory or scolding, the hard-line Islamists from the West Bank to Iran always suit themselves and refuse to recognize the Jewish state’s legitimacy.

Indeed, they look fondly toward the day of its eventual demise.

That is a crucial point because with the Obama administration committed to “tough diplomacy” to solve age-old disputes in the Middle East, there is a growing temptation to believe that just the right combination of concessions by Israel will deliver a breakthrough that brings peace to the region.

Cold water was thrown on that notion on Tuesday. The Hamas terrorist group, voted into power by the Palestinians, reacted to President Obama’s Monday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington with this ugly attack:

“Obama’s remarks and expressions of hope were intended to deceive the international community regarding everything connected to the continuing behavior and existence of the racist and radical Zionist entity,” a Hamas spokesman said, calling Obama’s words just an “ensemble of wishes” with little hope of success.

That assault on the president comes after he employed perhaps the most brazen tone ever directed by America toward an Israeli leader. “I suggested to the prime minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure,” President Obama said about negotiations he’d like to see that would establish an independent Palestinian state.

He also insisted that Jewish West Bank “settlements have to be stopped,” and rather patronizingly said he expected that Netanyahu “is going to rise to the occasion.”

Consider: As thanks for the president signaling he’ll now apply heavy pressure on Israel, those who supposedly will benefit from it turn around and call him a liar. And while they’re at it, they call Israel “racist” and challenge the legitimacy of its “existence.”

This should shock no one; the 1988 Hamas Charter is explicit regarding the Islamic imperative that Israel be destroyed.

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it,” the charter states.

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day,” it adds. (A “waqf” is an irrevocable endowment of property in Islamic law.) “It, or any part of it, should not be squandered. It, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

Peace conferences, according to Article 13 of the Hamas manifesto, “are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”

It goes on to accuse Israel of expansionist ambitions in the greater Mideast and even world domination, citing the notorious 19th century anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Now let’s turn to the state sponsor of Hamas’ terrorism, Iran. Earlier this month, Iranian Army chief Gen. Ataollah Salehi declared, “If we are subjected to any attack by Israel I do not think we will need more than 11 days to wipe Israel out of existence.”

That statement comes with Iran engaged not only in a nuclear program that will likely soon give it atomic weapons, but also a military buildup aimed at deploying over 1,000 long-range ballistic missiles within six years, according to Israeli defense estimates.

“Peace” to the likes of Hamas and Iran’s mullahs is the peace of the grave for the Israelis and their American and European friends. No one should be deluded into thinking that diplomatic overtures will talk them out of such hate.


Veterans a Focus of FBI Extremist Probe

May 28, 2009

Wall Street Journal 17 April 09

By Cam Simpson and Gary Fields

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation earlier this year launched a nationwide operation targeting white supremacists and “militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups,” including a focus on veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to memos sent from bureau headquarters to field offices.

The initiative, dubbed Operation Vigilant Eagle, was outlined in February, two months before a memo giving a similar warning was issued on April 7 by the Department of Homeland Security.

Disclosure of the DHS memo this week has sparked controversy among some conservatives and veterans groups. Appearing on television talk shows Thursday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the assessment, but apologized to veterans who saw it as an accusation.

“This is an assessment of things just to be wary of, not to infringe on constitutional rights, certainly not to malign our veterans,” she said on NBC’s Today Show.

The documents outlining Operation Vigilant Eagle cite a surge in activity by such groups. The memos say the FBI’s focus on veterans began as far back as December, during the final weeks of the Bush administration, when the bureau’s domestic counterterrorism division formed a special joint working group with the Defense Department.

A Feb. 23 draft memo from FBI domestic counterterrorism leaders, obtained by The Wall Street Journal, cited an “increase in recruitment, threatening communications and weapons procurement by white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups.”

The FBI said in the memo that its conclusion about a surge in such activities was based on confidential sources, undercover operations, reporting from other law-enforcement agencies and publicly available information. The memo said the main goal of the multipronged operation was to get a better handle on “the scope of this emerging threat.” The operation also seeks to identify gaps in intelligence efforts surrounding these groups and their leaders.

The aim of the FBI’s effort with the Defense Department, which was rolled into the Vigilant Eagle program, is to “share information regarding Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans whose involvement in white supremacy and/or militia sovereign citizen extremist groups poses a domestic terrorism threat,” according to the Feb. 23 FBI memo.

Michael Ward, FBI deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, said in an interview Thursday that the portion of the operation focusing on the military related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.

“We’re not doing an investigation into the military, we’re not looking at former military members,” he said. “It would have to be something they were concerned about, or someone they’re concerned is involved” with extremist groups.

Mr. Ward said that the FBI’s general counsel reviewed the operation before it began, “to make sure any tripwires we set do not violate any civil liberties.”

Some Republican lawmakers, talk-show hosts and veterans groups complained this week after the internal DHS assessment cited the potential for the same extremists groups to target returning combat veterans for recruitment. The Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, also echoed the concerns.

The separate DHS assessment, leaked this week after being sent to law-enforcement agencies, said the “willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” Veterans could draw special attention, the report said, because of their advanced training.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, said Wednesday he was offended that veterans were characterized as potential domestic terrorists.

Amy Kudwa, a DHS spokeswoman, said Thursday the report was issued before an objection about one part of the document raised by the agency’s civil-rights division was resolved. She called it a “breakdown of an internal process” that would be fixed.

The FBI documents show the bureau was working with investigators inside the nation’s uniformed services “in an effort to identify those current or former soldiers who pose a domestic terrorism threat.” The other agencies working with the FBI are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Documents detailing the operation are unclassified, but were meant for internal distribution only.

—Evan Perez contributed to this article.


Tyrants get Another U.N. Platform

May 28, 2009

Wall Street Journal 24 April 09



In 1948, the United Nations recognized the “inherent dignity” and “the equal and inalienable rights” of all human beings when it ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Though this week’s U.N. conference in Geneva claimed to stand for these noble values, the world’s dictators were the real winners.

Too many official country delegates didn’t come to Geneva to stand up for the oppressed. They came to condemn the “colonial powers” of the West and Israel. In so doing, they sought to guard against exposing their own regimes’ human-rights records. While the delegates met in the official conference hall, the true defenders of human rights — civil society organizations and dissidents — gathered at their own conference where they examined today’s most pressing human-rights issues.

The deep divide between those who seek to expose human-rights abuses and those who only use the language of human rights as a shield is not new. It started during Rio’s Earth Summit in 1992, where, for the first time, the U.N. agreed to host two forums: one for government representatives and one for NGOs. The divide between government and NGOs, and between the Third World and the West, reached an apex in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. The central wedge issue was the treatment of the state of Israel.

Eight years ago, the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA) singled out Israel for the harshest rebuke of any country. It was not that Israel was totally innocent of charges about its continued occupation of the Palestinians. But the vehemence with which the delegates issued this condemnation, and their manner of voting on it — the delegates cheered “Down With Israel” — led many to conclude that the DPPA bordered on anti-Semitism.

What compounded this sentiment is that most of the governments that pile on to condemn Israel and the so-called “neocolonial” West have terrible human-rights records. These include tyrannical regimes such as Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Libya, Iran, Syria and Egypt (my home country). Their atrocious violations have been widely reported by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

But members of like-minded voting blocs — such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States — comprise more than two-thirds of the U.N. membership votes. Together, they can railroad through any resolution, no matter how absurd. It was this Afro-Islamic-Arab bloc that made sure Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be the keynote speaker in the opening session of this year’s U.N. World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.

Rightly anticipating that the Geneva conference would be a forum for anti-Western and anti-Israel propaganda, the U.S. and a score of Western democracies boycotted the conference entirely. More countries — such as Britain, Germany and Holland — walked out of the conference when Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his usual anti-Israel tirade, calling the Jewish state a “most cruel and racist regime.”

Unfortunately, lost in this circus were the real victims who suffer at the hands of autocratic and theocratic regimes. The most vulnerable groups — the poor, women, children, migrant and stateless people — were ignored this week in Geneva.

Though the decision to boycott the conference was understandable, I believe it was a mistake. The U.S. and other democracies should have attended and fought back. An overwhelming majority of mankind would have applauded their moral courage.

I spent three years alone in an Egyptian prison for the crime of “tarnishing Egypt’s reputation.” Today, prisoners like Roxana Saberi in Iran languish in jails for crimes they did not commit. It is the job of true human-rights advocates to strengthen such victims by standing up to dictators.

Rather than letting Mr. Ahmadinejad steal the headlines, I would have liked to have seen the universally popular President Barack Obama take on the hypocrites who speak in the name of Islam and want to sacrifice such basic rights as freedom of speech by outlawing “Islamophobia.” Mr. Obama could have rescued the human-rights agenda from those who have hijacked it.

Though it didn’t happen in Geneva, I look forward to a campaign, led by Mr. Obama, to return the cause of human rights to its rightful owners.

Mr. Ibrahim was incarcerated by the Mubarak regime from 2000 to 2003. He is now a visiting professor at Harvard.

– The problem might be that Obama is the problem.  His life beliefs are contrary to American policy since our founding.


Terrorist Hotbed

May 28, 2009

IBD 4 May 09

Politics: The Pentagon will have to build a facility for the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay if their current housing is closed. We know the perfect spot: a military prison in Cuba on a naval base called Gitmo.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday that he has asked for $50 million to build a prison in the U.S. that would house the enemy combatants who were sent to Guantanamo after being captured in the war on terror.

If the brig at Gitmo is closed, as many as 100 of the roughly 250 inmates there would be moved to the U.S. The rest could walk away because the evidence against them, while good enough to keep them incarcerated in a military prison as enemies of America, might be inadmissible in a criminal court on U.S. soil.

Who is going to want these 100 radicals, many of them linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban, in their backyard? And where will those who could no longer be detained end up? Back in the battlefield fighting U.S. troops?

For good reason, Gates said he “fully” expected “to have 535 pieces of legislation before this is over saying ‘Not in my district, not in my state.'” No one in this country is going to be comfortable with terrorists who want to kill Americans being housed down the road. No facility can possibly be isolated enough, not in the vast expanses of Alaska or Texas, in the remote swamps of Florida or in the sprawling deserts of Nevada.

The prison facility at Guantanamo, an ideal location for housing suspected terrorists, has become an open sore of controversy. The political left, seizing on the Bush administration’s insistence that the detainees didn’t have the protections spelled out in the Geneva Conventions because they belonged to no organized military, has characterized it as a torture chamber.

Along with the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Gitmo became a symbol of the Bush White House’s alleged hostility to human and constitutional rights and its depravity in general.

After years of demands that the Gitmo prison be closed, Barack Obama heeded them upon becoming president. On Jan. 22, the country’s new executive signed an order requiring the facility to be shut down within the year.

Problem solved? Not quite.

There’s that little matter of finding a place for men who live to kill and would be happy to get their hands on an American the same way a wolf would like to tear apart a chicken.

Closing the detainee camp at Gitmo will solve nothing. Whatever liberties that interrogators might have taken with the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo can be taken at a new facility.

Miserable conditions, if they indeed exist, can be transferred or created anew, as well. Different housing would merely salve the fevered minds who refuse to acknowledge the Islamist war on civilization.

And for what? A useless political victory for those who traffic in mindless symbolism over a man who hasn’t been in the White House even four months?

The debate over Gitmo has been marked by more hysteria than rational thought. Have any of its critics wondered why the Bush administration chose to send suspected terrorists there rather than to a federal prison within the 50 states? Could it have been for security reasons?

It’s reasonable to believe that the Bush White House simply thought it wise to keep the enemy combatants off U.S. soil and away from civilian Americans. It’s unreasonable to believe that they were put there just because the previous administration wanted them in a place where they could be tortured away from prying eyes.

The best place for the detainees at the Guantanamo base is right where they are. Why waste $50 million in taxpayers’ money for new construction costs, as well as the tens of millions that were already spent to build facilities that will be, in Gates’ word, mothballed? To gain nothing but hollow political points?

At Gitmo, the detainees are free to face Mecca when they pray. They have access to Islamic reading material and eat hot halal — approved by Islamic law — meals.

They are not in stocks, stretched out on the rack or systematically beaten. They are exactly where they should be. Pragmatism, not politics, is what should determine their location.


HLF Founders Sentenced to Long Prison Terms

May 28, 2009

HLF Founders Sentenced to Long Prison Terms

IPT News
May 27, 2009

DALLAS – A federal judge imposed what could amount to life sentences on three former leaders of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) on Wednesday for illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.

“The purpose of creating the Holy Land Foundation was as a fundraising arm for Hamas,” said U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis.

He sentenced former HLF Chief Executive Officer Shukri Abu Baker and co-founder Ghassan Elashi to 65 years in prison. Longtime HLF chairman Mohamed El-Mezain, who was convicted only on one count of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists, received the maximum 15-year sentence.

All three men are at least 50 years old. Two additional defendants, Mufid Abdelqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, will be sentenced Wednesday afternoon.

While appeals are being prepared, the sentencing hearings end the largest terror financing case in the United States, one which closed the largest Muslim-American charity in 2001. Its significance, however, resonates far beyond the Dallas courtroom and the five men convicted by a jury last November.

The evidence showed that HLF was part of a broad Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy in the United States called the Palestine Committee, which was to serve Hamas with “media, money and men.” Those exhibits show the depth of Muslim Brotherhood activity here, which at its height included a think tank in Virginia, a propaganda arm in Texas and Chicago, and a political operation that continues to exert influence today.

It also led to the discovery of a Brotherhood memorandum from 1991 that describes the group’s goal in America. It called for a “civilization-jihadist process” and a “grand jihad” that aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Palestine Committee legacy. Last year, the FBI decided to cut off communication with CAIR due to concerns about the evidence showing the organization’s Hamas roots.

“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,” wrote Richard C. Powers, an assistant director in the FBI’s office of Congressional Affairs, last month.

The defendants, who have been in custody since last November’s verdicts, wore orange jail jumpsuits. Neither they, nor their attorneys yielded any ground on the core issue in the case – that their efforts to raise and distribute money for Palestinian charities was done with the goal of helping Hamas politically and supporting the relatives of its fighters who were arrested or died in terrorist attacks.

“All he did was provide humanitarian relief,” defense attorney Linda Moreno said of Elashi.

“I believe I am innocent and have not committed any crime,” El-Mezain said during an emotional 23-minute statement. He called his prosecution “unjust, selective and political.”

Solis rejected the defense claims. “The evidence supports the jury’s verdict in this case that you did support Hamas in violation of the law,” he said.

Intent on sentencing all five defendants in one day, Solis cut off Baker’s statement after 20 minutes. Defense attorney Nancy Hollander objected, saying Baker “has a right to make his statement.” Solis offered an additional five minutes, but said “I don’t want to go all morning, counselor.”

Baker did not finish his statement. Its focus was autobiographical, emphasizing the hardships he has endured caring for a chronically ill daughter. It was “a father’s melting heart” that prompted him to devote his life to charity, Baker said.

The defendants offered the court a misleading account of their activities, prosecutors said, pointing to exhibits that showed rallies featuring songs and skits praising Hamas, that featured Hamas members and the role Baker and Elashi played in a 1993 meeting in Philadelphia aimed at trying to “derail” U.S.-led peace efforts.

In one portion of the conversation, Baker told the others that “war is deception,” and at other times, the group discussed how to persuade Americans about their cause without revealing their support of a terrorist organization.

HLF “hoodwinked this country,” federal prosecutor Barry Jonas told Solis. HLF sent its money to Palestinian charities, or zakat committees, which were controlled by Hamas, prosecutors said.

The judge agreed, rejecting most defense objections to the pre-sentence report and accepting enhancements to the sentencing guidelines because the crimes involved supporting terrorism. The defense arguments, that the group merely provided charity to those in desperate need, “don’t tell the whole story,” Solis said.

“A lot of people help people and don’t get brought into court. You are here because you were supporting Hamas” and continued to do so after it became illegal.

HLF supporters do not accept the verdict, calling the defendants “our falsely convicted brothers” in an e-mail meant to drum up attendance at the hearing. Across the street from the courthouse, supporters held the same sign they displayed throughout the case: “Feeding children is not a crime.”

In addition to the jury verdicts, two other men entered guilty pleas on related charges. Earlier this month, Arizona resident Akram Abdallah pled guilty to lying to FBI agents about his HLF fundraising. He is scheduled to be sentenced in August.

Mohamed Shorbagi, a Georgia imam, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to Hamas. As part of his plea, Shorbagi agreed to cooperate with the government and testified as a prosecution witness.

He told jurors that he knew money he raised for HLF would support Hamas.


Photo: Obama’s Logic

May 27, 2009

Obama’s Logic:

Obama's Logic

So we’ll put money in the economy by taking money out of the economy then putting it back in the economy and taxing it as it passes through.
Yeah, that should work……


Muslims vandalize Christian graves

May 27, 2009

Read + Fume. D

Muslims vandalize Christian graves

Crosses smashed: ‘We don’t feel safe anymore’

Posted: May 25, 2009
8:15 pm Eastern

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

By Aaron Klein


JERUSALEM – Palestinian Christians in a normally quiet village are reeling from a series of grave desecrations this week that they say are indicative of intimidation tactics from the town’s growing Muslim population.

“Christians don’t feel free anymore. Our way of life is changing while the Muslim population grows,” a local Christian told WND. The Christian would only give his first name, Anis, for fear of Muslim retaliation if he speaks out. He pointed out there are several other Anis’s in his village, Jisna, which is located near the West Bank city of Ramallah.

This week, 70 Christian grave sites in Jisna were vandalized, with the crosses on top of the graves found smashed off, local Christians told WND.

Jisna is primarily a Christian village, but over the last 6 to 8 years, the town has seen a steady stream of Muslims, mostly due to Jisna’s good quality of life. Two years ago, the first mosque was constructed in the village. If the Islamic influx continues, Jisna might go the way of so many other Palestinian cities, like Ramallah and Bethlehem, which used to be predominantly Christian but now have large Muslim majorities.

Is Israel already done for? Find out in Aaron Klein’s “The Late Great State of Israel”

And like Bethlehem, Ramallah and other Palestinian cities that became mostly Muslim, as the Islamic population rises in Jisna local Christians are complaining of an increased atmosphere of intimidation.

“They (Muslims) are trying to impose their way of life,” said Anis.

A relative of Anis who lives in the same village said Christians don’t feel safe drinking alcohol on the streets or even in private gardens that can be seen from the street. Consuming alcohol is banned in Islam.

“I used to go to a store owned by my friend and inside we’d drink beers together. But now we can’t do it because the Muslims get offended,” said the second local Christian.

“Our freedom and our way of life is much more limited. At times we don’t feel safe for us, our families and our Christian friends,” the Christian said.

Just this week, a Palestinian Authority spokesman admitted to WND that Christians in the Palestinian territories are being “watched.”

“We have been watching this Christian organization and for the moment there is nothing special in their activity,” said Adnan Dmeire, spokesman for the PA’s security organizations in West Bank.

Dmeire was referring to the Association of the Holy Book, one of the main groups that attends to the needs of Christians in the Palestinian territories. The group has been accused by both the PA and Hamas of carrying out missionary activities. A Bible store the association sponsored in the Gaza Strip – the only Christian bookstore in the territory – was attacked by Islamists several times. The store’s owner, Rami Ayyad, was found shot to death in 2007, his body riddled with bullets.

Dmeire was responding to a WND inquiry regarding a Hamas accusation earlier this week that the PA was allowing the Christian association to carry out missionary activity in the West Bank.

Christian persecution trend

Christians living in the Palestinian territories have not faired well under PA or Hamas rule.

In 2006, a YMCA in the northern West Bank was attacked. Gunmen destroyed the locks on the YMCA’s entrance gates, crushed the gates, then entered the building and set it ablaze. Local fire brigades reportedly rushed to the scene and stopped the blaze before it spread to neighboring buildings. The attack occurred just after a PA-linked preacher accused the YMCA of missionary activity.

Following the YMCA attack, one Christian leader, an aide to Jerusalem’s Latin Patriarch Michel Sabah who asked his name be withheld for fear of Muslim retaliation, called the rampage part of a general trend of Christian persecution in Palestinian areas.

“It’s been happening all over the West Bank and Gaza,” said the aide.

There have been rampant reports of abuses and persecution in several West Bank towns taken over by the PA.

Anti-Christian riots have been reported in Ramallah, Nazareth and surrounding villages as well as in towns in Gaza, where Christians have been targeted in scores of attacks, some deadly. In Bethlehem, local Christians have long complained of anti-Christian violence. The city’s Christian population, once 90 percent, declined drastically since the PA took control in December 1995. Christians now make up less than 25 percent of Bethlehem, according to Israeli surveys.

Christian leaders and residents in Bethlehem told WND they face an atmosphere of regular hostility. They said Palestinian armed groups stir tension by holding militant demonstrations and marches in the streets. They spoke of instances in which Christian shopkeepers’ stores were ransacked and Christian homes attacked. One of the most urgent problems involves the unilateral confiscation of Christian property by local Islamists.

“It is a regular phenomenon in Bethlehem,” Samir Qumsiyeh, a Bethlehem Christian leader and owner of the Beit Sahour-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station, told WND. “They go to a poor Christian person with a forged power of attorney document, then they say we have papers proving you’re living on our land. If you confront them, many times the Christian is beaten. You can’t do anything about it. The Christian loses, and he runs away.”

In the Gaza Strip, Christians fare worse under Hamas rule. The Islamist group took over the territory in 2007. About 3,000 Christians live in the Gaza Strip, which has a population of over 1 million.

In December, Christian leaders in Gaza told WND they held only small, quiet Christmas celebrations after local leaders received warnings from Muslim groups against any public display of Christianity during the holiday season. Hamas claimed the Christian celebrations were muted to protest what it said was an Israeli siege of the coastal Gaza Strip.

Since Hamas’ rise to power, Christian in Gaza repeatedly have been targeted. Jihadia Salafiya, an Islamist outreach group with a so-called military wing, is suspected of many of the Islamist attacks, such as a May 2007 shooting against a United Nations school in Gaza after it allowed boys and girls to participate in the same sporting event. One person was killed in the attack.

In the case of Ayyad, the bible store owner, WND quoted witnesses stating he was publicly tortured a few blocks from his store before he was shot to death. The witnesses said they saw three armed men, two of whom were wearing masks, beat Ayyad repeatedly with clubs and the butts of their guns while they accused him of attempting to spread Christianity in Gaza. The witnesses said that after sustaining the beating, Ayyad was shot by all three men.

Christians warned: Accept Islamic law

Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Jihadia Salafiya, told WND in an exclusive interview after Hamas first seized Gaza that Christians could continue living safely in the Gaza Strip only if they accepted Islamic law, including a ban on alcohol and on women roaming publicly without proper head coverings.

“[Now that Hamas is in power,] the situation has changed 180 degrees in Gaza,” said Abu Saqer, speaking from Gaza.

“Jihadia Salafiya and other Islamic movements will ensure Christian schools and institutions show publicly what they are teaching to be sure they are not carrying out missionary activity. No more alcohol on the streets. All women, including non-Muslims, need to understand they must be covered at all times while in public,” he said.

“Also the activities of Internet cafes, pool halls and bars must be stopped,” said Abu Saqer. “If it goes on, we’ll attack these things very harshly.”

Abu Saqer accused the leadership of the Gaza Christian community of “proselytizing and trying to convert Muslims with funding from American evangelicals.”

“This missionary activity is endangering the entire Christian community in Gaza,” he said.

Abu Saqer claimed there was “no need” for the thousands of Christians in Gaza to maintain a large number of institutions in the territory.

He said Hamas “must work to impose an Islamic rule or it will lose the authority it has and the will of the people.”


IPT: Homegrown Terrorism

May 27, 2009



Emerson on Fox News: Law Enforcement Focuses on Threat of Homegrown Terrorism

Fox News
May 25, 2009

Click here to see the video:

Send Comment RSS

JON SCOTT: The nation is at war in two countries right now, largely because of the threat of terrorism but not all terrorism comes from overseas. Law enforcement in this nation is very vigilant about threat of homegrown terror. It becomes an even more evident threat after the news that the FBI and New York police breaking up a plot to blow up two New York synagogues and shoot down U.S. military planes. The four suspects in custody allegedly became radicalized, not overseas, but right here while doing time in prison. So, how serious is this threat and what can we do about it? Let’s bring in Steve Emerson, he is the Executive Director of the Investigative Project. He is also the author of Jihad Incorporated. Steve, outside the book, you have an opinion piece in one of the New York newspapers that had a couple of quotes that I thought were interesting. You were talking about what you see as the folly of bring in Guantanamo Bay prisoners to this country and you said the Guantanamo prisoners would be looked about as “jihadi rock stars each one could potential produce a hundred new ticking time bombs ultimately walking the streets of America. FBI agents with whom I have spoken say that the transfer of prisoners to the U.S. is insane, pure and simple.”

STEVEN EMERSON: Jon, the fact is that even though these-if in fact the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay are transferred and even if they’re locked up permanently, they still will have contact with the regular prison population, with both Muslim and non Muslims. And given their jihadist beliefs and hardcore doctrine it is almost guaranteed that they are going to serve as proselytizers and looked upon what I called ‘rock stars’ in terms of conveying this jihadist ideology. Those other prisoners will ultimately be freed for whatever sentences they’ve been serving. And the problem is once they’re freed, then all hell can break loose as we saw in the plot that broke-that was disclosed last week. Because once they are out, then of course they are free to act upon their ideological extremism. In the case in the Bronx plot, they wanted to blow up Jewish centers and shoot down a military plane cause they were so angry at the U.S. We have seen a lot of radical literature in prisons and we have seen radical Islamic chaplains serving as advisors in prisons who also radicalize the prisoner population. This is a ticking time bomb. We have seen it happen several times, like the plot in Riverside, California several years ago when they interrupted a plot to blow up Jewish centers, a National Guard center. We have seen more than 25 U.S. prisoners released from prisons who have been involved ultimately in Islamic terrorist plots.

SCOTT: What about the argument though that these guys involved in this New York City plot recently, accused and arrested in this New York City plot, what about the argument that they are just sort of uneducated losers who got swept up into something by a government informant who was way too willing to spend money on them.

EMERSON: The radical Islamic groups, those are apologists for them, claim it is the informants who do the entrapment. But in fact, all the informant did was to provide the weapons that the defendants were prepared to use; in this case C-4 to blow up the synagogues and a stinger missile to shoot down a plane. The reality is that when you look at any bunch of these terrorists they look like losers. Look at the one in 1993 who retrieved his rental deposit after he tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He looked like a loser, but that was not a losing plot. They almost killed a hundred thousand people.

SCOTT: You mentioned that there is very little screening done of some people who try to recruit these people in prison. In 2004 you wrote, “The way the Bureau of Prisons determined whether an Imam was a radical was to simply ask them if they supported terrorism. If they said no and of course they all did, they were granted admission.” It would seem like the government has taken leave of its senses when it comes to deciding who to let in.

EMERSON: The Bureau of Prisons has acted so irresponsibly that it is beyond the scope of this interview to even detail. The head of the Bureau of Prisons, Susan VanBalen; she’s now retired, used to speak at conferences that actually accredited chaplains. These conferences were sponsored by radical Islamic groups. She thought that they were fine. The Bureau of Prisons defined Wahhabism, that’s the doctrine that governs the strict puritanical version of Islam in Saudi Arabia, as a simple form of religious interpretation. They never understood the problem of radical Islam and that’s the real scandal here.

SCOTT: We can read more about it in your book, Jihad Incorporated, Steve Emerson, thank you.

EMERSON: You’re welcome.


IPT: State Department’s love affair with Islamists

May 27, 2009




State Department’s love affair with Islamists

adapted from an article published by the IPT May 17

May. 24, 2009

With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America’s case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating.

The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled “Being Muslim in America.” The 64-page booklet seeks to arm consular officers and diplomats with information they can take to Muslims around the world to rebut slanders about US “persecution” of Muslims. The booklet deluges readers with color pictures, statistical tables and individual profiles in an effort to show the world that American Muslims are a success story, noting that they have become entrepreneurs, professional athletes, entertainers, doctors, soldiers, firefighters, politicians, fashion designers and pianists.

The booklet aims “to disabuse people of wildly false myths of the United States – that ‘Muslims are repressed, marginalized,’ fill in the blanks,” said Michael Friedman, division chief of print publications with the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs.

The government has not produced similar booklets for any other faith, Friedman said. With limited funding available, the decision to produce a publication on American Muslims came because “the struggle against Islamic terrorism is a struggle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, the booklet perpetuates the mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims’ civil rights post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as follows: “A new, truly American Islam is emerging, shaped by American freedoms, but also by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks – planned and executed by non-Americans – [which] raised suspicions among other Americans whose immediate responses, racial profiling among them, triggered in return a measure of Muslim-American alienation.”

This is an extremely tendentious, even intellectually dishonest, description. From reading it, one would have no idea that there have been numerous convictions and guilty pleas on terrorism-related charges since September 11 that involved Muslims living in the United States. This includes terrorist plots to attack the military base at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to create a terrorist training camp in Bly, Oregon and to attack US military and Jewish targets in California.

THE BOOKLET makes no mention of the fact that organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) were listed by the government as unindicted coconspirators in the successful Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). But from reading this passage in “Being Muslim in America,” one would get the impression that public concern about Islamist terror has no basis in reality and is merely the result of backward Americans’ “discrimination and resentment.”

Zuhdi Jasser, an Arizona doctor who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, likened the booklet’s depiction of Muslim life in the US to Cold War-era propaganda falsely portraying communist dictatorships as “worker’s paradises” in which everyone was working toward a common goal. American Muslims are divided between Islamists seeking to establish a caliphate and non-Islamists who want to live under the American Constitution on equal terms with non-Muslims, Jasser said. And similar divisions exist in the Middle East between non-Islamists and Islamists.

“In some ways, it’s insulting to Muslims in the Middle East – if we need to portray Muslims as being ‘normal’ in America,” Jasser said. “It’s almost as if we have something to be sorry for in America.” Jasser would prefer that the State Department not be in the business of distributing a booklet about Islam in this country. “But if it decides to get into it, it needs to talk about the ideological differences” among Muslims in the US, he said.

Non-Islamist Muslim organizations like Jasser’s AIFD and Muslims Against Shari’a were ignored in “Being Muslim in America.” The State Department’s Friedman dismissed concerns about the pro-Islamist bias of the material. “The US government is not endorsing any of these people or organizations,” he said. “Our audience is more likely to be an Indonesian schoolchild who is not likely to be Googling the names of the organizations” like CAIR, MPAC or ISNA, Friedman said.

The government’s intent in publishing the booklet is to help a “young foreign service officer who is going into a room in Indonesia or Nigeria, and those kids are looking at him and saying: ‘Don’t they hate Muslims in America?'”

“Being Muslim in America” is “essentially a picture book intended on disabusing people of the horrible myths of what goes on here. To get into [philosophical debates about the direction of Islam] in the context of a lighter essay detracts from the particular, narrow context of this publication,” he added.

NON-ISLAMIST MUSLIMS who have read the document strongly disagree.

Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims Against Shari’a, said the State Department booklet “absolutely” legitimates Muslim Brotherhood-type organizations and undermines non-Islamists like him. “It boggles my mind how people who are supposed to protect us [the government] are advancing our enemies’ agenda,” he told IPT News.

According to AIFD’s Jasser, by quoting Islamists like ISNA president Ingrid Mattson, the State Department is “reinforcing continued denial from Muslims that we have any role to play in a counter-jihad within Islam.” When the State Department gives a platform to members of organizations like CAIR and ISNA (while ignoring the other side), “it sets things back, telling Muslims they don’t have to reform their own house,” Jasser said. “You tell Muslims these [Islamists] are the people we need to deal with.”

In short, the State Department continues to send foolish – even dangerous – messages to both friends and enemies of freedom in the Muslim world.

The writer is the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a nonprofit research institute that investigates the threat of radical Islam in the United States and abroad. He is also the author of six books and one documentary, called Jihad in America.


Cartoon: Non Sequitur 16 May 09

May 27, 2009


Cartoon: GM 2011 New Car Line

May 27, 2009


Cartoon: Obama wooing us to sleep

May 27, 2009


Nidra Poller – Geert Wilders Up Close

May 26, 2009

Geert Wilders Up Close

Hudson Institute New York – Nidra Poller

May 22, 2009 12:28 PM | Nidra Poller

DSCN0939If elections were held in the Netherlands today, polls predict that Geert Wilders, chairman of the Party for Freedom, would be Prime Minister. Since breaking away from the Liberal Party, he has rapidly drawn support from all sectors of the population. And yet, the 45 year-old MP–sentenced to death for blasphemy by offended Muslims–has been living under 24/7 protection for the past three years. Far from defending Wilders right to free speech, the Dutch government is allowing a lawsuit against him for hate speech to be heard in the courts. And reputable media of all stripes commonly present Wilders as a “far right extremist xenophobe.” His offenses are ticked off—he disseminated “Fitna,” a “provocative” film that links terrorism to Islam; he says Islam is not a religion, Muslim immigration should be halted and if Mein Kampf is banned in Holland the Qu’ran should be banned too.

Is the “extremist” label useful? Does it help us evaluate Wilders’ credibility on the issues he addresses or does it serve to hide the essential truth of a life and death struggle between Islam and the free world? If Wilders is an extremist, the dangers he warns about can be downgraded. If his objections to Islam are motivated by xenophobia, wouldn’t it be normal for Muslims to react with indignation?

Let us peel off the label and take a close look at the man. Wilders, a frequent visitor to the United States, was the guest of honor at the April 25 – 28 Free Speech Summit organized by the Florida Security Council [] where he spoke to enthusiastic standing-room audiences. Wilders is not a rabble-rouser. He handles a red hot issue – Islam – with dignity. His arguments are rational, not emotional. They are based on ample documentation and broad experience, and he formulates them with political acumen. Wilders stands in defense of liberty against what he calls the totalitarian ideology of Islam and the cowardly surrender of European leaders. Shouldn’t he be allowed to speak freely?

Lord Nazir Ahmed threatened to send 10,000 Muslim protestors into the streets of London if Wilders–invited by Baroness Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson–were allowed to present his film, “Fitna” in the House of Lords last February. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith got the message. Wilders was refused entry.

Wilders never fails to mention his gratitude toward American authorities who place no obstacles to his frequent visits to the United States, a country he loves for its freedom. But Islamic intimidation emerged in Florida. Citing “security issues,” the Delray Beach Marriott franchise, owned by Michael and Mark Walsh of Ocean Resorts, broke its contract with the Florida Security Council two weeks before a scheduled dinner. After the Florida Security Council president, Tom Trento, investigated and found that no security threat had been detected, the Marriott replied, “We just don’t want you here.” A CAIR front organization, “United Voices for America,” approached the Florida GOP with a request for the removal of House majority leader Adam Hasner as punishment for attending a private dinner with Wilders. And the ADL upbraided the Dutch MP with a barrage of misguided respect for Islam.

What does Wilders have in common with other victims of death threats– Somali-Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, French professor Robert Redeker (, Indian writer Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard? None of them is an extreme right wing fanatic. What they share are negative opinions about Islam. Such opinions are permissible in the free world. And prohibited by Islam. Are Dutch citizens, voting in ever greater numbers for Wilders’ Party of Freedom, right wing fanatic extremists? Or honest people concerned about the rapid Islamization of their native land?

The massive influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe over the past three decades cannot be compared, either culturally or demographically, with the diverse waves of immigration that have shaped European–and American– societies. Apologists for Muslim immigration, who remind us that earlier waves of refugees suffered from discrimination and have now blended into our nations, are missing the point. Yes, immigrants were often slandered, mocked, and rejected. They were, even in the best of times, subjected to limitations, quotas, sanitary screening, financial and occupational requirements. And citizens of our democratic nations who opposed immigration were free to thrash out the issues in public and defend their positions. They were not stabbed, slaughtered, bombed, or silenced by death threats.

Whether one believes that Muslim immigration is another beautiful opportunity for diversity or an existential threat to Western civilization, there can be no doubt that western European nations are fast reaching a demographic tipping point on the path to becoming Muslim-dominated societies. These countries have already undergone a radical transformation of daily life. Again, some sing the praises of this Islamization, others warn of its dire consequences, but no one can deny that it is underway. Drawing on the works of Bat Ye’or and former imam Samuel Solomon, Wilders reminds us that this immigration fulfills a sacred obligation for Muslims to immigrate and transform host societies until the entire world submits to Allah.

Holland’s permissive social policies—open drug use in “coffee shops,” shop-window prostitution, euthanasia, gay rights, sexual freedom, live and let live tolerance–have collided with the sharia ethics espoused by a large and growing Muslim immigrant population. It is the realities on the ground—the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and to Wilders himself, and the constant intimidation and widespread criminality– and not some shameful rejection of “others” that leads Dutch voters to support the Party of Freedom.

Geert Wilders may represent a new breed in European politicians, capable of mobilizing the forces of self-defense in a country known for its progressive values. His strength lies precisely in placing the issue of Islamization at the center of his political platform. He does not apologize for his ideas, does not try to disguise them or tuck them in surreptitiously while singing the praises of diversity and pretending we are all alike. He forthrightly rejects cultural relativism, unashamedly defends Western civilization, and unambiguously supports Israel.

Unlike his European counterparts–and it would seem the current American administration–Wilders does not condition his support for Israel on painful concessions and forced surrender to questionable peace plans that would in fact spell the death of the Jewish state. His opposition to Islam is based on values, not on the rejection of Muslims as people. His defense of Israel and the United States—highly unpopular in Europe– is not opportunistic pandering to Jewish voters and influential Americans; it is based on shared values and a clear sense of right and wrong. At Free Speech Summit events Wilders elicited standing ovations from Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, blacks, whites, Asians…

In a private conversation I asked Geert Wilders the European question: “tell me about your family.”  It means: “where were they during WWII and the Holocaust.” Wilders was born in the southeastern town of Venlo, population 60,000. The east bank of the Maas River that divides the town is a few miles from the German border. Wilders’ father was in the Resistance. His grandfather was arrested.

And what took him to Israel at the callow age of 18? He was attracted by the beautiful Israeli girls. He lived for several years near Jericho at a time when cross-border attacks from Jordan often sent residents into the shelters. He returned to Holland, studied, worked, and became interested in politics when he saw things “going in the wrong direction.” His association with the Liberal Party, first as speech writer for Frits Bolkestein, then as a Member of Parliament, gave him the opportunity to travel extensively in the Middle East. As a young MP in 1998 he proposed legislation to curb Muslim immigration. “People thought I was crazy, but after 9/11 some remembered…”

We talked about the situation in other European countries. Cautious, well-informed, and determined to maintain his integrity, Wilders concentrates on coalescing power in his home base and avoiding questionable alliances. He has more to gain by developing his vibrant trans-Atlantic contacts than in seeking alliances at this point with any European party.

One of Wilders’ most virulent French critics, Noël Blandin of La République des Lettres, lumps him with “Islamophobes such as Oriana Fallaci, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Robert Redeker.” Accusing Wilders of “actively defending ‘Western values’ in his diatribes,” Blandin call him a “militant Zionist,” with ties to the Israeli secret services, who often visits Jerusalem, and regularly proposes legislation inspired by “racist Israeli laws.”

Europeans who saw enraged Muslims march through their streets in January shouting Death to the Jews, who see their police retreat and their governments surrender under Islamic pressure, are not convinced that the danger comes from a leader like Wilders who stands firm in the defense of Western values; the danger comes from European politicians who recklessly court the Islamic vote to the detriment of all citizens, whatever their origin or beliefs.

Free Speech Summit organized by the Florida Security Council

Boca Raton & Palm Beach

April 25-28, 2009

Introductions to Geert Wilders by Nidra Poller

I.                   Dinner at Mar Largo, Palm Beach, Florida

One of the most stunning lessons of history is how the unacceptable so quickly becomes inevitable, implacable,  unavoidable.

Western civilization is the triumph of liberty. And today, the life of a man can be threatened because he exercises his right to freedom of speech.

This is unacceptable.

When Islam reigns supreme infidels do not have the right to read the Qu’ran.

That is the meaning of death threats against Geert Wilders.

Geert Wilders stands before us. Stands up for us.

And that is why we are here tonight,

To stand with him.

2. Talk at Palm Beach synagogue (Rabbi Sheiner)

My role as writer is to shed light, underline, highlight certain aspects of reality, to restore elements that have gone into hiding precisely so that we will not grasp them and act on them.

The role of a politician is to provide leadership, to draw out of a society forces, ideas, and values that would slip away like rain water if it were not collected, harnessed, and applied for the general welfare.

This evening I want to focus on the unbelievable threats against the life of Geert Wilders. In the year of 2009 this man, this Dutch citizen, is the target of murderous hostility for speaking freely about the future of his own society.

Those who would silence Wilders accept no limits on their own freedom to speak and act. This you already know. There is no need to spell out the details.

But we must constantly exclaim: it’s unbelievable. Unbelievable that the multitudes in Europe have not stood up to defend Geert Wilders and, so doing, to defend their own rights.

Now we are hearing good news from Holland. The increasing success of Wilders’ Party of Freedom. This is a beacon of hope for other European countries. This is what we need to see—leaders who have been threatened by Jihadis and slandered by the faint-hearted step up, take over, and show how decent we are!

3. Republican Jewish Coalition


I have lived in France for 35 years, but I am American, and I will always be American. I am a Zionist, and I will always defend Israel. I am free, and I will not be enslaved.


Worst media of any nominally democratic modern country.

Don’t laugh. It can happen here too.


Proud of enlightenment philosopher Voltaire, who said:

Je ne suis pas d’accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu’à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire.”

But they are not quoting Voltaire these days.

And the Réseau Voltaire is the home town of Thierry Meyssan, best-selling author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.


Largest Muslim population of any European country…and growing. Largest Jewish population…and dwindling.

350 recorded anti-Semitic acts in January.

Shrugged off with a circumstantial argument: it’s because of the violence in Gaza.

So it doesn’t count.

Tell it to Jonathan Guez, his neck slashed within 2 milimeters of the carotid artery.

If the Israelis would stop persecuting the Palestininians, the unnamed, unidentified, faceless, featureless “youths” who attack French Jewish citizens in the streets of their country would fade into the background and the statistics would be beautiful again.

This is blackmail. Chantage, in French.


Most severe laws against anti-Semitism. Ask your local Consul Général. He will be sure to wave that magic wand in your face and banish your fears for Jews in France.

France doesn’t have laws specifically meant to punish anti-Frenchism. But many citizens are begging for recognition of and protection from this form of persecution.

France has laws. France has incidents. And never the twain seem to meet. Who committed those acts in January? How were they punished?

Let us not fool ourselves. The issue of freedom of speech that is staring down our throats today concerns one kind of speech: speech about Islam.

In France, you can say anything you want about Americans, Jews, Israelis, CEOs, and our own president.

But if you speak about Islam in such a way as to ruffle exquisite Islamic sensitivity, you put your reputation, your career, and in some cases your life on the line. Robert Redeker has been in hiding for two years, because he wrote critically about Islam in a major French newspaper.

The French prefer to forget him. I brought his case to light again in a Standpoint, February, article.

His op-ed was published in the wake of a worldwide Muslim rampage in protest against the Danish cartoons.

His words were condemned. The rage was allowed to make its point. A warning to those who would follow in Redeker’s footsteps and dare to speak freely.

Has our honored guest, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, been welcomed by French intellectuals? Has his cause been joined to that of Redeker? Where are today’s Voltaire’s, prepared to defend his right to freely express his opinions, his judgments, his program for the defense of European values?

No. Wilders is not defended in French media. He is wiped out with a few adjectives: extreme right wing xenophobic MP. Pam!

He is dismissed with a sigh of exasperation. The extreme right wing xenophobic MP says the Qu’ran should be banned. Pam!

The Bible is banned in Saudi Arabia. That does not disturb our European opinion-makers. It apparently does not disturb our American government either.

Why would a Christian nation bow down to extreme Islamic xenophobic Saudi Arabia, where the Bible is banned?

Jews are not welcome in Muslim countries. Jews who lived in those lands long before the jihad conquest were forced to flee. Why are those nations where Jews have been expelled and Christians are persecuted, not graced with the epithet “extremist Islamic xenophobic…”?

Free speech, like every other sacred value, can be withdrawn in the blink of an eye. And when you realize it has been withdrawn, how can you retrieve it, without freedom?

Free speech is not only the freedom to speak your mind. It is the possibility of making yourself heard. When the media fall under the spell of a political crooner and withhold vital information in the course of a crucial political campaign, free speech is drowned out by lethal lullabies.

Free speech, listen my fellow Americans, must be intelligent speech, delivered with reason, with logic, with sophisticated arguments. When every message is reduced to a cheap slogan, free speech is cancelled by idiotic mumblings.

Free speech demands courageous support for those whose freedom is curtailed by murderous enemies of our civilized values. This defense cannot be slow, lazy, distracted. It must be an immediate snap to attention, and mobilization of concerned citizens.

That is why we are here today to honor and defends Geert Wilders. How ever many stand by his side today, we will be multiplied tomorrow, and again and again until we become a majority of free citizens who stand proudly, with uplifted heads, hearts, and minds.

We will not be intimidated.

Nidra Poller


Why No Word Of Terror Bust From Obama?

May 26, 2009

Why No Word Of Terror Bust From Obama?

By MICHELLE MALKIN | 26 May 2009

President Obama’s speech last week on homeland security was 6,072 words long. Curiously, he chose not to spare an “a,” “and” or “uh” on the New York City terror bust that dominated headlines the morning of his Thursday address.

Did the teleprompter run out of room?

After a yearlong investigation launched by the Bush administration, the feds cracked down on a ring of murder-minded black Muslim jailhouse converts preparing to bomb two Bronx synagogues and “eager to bring death to Jews.”

They also planned to attack a New York National Guard air base in Newburgh, N.Y., where the suspects lived and worshiped at a local mosque.

Not one word from the president on the jihadists’ intended victims, motives or means. No comfort for the reported targets in the Big Apple, still raw from the Scare Force One rattling that so vainly and recklessly simulated 9/11. No condemnation for the accused plotters.

Why? Because doing so would force Obama to abandon his cottony “extremist ideology” euphemisms and confront the concrete truth. To borrow one of our obtuse president’s favorite cliches, “let me be perfectly clear” about the reality Obama won’t touch:

America faces an ongoing Islamic jihad at home and abroad. Not merely “man-caused.” But Koran-inspired. Yet, Obama refuses to spell out the centuries-old roots of the war that he claims he’ll win faster, better and cleaner than any of his predecessors.

Moreover, his push to transfer violent Muslim warmongers into our civilian prisons — where they have proselytized and plotted with impunity — will only make the problem worse.

A brief refresher course for the left’s amnesiacs about the festering jihadi virus in our jails and overseas:

In 2005, Bush officials busted a terrorist plot to attack infidels at military and Jewish sites in Los Angeles on the fourth anniversary of 9/11 or the Jewish holy days. It was devised by militant Muslim converts of Jam’iyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh (Arabic for “Assembly of Authentic Islam”) who had sworn allegiance to violent jihad at California’s New Folsom State Prison.

Convicted terror conspirator Jose Padilla converted to Islam during a stint at a Broward County, Fla., jail and reportedly fell in with terrorist recruiters after his release. Convicted “shoe bomber” Richard Reid converted to Islam with the help of an extremist imam in a British prison.

Aqil Collins, a self-confessed jihadist turned FBI informant, converted to Islam while doing time in a California juvenile detention center. At a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, he went on to train with one of the men accused of kidnapping and beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

In East Texas, inmates were recruited with a half-hour videotape featuring the anti-Semitic rants of California-based Imam Muhammad Abdullah, who claims that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were actually carried out by the Israeli and U.S. governments.

Federal corrections officials told congressional investigators during the Bush years “that convicted terrorists from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing were put into their prisons’ general population, where they radicalized inmates and told them that terrorism was part of Islam.”

Despite the insistence of Obama and the Jihadi Welcome Wagon that our civilian prisons are perfectly secure, convicted terrorist aid Lynne Stewart helped jailed 1993 World Trade Center bombing/N.Y. landmark bombing plot mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client’s court-ordered isolation.

U.S. Bureau of Prison reports have warned for years that our civilian detention facilities are major breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists. There are still not enough legitimately trained and screened Muslim religious leaders to counsel an estimated 9,000 U.S. prison inmates who demand Islamic services.

Under the Bush administration, the federal prison bureaucracy had no policy in place to screen out extremist, violence-advocating Islamic chaplains; failed to properly screen the many contractors and volunteers who help provide religious services to Islamic inmates; and shied away from religious profiling.

What’s Obama’s plan to prevent the jihadi virus from spreading? Washing hands and covering mouths won’t work for this disease.


The Next Oil Shock

May 26, 2009

The Next Oil Shock


Energy Policy: A top expert tells Congress that oil will be around for a long time and high inventories and low prices are no excuse not to find more. Oil shock? How about a no-oil shock?

Be careful what you wish for, goes the old proverb. Well, as we all had hoped, energy prices have fallen — but only as part of the global decline in economic activity. This has been used as an excuse to further discourage exploration for and development of domestic oil resources. But if the economy does recover, that policy could provoke another recession.

Daniel Yergin, chairman of HIS-CERA, testified before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress last week that we have already experienced a “demand shock” with very high prices driven by rising global demand led by the economies of China and India.

We’ve also experienced what he calls a “recession shock” with flat or falling demand and low prices. But there might be another “long aftershock” in our future with high demand returning with a vengeance along with a global economic recovery, leaving those who buried their heads in the oil sands in the economic lurch.

The current recession has wiped out demand growth for the last four years. Oil prices have tumbled $100 a barrel or more from their high point. Spare production capacity is expected to be 6.5 million barrels per day through 2009. Anticipating a robust future, other countries such as China and Brazil have continued to look for oil while we continue to research . . . switch grass.

Interestingly, as Yergin notes, current spare capacity is equal to the combined total output of Iran and Venezuela — or the combined exports of Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria.

These are three of the most unstable nations on the earth, and two of them are implacably hostile to the U.S. This does not bode well for our economic and energy security.

While low prices and excess capacity sound good, they could vanish like the morning dew. The long lead times, up to a decade for a new field, needed to expand capacity and replenish supplies should compel us to drill like there’s no tomorrow — for there might not be.

Oil will continue to be a big player in our energy mix no matter how many windmills we tilt at or how many clown cars we place in front of 18-wheelers on our interstates.

“Today,” Yergin notes, “fossil fuels — oil, natural gas, and coal — supply over 80% of our total energy. Oil by itself is about 40%. That alone makes clear the importance of oil — and the evolution of the oil market — to our economy and security in the decade ahead.”

America’s oil and natural gas energy needs will grow. A study by ICF International, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, finds that our domestic energy resources placed off limits by Congress in ANWR, in Rocky Mountain shale and in the Outer Continental Shelf could generate more than $1.7 trillion in government revenue and create thousands of new jobs.

The irony is that in North America we have enough oil to ensure our energy and economic security. The U.S. and Canada together hold 15% of the world’s proven reserves, and that’s not even including the potential of American oil shale and Canadian oil sands — which are massive.

The current decline in demand has also sparked a decline in investment and added further justification for its deliberate policy of thwarting any expansion in domestic supply.

“As the economy picks up, spare capacity will start to erode, and the oil market could tighten again in the first half of the next decade,” Yergin said. “The result could be another adverse shock to the U.S. economy and global energy security.”

The result could be another recession where we drive to the unemployment office in our government-designed clown cars.