Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation– “A U.N. Declaration of Religion?” –Chapter 10
A United Nations Declaration of Religion?
The totalitarian ideology of Islam only recognizes Shari’ah Law, which violates the Constitution in several ways. Islamic Shari’ah Law violates the First Amendment granting freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. It violates the Fifth Amendment requirements for a grand jury and due process of law. It violates the Sixth Amendment granting legal council and an unbiased jury for criminal offenses. It violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, since rights in Islam are only relative to Shari’ah Law, it violates the tenth amendment guaranteeing that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people.
Article Two of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights is repeated from Chapter One to stress its severity:
“(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.”[1]
The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand Islamic Shari’ah law in the West. If adopted, the UN Defamation of Religion resolution would make it illegal in Islamic dominated countries, and countries that reach them via the Internet, to hold discussions, to debate, have opinions, or point out historically accurate information that describe Islam unfavorably. Cruel and unusual Islamic punishment methods of stonings, hangings, amputations, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates, sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, and the legitimization of modern Islamic slavery could be practiced worldwide regardless of ones religious persuasion.
The OIC’s Declaration on Human Rights in Islam makes it clear that the UN Defamation of Religion resolution is based on, and would adhere to Islamic Shari’ah law, legalizing discrimination against women and non-Muslims, criminalizing free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. In persistent efforts by the OIC, the so far non-binding UN Defamation of Religions resolution has received landslide votes every year since 2005. The OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution requiring UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam.
The Defamation of Religion resolution is rightly viewed by concerned non-Muslims as contradictory to human rights. The purpose of the UN as set forth in its charter is “to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.” Peace, security, and human rights are for people, not belief systems, therefore religious opinion is not susceptible to the dictates of the UN.
On March 28, 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted for a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on cases where freedom of expression is “abused.” Such “abuse” of freedom includes using free speech to analyze Islamic doctrine, and criticizing Islamic doctrine that somehow “justifies” violence against non-Muslims.
The U.S., Canada, and European countries abstained from voting on the 2008 Special Rapporteur Resolution, but no nation voted against it. What would cause them to not take a stand? Perhaps they do not take Islamic doctrine at its word, or perhaps they are intimidated by the presence of OPEC nations. Any sane human being would have to wonder if they are terrified cowards, the recipients of bribery, dangerously naïve, extorted; or all of the above.
The UN resolution threatens those who try to inform others about the Islamic manifesto to Islamize the world. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian, is an example of a victim of the twisted definition of freedom of expression. GeertWilders lives in hiding for producing “Fitna,” a forthright documentary that accurately reveals the aggressive Islamic manifesto to make the world submit to Islam according to the dictates of the Koran.
Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer wrote an article together when Geert Wilders was prosecuted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for his statements about Islam. Wilders and Spencer wrote that:
“Civilized states have no business participating in a forum that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric strictures of sharia.” [2]
Justifiable concerns are that the resolution will eventually criminalize the practice of Christianity and Judaism under international law. According to the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a United States non-profit organization that launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide, anti-defamation started as a plan to specifically ban defamation of Islam, but wording in the document was later modified to sound like it includes all religions. [3]
An article, “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals,” by Bob Unruh, dated September 10, 2008, for World Net Daily, said that the ACLJ’s European division, the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), submitted arguments in June 2008 to the UN opposing the proposal:
“The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.”
The brief noted that in Islamic dominated countries, the laws protect Islam and harass religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution. Unruh’s article revealed concerns of many who understand the definitive consequences of the resolution, citing an ECLJ quote that said:
“The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty.”
The ACLJ said, in promotion of its petition opposing the resolution, that:
“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry.” “This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.” [4]
The resolution draft submitted in March 2008 only claimed discrimination against Muslims specifically. It condemned a growing trend of “Islamophobia,” which is itself a derogatory term for those who oppose Islamic standards. It hypocritically expressed concern over negative stereotyping, urging a provision of “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion results from the defamation of any religion.” Without mentioning any other religions, it would make the proclamation of other faiths an international crime because in Islam, it is a crime to have any other faith except Islam. This is itself an act of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, coercion. Actually, it is extortion.
Durban I, a committee preparing for a conference held in Durban, South Africa, April 2009, was principally incompatible with U. S. interests and the Constitution because the plan contained offensive references to limits on free speech, contained anti-Israel and anti-Jewish provisions while alleging the victimization of Muslims are a result of counter-terrorism “racists.” The U.S. and Israel walked out of Durban I—but without standing up for the U.S. Constitution and Israel.
Durban II was held in Geneva in April 2009. Its planning committee consisted of a Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, a Cuban rapporteur, with Russian Yuri Boychenko presiding.[5] Anne Bayefksy, an observer of the UN who runs the EyeontheUN.Org website, wrote about the U.S. State Department team Barack Obama sent to the February 2009 planning conference for Durban II in a Forbes column:
“The Obama administration’s decision to join the planning of the UN’s Durban II ‘anti-racism’ conference has just taken a new twist: ‘cover-up’. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn’t. The Feb. 20[2009] State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva ‘outline our concerns with the current outcome document’ and in particular ‘our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism.”
Baefsky wrote further that a member of the delegation told The Washington Post that Obama’s delegation did not object to framing Israel in “an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.” Baefsky also wrote that:
“Obama’s Durban II team slipped easily into the UN’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that ‘fitting in’ was best accomplished by staying silent.”[6]
European states to boycott Durban II were undermined when the US agreed to participate. France, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were considering boycotting but found it unrealistic for ally countries to disengage because U.S. participation effectively legitimized it.
A Human Rights Council session in March 2009 preparing for Durban II opened with Human rights authorities from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Senegal, and the OIC. The opening statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General of the Durban II Conference had a demeaning tone:
“The Review Conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This, in my view, is completely unwarranted…Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good.”
Iran’s representative who spoke next, contradicted himself by saying:
“The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the timely decision of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council for holding the Durban Review Conference in 2009. We are of the view that the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process can provide the international community with an ample opportunity to take stock of the Durban commitment as well as to further strategize in the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and to address their contemporary forms and manifestation with a view to adopting further initiatives and actions. The struggle against racism has led to a persisting manifestation of racism and intolerance including racial and religious profiling and the rise of Islamophobic incidents in certain parts of the world.”
The last statement is illogical and hypocritical, as it clearly says the struggle against racism begets more racism. It further labels those who disagree with Islam as “Islamophobes”, while blurring the distinction between race and religion.
At the exclusion of followers of every religion except Islam, the draft adopted in March 2009 mentions the word “Muslim” four times, and the plural “Muslims” one time. Near the end of the document, a request was made for the Special Rapporteur to report cases of Islamophobia in particular.
Then, the April 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, did not include the word religion in its name as it previously had. Its official name was “World Conference Against Racism” (WCAR). The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and even the United States. Twenty-three European Union countries sent low-level delegations, and the Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day. Concerns were that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws contrary to free speech.
On the first day of the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist.” Ahmadinejad’s attendence was controversial because of his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust, such as statements accusing the West of using the European Holocaust as a “pretext” for aggression against Palestinians.[7]
The UN-sponsored “Alliance of Civilizations” reflects the views of the OIC and mimicks the UN Defamation of Religion resolution. A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca explains the Alliance mission to internationally criminalize defamation of Islam as a form of racism:
“The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism.” [8]
Along with various sovereign states, members of the Alliance include the OIC, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League, and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. There is no representation from Israel in the Alliance.[9] Obama was scheduled to attend an Alliance meeting in April 2009, but the White House did not confirm if he actually did.
After Bush resisted years of such initiatives at the UN, the Obama Administration is co-sponsoring with Egypt, another anti-free speech resolution at the UN. This resolution has no immediate effect in law but provides Muslim countries with ammunition when they feel central tenets of Islam are being challenged. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council in early October 2009, it calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” [10]
The real hate and discrimination is directed against non-Muslims in the UN Defamation of Religion. The U.S. has no business participating in alliances and organizations that endorse a specific religion or in any way limits free speech. Against all the freedoms enjoyed and valued in the West, if we remain members of the UN, we will not only be assimilated into a one-world government, but a Shari’ah one-world government that dictates everything from finances to personal and religious rights. All that the Constitution stands for is being mocked and abused by even allowing such an organization to convene on American soil.
Avaible Now!!!
[1] “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-Rights-in-Islam/1.html
[2] Wilders, Geert & Spencer, Robert; “2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech,” January 26, 2009, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBhOTYyZWYzYjQ2MDUxOWI2OTU2YTY4Yjc2ZmFlMTk=&w=MA
[3] “Petition Opposing The Organization of Islamic Conference,”, https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359
[4] Unruh, Bob; “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals” , July 10, 2008, http://propheticnews.net/content/view/6380/67/
[5] Bayefsky, Anne; “A Foreign Policy of Obsequiousness,” February 17, 2009, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTNlNmE3NDdkMTc0M2I4ODYyYjI1YTNlMmM2N2VjYzU
[6] Bayefsky, Ann; “The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel,” February 22, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html
[7] “Durban Review Conference,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_II, May 11, 2009
[8] Gaffney, Frank Jr.; “Gaffney: “Friends of the Muslim Brotherhood are no friends of America,” March 16, 2009, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025266.php
[9] Rosett, Claudia; “The UN’s Alliance of Civilizations,” March 26, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/25/alliance-of-civilizations-opinions-columnists-obama-un.htm
l[10] Spencer, Robert; “Obama Declares War on Free Speech,” October 8, 2009, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33869
4 comments January 15, 2010
“The Agenda of Islam”
By Professor Moshe Sharon
Link to original article
A War Between Civilizations
The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between
the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based
on the Koran. And this must be clear.
There is no fundamental Islam. “Fundamentalism” is a word that came
from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by
the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the
Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no
fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how
the Koran is interpreted.
All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are
politicians in the western world. They know better than all the
speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against
anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians
know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to
differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to
read a word of Arabic.
The Language of Islam
You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in
fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam
in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak
about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of
parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own
dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists
in the world says that doing is like a cricket reporter describing a
cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or
civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the
language of Islam.
Driving Principles of Islam
Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam.
Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only
one God.
But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to
acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohamed is his prophet.
These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one
cannot be a Moslem.
But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave
first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the
individual, society and nations with rules of behavior. If you are
Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are
set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings
of the Bible.
The Bible
Let me explain the difference.
The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very
long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let
me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the
Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.
In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that
wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the
idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.
The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal
salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation which, from time
to time, meet each other.
But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each
individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through
His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are
talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the
Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this
fact of salvation.
Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly
important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God.
Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God.
Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside
down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the
name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their
fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of
salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.
The Essence of Islam
Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea
that it should rule the world.
Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions.
Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the
story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own
land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about
the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his
sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in
Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a
verse in English. “Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that
it should rule over all the religions.”
The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world
at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule
of Islam.
When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years -
640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken
from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet
Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians
could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic
superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and
Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.
Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems
Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before
him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham
was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and
Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and
all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history
is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.
Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets
brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat,
which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the
Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament.
The Bible vs. the Koran
Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?
Mohamed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had
they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the
Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam
concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].
Nevertheless, the laws a very clear – Jews and Christians have no
rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic
rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.
Islamic Rule and Jihad
What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules
of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called
Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept
the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be
Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many
Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is
against the Jews and Christians.
A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world
by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the
Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but
because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There
are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet
there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are
desecrating the home of the prophet.
Two Houses
The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come
under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic
rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very
clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it.
The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s
the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar
al-Harb – the house of war. Not the “house of non-Muslims,” but the
“house of war.” It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of
time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war
until it comes under Islamic rule.
This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has
sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will
overcome all other religions.
Islamic Law
Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern
the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict.
In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.
However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with
differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over
the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these
schools of laws.
The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of
Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the
meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war.
There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations
over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened
in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought
traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should
not be killed in war.
These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is
very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is
extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of
the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other
schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the
Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the
Hanbali school of law that is being followed.
Islam and Territory
This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about
territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-
Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes
over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be
perpetually Islamic.
This is why whenever you here about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear
- territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the
conflict, but territory is highly important.
The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious
opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for
which it was created.
Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every
single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies
in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how
he dies, because – and this is very important – this is an eternal word
between the two civilizations. It’s not a war that stops. This was is
there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is
a war that will not end.
Islam and Peace
Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only
be between Moslem and Moslem.
With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only
one solution – a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an
eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic
side wins.
The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this
idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent,
which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in
Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.
Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace – you wouldn’t
believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading
some science-fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe
that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with
Islamic policies and civilization.
A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to
Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he
apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews
which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of
Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat
continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed
did.”
Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What
Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet
had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But
then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their
city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.
Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states
that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.
Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the
jihad [thus breaking the "peace" agreement].
In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to
understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems.
It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that
they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is
virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war
and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German
terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.
Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice
What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is
too strong. It is a tactical choice.
Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating
conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under
humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in
Johannesburg.
When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are
you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the
mechanisms of politics.”
Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where
power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of
it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or
biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.
Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an
impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major
component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is
weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab
world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has
been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.
Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War
The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is
because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you
have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic
civilization.
What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What’s
happening between Pakistan and India?
Islamic Infiltration
Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic
world has not only the attitude of open war, but there’s also war by
infiltration.
One of the things which the western world is not paying enough
attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western
world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something
that came from the outside. And if America doesn’t wake up, one day the
Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an
atomic war – inside the U.S.
End of Days
It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of
days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the
vision of the end of days.
In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah – peace between nations, not
just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more
need for weapons and nature will be changed – a beautiful end of days
and the kingdom of God on earth.
Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself
is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That’s the vision.
I’m speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the
end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally
Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final
victory.
Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic
traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by
somebody and they’ll be replaced by the Christians.
The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of
days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should
be killed. I’m quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from
the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be
killed. They’ll be running away and they’ll be hiding behind trees and
rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees
and they will say, “Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill
him.” Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental
of Islam.
Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?
The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will
happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?
The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is
reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.
But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse
of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam
by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one
meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave
mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule,
now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule;
Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.
And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over
Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.
I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support
each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds
itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister
civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the
help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can
be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to
salvation.
This article is adapted from a lecture presented at the Feast of
Tabernacles Celebration 2001* by Professor Moshe Sharon. Sharon
received his Doctorate in Medieval Islamic History from the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem. He has served as an Advisor on Arab Affairs to
former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as well as the Ministry of
Defense. Prof. Sharon is a former director of the World Zionist
Organisation branch in Johannesburg, South Africa and currently
lectures as professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University.
Other on-line articles by Prof. Sharon:
· “Palestinian Ideology And Practice: 5 Years After Oslo” · Word
Wizards
Other resources on Islam:
· the Muslim-Christian debate website · Reaching out to Muslims
* Feast of Tabernacles Celebration 2001 was sponsored by ICEJ
This article is provided for information purposes only. It does not
necessarily represent the views of the MJAA
Moshe Sharon has studied Islam for 35 years, and he believes Americans
need to understand the fundamentals of the faith. “They ought to know
that Islam divides the world into two parts: one part that is already
under the rule of Islam, the other part which must come under the rule
of Islam in the future. And this can happen either if the rest of the
world, which is non-Islamic, succumbs to Islam or is conquered by
Islam.”
This division of the world was reflected within bin Laden’s recent
statement. He said, “These events have divided the whole world into two
sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels.”
[/source]
International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues Young
Messianic Jewish Alliance Messianic Conference
3 comments January 11, 2010
A NEW CENTURY OF CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: THE UNTOLD MIDDLE EASTERN CRISIS
by Srdja Trifkovic
Link to original article
A book that relates the untold story of the murder of 45 million
Christians in the 20th century alone has caused controversy in Italy.
The author of The New Persecuted: Inquiries into Anti-Christian
Intolerance in the New Century of Martyrs, Antonio Socci, has been
accused that by raising the issue of Christian suffering in the Muslim
world he “demonizes Islam.”
Socci provides evidence that in the past 2,000 years some 70 million
Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of
their faith, two-thirds in the past 100 years alone, with Joseph Stalin
as the chief culprit. He says that an average of 160,000 Christians
have been killed every year since 1990, the vast majority by Muslims in
the Third World. Chronicling attacks, pogroms and wars in East Timor,
Indonesia, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, India, and the Balkans, Socci
identifies Islamic extremism as the main danger. And yet, says he,
“This global persecution of Christianity is still in progress but in
most cases is ignored by the mass media and Christians in the west.”
Western indifference to Christian suffering, documented by Antonio
Socci, is well illustrated by the recent standoff at the Church of the
Nativity in Bethlehem, one of the holiest Christian sites in the Holy
Land, which was re-consecrated last month after being occupied by Arab
gunmen and besieged by the Israeli army for 38 days. While extensively
covered because of its photogenic value and its potential for further
bloodshed, the stand-off has caused hardly a ripple in the Western
world on what should be the obvious grounds for media scrutiny and
public concern: the misuse and abuse of a Christian shrine by warring
non-Christians in pursuit of their political objectives. The Bethlehem
episode is thus illustrative of two parallel processes overlooked in
the current Middle Eastern crisis: the apparently terminal decline of
the Christian remnant in the Middle East after two millennia of
precarious and mostly painful existence, and the remarkable
indifference of the post-Christian Western world to its impending
demise.
Already by their choice of the stage for what soon became a propaganda
exercise the Muslim gunmen who occupied the church desecrated the
basilica built on the site of the grotto where Jesus Christ is believed
to have been born. They ate the food they found on the premises until
it ran out, while more than 150 civilians went hungry. They consumed
alcoholic drinks that they found in priests’ quarters, undeterred by
the Islamic ban on drinking alcohol. They tore up Bibles up for toilet
paper. They turned one corner of the ancient church into an impromptu
mosque. They even attempted to bury seven of their comrades, who were
subsequently killed by Israeli snipers, inside the church or on its
grounds-obviously intending to turn one of the holiest Christian
shrines into a place of Islamic pilgrimage to the fallen “martyrs.”
It may be worth noting that when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount,
two years ago, the world reacted angrily to what was interpreted as a
gesture calculated to inflame the Muslims, and Palestinians treated his
mere presence near the al-Aqsa mosque as sufficiently provocative to
justify a new intifada. Their double standards and cynicism are
breathtaking, but they were not the only ones to treat Christian
shrines with contempt.
Two weeks before the siege of the Church of the Nativity, as Israeli
forces stormed into Bethlehem, an Israeli tank shell hit the facade of
the nearby Holy Family Church, in a complex with an orphanage, hospital
and hostel. The soldiers then fired, from fifty yards’ distance, at the
statue of the Virgin atop the Holy Family Church. The statue lost its
left arm and its face was disfigured. The Israeli army expressed regret
and promised investigation, but this did not look like an accidental
shot: no terrorist could possibly hide behind the figure on the
pinnacle of the hospital church. The story was reported by Reuters, and
a picture taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world
media but ignored.
These two incidents illustrate the predicament of the dwindling
Christian remnant in the Middle East. Once thriving Christian
communities are now minorities squeezed between the warring Jews and
Muslims who may hate each other but all too often share their aversion
to Christianity. Within Israel the indigenous Christians, as Arabs, are
regarded as indistinguishable from Palestinian Muslims, and have
suffered accordingly. In 1948 two-thirds of the Palestinian Christians
were driven from their homes with the creation of a Jewish state.
Within Arafat’s Palestinian Authority the Christians are viewed with
distrust as non-Muslim. They resent Israeli incursions and occupation
as much as their Muslim neighbors, but they also feel uncomfortable
amid the tide of Islamic radicalism-symbolized in the rise of Hamas-
that has engulfed the Palestinian community. They are also deliberately
exposed to Israeli reprisals by their Muslim compatriots: in the West
Bank city of Beit Jala Muslim gunmen chose the rooftops of Christian
homes as sites from which to fire on neighboring Jerusalem.
Institutionalized or covert discrimination to which Christians are
subjected in Syria, Israel, Egypt, and Lebanon, accompanied by
occasional eruptions of anti-Christian violence by the Muslim majority
in the last two countries, have contributed to an exodus that threatens
to eradicate the believers in Christ in the lands of his birth and
life.
At the outset of the Islamic conquests under Muhammad’s successors all
of these lands were 100 percent Christian. At the outset of the Ottoman
rule they had a Christian plurality, and in Palestine and Lebanon the
outright majority. Under the British Mandate, Palestine officially was
a Christian country, with Bethlehem having a population that was 90
percent Christian. Today they are literally disappearing. Among almost
three million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem,
only 50,000 Christians remain. Within the pre-1967 borders of Israel
there are six million people; only 2 percent are Christians. In the
city of Jerusalem the Christian population has declined from 45,000 in
1940 to a few thousand today. At the current rate of decline, the
Christian population will be a fraction of one percent in the year 2020
and there will be no living church in the land of Christ. It is a cruel
irony that the plight of indigenous Christians remained invisible to
hundreds of thousands of Christians from Europe and North America-from
mainstream churches and fringe groups-who descended on the Holy Land to
mark the 2,000th anniversary of their faith.
If the Jewish or Muslim population of America or Western Europe were to
start declining at a similar rate, there would be an outcry from their
co-religionists all over the world. There would be government-funded
programs to establish the causes and provide remedies. The endangered
minority would be awarded instant victim status and be celebrated as
such by the media and the academe. By contrast, when the President of
the United States visited Jerusalem in October 1994, he was steps away
from the most sacred Christian shrines but did not visit any of them.
He did not meet a single representative of the Christian community that
remained invisible to him. Eight years later, as busloads of American
evangelicals still come to the Western Wall in pursuit of their dream
of a rebuilt temple that will provide an eschatological shortcut
through history, the remnants of that community are on the verge of
extinction.
UNDER THE PROPHET’S SWORD
At the time of Muhammad’s birth Christianity had covered, outside
Europe, the ancient Roman province of Asia extending across the
Caucasus to the Caspian Sea, Syria with the Holy Land, and a wide belt
of North Africa all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.
Christians numbered over thirty million by A.D. 311, in spite of
imperial persecution that often entailed martyrdom. Most of them lived
not in Europe but in Asia Minor and Africa, the home of many famous
Christian fathers and martyrs, starting with St. Paul of Tarsus, such
as St. Augustine, Polycarp of Smyrna, Tertullian of Carthage, Clement
of Alexandria, Chrysostom of Antioch, Origen of Tyre, or Cyprian of
Carthage. The Seven Churches of Revelation were all in Asia Minor.
(Smyrna was the last of these, and kept her light burning until 1922,
when the Turks destroyed it, along with its Christian population.)
Between Muhammad’s death in 632 and the second siege of Vienna, just
over a thousand years later, Islam expanded-at first rapidly, then
intermittently-at the expense of everything and everyone in the way of
its warriors. Unleashed as the militant faith of a nomadic war-band,
Islam turned its boundary with the outside world into a perpetual war
zone. When Muslims conquered the hitherto Christian lands of the Middle
East in the 7th century the subject peoples were not immediately aware
of the momentous quality of what had come to pass. For many dissident
Christian groups that had been denounced as heretical in Europe, it
seemed preferable at first to be ruled by largely absentee non-
Christian overlords who cared only about taxes and did not feel
strongly one way or another about the finer points of Christology.
Slaughters did occur in the initial wave of conquest: during the Muslim
invasion of Syria in 634 thousands of Christians were massacred; in
Mesopotamia between 635 and 642 monasteries were ransacked and the
monks and villagers slain; while in Egypt the towns of Behnesa, Fayum,
Nikiu and Aboit were put to the sword. The inhabitants of Cilicia were
taken into captivity. In Armenia, the entire population of Euchaita was
wiped out. The Muslim invaders sacked and pillaged Cyprus and then
established their rule by a “great massacre.” In North Africa Tripoli
was pillaged in 643 by Amr, who forced the Jews and Christians to hand
over their women and children as slaves to the Arab army. They were
told that they could deduct the value of their enslaved family from the
poll-tax, the jizya. Carthage was razed to the ground and most of its
inhabitants killed. Nevertheless, since dead bodies paid no taxes,
while the captives were an economic asset, once the conquerors’ rule
was firmly established a degree of normalcy was reestablished at the
communal level.
For a long time the outcome of the early onslaught was in doubt. The
first wave of attacks on Christendom almost captured Constantinople
when that city was still far and away the important center of the
Christian world. The Greeks stood their ground against Islam for
another six centuries. But the Muslims also conquered Spain, and had
they gone further the Kuran -in Gibbon’s memorable phrase-might have
been “taught in the schools of Oxford” to a circumcised people: the
Muslims crossed the Pyrenees, promising to stable their horses in St.
Peter’s at Rome, but were at last defeated by Charles Martel at Tours,
exactly a century after the prophet’s death. This defeat arrested their
western conquests and saved Europe.
The last attempt in pre-postmodern times, going through the Balkans,
took the Sultan’s janissaries more than halfway from Constantinople to
Dover (1683). On both occasions the tide was checked, but its
subsequent rolling back took decades, even centuries.
The Crusades were but a temporary setback to Islamic expansion, and the
source of endless arguments that sought to establish some moral
equivalence between Muslims and Christians at first, and eventually to
elevate the former to victimhood and condemn the latter as aggressors.
Far from being wars of aggression, the Crusades were a belated military
response of Christian Europe to over three centuries of Muslim
aggression against Christian lands, the systemic mistreatment of the
indigenous Christian population of those lands, and harassment of
Christian pilgrims. The postmodern myth, promoted by Islamic
propagandists and supported by some self-hating Westerners-notably in
the academe-claims that the peaceful Muslims, native to the Holy Land,
were forced to take up arms in defense against European-Christian
aggression. This myth takes AD 1095 as its starting point, but it
ignores the preceding centuries, starting with the early caliphs, when
Muslim armies swept through the Byzantine Empire, conquering about two-
thirds of the Christian world of that time.
INTOLERANCE CODIFIED
On the eve of the First Crusade the prominent Islamic scholar Abu Ala
Al-Mawardi prepared the formal blueprint for the Islamic government,
based on the Kuran, the Tradition, and the practice of the previous
four centuries of conquest. It reiterated the division the world into
the House of Islam, where umma has been established, and the House of
War inhabited by Harbis, that is, the rest of the world. The House of
Islam is in a state of permanent war with the lands that surround it;
it can be interrupted by temporary truces, but peace will only come
with the completion of global conquest. The progression was from Dar al
Sulh-when the Muslims are a minority community, and need to adopt
temporarily a peaceful attitude in order to deceive their neighbors
(Mecca before Muhammad’s move to Medina is the model for which the
Muslim diaspora in the Western world provides contemporary example)-to
Dar al Harb, when the territory of the infidel becomes a war zone by
definition. This happens as soon as the Muslim side feels strong enough
to dispense with pretense.
The example was provided by Muhammad, who accepted a truce with Mecca
when he was in an inferior position but broke it as soon as his
recuperated strength allowed, and offered his pagan compatriots the
choice of conversion or death. In Europe today the early signs of this
forthcoming stage, amounting to a low-intensity civil war, are visible
in ethnic disturbances in English and French cities, when young
English-born Pakistanis or French-born North Africans venture out from
their no-go areas. The final objective all along is Dar al Islam, where
Muslims dominate and infidels are at best tolerated, at worst expelled
or killed. This applies even to “the people of the book”:
Declare war upon those to whom the Scriptures were revealed but believe
neither in God nor the Last Day, and who do not forbid that which God
and His Apostles have forbidden, and who refuse to acknowledge the true
religion until they pay the poll-tax without reservation and are
totally subjugated. The Jews claim that Ezra is a son of God, and the
Christians say, ‘the Messiah is a son of God.’ Those are their claims
that do indeed resemble the sayings of the Infidels of Old. May God do
battle with them!
The Muslims are obliged to wage struggle against unbelievers and may
contemplate tactical ceasefires, but never its complete abandonment
short of the unbelievers’ submission. This is the real meaning of
Jihad. Indeed, in certain contexts and in certain times it may also
signify “inner striving” and “spiritual struggle,” but to generations
of Muslims before our time-and to an overwhelming majority of believers
who are our contemporaries-the meaning of Jihad as the obligatory and
permanent war against non-Muslims has not changed since Al-Mawardi’s
time. At all times, according to Allah (i.e. Muhammad), “Those who
believe fight in the cause of God.” For the fallen and victorious
alike, the rewards are instant and plentiful.
Add comment January 11, 2010
Welcome to the White House–”Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation”– Chapter 8
8
Welcome to the White House
Direct relations were established between the White House and the Muslim community under Bill Clinton from 1992-2000, and were strengthened under George W. Bush’s administration from 2000-2008. Bill Clinton was the first to commend Islam in public speeches, and the first to issue invitations to the White House on Islamic holidays such as a yearly dinner celebrating the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan that continued through George W. Bush’s Administration and into the Barrack Obama’s.
The State Department established an Islamic website in 2000, proving that Bill Clinton’s administration was actually sanctioning Islam in the White House while the pledge of allegiance and nativity scenes were being systematically removed from schools and public institutions. Furthermore, the date was prior to 9/11. Madeline Albright formally encouraged Muslims to apply for the Foreign Service as she endorsed the website at the White House hosted Islamic dinner in 2000:
“I am pleased that since last year the State Department has inaugurated a new website entitled Islam in America.” Its purpose is to help people everywhere learn more about the positive force that Islam has become in American life and about the growing role of Muslim Americans as they are there to play a role in ensuring the security, prosperity, and freedom of our land. Equally vital are the international exchange and people-to-people programs we conduct with Muslim-majority nations. These efforts bring distinguished Muslim visitors to our shores to exchange views and promote understanding… We are strongly encouraging young Muslim Americans to apply to the Foreign Service as part of our overall effort to attract talent and promote diversity…”[1]
A 2009 program sponsored by the department called Citizen Exchange Program gives a grant to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the National Peace Foundation to co-sponsor a citizen exchange project between the U.S. and the Middle East. The ISNA is instrumental in financing and exercising control over most of the mosques in the United States, and is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood that created Hamas. The program is apparently a one-way exchange, as it is meant to explore Islam, the functions of Islamic institutions in the United States, and the activities of interfaith work. Professionals from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates will visit the United States, and American professionals will visit the Middle East. [2]
Former Reagan Defense official, and President of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney Jr., wrote a lengthy article in 2003 describing how Islamists and individuals from the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) were invited into the White House. According to Gaffney, Grover Norquist was a conservative coalition builder against Communism in Central America, Africa and Afghanistan who he knew personally. Norqist formed the Islamic Institute in 1998 as an outreach organization, initially financed by Abdurrahman Alamoudi who was also Bill Clinton’s Islamic Affairs Advisor and financial supporter. Its stated purpose was to cultivate Muslim-Americans and Arab-Americans with conservative family values. Their professed confidence in capitalism made them potential Republican Party allies for the 2000 Presidential election.
Alamoudi, convicted in 2004 on terror financing related charges, cultivated ties with the Democratic Party during the Clinton Administration and donated to its candidates. His donations enabled his access to the White House, leading to oversight of selection, training and certification for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military. Self described supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, Alamoudi was the Saudi billionaire who helped Bill Clinton write the 1995 Educational Guidelines that were distributed to American schools across the nation, profoundly effecting what our children learn in school in spite of States sovereignty regarding education. Alamoudi addressed the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) in 1996 with the following statement:
“If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.”
Alamoudi was caught on tape complaining that Osama bin Laden had not killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. Alamoudi was also one of Al-Qaida’s top fund-raisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.[3]
Alamoudi and his business partner, Khalid Mahfouz, founder of terror-tied Muwafaq Foundation, funded a software company in 1994/1995 named Ptech. Ptech was given control of some US top-secret IT programs, and Ptech had redesigned, and ran the FAA system on September 11, 2001.[4] Khalid Mahfouz had previously endeared himself to George W. Bush in the late 1980s with a $25 million bailout of the Harken Energy Company which Bush had financial interest in.[5]
In 1998, Alamoudi wrote two personal checks for $10,000 each to help start Norquist’s Islamic Institute. According to Gaffney, Alamoudi also made payments in 2000 and 2001 totaling $50,000 to a lobbying firm Norquist was associated with.
Alamoudi was arrested and charged in 2004 for engaging in illegal financial transactions with the Libyan government through a charity used by Qadhafi to finance terrorist operations. According to an affidavit filed at the time, Alamoudi admitted to trying to take $340,000 in sequentially numbered $100 bills to Syria, en route to Saudi bank accounts. Alamoudi told authorities in Britain that once the Libyan funds were in the Saudi banks, he could withdraw from them in $10,000 increments to pay the expenses of organizations that he was associated with in the United States. He admitted to undertaking other similar transactions involving amounts of $10,000- $20,000.
In addition to the initial $20,000 from Alamoudi, the Islamic Institute was able to receive funding from other secretly affiliated organizations. The Washington Post described such organizations as a:
“Secretive group of tightly connected Muslim charities, think tanks and businesses based in Northern Virginia used to funnel millions of dollars to terrorists and launder millions more.”
Published tax returns and foundation records later showed that the majority of the Norquist’s Islamic Institute funds came from Arab Persian Gulf states and their U.S. funding system, a number of which were later raided by federal anti-terrorism task forces, such as The Holy Land Foundation in Texas. Shut down in 2007, The Holy Land Foundation was found to have been funding Hamas and terrorist organizations overseas. So the Islamic Institute was effectively an Islamic charity meant to spread Islam.
Norquist, trusted in Washington, was toasted in 2003 at a black-tie dinner for his nationwide initiatives to memorialize Ronald Reagan. Attended by nearly 300 conservative activists and politicians at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, it was hoped that the event would bring in votes and campaign contributions for Republicans. Most in the audience were unaware that Norquist had been enabling causes of radical Islamists funded by Saudi Arabia during Bush’s Administration.
With untold consequences for the nation, the Director of Norquist’s Islamic Institute, Khaled Saffuri, and deputy to Alamoudi regarding its affairs, enabled Islamists to influence the American military, the prison system, the educational system from K-12 through university level, and the political arena.
A Palestinian by birth, Saffuri reportedly supported families of suicide bombers. He was also active in Muslim-supported operations in Bosnia. Saffuri would later denounce President Bush for shutting down the Holy Land Foundation.
At Norquist’s suggestion in the summer of 1999, Gaffney moved his Center for Security Policy into Norquist’s new office space, which also housed the “Wednesday Group” meetings and the Saffuri-headed Islamic Institute. Gaffney attended the weekly meetings, which Saffuri also attended in the late 1990’s. Though the meetings were supposed to be comprised of conservative activists and libertarians, Gaffney noted that participants rarely, if ever, addressed national security issues.
In 2000, Saffuri was George W. Bush’s presidential campaign National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs in an effort to obtain votes and donations from states with significant Muslim populations. In February 2001, Insight Magazine reported:
“In September 2000, on Karl Rove’s way to the airport to catch his flight back to Texas, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, joined Rove in his car. Saffuri explained to him that the vote of the Arab-American community, which includes both Muslims and Christians, still was up for grabs. The community is prosperous and could be the source of considerable campaign contributions. If Bush would mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans, Saffuri told Rove, he would win their hearts, their minds and their support.”
President Bush held a meeting in Austin on May 1, 2000 with Alamoudi, Saffuri, and some other immoderate Muslims. The National Journal reported on the event:
“It was the summer of 2000, and for George W. Bush, the meeting held the promise of an unusual but important endorsement for his presidential bid. Conservative activist Grover Norquist had persuaded the Republican nominee to sit down with leaders of the Muslim American Political Coordinating Committee, a confederation of four Muslim community groups.”
Gaffney recounted that influential Washington conservatives, would-be politicians, think-tank associates, journalists, and an increasing number of lobbyists attended the Islamic Institute presentations. The topics included the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, the misunderstood Islamist government of Sudan, the supposed innocent process of selecting Muslim chaplains for the armed forces, the so-called honored status of women in the Muslim world. Discussions include efforts to promote Islamic causes and candidates within Republican circles.
A few weeks after 9/11, Gaffney spoke up about the fact that Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council (AMC) was among the groups invited to the White House. Gaffney wrote of his observation that the AMC’s website featured a link called: “Know Your Rights,” which led to a statement urging Muslims not to talk to the FBI. A linked statement was in the name of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF). The NCPPF is a legal aid office for terrorists, and an organization which the AMC was a member. The link disappeared and was subsequently denied after Gaffney brought it to Norquist’s attention. While the link was active, the AMC had been scheduled to meet with the President to discuss how Muslims could supposedly help with the war on terror.
Sami al-Arian, a professor at South Florida University, was then president of the NCPPF. He was also Secretary of the worldwide governing council of the terrorist organization, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) who Alamoudi had addressed in 1996 and has been held responsible for suicide-bombings.
Despite al-Arian’s radical Islamist sympathies, the Bush campaign met with him to gain Muslim support in Florida. A photograph of Bush with al-Arian in March 2000 received considerable attention after al-Arian was arrested on forty terrorism-related charges in February 2003 and sentenced to 57 months in prison.
With credit for time served, Al-Arian was supposed to serve the balance of 19 months and then be deported. He was not deported however, because in March 2008 he refused to testify when the Department of Justice issued a subpoena for him to appear before another grand jury. As a result, contempt charges followed in June 2008, and in September 2008 Al-Arian was released from detention on bond and placed under house arrest to await the trial for contempt.[6]
Al-Arian’s arrest in 2003 was made possible by the Patriot Act, enabling U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share the wiretaps of Sami al-Arian coordinating Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operations from his Tampa office.
Recognizing that the Patriot Act was a threat, the Islamists were determined to discredit it and its architect, then Attorney General John Ashcroft. Various Islamic groups together with the ACLU, the pro-Castro National Lawyers Guild and waged a national campaign against the Patriot Act, and Ashcroft left his position early in Bush’s second term.
Norquist was part of the coalition to rescind the Patriot Act and also behind efforts to abolish a section of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act permitting “secret evidence.” With secret evidence, prosecutors can withhold classified information from foreign suspects if authorities have reason to believe the disclosure of such information could compromise the sources and methods through which it was obtained.
Banning secret evidence became an Islamist priority when undisclosed classified information linked Sami al-Arian’s brother-in-law, Mazen al-Najjar, to terrorist activities. In order to keep Islamist financial support, in the second presidential debate with Al Gore, Bush formally pledged that if elected, he would comply and prohibit the use of secret evidence. The pledge complied with Saffuri’s previous suggestion to “mention in public just a few of the issues that concern Arab-Americans.”
Grover Norquist was awarded for being a “champion of the abolishment movement against secret evidence” in July 2001 at an event held by Sami al-Arian called the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Islamist groups were reportedly scheduled to meet with President Bush to hear his plan to abolish the secret evidence provision in the Patriot Act. Al-Arian had arranged to participate in the meeting from Florida by telephone. According to his website, his teaching schedule at the University of South Florida would not allow him to be at the White House in person that day.
In February 2003, Sami al-Arian was arrested again, this time charged with being an alleged leader of the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in the United States, and Secretary of the “Shura Council,” a worldwide group governing the PIJ. Al-Arian’s attorneys rested without defense. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Moody criticized al-Arian for doing nothing to stop terrorist bombings perpetrated by Islamic Jihad saying:
“You lifted not one finger. To the contrary, you laughed when you heard of the bombings…You are a master manipulator. The evidence is clear in this case. You were a leader of the PIJ.” [7]
Sami Al-Arian son, Abdullah, was the subject of national media attention when he was escorted out of the White House event by the Secret Service in June 2001, where al-Arian was one of 150 Muslim-American activists in a White House briefing.
Abdullah’s removal led to a walkout by other attendees at the meeting, who labeled the incident as “racial profiling.” The Deputy Director of the Secret Service issued a written apology to Abdullah, and President Bush personally called Abdullah’s mother to express regret and to promise that nothing like that would happen again.
Probably as a result of Abdullah’s expulsion, the Secret Service was notified that they could provide only physical security possibilities, such as potential assassins. Agents were informed they were not to protect the President from embarrassments such as resulting from meetings with terrorist-apologists, or even from actual terrorists. If unarmed Islamists could find a way to access the President and his subordinates, law enforcement and intelligence professionals understood they could do nothing unless the President’s life was threatened.
In the aftermath of 9/11, Grover Norquist gained access for several individuals and groups as part of Muslim outreach efforts, and established Islamist connections with the Bush administration. A memo dated early in 2001 was an effort to coordinate Muslim and Arab-American public events. Invitees to the White House events were chosen by Norquist’s Islamic Institute.
According to Gaffney, Norquist’s Islamist friends exploited President Bush after 9/11 by sponsoring meetings and hosting White House dinners that only pro-Islamist Muslim-American and Arab-American communities received invitations to, excluding non religious Middle Easterners.
The White House invitation list included key members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad is another self-professed Hamas-supporter and, as will be discussed in a later chapter, harbors a radical agenda. According to Gaffney, The Washington Post featured a photograph of President Bush touring the Washington Islamic Center with Nihad Awad and Khaled Saffuri. As Gaffney put it, the photo was part of a public relations coup that would:
“…exploit the President’s laudable and strategically sensible desire to show that neither he nor the American people would hold all Muslims responsible for the murderous actions of the few.”
Nihad Awad and CAIR continuously opposed Bush’s policies on Homeland Security and the War on Terror. They even sued Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Moeller.
The White House invitation list also included Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, who had attended a rally two days prior to 9/11 to support a former AMC executive, Jamil Al-Amin, former Black Panther currently serving a life sentence for killing a policeman. Al-Amin converted to Islam when he was in prison from 1971-1976 for robbery. At the rally Shaykh Yusuf declared,
“This country is facing a terrible fate…This country stands condemned. It stands condemned because of what it did – and lest people forget Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands” [8]
“What it did” implies guilt, but states absolutely nothing. Could it mean that Hitler was working in Islamic interests in WWII? After all, Hitler had Islamic allies in WWII, and he raised an army of 20,000 Bosnian Muslims.[9]
Nevertheless, Gaffney wrote that shortly after 9/11, the FBI went to Yusuf’s house to question him about the attack on the World Trade Center. Yusuf’s wife informed the agents that Yusuf was not home because he was meeting with the President. The FBI checked out her story and found that Yusuf had attended an “inter-religious” meeting in the Oval Office arranged by Suhail Khan as Grover Norquist’s White House stand-in. [10]
In September 2001, Muzammil Siddiqi, the president of the Board of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was also on the White House invitation list. With deep ties to Saudi Arabia, Siddiqi was previously a top figure in the Muslim World League (MWL), whose American headquarters were raided in March 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism during the U.S. government’s Operation Green Quest. [11]He was Chairman of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Muslim Students Association in the U. S. and Canada, and a member of the Fiqh Council, another organization that has been raided. [12]
Siddiqi opposes Muslims serving in the U.S. military or defending the United States. Siddiqi said in an article entitled, “Basic Principles of Involvement in War in Islam,” in 1991.
“Islam will not allow a Muslim to be drafted by non-Muslims to defend concepts, ideologies, and values other than those of Islam…A Muslim shall not defend non-Muslim lands.”
Siddiqi wrote in 1996 of his desire for the United States to become a Muslim country through “gradual change,” and said that Islamic Shari’ah Law should become America’s law.
“Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”[13]
At the inter-religious prayer service for the 9/11, victims held at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001, Siddiqi would not condemn terrorism in statements heard worldwide. [14]
Siddiqi was later photographed with President Bush in the Roosevelt Room of the White House as he presented him with a Koran.
The invitation list included Agha Saeed, founder and president of the American Muslim Alliance (AMA). Saeed created the American Muslim Political Coordination Council (AMPCC), an umbrella group to unite the American Muslim Council (AMC), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
Eric Erfan Vickers, a black radical American attorney on the invitation list had converted to the Islam. He was affiliated with several Wahabbi groups before he was the AMC executive director from June 2002 until February 2003. In defense of al-Arian, Vickers declared
“What has happened to professor Arian…is happening to Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent all over this country. They are being discriminated against.” [15]
In 2003, Vickers wrote to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, requesting the organization look into the U.S. government investigation of Muslim groups with possible terrorist ties, referring to the investigation as “un-American practices by the U.S. government.” He wrote,
“I am writing to request that the United Nations begin an immediate inquiry into the political repression of Muslims and Arabs . . . by the United States government.” [16]
Mahdi Bray, also on the list of what Gaffney described as the “Wahhabi Lobby” was usually as a coordinator for political activism. By mid-October of 2003, Bray had overseen the training of nearly 1,000 Islamic activists.[17] Bray leads several pro-Islamist organizations in America, and is a former member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). He hosts a radio talk show that reflects the views of, and is sponsored largely by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia.
In November 2003, some of the above Muslim groups were finally excluded from the White House invitation list dinner, presumably due to the arrests of their associates. Gaffney wrote that the ISNA, CAIR, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Muslim Students Association and several other Wahhabi-backed groups and individuals then depreciated the White House events as:
“…the events were nothing more than props shamelessly used by the Bush Administration.”
After the exclusion of the groups, the FBI Director and supervisory agents continued to meet with representatives of the AMC, CAIR and ISNA, even though associates of each had been the object of law enforcement action. The FBI had once allowed the groups to provide sensitivity training to FBI agents in Quantico, Virginia. The “community outreach,” program has allowed Islamists to gain power and influence in America while exploiting their relationships with U.S. Federal agencies. [18]
With less than 3% of America’s population Muslim, there is still an Islamic dinner at the White House every year. More recently there is a USPS stamp and the State Department has a new publication called “Being Muslim in America.” America was not founded on Islam yet the White House officially endorses Islam at the taxpayer’s financial, political, social, and religious expense.
[1] “American Government Officials And Politicians are Interested In Islam,” http://www.riseofislam.com/islam_in_america_04a.html
[2] Rabinowitz, Beila & Mayer, William; “State Department Funding ISNA’s Propagation of Islam via Citizen Exchange Program,” April 25, 2008, http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3442
[3] “Lawsuit’s Claim: CAIR No Longer Even Exists,” November 24, 2008, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81925
[4] “The Sheik and the Secretary of State,” National Corruption Index.org, January 12, 200,9 http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=guest-suggestions&thread.id=557
[5] “Ptech,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptech
[6] Sami Al-Arian; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Al-Arian
[7] “Ex-Professor get 4 Years in South Florida Case,” May 1, 2006 http://news.oneindia.in/2006/05/01/ex-professor-gets-over-4-years-in-florida-jihad-case-1146512148.html
[8] Hanna Rosin and John Mintz, “Muslim Leaders Struggle With Mixed Messages,” Washington Post, October 2, 2001
[9] “Bosnian Muslims Volunteer En Masse Into Nazi SS,”
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/ww2/hanjar.html
[10] Jonathan Kaufman, “Islamerican: Meet Hamza Yusuf, ‘Rock Star’ of a Leader Among U.S. Muslims,” The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2002
[11] “Guest CV: Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi,” IslamOnline.net, http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=uY6w39
[12] “Guest CV: Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi,” IslamOnline.net, http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/english/Guestcv.asp?hGuestID=uY6w39.
[13] Schlussel, Debbie; Adam’s Gadahn’s Extremist American Imam,” May 28, 2004 http://www.debbieschlussel.com/columns/column052804.shtml
[14] Charles Krauthammer, “The Silent Imams,” Washington Post, November 23, 2001
[15] Segment entitled, “Should FBI Director Robert Mueller deliver the keynote address to the American Muslim Council tomorrow?” Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC, June 27, 2002
[16] “ Eric Erfan Vickers,” A Guide to the Political Left http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=751
[17] “MAS Freedom Near to Reaching Goal of 1,000 Trained Activists,” Freedom Foundation Press Room, October 16, 2003, http://masnet.org/pressroom_release.asp?id=560
[18] Gaffney, Frank; “A Troubling Influence,” December 9, 2003, http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C7CD908B-6D7E-49EB-A0A9-DA0A18745A29
1 comment November 16, 2009
The Bush Dhimmi Doctrine–”Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation–Capter 7
7
The Bush Dhimmi Doctrine
Many Americans proclaim that President Bush successfully protected America from terrorism after September 11, 2001. Even though terrorists did not attack U.S. soil again after 9/11, Bush’s policy allowed terrorists to infiltrate and harm America with a strategy that is leading to our self-destruction. Bush’s, “war on terror” was based on a premise that defers terrorism to “a few” extremists, not the Islamic doctrine itself. The premise was, and still is, that Islam is somehow reformable after being given a bad reputation.
The Bush dhimmi doctrine endorsed Islam as “peaceful” even though Bush acknowledged that slaughtering and intimidation of non-Muslims had become a global pandemic. This includes good Muslims fighting bad Muslims as in Iraq and Afghanistan. But to protect the lives of American citizens and keep oil flowing into the U.S., Bush dutifully spoke of a peaceful Islam.[1]
A 2007 article titled “Bush Administration Moves to Legitimize the Muslim Brotherhood,” by William Mayer and Beila Rabinowitz, reported that the Bush Administration’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research hosted a meeting to discuss opening more formal channels to the Islamic “brothers.”[2]
President Bush named Iran, Iraq and North Korea the “Axis of evil” because of the part they played in helping terrorism and ability to obtain weapons of mass destruction. It is interesting that he did not include Saudi Arabia as a part of the Axis of evil even though 9/11 terrorists were Saudis funded by Saudis, and Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi terrorist who is from a prominent Saudi family.
It is telling that Saudi Arabians (supposedly our friends) are mostly Wahabbi-Sunnis, and Iranians (supposedly not our friends) are mostly Shiite. The two countries, close to the same size, compete for power in the Persian Gulf. America has taken sides with the Saudis because they have more oil which we buy from them, and as a result they have acquired enormous strategic investments in the world and in American market and financial system. In other words, they pull the strings and we react. In a visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2008, Bush discussed a civilian nuclear deal with Saudi King Abdullah, reportedly part of an effort to protect the kingdom’s vast oil reserves, pipeline distribution system, and borders, allowing the Saudi’s to join a global initiative to combat nuclear terrorism, enhance the protection of nuclear systems, and improve detection and confiscation of illegally held nuclear material.[3]
Bill Warner, who runs the online newsletter, “Bulletin of Cultural Annihilation,” wrote about the Bush Islamic Doctrine, defining “dhimmis” as non-Muslims who apologize for Islam, such as the media, willing professors, financiers, preachers, priests, politicians, pundits and rabbis, George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama.
Dhimmitude effectively disallows the truth of Islamic history, denies the way Islam is presented in the Koran, and denies a Koran based manifesto of Islamic aggression. Attributing Islam to the terror and horrible murders would certainly incite more hate from terrorist murderers and their proponents. In highly promoted interfaith dialogues, religious leaders meet and claim they worship the same god. However, the Christian and Jewish leaders have not actually read the Koran. Without reading it, one cannot claim to know anything about the Koran. Furthermore, merely reading the Koran does not prove that its revelations are from the God of Judaism and Christianity.
Responding to a barbaric Islamic act, a dhimmi will predictably reply that Christians have done bad things, too….and there is violence in the Bible too. A dhimmi will defend a doctrine they know virtually nothing about, saying such as “jihadists are fundamentalist radicals but most Muslims are just like everybody else” and, “I know a Muslim who is nice.” A dhimmi believes that just because he thinks a Muslim is nice to him, then Islam is good. Afraid to challenge a Muslim for fear of being called Islamophobic or unfair, a dhimmi would rather not hear historic evidence that is uncomfortable. A dhimmi does not initially realize that he is being set up to accept and apppologize for Islam. Believing Islam is peaceful enables stealth jihad through deception, intimidation, policy, and other methods.
The media does not admit the extent that pure Islam is involved in terror attacks. For example, the 2009 incident in Mumbai, India was motivated by Islam but Muslims were never mentioned.
Real “terror” distracts us from seeing the other terror-less, stealth, or “peaceful” forces of jihad. Bill Warner lists sword, pen, tongue and money as the four forms of jihad. The State Department relies on indoctrination through the so-called peaceful methods for the gradual Islamization of America.[4]
President George W. Bush made it clear when he entered office that he opposed efforts to secure our nation’s borders. His guest worker amnesty programs encouraged the greatest influx of illegal aliens in the history of our nation. While the majority of people who migrate to the United States may simply want a better life and hope to become loyal Americans, there are many others who are motivated with a desire to harm our nation.
Today terrorists can easily penetrate our borders, embed in mainstream society, build compounds, and access weapons of mass destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of American deaths. The 9/11 Commission staff report on terrorist travel stated it had identified numerous entry and embedding tactics associated with earlier attacks in the United States. The report revealed that prior to September 11, 2001, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement unwittingly worked together to support terrorist activity. The 2000 census estimated 8 million illegal aliens in the United States. Today that number is estimated to be over 13 million, with around 7 million of them in the workforce.[5]
That total includes individuals who entered the United States without proper documentation and those who entered legally but overstayed or violated their visas or terms of entry. The threat of Muslim fundamentalist attacks is not the only price to pay for unsecured borders. Illegal immigration affects education, the economy, health care, the environment, criminal justice and national security. Not withstanding that reports indicate that illegal aliens in the U.S. have a crime rate two and a half times that of legal aliens[6] and account for around 30% of the inmate population in federal correctional institutions.[7]
Americans are losing jobs at an unprecedented rate while illegal immigration reportedly costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Because many immigrants are poor, increasing numbers add to the burden of disadvantaged groups. An estimated cost of illegal immigration is approximately $340 billion dollars a year.[8] As an alternative, The National Policy Institute estimates the cost of mass deportation for all of the illegal immigrants would be between $206 and $230 billion.[9]
In 2005, four to five million illegal aliens entered the U.S. at our Southern Borders. The number reportedly includes as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana also crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.[10]
Due to lack of staff personnel and detention facilities, Islamists and potential terrorists can enter the U.S. legally because applications are not always checked for fraud or potential terror connections. Potential terrorists can also obtain student visas to enter the country and stay indefinitely, knowing the Federal Government will likely never search for them if they overstay their visas. By September 11, 2001, visa’s of three of the 9/11 hijackers had lapsed, thus they were in the country illegally, even though all nineteen had entered legally.
The Bush dhimmi doctrine did not prevent the operation of thirty-five potential terrorist training camps in the U.S. The compounds are believed to be run by Sheik Mubarak Ali Gilani, who is known for allegedly setting up journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. Daniel Pearl was abducted on the way to meet with Gilani, and eventually beheaded.
Reported in an interview between Sean Hannity of Fox News and Martin Mawyer of Christianaction.Org, Sheik Gilani is reportedly a direct descendant of Mohammed, and his followers believe Gilani speaks for Allah. The interview between Mawyer and Hannity revealed that though the group claims to be peaceful, they appear to have a sinister agenda. A videotape uncovered by the Christian Action Network was titled “The Soldiers of Allah.” It features Sheikh Gilani teaching American followers guerilla warfare tactics such as scaling mountains, subduing enemies, murdering guards, hijacking cars, kidnapping, weapons training, and setting off explosives. Sheik Gilani is reportedly quoted as saying:
“We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
Explaining how to kill American Infidels, Gilani reportedly said:
“Act like you are his friend. Then kill him.”
Sheik Gilani’s thirty-five communities extend from New York, to South Carolina, to Seattle, Washington, and Texas. The compounds are owned by a Pakistani based group, Jumaatul-Fuqra, otherwise known as Muslims of America in the U.S. When Mr. Mawyer’s organization investigated, they learned that the group is allowed to continue primarily because they are protected by state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution. Mawyer said that “law enforcement hands are tied in trying to shut these groups down,” even though local field officers believe the group has weapons of mass destruction.[11]
Hezbollah members are known to be raising money in the U.S., and have long been believed to be bringing suite case dirty booms into the U.S. to await further instructions. Across the border, Hezbollah in Mexico is believed to train Mexican drug cartels in gorilla terror tactics. Reportedly, the Mexican drug cartels have adopted the terrorist tactics of kidnappings and beheadings.
Islamic terrorists sell cocaine from Afghanistan to the Mexican drug cartels, and pass profits on to Hezbollah and other Islamic terrorist groups. An anonymous Mexican Army officer said that Hezbollah is believed to be teaching the Mexican drug cartel the art of bomb making. An anonymous U.S. law enforcement official confirmed that forensic evidence ties Hezbollah bomb experts to roadside explosions in Iraq. In Mexico, police stations and government buildings are at risk of the terrorist training designed to combat the Mexican Army, Mexican Police, American Special Forces and DEA agents. News reports have confirmed that effects of the terrorist training are beginning to be seen throughout Mexico and the bordering U.S. states.
Homeland Security has said that Hezbollah members already operating in the U.S. probably have contact with other Hezbollah members in Mexico and around the world.
Mexican deaths linked to organized crime grew historically in 2008. The first one thousand deaths occurred by around April 14; the next one thousand by July 2; reaching 3000 by September 10, and 4000 by October 28. At the end of 2008, 6000 deaths were linked to organized crime.
Texas officials reported that dozens of individuals wounded in the Mexican state of Chihuahua are treated in an El Paso hospital. From Texas to California, drug-related dangers and violence is so high that Mexico is off-limits to U.S. Military personnel. Americans who normally cross the border to travel, shop and conduct business, no longer feel safe in Mexico. [12]
ABC News reported in early February 2009 that Phoenix, Arizona had become the kidnapping capital of America. Phoenix reportedly has more incidents than any other city outside of Mexico City. The Phoenix Police Chief, Andy Anderson said that the transgressions are a result of Mexico’s drug cartels expanding into the U.S. The report revealed that over 370 kidnappings occurred in Phoenix in 2008, with many of them connected to Mexico’s drug cartels as criminal activities have spilled over the U.S.-Mexico border. The report revealed that ransoms not paid promptly result in “horrific cases of chopped-off hands, legs and heads.” [13]
Human trafficking has also become widespread as a result of lax immigration enforcement. The Department of State estimates are that between 18,000 and 20,000 victims are trafficked into the United States each year. Since 2001, more than 20 percent of the human trafficking victims have been found in Texas. [14]
The Bush administration did not hire enough special agents for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or enough Border Patrol agents for years. In a March 2005, a hearing titled “Interior Immigration Enforcement Resources,” before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, testimony by the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller, addressed the urgent border issue:
“In 2004, we learned that operatives had conducted detailed surveillance of financial targets in New York, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey . . . a sobering reminder of the threat we continue to face…There is the threat from covert operatives who may be inside the U.S. who have the intention to facilitate or conduct an attack. I remain very concerned about what we are not seeing. Efforts by extremists to obtain training inside the U.S. is also an ongoing concern.”
Lack of agency funding severely undermines the national objective to not have to fight the war on terror inside America. Testimony at the 2005 hearing stressed that illegal immigrants are often released into the U.S. because sufficient funds to detain and hold them were not allocated in a timely manner, even though Congress had authorized the funds. Without sufficient detention facilities, non-Mexican detainees released on their own recognizance were ordered to appear at deportation hearings weeks later. The number of released illegal immigrants who did not return was in the hundreds per week.
Employer sanctions were abandoned because of inadequate numbers of detention beds and a lack of ICE Agents during the Bush administration. According to information from the Congressional Research Service, in 2004 alone the U.S. Border Patrol released 35,000 detainees described as “other than Mexican” due to a shortage of beds.[15]
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 authorized 800 new ICE investigators for 2006 through 2010, however, President Bush’s initial budget only requested funding for 143 new ICE investigators for 2006. Lack of funding also led to cancellation of ICE academy training in the latter part of 2005, affecting training for approximately 900 immigration and enforcement employees.
In 2004, Congress provided funding to hire 2,000 new Border Patrol agents with an additional 2,000 new Border Patrol agents for each of the next 4 years, to bring the total to 10,000. Leading to what would become a crisis, Bush and his administration significantly reduced the number of new Border Patrol agents from 2000-2004 to 210.
In 2006, President Bush announced he would hire 6,000 additional Border Patrol agents before he left office. To meet those numbers, agents were hastily hired with reduced training. Though the agency was on its way to meeting the president’s goal before he was ready to leave office in 2008, The National Border Patrol Council criticized a hasty last minute hiring process, with resulting reduced educational requirements, shortened training periods and inadequate screening. The agency’s union president, T.J. Bonner said:
“They want the best and the brightest, but they’re going about it in the wrong way…They’re rolling the dice with our homeland security.”[16]
When the U.S. Homeland Security Department’s Office of the Inspector General conducted 79 investigations into corruption among federal agents along the border in 2007, they found cases had risen from 31 in 2003 to some 200 cases by July 2008.[17]
A justifiable concern is that the hasty hiring process provided for criminals and terrorists to obtain sensitive positions. If the Bush administration had immediately and effectively used all the funds allocated by Congress, the eligibility of new Border Patrol agents might not have become an issue.[18]
Another very serious threat to American’s security is bringing in displaced Muslims from war-torn countries under the guise of “humanitarianism.” For nearly a decade, Bill Clinton and George Bush have systematically imported Muslims, by tens of thousands per year for each group. The Bush administration flew 1,000 Iraqi refugees into America every 30 days in 2008 alone. It is estimated that another 17,000 Iraqis arrived in 2009. These immigrants are comprised of Sunni and Shiite Muslims adversaries that have battled and killed each other for hundreds of years.[19] The 1990 census counted only 2,070 immigrant Somalis in the U.S.[20] Since then, hundreds thousands of Muslim Somali immigrants have also arrived in the United States. The U.S. provides for their immigration, supposedly proving compassion for the disadvantaged Muslims. What is contradictory is that we then bend our policy to accommodate their way of life—which is what they left or fled in the first place. Because accommodation encourages propagation of Islam to the extent of affecting American freedoms and traditions, an agenda beyond compassion is clear.
Seventeen Chinese Muslims terrorists known as Uighurs captured in Afghanistan living at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 have admitted to receiving weapon training from the Taliban. Being held pending efforts at resettlement, the Uighurs were cleared for release in 2004, but the Bush administration could not find another country that was willing to accept them. The Chinese call them terrorists and some fear that if they return to China, they will be tortured. Other countries fear reprisal from China if they accept them.
In October 2008, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina, a Bill Clinton appointee, ordered their immediate release into Washington D.C. stating he did not “understand why that would not be a viable option.” Prior to the decision, Justices voted 5-4 to allow Islamic terrorists held in Guantanamo the right to challenge their detention by filing habeas corpus petitions in American federal courts.
Prior to Urbina’s ruling, a Chinese Foreign Ministry representative said that the Uighurs are thought to be members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. The group is recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. And the Bush administration said the Chinese terrorists are a national security threat. The Bush administration, along with millions of Americans, stood against Urbina’s decision. The district court’s ruling could be used as precedent for other Guantanamo Bay detainees including those suspected of planning the 9/11 attacks. This means that if Obama closes Guantanamo, many more Islamic terrorists could end up in the U.S. In fact, now that Obama is president, he wants to move detainees to Michigan, where they could be eligible for a jury of their peers, and where a high percentage of Muslims have settled.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted that our nation is at war with radical Islamists, therefore the ruling would make the war more difficult on Americans, and could lead to more American deaths. [21]
So far the release efforts have been unsuccessful because the court lacks authority to direct the government to bring them to the U.S., however the Uighurs no longer have restricted conditions.
A September 2005 report titled “Immigration and Terrorism: Moving Beyond the 9/11 Staff report on Terrorist Travel,” reviewed the immigration histories of 94 terrorists who operated in the United States from the early 1990s through 2004. The report findings show widespread terrorist violations of immigration laws, and describe how terrorists in the country use weaknesses in the system to remain in America.
Fraud is often used to gain entry into the U.S., and to remain in the country. In some instances, terrorists claimed they lack proper travel documents and applied for asylum at their port of entry. Some terrorists acquire various forms of fake identification, including driver’s licenses, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and immigration arrival records. Once in the United States, they can become legal permanent residents, and often marry Americans in sham marriages. Through various means, terrorists can easily become naturalized U.S. citizens.
Terrorists in America understand they can easily embed themselves in U.S. communities and carry out operations related to terrorism and espionage. In addition to physically attacking our nation, terrorists in the U.S. can gather intelligence, establish “safe houses” and generate funds to enable their terrorist organizations to conduct operations around the world. They are able to acquire jobs that provide them with access to critical infrastructure such as federal agencies, airports, seaports, border crossings, nuclear power plants, and military bases. They obtain positions for contractors that work with the federal government and the United States military. They work in our meat and food processing plants. They can also work at water processing plants, enabling access to America’s food and water supply.
The fourteenth Annual Arab International Festival, 2009 drew some 250,000 attendees. Sponsored by the Ford Motor Company, the American Arab Chamber of Commerce, the FBI, the CIA and various branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, the event was a recruiting ground for all branches of the U.S. Military. Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force recruiters promised American citizenship to every Middle-Eastern immigrant who enlisted– under the condition that they were Muslim. “The United States Army” in Arabic script adorned G.I. issued uniforms. The FBI set up a booth to recruit Muslim agents, and the CIA conducted raffles to entice young Islamists.
Muslims were not prohibited from distributing and selling Islamic books and materials at the festival but Christians who dared to attend the festival were prohibited by law from distributing religious materials pursuant to an order prior to the event from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds. Dearborn police kept watch for Christians who might violate the ruling even though Christians have never disrupted the event in the past.
Some of the army recruits were sent to Ft. Hood in Texas where Major Nidal Hasan was stationed.[22]
Major Nidal Hasan, an Army Major serving as a Psychiatrist was one of around 40 Muslims stationed on Ft. Hood, and 15,000 Muslims in the military fired on 43 fellow soldiers, killing 13 as he cried “Allahu Akbar.” Major Hasan, who claimed to be “a Muslim first and an American second,” had previously said that “Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor,” and “Muslims had a right to attack” yet apologists for Islam dhimmis were quick to claim his murderous action was were not really Islamic.[23]
Hassan completed residency at Walter Reed Army Hospital where his ideology was well known.[24] He had worshipped at the same mosque in 2001 as two of the 9/11 hijackers and once gave a lecture to doctors at Walter Reed saying that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. Colleagues questioned his loyalty but were hesitant to complain because of political correctness.[25]
In May 2007, six men were arrested for plotting to attack Fort Dix with assault weapons. Albanian Muslim immigrants from the Balkans were convicted in December of conspiring to target Fort Dix in the crime inspired by al-Qaida, proving that jihadists do plot inside America. [26] They said their ideology and hatred for America was the motivation for their plot to kill U.S. soldiers. [27] The men were brothers who had lived illegally in the U.S. after they crossed the border through Mexico in 1984.[28]
An American black convert to Islam shot 24 year-old soldier Pvt. William Long, and wounded 18 year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. Investigators believed the shooting specifically targeted military personnel, and motivated by political and religious views.[29]
The story of a young woman from Lebanon provides an excellent example of a terrorist infiltrating the FBI and the CIA. Nada Nadim Prouty entered the U.S. on a student visa, which expired in 1988. She overstayed her visa and obtained resident alien status through a fraudulent marriage, which enabled her to successfully gain U.S. citizenship. After becoming a naturalized citizen, she used her fluency in foreign languages to get a job as an FBI special agent. Her FBI position led to a position for the CIA before it was discovered that she had used her security clearance to access database information on Hezbollah. Prouty provided classified information to Hezbollah through her brother-in-law, Talal Chahin.
An investigation revealed that Chahin, who allegedly laundered over $20 million to Hezbollah through his Michigan restaurant chain, had arranged Pouty’s fraudulent marriage. Investigations revealed that Prouty had disclosed the sensitive information to Chahin on three investigations in which he was involved.
Prouty’s family in Lebanon is noted for its involvement with the Syrian National Socialist Party, which has the objective of forming a greater Arab state that will include Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Cypress and part of Turkey. Intelligence sources revealed that Prouty’s cousin, Nidal Al-Aouar, was a terrorist who set roadside car bombs in Lebanon on behalf of Syria after training North Korea and the old USSR. [30]
Roy Bailey, a Detroit field office director for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, enabled Prouty’s fraudulent activities. Charged in September 2008 with defrauding the federal government, conspiracy to commit bribery, and failing to report a felony, Bailey enabled a wide range of fraudulent activities that included immigration fraud, preferential treatment, and benefits in exchange for gifts and cash from a range of restaurant owners, attorneys, and business owners that included Talal Chahin.[31]
The immigration problem directly affects the rights and lives of individual Americans. Roger Barnett, an Arizona rancher, caught 12,000 illegal immigrants crossing his ranch from 1998-2004. When he caught immigrants crossing his property he turned them over to the border Patrol. A March 2004 incident involving sixteen illegal immigrants led to a civil suit when Mexicans trespassers filed charges against Barnett claiming that their civil rights had been violated. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDE) represented the group of illegal Mexican immigrants charging that they had endured emotional distress as Mr. Barnett held them at gunpoint and threatened to turn his dog on them. The suit also charged the Sherriff of Cochise County for not stopping Mr. Barnett as he allegedly yelled obscenities at the immigrants and kicked a woman during the incident. Mr. Barnett said that over the years, illegal immigrants had left behind a trail of garbage including used toilet paper, soiled diapers and plastic bottles. He said that they had destroyed his property, broken into his house, torn up water pumps, stolen trucks, and left garbage that led to the death of some of Barnett’s cattle. [32]
Mr. Barnett was a crime victim who was treated as a criminal in efforts to protect his property. The immigrants filed suit against Mr. Barnett for $32,000,000. Barnett’s attorney argued that illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as citizen, but U.S. District Judge John Roll refused to drop the charges.
In February 2008, a civil jury found that Roger Barnett did not violate the civil rights of the trespassers, rejecting their claims of battery and false imprisonment. Mr. Barnett was however ordered to pay $77,804 in damages, of which $60,000 were punitive. Five of the plaintiffs were living in the U.S. with visa applications at the time of the verdict.[33]
Lack of immigration scrutiny and enforcement also affects legal immigrants in tragic circumstances. Legal immigrants who sincerely wish to leave their former countries behind to live in a free, Democratic society, may still be victims of barbaric religious practices when our laws fail to protect them. Examples include Middle Eastern women and children who want to be free of oppressive Islamic laws.
A heartbreaking incident took place in Irving, Texas in early 2008. Amina and Sarah Said were teenage girls who attended American schools and had American friends even though their father resented American laws and culture. When their father, Yaser Said, found out the girls had boyfriends, he shot and killed them in the back of a taxi before he fled the country.[34]
In another deplorable case, Aasiya Hassan, a beautiful Middle Eastern woman was stabbed and decapitated in Orchard Park, New York on February 12, 2009 after she had filed for a divorce and obtained an order of protection from her husband, Muzzammil Hassan. Mr. Hassan was an influential member of the local Muslim community who founded the English speaking Islamic Bridges TV in 2004, reportedly in an effort “to help portray Muslims in a more positive light.”[35]
After arriving in the U.S. at the age of fourteen from Pakistan, Mr. Hassan reportedly graduated magna cum laude in 1996 with an MBA from the University of Rochester in 1996, and went on to become a successful banker in Buffalo, New York. [36]
Hassan had expressed concerns that Hollywood does not portray moderate Muslims accurately. He said “Bridges TV gives American Muslims a voice and will depict them in everyday, real life situations.”[37]
The Bush dhimmi doctrine kept us safe from terrorism because Bush was a good dhimmi. He managed the appearance of having zero tolerance for terrorism, but he did not or could not distinguish between terrorism and jihad, specifically jihad through non-violence. By encouraging Americans to believe that the events of 9/11 were caused by only a few random terrorists, he shifted the real source of terror, the ideology of Islam as it is written in the Koran, to a few crazed lunatics and fringe groups. Believing that Islam is really peaceful is an effective strategy that allows Islam to advance stealthily so American citizens will not notice and therefore not oppose a gradual takeover. It is easier to enforce Islam through dhimmitude even if it is met with some skepticism and reluctance, rather than have to resort to terror. In other words, it is easier if you just hand a thief your pocketbook, however reluctant, rather than fighting and possibly losing your life. You only hand him your pocketbook because you know that if you do not, he will try to kill you.
Also, as long as we allow foreign Muslims to immigrate to America and appease them by accommodating their religious “needs,” and continue to buy oil from the Middle East, we will potentially be a dhimmi nation. We must reclaim our sovereignty by immediately closing the borders, drilling in America, and charging the Middle Easterners for drilling and processing their oil for them.
[1] Schroeder, Jen; “Why President Bush Embraces Islam as Peaceful,” July 26, 2004, http://www.blessedcause.org/PressRelease/Bush%20Islam.htm
[2] Rabinowitz, Beila & Mayer, William “Bush Administration Moves To Legitimize The Muslim Brotherhood?,” June 22, 2007, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=brotherhood62107.htm
[3] Stearns, Scott; “Bush in Saudi Arabia for Nuclear Deal,” May 16, 2008, http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-05/2008-05-16-voa23.cfm?CFID=328291575&CFTOKEN=23879274&jsessionid=de301739bcf88ea56c1d3b322c2535541f40
[4] Warner, Bill; http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-bush-islamic-doctrine/copyright
[5] “$800 Billion Economic Stimulus and Job Creation Bill Includes No Protections for U.S. Workers,” March 2009 http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/issues/stimulus_includes_no_protections
[6] http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01..html
[7] http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
[8] “The Facts, Just the Facts, Ma’am!,” http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=11746
[9] http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
[10] Homeland Security Report, http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
[11] “Frightening Film on U.S. Training Camps,” February 17, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494424,00.html
[12] Webster, Michael; “Mexican Drug Cartels and Hezbollah Operating in Mexico and the U.S.,” October 26, 2009, http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/79021
[13] Ross, Brian; Esposito Richard; and Elocker, Asa; “Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A.,” February 11, 2009, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
[14] Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, http://www.taasa.org/trafficking/facts.php
[15]“Interior Immigration Enforcement Resources,” Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary; House of Representatives 109th Congress, 1st Session, March 10, 2005, Serial no. 109–5 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju99785.000/hju99785_0f.htm
[16] Separ, Jerry; “Border Chief Wins Bonus Despite Criticism,” January 8, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/08/border-chief-wins-bush-bonus-despite-hits-by-ranks/?page=2
[17] Roebuck, Jeremy; “Border Patrol Union Criticizes Agency’ Hiring, Training Push” July 4, 2008, http://www.themonitor.com/news/border_14082___article.html/agency_training.html
[18] Cutler, Michael; “Bush Opposed all Efforts to Secure Border” January 10, 2009, http://www.newswithviews.com/Cutler/michael144.htm
[19] Wooldridge, Frosty; “Absurd To The Insane: Muslim Immigration Into The USA,” November 24, 2008
[20] http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=61036
[21] Brown, Floyd and Mary Beth; “Judge Rules Terrorist Prisoners Be Released In Nation’s Capital,” Saturday, October 11, 2008
http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2008/10/11/judge_rules_terrorist_prisoners_be_released_in_nations_capital
[22] Williams, Dr. Paul; FBI, CIA, Fund Gala Islamic Festval, July 12, 2009, http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/07/12/fbi-cia-fund-gala-islamic-festival/
[23] World Net Daily Staff, “Military Jihadists Fill Every Branch of U.S. Military,” November 6, 2009, http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/article.php?id=4744
[24] McCabe, Scott, “Fort Hood Gunman Worked at Walter Reed,” November 9, 2009, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/Local-psychiatrist-ID_d-as-Fort-Hood-gunman-worked-at-Walter-Reed-8492041-69339237.html
[25] Allen, Nick; “Fort Hood Gunman Had Told Colleagues That Infidels Should Have Their Throats Cut,” November 8, 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6526030/Fort-Hood-gunman-had-told-US-military-colleagues-that-infidels-should-have-their-throats-cut.html
[26] Dela Cruz, Christopher; “Three Convicted in Fort Dix Terror Plot are Sentenced to Life,” April 28, 2009, http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/judge_sentences_fort_dix_defen.html
[27] Dela Cruz, Christopher; “Three Convicted in Fort Dix Terror Plot are Sentenced to Life,” April 28, 2009, http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/judge_sentences_fort_dix_defen.html
[28] Erminio, Vanessa; “The Fort Dix Terror Plot,” October 23, 2008, http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/10/the_fort_dix_terror_plot.html
[29] CNN; “Suspect Arrested in Arkansas Recruiting Center Shooting,” http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/index.html
[30] Schlussel, Debbie; “Jihad Jane’s Poison Family,” November 20, 2007, http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/jihad_janes_poison_family_955101.htm
[31] Egan, Paul; “Detroit Immigration Official Who Gave Favors Deserves Prison, Prosecutors Say,” March 6, 2009 http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090306/UPDATE/903060427
[32] Seper, Jerry; “Sixteen Illegal’s Sue Arizona Rancher,” February 9, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/09/16-illegals-sue-arizona-rancher/
[33] Rotstein, Arthur; “Mixed Verdict Over Migrants’ Run-in With Rancher,” February 17, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Feb17/0,4670,BorderConfrontation,00.html
[34] Spencer, Robert; “Honor Killings in Texas,” January 8, 2008, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24329
[35] Warner, Gene; “Prominent Orchard Park Man Charged With Beheading His Wife,” February 13, 2009, http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/578644.html
[36] “Muzzammil Hassan,” Al-Jazeerah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzammil_Hassan
[37] “First American Muslim American Channel Announced by Bridges Network,” http://www.aljazeerah.info/News%20archives/2003%20News%20archives/May%202003%20News/3%20n/First%20American%20Muslim%20Television%20Channel%20Announced%20by%20Bridges%20Network..htm
Add comment November 12, 2009
WHY WAS MALIK NADAL HASAN IN THE U.S. MILITARY?
Add comment November 7, 2009
Islam in America-The Series
“Islam in America,” an eight part series by Katie Shaidle is posted at Right Side News.com. With permission I am also posting the series one part at a time.
Part One: An Overview of American Islam
By Kathy Shaidle
RightSideNews Copyright © 2009
Imagine a Super Bowl with all male cheerleaders and half-time prayers. In that America, they drink Jihad Cola instead of Coke and thank Allah when they win an Oscar.
Luckily, that America is fictional, one vividly described in Robert Ferrigno’s 2006 futuristic novel, Prayers for the Assassin, set in 2040. But is it really so hard to imagine, in a world in which a man named “Barack Hussein Obama” can get elected President just a few years after Muslim hijackers destroyed the world’s tallest buildings in the heart of New York City?
Today many Americans are either blissfully ignorant of, or simply indifferent to, the slow, incremental growth of radical Islam in their midst.
We sometimes hear about terrorist cells or suspicious Muslim “compounds” on the news. However, these stories represent merely the tip of an Islamic iceberg that could very well doom America. Not today or tomorrow. But in our lifetimes? That is a real possibility.
And don’t shrug off Islam as “just another religion.” Muslim sharia law deems women to be inferior to men, and allows husbands to “lightly” beat their wives. Polygamy and child bride marriage are condoned and encouraged, due to the example of Mohammed himself, whose many wives included a nine year old. Anti-Semitism and slavery are enshrined in the Koran, as is exploitation of and even violence against all “unbelievers.”
Radical Muslims have learned they don’t require bombs or hijacked airliners to destroy America. They can just use America’s own ideological infrastructure against itself.
Using a kind of ingenious political jujitsu, radical Muslims rely upon everything from the rights to freedom of speech and worship enshrined in the U.S. Constitution to the current atmosphere of hypersensitive political correctness to push their agenda.
For example, the “Islamification” of the educational system is now underway. Textbooks whitewash Islam’s bloody history. Public school children forbidden to pray or recite the Pledge of Allegiance are, however, obliged to play “Muslim for a Day.” Meanwhile, universities eagerly introduce footbaths, Muslim prayer rooms and hallal cafeteria food.
Increasingly, Muslim employees are suing companies for the “right” to refuse to handle “unclean” pork or alcohol, or the “right” to wear headscarves. It is no coincidence that these companies include household names like UPS, Wal-Mart and McDonalds’s – radical Muslims are sending a message to smaller firms who won’t have the means to fight similar suits in the future.
These demands for accommodation extend even behind prison walls, where Muslim prisoners (indoctrinated by Muslim chaplains trained by foreign extremists) insist on getting special treatment as well.
“Lawfare” is on the rise, too. Muslim groups now file expensive, time-consuming lawsuits against critics of Islam, and while these suits are currently confined mostly to Canada and Europe, they have a “chilling” effect on American publishers, writers, journalists and filmmakers. Last year, it only took a couple of threatening emails to persuade a major U.S. publisher to cancel an upcoming novel about Mohammed.
Few Americans realize that their neighborhood mosque was probably built and financed by well-heeled terrorist sympathizers abroad. In fact, 80% of American mosques are Saudi-supported, and serve as safe gathering places for radical imams and dubious “charities” with anti-American agendas.
Islamic terrorism has also found a home on the internet, where (according to one UK think tank) a “virtual caliphate” (or Muslim supremacist empire) thrives, beyond the reach of authorities. The web has become an invaluable arena for radical Muslim recruiting, training, communication and organizing.
Americans looking to the government to protect them from these threats don’t realize that federal agencies in the thrall of political correctness actually undermine the war of terrorism. Few Muslims currently hold public office in the United States, but this may change if Democrats begin to view them as a new source of donations and votes.
Over the next few months, I’ll be your guide to the growth of radical Islam, both at home and abroad. You’ll learn about “moderate” Muslim spokesmen who turn out to be anything but, and meet writers and authors censored by their governments for critiquing the Koran.
I’ll be talking to experts in the fields of intelligence, religion, crime and foreign policy and sharing their insights with you.
Many Americans have already forgotten what happened on 9/11, or simply don’t want to think about it anymore. Our fear, disgust or indifference is exactly what radical Muslims are counting on. As exhausting and demoralizing as it can be to educate ourselves on the facts, we must remember that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
————————————————-
Add comment November 7, 2009
Bill Clinton Islamic Charity–Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation–Chapter 6
6
Bill Clinton—Islamic Charity
Though he may not have realized the consequences, Bill Clinton has played into Islamist hands like a dream. His participation in establishing global governance may seem noble and grand as well as profitable while his appeasement to globalist Islamists has severely undermined America’s safety, sovereignty and the Constitution. Because Clinton accepted millions of dollars from Islamic sources, it is quite probable that he is considered an Islamic charity by Islamic scholars who make such determinations to advance Islam.
Foreign leaders can surely see that Clinton is easily bribed and seduced. He set a poor example as a leader and compromised the freedom of hundreds of millions of free people. One example is America’s youth, who is now confused as to whether oral sex is really sex. Another example his wittingly or unwittingly betrayal of the Christian Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo where he helped set up an Islamic government under the guise of humanitarianism and multiculturalism
Bill Clinton studied international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. as an undergraduate. He worked as an intern for the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat Senator. Clinton was a great admirer of Fulbright, who was an outspoken critic of Israel and a leading critic of United States involvement in the Vietnam War.[1]
Clinton’s mentor, William Fulbright, was an experienced observer of Middle Eastern affairs and he developed close connections between Saudi Arabia and U.S. oil companies. After he lost his bid for re-election in 1974, Fulbright became a registered agent for the Saudi Government and engaged in activities on the Saudi behalf in efforts to shift American loyalty from Israel to Saudi Arabia.[2]
During his two terms in office, Clinton made many moves that would promote Arab interests. His collaboration with the since convicted terrorist, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a self-described supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, founder and an Executive Director for the American Muslim Council (AMC), allowed for hundreds of millions of dollars to come in from the Middle East for a variety of causes including Clinton’s library and Presidential Fund. As Abdurahman Alamoudi donated $15-25 million to Clinton’s funds, he cultivated ties with the Democratic Party, and contributed significant amounts to a variety of its partisans and candidates for years.
Clinton privileged Abdurahman Alamoudi with the position of Islamic Affairs Advisor and Pentagon appointee in charge of choosing and training Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military. Certainly not in the best interest of America, Alamoudi was also a State Department “Goodwill Ambassador” to Muslim nations and helped Clinton write the 1995 “Religious Expression in Public Schools,” a guideline that paved the way for Islamic instruction in the public school system, effectively stopping schools from displaying nativity scenes and saying the pledge of allegiance. Clinton and Alamoudi’s alliance opened the doors for lessons on Islam under the guise of history and social studies as funding for Islamic educational materials poured in from Saudi Arabia and Muslim nations.
While in office, and after leaving his presidential post, Bill Clinton continues to make millions of dollars in speaking fees from Arab sources. To be fair, Dubai has given millions of dollars to both Clinton and G.W. Bush. However, Bill Clinton received $300,000 for a speech in January 2002 in an effort to legitimize Dubai after 9/11. Hilary Clinton’s 2008 tax records showed that for 2007, Bill Clinton made approximately $5 million from foreign countries including Kuwait’s National Bank, with other sources in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal, and Hong Kong.[3]
Dubai has been suspended from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation insurance programs because of non-compliance with internationally recognized worker rights standards. Tens of thousands of migrant workers from India and Pakistan are reportedly abused in Dubai yet Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, former security advisor Sandy Berger, and Al Gore have attended big events there.[4] Dubai also denies Israelis entrance into the country and does not allow the importation of Israeli goods, or goods with Israeli parts.[5] Under the guise of humanitarianism, Bill Clinton created a Dubai Scholars Program for American students at the American University in Dubai.
While Hillary Clinton loudly opposed the Dubai Ports deal, Bill Clinton gave Dubai advice and recommended the Glover Park Group to represent the country. The Glover Park Group was a group of lobbyists that included top advisers to Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The advisors were paid about $100,000 each to help the government-owned Dubai International Capital Corporation in its acquisition of the British engineering firm Doncasters Group Ltd. Glover Park represented companies that Dubai has a stake in.[6] At issue was the sale of port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and whether such a sale would compromise port security in the U.S.
Taking a stand that it did not pose a significant security threat, Clinton and New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer hoped to acquire the port operations for the Dubai Company in the ensuing controversial “Dubai Ports Deal.” Glover Park’s contract with Dubai was channeled through the Los Angeles law office of Raj Tanden, a representative of the United Emirate’s royal family in their 2005 acquisition of $1 billion in U.S. real estate holdings. Tanden is the brother of longtime Hillary Clinton policy adviser Neera Tanden who served as a congressional liaison for Bill Clinton before becoming a key Hillary Clinton Senate campaign aide.[7]
President Clinton issued statements promising to find terrorists, but actually pardoned sixteen terrorists convicted of executing one hundred thirty bombings. Clinton shut down investigations of Islamic charities, radically downsized our military, and cut funding for CIA informants. He refused delivery of Osama bin Laden from Sudan, and he repeatedly refused to act on detailed information about both al-Qaeda and Bin Laden between ongoing terrorist bombings that led up to the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Robert Baer, a 21-year veteran of the CIA’s Directorate of Operations states:
“Whether it was Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Iranian terrorism, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other evils that so threaten the world, the Clinton administration seemed determined to sweep them all under the carpet.” [8]
In 1995, the 104th Congress included a provision that would authorize ANWR exploration but Bill Clinton cast the cloak of environmentalism over ANWR when he vetoed the bill furthermore promising to veto all legislation for ANWR exploration. Alaska’s North Slope once averaged two million barrels of oil per day, representing more than half the oil used on the West Coast. With ANWR off-limits, Alaska’s drilling production declined to less than half their former rate, allowing OPEC and other foreign oil producers to make up the difference. According to a letter signed by conservative leaders and sent to the House and Senate Leadership on March 8, 2006, development of ANWR would:
“… increase proven U.S. crude oil reserves by fifty percent; equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia.”[9]
In Alaska, caribou numbers have actually increased under the warmth of pipeline, and scientists contest the accuracy of the global warming theory. If Clinton had not vetoed the legislation fourteen years ago, as much as 1.4 million barrels of oil per day could now be produced in America.
Curtailing the production of domestic oil by placing oil reserves off-limits, is based on an unproven theory. The security threat it imposes on the United States suggests misplaced loyalty because the need for oil places Americans at the mercy of foreign oil producers from countries that resent the Constitution and freedom. The U.S. domestic need for oil combined with homeland security issues raise concerns that global warming might literally be part of an agenda to weaken America’s sovereignty. Trillions of American dollars now go instead to Arab countries allowing them to buy their way into American policy through financial institutions, educational programs, while they finance terror organizations and build mosques around the world. [10]
On September 22, 1997 Bill Clinton made a speech to the Arab dominated U.N. General Assembly describing treaties he had signed as a “web of institutions and arrangements.” He referred to them as “international ground rules for the 21st century.”
As the descriptions suggest, Clinton’s Global Warming Treaty and the NATO Expansion Treaty were designed to bind the United States in a global web of entanglement for the purpose of “binding international commitments to protect the environment.” Clinton urged Americans to support “the emerging international system.”
Clinton played right into Islamist globalization when he supported Muslims in Bosnia. According to a U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee Report, President Clinton funneled weapons and money into Bosnia to prop up the Izetebegovic Muslim government in the country’s capital Sarajevo through the Third World Relief Agency. The Third World Relief Agency had been organized in 1987 by Muslim fundamentalists to cover efforts to import Muslim fundamentalism into Yugoslavia.
The Third World Relief Agency promoted the creation of an Islamic state in Bosnia, promoting a “religious sense among Bosnia’s secular Muslims.” The Muwafaq foundation, founded by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz in 1991 also funded the Muslim Bosnian fighters from 1991-1995. Christians comprised of Catholic Croatians and Eastern Orthodox Serbs were still the majority in Bosnia in 1992 when Bosnia broke away from Yugoslavia.[11]
Bill Clinton lifted the Iranian Arms Embargo solely for shipments of arms and personnel from Iran to the Bosnian Muslims. Throughout most of his administration, beginning in 1993, Clinton knew about the arms smuggling scheme while pretending to be neutral. He also provided additional weapons from America at taxpayer’s expense.
In April 1994, Clinton gave the Muslim-led government of Bosnia additional shipments of weapons from Iran and other Muslim countries at the urging of National Security Council chief Anthony Lake and the U.S. ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith. The Clinton Administration’s policy of aiding delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it instrumental in a network of international governments and organizations that are pursuing the Islamization of Europe and America under the guise of humanitarian and multicultural diversity.
Iranian Revolutionary Guards entered Bosnia in large numbers from radical Muslim organizations from countries including Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey. The Iranian intelligence service developed intelligence networks, set up terrorist support systems, and recruited terrorist sleeper cells as agents of influence. The Clinton Administration’s involvement with the Islamic network included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.
The President of Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic, wrote the radical “Islamic Declaration: A Programme for the Islamization of Muslims and the Muslim Peoples,” which calls for “the Islamic movement” to take power as soon as it could overturn “the existing non-Muslim government . . .and build up a new Islamic one,” destroying all non-Islamic institutions. Izetbegovic’s book advocated the creation of an international federation of Islamic states.
Alija Izetbegovic’s Islamic Declaration proclaimed that:
“There can be neither peace nor coexistence between the Islamic religion and non-Islamic social institutions.”
A House Republican Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Report, dated September 1, 1992 confirmed that Alija Izetbegovic intended to establish an Islamic Republic in Bosnia by reporting that:
“At the center of the Iranian system in Europe is Bosnia-Hercegovina’s President, Alija Izetbegovic, . . . who is committed to the establishment of an Islamic Republic in Bosnia-Hercegovina.”
The Task Force report described Izetbegovic’s contacts with Iran and Libya before the Bosnian war began. In 1991, Izetbegovic was noted as a “fundamentalist Muslim” and a member of the “Fedayeen of Islam” organization, an Iranian-based radical group that dates back to the 1930’s. In the late 1960’s, The Fedayeen of Islam recognized Ayatollah Khomeini as their supreme leader, or Imam, while he was still in exile by the late Shah. Izetbegovic stepped-up his efforts to establish Islamic power in Bosnia following Khomeini’s accession to power in 1979, and Izetbegovic openly declared his alliance with Iran. The Iranian regime supported Izetbegovic during his 1996 election campaign with $500,000 in cash.
The Clinton Administration’s policy completely misrepresented the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija Izetbegovic. Rather than the tolerant, multicultural democratic government it pretended to be, Izetbegovic’s party, the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), was guided by the principles of radical Islam.[12]
A similar conflict between neighboring Kosovo Muslims and Christian Serb forces broke out in 1998 after the Croatian Army ethnically cleansed 250,000 Croatian Serbs out of Croatia in 1995 with the substantial support of the US and European governments. The U.S., Germany and others had equipped, trained and armed the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) for several years before NATO bombed Kosovo and Serbia in 1999. The media presented the violence rather than the real reason for the conflict, and there were few who listened to logical peaceful solutions.[13]
Behind most of the Kosovo conflict was Bill Clinton’s administration. Clinton is celebrated as a hero by Kosovo’s Muslim Albanians for launching NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999 that stopped the Christian Serb forces and made Kosovo a Muslim state. [14]
Bill Clinton’s ties to the Islamic Republic of Iran were revealed in a commentary written by Dr. Rachael Ehrenfeld on January 5, 2009 for Forbes. Dr. Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy and author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It.”
Ehrenfeld wrote that on Dec. 19, 2008 the Islamic regime contributed between $25,000 and $50,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and $30,000 in the fiscal year ending March 2006 through the Iranian owned Alavi Foundation operating in New York.
The President of the Alavi Foundation, Farshid Jahedi, was indicted the very same day in 2008 with obstructing justice by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for allegedly destroying documents subpoenaed by a grand jury concerning the relationship of the Alavi Foundation with the Iranian Bank Melli, and ownership of the Manhattan office building, home of the Alavi Foundation at 650 Fifth Avenue.
The Treasury Department had just designated the Alavi Foundation’s partner, New York-based ASSA Corporation, a terrorist entity as a front company created and controlled by Iran’s Bank Melli to funnel money from the United States to Iran. [15]
The Alavi Foundation office building at 650 Fifth Avenue had been constructed and operated in the 1970’s by the late Shah of Iran as a non-profit organization to pursue Iran’s charitable interests in the United States. The building was financed Bank Melli, a state-owned bank in Iran. The Alavi Foundation was first known as The Pahlavi Foundation, and renamed the Mostazafan Foundation when Ayatolah Khomeini rose to power. Later renamed the Alavi Foundation and forming the “650 Fifth Avenue Company” in 1989 in partnership with Bank Melli but disguising the bank’s ownership.
In 1995 the Department of Treasury had prohibited exportation of any goods, technology, or services from the United States to Iran, or the Government of Iran without a valid export license from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). According to the Treasury Department, ASSA Corporation provided services to Bank Melli by maintaining the bank’s interest in the 650 Fifth Avenue office building and transferring income from the office to Bank Melli without an OFAC license and alleging money laundering.
Bank Meli has been recognized as a front for transferring money for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and was designated a terrorist entity on Oct. 25, 2007.
According to Ehrenfeld’s commentary in Forbes, the Alavi Foundation reported $87,899,567 in assets and $3,315, 237 in charity to the IRS in 2007. The foundation had given $365,056 to schools and universities, $328,667 for book publications and distribution, and $262,325 in interest-free loans to schools. It claims to support Shiite educational, religious and cultural programs, while owning and funding several mosques and educational centers in the states of New York, Maryland, Texas and California.
Though the contributions to Clinton were not found to be illegal, accepting money from Islamists and pretending they are not part of an Islamic agenda allows them to advance in the U.S.[16]
Phyllis Schlafley, political activist, constitutional attorney, and columnist wrote a series of articles about Clinton’s global involvement. Schlafley wrote that Madeleine Albright testified before the Senate of Foreign Relations Committee, admitting that NATO Expansion commits U.S. to defend the borders and the NATO-defined “interests” of Eastern Europe, extending its influence to reach “the Middle East to Central Africa.” The NATO Treaty means that NATO, not Congress, decides when America will go to war. Using U.S. tax dollars to fund the Armed Services as global police officers and global social workers, and burdening the U.S. with one “Bosnia” after another.
The NATO Expansion Treaty abandoned Ronald Reagan’s successful strategy of peace through strength, replacing it with a strategy of entering foreign conflicts under NATO or UN command. It was also against the advice of George Washington “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world”
The Phyllis Schlafly Report, April 1998 revealed that NATO Expansion was an important part of Clinton’s 1996 campaign in cities with large communities of ethnic voters.
The New York Times wrote, on March 30, 1998, that U.S. weapons contractors spent $51 million lobbying for the NATO Expansion Treaty. Their motivation was to make billions of dollars selling arms and military equipment to the new NATO nations. The weapons manufacturers funneled an additional $32.3 million equally to Republican and Democrat Congressional candidates. In 1996, the U.S. arms industry lobbied a bill through Congress to force American taxpayers to guarantee loans for weapons exports. (New York Times, March 30, 1998)
While in office, Clinton also used his position to take away states rights and private land ownership rights with his proposed Rivers Initiative in his 1997 State of the Union Message. Clinton issued Executive Order 13061 on September 11, 1997. It would have allowed the federal government to take over rivers and their adjacent lands under the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI). Clinton financed AHRI by diverting funds from 12 federal departments and agencies. Thankfully, Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID), subsequently introduced H.R. 1842 to stop Clinton’s Rivers Initiative, and as of 2009, only fourteen rivers are designated American Heritage Rivers. [17]
Under the original initiative, one hundred fourteen rivers would have been included by the year 2000 to institute national land-use planning and zoning over large portions of land along certain U.S. rivers. The plan superseded constitutional state’s jurisdiction, restricting the property rights of private property owners, by putting the adjacent land under the control of federal regulators.
Under the AHRI process, local communities would nominate enough rivers to allow the President to choose the rivers he wanted. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality subsequently makes plans for the future of the chosen rivers and the property alongside it. The Council on Environmental Quality would then appoint an American Heritage Rivers Interagency Committee to make recommendations to the President for the land control, potentially earmarking it for crony pork-barrel connections.
Clinton’s original AHRI would have authorized the appointment of ten river czars, or River Navigators, with and ten more appointed each succeeding year, to be paid a yearly salary of $100,000. Their jobs would be to guide the local citizens through the federal programs.
Opponents of AHRI claimed it violated constitutional and statutory law, imposed federal bureaucracy reducing the influence of states, restricted private property rights, and interfered with private owner and state economic activity. [18]
Clinton did, however issue an executive order to hold up 1.7 million acres of Utah land containing the largest reserve of high-quality coal and minerals in the continental U.S. Known as the Kaiporowitz coalfield, one of the premier coalfields in the United States and perhaps the world, the undeveloped Kaiporowitz coalfield contains approximately sixty-two billion tons of high BTU rating, clean burning, low-sulfur hard coal worth a trillion dollars. According to Dr. Lee Allison, Utah state geologist, the coal is very compliant and burns so cleanly that it exceeds the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Removing the huge natural resource from commercial availability tremendously enhanced the value of the world’s second largest source of environmentally safe coal on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan, which is partly owned by members of Muslim Indonesia’s very successful ethnic Chinese minority, friends of Clinton, the Indonesian Riadys. [19]
Mochtar Riady is an ethnic Chinese who founded the Lippo group. In 1984, the Lippo Group purchased the Bank of Trade in Los Angeles, which became a Lippo Bank subsidiary.[20] The Lippo Bank in L.A. was implicated for giving millions of dollars to Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996. According to a 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report, the Lippo Bank in California raised illegal foreign money for the Democratic National Party through Lippo-owned shell companies that were ultimately traced to the greater China region.[21]
Clinton’s Executive Order, EO 13107 on Implementation of Human Rights Treaties was an attempt to bypass the constitutional requirement that U.S. treaties be ratified by the Senate. It set up a framework to obligate the U.S. under UN treaties on human rights. There are several unratified UN human rights treaties that could be imposed under EO 13107.
Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refuses to recognize one of the most fundamental American economic rights, the right to own property. This U.N. treaty tries to bind the U.S. to take steps to use all of our resources in order to achieve “full realization” to provide food, clothing and housing for everyone in the world, obligating us “to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.”
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would bring about massive UN interference in family life, education, daycare, health care, and standard of living, setting up a committee of ten “experts.” Because the UN is dominated by Islamic countries, it is likely that such experts will be Islamic “scholars.”
The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) would require us to follow the Arab dominated U.N. dictates about “customs and practices,” “social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women,” “family education,” and even revision of textbooks.
Other Clinton Executive Orders include EO 12919 of June 3, 1994, entitled National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness, which asserts plenary and dictatorial authority over citizens, food, transportation, energy, health, contracts, materials and resources to be exercised by the National Security Council and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). [22]
The Law of the land and Sea Treaty would impose international bureaucracy on commerce, shipping lanes, mineral resources, fishing rights, environmental concerns. President Bill Clinton signed the Law of the land and Sea Treaty in 1994 and sent it to the U.S. Senate, but it has yet to achieve the majority vote for passing.[23] One of the reasons the Law of the land and Sea Treaty is dangerous, is that it will compromise American sovereignty regarding oil.
Hilary Clinton, currently President Obama’s Secretary of State, believes it is a top priority to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, which will also establish a global tax to gain access to oil, gas, and minerals in the oceans. Russia is claiming ownership of 460,000 square miles of Arctic territory with huge reserves of oil and gas, so the U.S. State Department wants to turn the treaty over to the Arab dominated UN, when documentary evidence exists showing that Americans have legitimate claims to the resources in the Arctic region near Alaska.[24]
Accusations that the Saudi government used charities as front organizations to fund international terrorism are long-standing. They surfaced in the early eighties when U.S. intelligence officials first warned Congress that the Saudis were directly funding terrorist groups.
The Clinton administration stopped a 1995 investigation after Islamic charities were targeted for diverting cash to groups that fund terrorism. The investigations would have exposed Saudi Arabia’s suspected ties to global money-laundering efforts to raise millions of dollars for terrorists.
Four interrelated Islamic foundations, institutes and charities in Virginia with more than a billion dollars in assets donated via the Saudi Arabian government were allowed to continue under a veil of secrecy according to Former federal prosecutor John J. Loftus, a St. Petersburg, Florida lawyer who later filed the Loftus suit in 2002 under the Florida Consumer Protection Act. Loftus accused the Saudi government of diverting cash to terrorists in a massive scheme involving charities in Virginia and Florida. Loftus said:
“If federal agents had been allowed to conduct the investigation they wanted in 1995, they would have made the connection between the Saudi government and those charities.” [25]
After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, an interagency task force was created to investigate ties between charitable organizations in the United States and terrorist groups abroad. Investigations focused on allegations that tax-exempt and nonprofit charities operating out of the United States from Virginia to Florida contributed millions of dollars to international terrorist groups including the Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The same investigations also revealed that a Pakistani charity that transferred $100,000 to Mohamed Atta, one of the 19 al Qaeda hijackers in the September 11, 2001 attacks, was funded by the Saudi government. That information had helped U.S. officials identify the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were from Saudi Arabia.
Non-transparency of donations to Bill Clinton by Islamists conceals the extent of Bill Clinton’s involvement in the Islamization of the U.S. That the World Trade Center was destroyed just after Clinton’s administration may have been no coincidence. It could have been an effort to destroy evidence of corrupt business dealings during and prior to Clinton’s administration and keep secret who the world’s real imperialists are.
Bill Clinton’s policies are known to have effected education, financial institutions, environmental regulations and oil production. Clinton’s willingness to accept money from anti-Democratic Islamic sources combined with the non-transparency of Shari’ah financing should be cause for concern because it could be tantamount to treason. It is not surprising that Clinton shut down investigations of Islamic charities. Under Islamic law Clinton could actually be considered an Islamic charity. Therefore it would not be surprising if examination of Islamic source donations to Clinton reveal bribery and support for terrorism.
[1] Bill Clinton: MSN Encarta, February 16, 2009, http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Bill_Clinton.html
[2] Emerson, Steve; The American House of Saud: The Secret Petrodollar Connection, Chapter 6, pp. 100-101, Franklin Watts Publisher, 1985
[3] Lee, Matthew; “Bill Clinton Made Millions From Foreign Sources,” January 27, 2009, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VK2BG0&show_article=1
[4] Morris, Dick & McGann, Eileen; Fleeced, Chapter 7, pp 156-157, 2008, Harper Collins, New York, NY
[5] Ibid; Chapter 7, pp 161, 2008
[6] Ibid; Chapter 7, p. 158, 2008, Harper Collins, New York, NY
[7] Thrush, Glenn; “Clinton Aides Had Hand in Dubai Deal,” September 14, 2006, http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/ny-usclin144890633sep14,0,5479619.story
[8] Schroeder, Jen; “How Clinton Sold Our Children to Islam,” http://www.blessedcause.com/clinton.html
[9] Weyrich, Paul M; “Drill ANWR: Realism Over Emotion,” May 23, 2006, http://www.aim.org/guest-column/drill-anwr-realism-over-emotion/#
[10] “OPEC’s Senate Caucus,” June 5, 2006, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/05/20060605-101144-9771r/
[11] tellthechildrenthetruth.com
[12] Craig, Larry; United States Senate Republican Policy Committee Report, “Extended Bosnia Mission Endangers U.S. Troops: Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base,” January 16, 1997, http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm
[13] Oberg, Jan; November 22, 2007, http://www.transnational.org/Area_YU/2007/Oberg_KosovoPredic&Resources.html
[14] Qena, Nebi: Former President Clinton Unveils Statue in Kosovo, Associated Press, November 1, 2009, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_eu/eu_kosovo_bill_clinton
[15] HP-1330, Treasury Designates Bank Melli Front Company in New York City , December 17, 2008, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1330.htm
[16] Ehrenfeld, Rachael; Clinton’s Iranian Connection, January 5, 2009, http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/02/alavi-foundation-clinton-oped-cx_re_0105ehrenfeld.html
[17] “American Heritage Rivers,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heritage_Rivers
[18] Schlafly Phyllis; “Will America be Caught in Clinton’s Web,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Volume 31, No. 9, April 1998, http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/apr98/psrapr98.html
[19] Bresnahan, David; “Utah’s Protests of U.S. Land Grab Muted,” May 15, 1998, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=3242
[20] “Campaign Finance Key Player: The Lippo Group,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/players/lippo.htm
[21] “Lippo Bank,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippo_Banking_Group
[22] Schlafly Phyllis; “Power Grab Through Executive Orders,” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Volume 32, No. 10, April 1998, http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1999/may99/psrmay99.html
[23] Porter, Keith; “Law of the Sea Treaty,” September 7, 2009,
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/unitednations/a/lawofseatreaty.htm
[24] Letter by Cliff Kincaid, President of America’s Survival, Inc, http://usasurvival.org/listmanager/asinews011309.html
[25] Seper, Jerry; “Clinton White House Axed Terror-Fund Probe,” The Washington Times, April 2, 2002,http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintoERn.htm
2 comments October 31, 2009
