Posts filed under 'Uncategorized'
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
1 comment October 31, 2009
Saudi/U.S. vs. Iran/Russia?
I get the sense that Russia is siding with Iran, and the U.S. is siding with the Saudis. After you read the article to follow by Ralph Peters, look at this website: http://www.uani.com . It is a webste that condems Iranian nukes, and it is sponsored by none other than General Electric, which is owned in part by Saudis, and GE also owns NBC. What most people do not know is that Saudi Arabia is also in the process of pursuing a nuclear program of their own. The Saudis have made many strategic investments in the U.S. and the world with their petrodollars. These investments create political loyalties that are not always in America’s best interest.This may have more to do with why our troops are in Afghanistan than we realize. Perhaps we are being forced to fight for the Saudis under the threat that they will terrorize us if we do not. This may also have more to do with using up our resources, our troops, and training Islamic militants than actually “winning” a war on terror. That would be extortion using oil, terror, and finances as weapons. That is jihad.
Putin’s Iran plan
By RALPH PETERS
Iran’s traditional emblem has been the Persian lion. Russia’s should be a vulture: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin intends to feed on the carcass left by any confrontation with Iran.
The current crisis is a win-win-win for Putin. But before laying out his plan, let’s run the numbers:
* For now, Russia profits wonderfully from its trade, both legal and illicit, with Iran, while the West talks itself to death. Life is good.
So the worst outcome for Putin — more of the same — is still good. A bad outcome for everybody else is even better in Putin’s strategy to renew Russia’s superpower status.
For Moscow, this crisis isn’t about Tehran’s acquisition of nukes. It’s about Russia’s acquisition of a stranglehold on global energy markets.
Putin’s playing with fire — but he’s sure we’ll be the ones burned.
As for the Obama administration’s desperate (and stunningly naive) hope that economic sanctions can deter President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his fellow thugs-for-Allah from pursuing nuclear weapons, forget it.
Even were Putin to permit his front-man, President Dmitri Medvedev, to agree to half-baked sanctions, Moscow would violate them before Obama could step out of Air Force One with a piece of paper in his hand guaranteeing peace in our time.
The Persian Gulf’s littoral states hold over 60 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and 40 percent of the natural gas. Russia has “just” 10 percent of the oil reserves and 35 percent of the world’s natural gas.
Do the math: Iran and its neighbors, along with Russia, own two-thirds of the world’s oil reserves and 70 percent of the natural gas. And the global economy still runs on oil and gas, folks.
Despite the State Department’s compartmentalization mentality, Russia and Iran don’t exist in separate worlds. It’s less than a day’s drive from Russia’s southern border through Azerbaijan to Iran’s northwestern border. I’ve driven it.
This is one macro-region for energy, the zone of ultimate control. Putin gets it, even if we don’t. Here’s Czar Vladimir’s strategic trifecta:
* But life could get even better: If Iran’s nuclear quest isn’t blocked, a nuclear arsenal will give Iran de facto control of all Persian Gulf oil. Putin envisions a Moscow-Tehran axis, an energy cartel that dramatically increases the value of his oil and gas — the only economic props keeping the corpse of Russia upright.
* If Israel’s driven to a forlorn-hope attack on Iran’s nuke program, Iran will respond by striking Gulf Arab oil fields and facilities, while closing the Strait of Hormuz. The US military will be in it, like it or not. Oil and gas prices will soar unimaginably — and the bear will have its paws on the golden tap.
Why on earth would this guy help us stop Iran? When he hates us, anyway? (It isn’t you, Barack. It’s just business.)
For all his viciousness, Putin’s a serious strategist. We don’t have any high-level strategists. Not one. On either side of the Potomac.
In his first decade on the throne, Czar Vladimir focused on addicting Europe to Russian gas, while moving successfully to exert control over as many pipelines as possible. That was the constructive decade.
The second decade in the reign of Vladimir I is the energy-cartel-building phase. This will be the confrontational phase.
Energy’s the only real power Putin has, so he’s maximizing it.
It’s no accident that a strategic triangle has emerged between Moscow, Tehran and Caracas — home of the great Latin mischief-lover, Hugo Chavez, who thrives on his own nation’s petro-wealth.
For us, the Iran crisis is about peace. For Putin, it’s about power. Yet the self-deluding Obama administration really believes that Moscow’s going to support us. After our president gave away our only serious bargaining chip, the missile-defense system promised to our European allies.
Putin thinks in 10-year-plans. We can’t think past the next congressional roll-call vote.
The Obama administration’s primary legacy to the world is going to be a nuclear-armed Iran.
Add comment October 6, 2009
Financial Jihad in America–”Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation”–Chapter 4
4
Financial Jihad in America
Shari’ah-compliant finance plays a significant role in denying the freedoms of Democracy and the integration of Muslim immigrants into Western host countries. Legitimizing and enabling Shari’ah law in the West coerces Muslim individuals and groups to live under Islamic law yet many U.S. banks have opened Shariah compliant financial departments and are catering to an Islamic agenda.
When there were not any Shari’ah-compliant banks in the West, devout Muslims were allowed to use the conventional “infidel” institutions of their Western host countries under the Shari’ah doctrine of “extreme necessity,” but Western banks started catering to Muslim demands and Shari’ah-compliant financial (SCF) departments came into to existence. As SCF institutions become available, Muslims will patronize them exclusively. Allowing the spread of Shari’ah finance in the West and the U.S., also pushes Americans toward Shari’ah.[2]
Shari’ah Law is the totalitarian legal system that Islamists believe should govern every aspect of humanity in a global theocracy. Theoretically upon establishment of an Islamic one-world government, Shari’ah would be the basis of all law. Leading Islamic scholars and practitioners explicitly acknowledge Shari’ah financing as complementary to violent jihad, with the main purpose to promote Shari’ah law. For this reason, Islamists see Shari’ah finance as “financial jihad.” Advocates of Islam define the Islamic agenda as a complete socio-political system encompassing both personal and private life that for Americans, would mean the loss of many freedoms we enjoy today.
Sheik Qaradawi, a terrorist banned from entering the United States and Great Britain, who leads international Islamic Finance agencies describes Shari’ah finance as:
“I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”[3]
Conventional banking has been widespread for years in the Islamic world, however, in the past decade a stricter interpretation of Shari’ah is gaining ground and drives the growth of fundamental no-interest Islamic finance, misleadingly promoted in the West as “ethically and socially responsible.” Ethically and socially responsibility in an Islamic context, it enables the oppressive governance and bondage of Islamic laws. University of Southern California professor Timur Kuran, who holds the King Faisal Chair in Islamic Thought, concurred “Islamic banking defies the separation between economics and religion.”
Shari’ah requires those who cannot participate in Jihad physically, to support it financially. Driven by power, and to appease radical Islamists who might otherwise overthrow the Saudi regime, members of the Wahhabist Saudi oligarchy willingly fund radical Islamists organizations.
Shari’ah compliant financing (SCF), originally created to be a terrorist tool, seduces proponents who buy in to the hype that interest is always usury. While the Koran prohibits usury, it does not actually prohibit interest, only such rates that border on loan sharking. But given the hypothesis that interest is forbidden, SCF uses terms and features like “fees,” and “zakat,” where fees take the place of interest, and zakat is an Islamic religious tax requiring that alms be given to Islamic charities in compliance with the third pillar of Islam. Ironically or hypocritically, Shari’ah financial funds can be invested in companies that earn a profit from interest or otherwise un-Islamic activities, as long as the returns on investment are purified by donating 2.5% to 20% of the annual earnings, with percentages dependent on the source, to charities of Islamic scholarly determination.
This laundering process supposedly purifies the money and makes it socially responsible and clean regardless of its source. Islamic “scholars” on Shari’ah finance boards at the individual organizations determine which charities will receive the donations. The decisions are based on Islamic law and are void of further oversight and no claims or attempts at transparency. SCF non-transparency and “complexity” is what makes them difficult to trace and such excellent terrorist funding tools. Rabidly expanding in the West as a way to cash in on petrodollars, SCF products are counterproductive to human rights as well as Western values. Proponents of SCF are promoting a seditious agenda with risks of racketeering and violation of security & anti-trust laws while enabling consumer fraud.
Not above taking advantage of an established Western market, and with a means to purify the ill-gotten money to aid jihadi efforts, affluent individual Muslims are active investors in U.S. and European financial institutions. European nations like the UK and France, foolishly promote Islamic Shari’ah products with SCF bonds, SCF car insurance, SCF credit cards, and SCF mortgages in an effort to expand product lines.
Wall Street, American financial institutions, and the media know that Sharia banking is a major source of terror funding, but still buy into them. In an April 3, 2008 article titled “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” Alex Alexiev, The Security Council Vice President wrote that dozens of Western banks promote Shari’ah products today, and described Shari’ah finance:
“… as a massive subversion campaign by radical Islam designed to legitimize Shari’ah in the West, to undermine our markets, and ultimately to imperil our free-enterprise system and national security — all the while exposing banks to financial risks that make the sub-prime fiasco look like a walk in the park.” [4]
The U.S. Treasury Department is aware that SCF institutions have participated in financially supporting terrorism yet on November 6, 2008 the U.S. Treasury Department and the Islamic Finance Project of the Harvard Law School, hosted a forum entitled “Islamic Finance 101.” Presented only two days after the 2008 Presidential Election and in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis, the forum was an effort to train government employees on Shari’ah-compliant finance (SCF). Its purpose was to introduce and educate the Treasury Department staff, U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress, Department of Treasury, and other parts of the Executive Branch on Shari’ah finance. According to a press release, the forum was “designed to help inform the policy community about Islamic financial services, which are an increasingly important part of the global financial industry.”
Two SCF banks registered in the Bahamas; Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank, laundered money to terrorists, and were run out of Italy and Switzerland. Bank Al-Taqwa transferred tens of millions of dollars to HAMAS, Al Qaeda, the PLO, and others from 1988 until November 2001, when it was designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. government and the UN.
Al Qaeda was initially funded with approximately $30 million per year, by diversion of the charity money that strategically placed financial facilitators collect from both knowing and unknowing donors. The funds are then diverted to terrorist groups. Both Bank Al-Taqwa and Akida Bank used charities in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East to funnel money to terrorist groups.[5]
An SCF investment company based in Seacaucus, New Jersey called Bait u Mal al Islami (BMI), promoted itself as an Islamic alternative to conventional investments and solicited funds for real estate development. It was referred to by U.S. federal prosecutors as the “U.S. banker for the Muslim Brotherhood.” In testimony before a U.S. Senate committee, former White House counter terrorism advisor Richard Clarke said that BMI’s financial services were little more than a cover “to conceal terrorist support,” and its investor list “read like a who’s who of designated terrorists and Islamic extremists.” BMI worked closely with the Akida Bank and Bank Al-Taqwa in networking millions of dollars to terrorist groups.
Iran’s largest bank, Bank Melli, was named in the November 2007 edition of The Banker as the largest Shari’ah-compliant bank in the world. It was sanctioned by both the U.S. government and the European Union for its role in financing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
According to terrorist and Shari’ah financing expert, Rachael Ehrenfeld, Sharia’h proponents lure U.S. and Western investors into high-rate sukuk or al-ijara Islamic bonds, which she describes as “some of the most complex ever created,” claiming “alternative” instruments that do not pay or earn interest, however use Western structured finance tools. Ehrenfeld explains in an April 2008 article, “America for Sale,” that Shari’ah instruments convert liquid, traceable cash flows from interest-bearing debt into illiquid assets. Ehrenfeld wrote that the Shari’ah instruments
“…resemble ‘portfolio insurance’ that caused the 1987 crash, and the mortgage-backed bonds behind the 1994 bond-market bust that eviscerated $1 trillion…and then some 10% of the U.S. bond market. Those collapses damaged many huge pension funds, municipalities and institutional investors, and killed off several hedge funds.”[6]
Nearly $33 billion of Islamic bonds were issued in 2007, up from $5.5 billion in 2001 and are already available in the US, Britain and Japan.[7] The sukuk bonds are asset-backed bonds that comply with Shari’ah no interest. Corporate sukuk issuance rose from $0.4 billion in 2000 to $4.5 billion in 2006 according to the International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM). With growth topping 122% in 2006, Islamic finance is not a niche market any longer, but is increasingly becoming a mainstream component of the global banking system.[8]
ACT for America Founder and terrorism expert, Brigitte Gabriel, asks pertinent questions about SCFs such as:
“What will happen to our courts and our laws when our largest financial institutions and our Treasury Department are deeply indebted to SCF compliant money? Do our financial and policy experts believe SCF dollars will come without ultimatums, bribery, and strings? What kind of pressures will eventually be brought to bear on government and financial leaders by those Islamist leaders of Shari’ah-compliant finance who call SCF “jihad with money?”
Gabriel concedes that there is much that the U.S. government can and should do to regulate Shari’ah finance to ensure that it is not promoted in the United States. Citing SCF as seditious, Gabriel warns it is dangerous to the West because it is an effort to legitimize and institutionalize Shari’ah law, advancing a religious and criminal conspiracy with the main purpose of overthrowing the United States Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule.[9]
An Islamic mortgage is similar to a lease-to-own deal where the bank, not the borrower, buys the house. The borrower makes installment payments to the bank for a number of years, at the end of which time title to the house is obtained. In this respect, the bank’s profit technically comes from renting the house and its attached fee, not by lending the money.[10]
Borrowers and investors trust the experts who determine the rates and custom terms of the loans. In SCF, the experts are required to be Shari’ah legal and religious authorities, or Islamic “scholars” who oversee qualifications of the investments.
In September 2008, the American public became aware that American International Group (AIG) was falling into a financial black hole. The world’s biggest insurer by market value, AIG launched a Shari’ah compliant Islamic insurance subsidiary on October 1, 2006 in Bahrain called AIG Takaful Enaya in an effort to win a share of an estimated $2.5 billion a year Islamic insurance market that is growing, and began with an initial capital of $15 million.
AIG Takaful Enaya plans were to provide Shari’ah compliant insurance to the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. AIG Takaful Enaya, headquartered and licensed by the Central Bank of Bahrain, also promotes Shari’ah finance and Shari’ah mutual trusts. AIG Sun America, AIG Financial Services Corp, and other divisions of AIG also have Shari’ah mutual trusts as part of their portfolios. The AIG Takaful insurance coverage listed on the AIG website, www.aigmemsa.com, include personal lines, financial lines, management liability, professional liability, fidelity, accident and health, crisis management, small business solutions, property, energy, casualty, and marine policies
What is outrageous about Islamic insurance is that the Muslim community has traditionally not even had an insurance market. The commercial market necessitates selling the basic concept of insurance to Muslims. Regardless of the disputable demand for Islamic insurance policies, AIG’s promotion strategies include explaining why Shari’ah compliant insurance should make sense to Muslims, explaining, “that Muslims can feel comfortable buying the AIG Takaful products because they are after all, Shari’ah compliant.”
AIG Takaful Enaya’s initial plans included expansion from the Middle East, to South East Asia in 2007, then to the UK and North America, with expectations of writing premiums of $10 million in the first 18 months.
In November 10, 2008, author Jeffrey Immon wrote an article referencing AIG, titled America Must not Own a Shari’ah based Financial Business. Immon outlined a plan calling on Americans to stop harboring Islamic Supremism through Shari’ah finance in America. On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve provided an $85 billion loan to AIG, in exchange for a U.S. Government share of 79.9 percent equity interest in AIG and less than a week later AIG’s Shari’ah-based business announced further expansion. On November 10, 2008, the Federal Reserve announced that it would purchase $40 billion of newly issued AIG preferred shares, “giving taxpayers an ownership stake in the company.”[11]
The AIG expansion announced two months earlier in September, may have come to fruition on December 1, 2008, when Risk Specialties, Inc., a subsidiary of AIG Commercial Insurance, announced a new AIG Takaful Homeowners Policy as
“…the first installment in Lexington Takaful Solutions, a series of Shari’ah-compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S. The newly announced Takaful products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets and based on the concept of mutual insurance.” [12]
Under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the Government sanctioned bailout purchase of AIG stock grew to over $160 billion by March 2009, with more promised.
The fact that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act had just become law, allocating $700 billion to U.S. banks that have Shari’ah divisions and products, calls in the possibility of extortion and massive non-transparency. It is shocking that the Federal Reserve would authorize loans to a company that was in the process of expanding its Shari’ah portfolio at the time. It is both terrifying and telling that that the U.S. Treasury Department would ally itself to SCF activity by hosting an Islamic Finance 101 Forum in the midst of the bailout, only two days after the election.
Speakers at the forum were scheduled to include Neel Kashkari, the newly appointed Assistant Treasury Secretary; Rushdi Siddiqui, the Founder and Director of the Dow Jones Islamic Market Index Group; Talal DeLorenzo, Shari’ah advisor; and Jamia Uloom, product of a radical jihadist school in Pakistan. It is shocking that Talal DeLorenzo was the Director of Education at the Islamic Saudi Academy. The Islamic Saudi Academy is a school that was the focus of report by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in early 2008, which documented material in the Academy’s textbooks calling for ‘the killing of apostates’ from Islam and the approved killing of ‘polytheists,’ and was allowed to expand in 2009.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Founder, President, and CEO of The Center for Security Policy wrote an article two days before the Islamic Finance 101. Gaffney, who was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy during the Reagan administration wrote:
“Regardless of who wins the election, ‘The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shari’ah. That the seditious religio-political-legal code, authoritative Islam, seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.”
Gaffney also wrote:
“Shari’ah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shari’ah into Western societies…Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shari’ah is so manifest. But (the U.S.) Treasury’s accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory – the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shari’ah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril. After all, the object of Shari’ah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones.”[13]
Devon Bank on Chicago’s North Side is one of the largest Islamic lenders in the country. According to David Loundy, Devon’s vice president, Devon Bank’s SCFs account for 75% of their mortgage portfolio and makes Shari’ah compliant loans in 36 U.S. states, catering mostly to Pakistani and Middle Eastern immigrants.
In March 2001, Devon Bank announced its plan to begin selling Islamic home financing products to Freddie Mac in an effort to expand opportunities for Muslims in Illinois and nine other states. Freddie Mac, established by Congress in 1970, and a stockholder-owned corporation at that time, announced simultaneously that it had become the first major U.S. mortgage investor to contract the purchase of Islamic mortgages. Based in McLean, Va., Freddie Mac is one of the nations’ largest investors in mortgages and Islamic home financing products. In March 2001, Freddie Mac became the first major U.S. mortgage investor to contract to purchase Islamic homeownership products in conjunction with Chicago’s Devon Bank.[14]
Since 2003, Devon Bank’s Islamic financing programs have enabled Muslims throughout the Chicago area and other states to acquire homes and businesses with Islamic financing. Devon Bank’s services include residential and commercial real estate financing, financing for business equipment and trade goods, stand-by letters of credit and some construction financing.[15]
Minnesota Housing is the first state agency to offer Shari’ah mortgages, with Chicago’s Devon Bank underwriting for a New Markets program targeted at low-to-moderate income families. Hussein Samatar, director of the African Development Center in Minneapolis created the program with the presumption that Islamic financing will grow as more Muslims make their home in the U.S.
Samatar said, “The process (SCF) is different, but the outcome will look the same.” Samatar believes that cooperation with the state of Minnesota is “a nod to the Muslim community’s growing economic power.” [16]
SCFs are described as “flexible” in that they take a borrowers “situation” into account. They can be determined on a monthly or yearly basis, and terms can be “adjusted.” Adjustments and flexibility are not inherently benevolent terms controllable by the borrower, and are not necessarily just about rates. Regardless of wishful thinking, truth is not always self-evident, especially in a religion that advocates “taqiyah”, (taqiyah is a concept that means that is permissible to lie or mislead in an effort to advance Islamic causes). The truth here is that flexibility could refer to a number of things from refinancing fees to coercion into stricter Islamic law.
Subprime rates are comparable to prime rates in that prime rates are the best rates a loaning institution can charge, and subprime rates are less profitable for them. With no interest, SCF fees can fall into the subprime category because they can be either more or less than current market rates, depending on the “situation.” Unsuspecting Westerners do not realize that situations can involve a host of non-financial decisions. For example, the purpose of a loan, the dress of the applicant, and specifically the (apparent) religion of a loan recipient. In a case of “either-or,” it could be argued that “changeable” Shari’ah loan fees could produce a profit, say…if the recipient’s religion presents a “risk.” It is just as logical to deduce that Shari’ah-compliant institutions award zero to very low profit fees for low income Muslims, or others who are obviously Muslims who incidentally adhere to a host of personal requirements such as jewelry, clothing, fingernail and hair cutting guidelines, and are forbidden to drink alcohol or keep pets in their homes.
Because SCF rates are determined individually and beholden to Islamic charities, they are as discriminatory as they are dangerous to the West. Even though one may argue that non-Muslims can obtain Shari’ah loans, remember that terms are “individually” decided. If a non-Muslim wishes, and initially qualifies to get a SCF loan, he must, as part of the future “changeable,” agreement acknowledging that a percentage of his “fees” will fund Islamic charities. He or she will also have a “flexible” fee amount that may be higher than a fee that a Muslim pays.
In an article for The Washington Times on September 16, 2008, Frank Gaffney compared subprime loans with SCFs. Noting the effect that subprime loans had on the 2008 financial crisis, he wrote:
“…they [subprime loans] are therefore an unsound business practice because they have just shown themselves to be inadequate in supporting the U.S. capital market loaning institutions. Basing loans on nontransparent bundles of subprime mortgage-backed securities was a violation of industry standards and government regulations with respect to transparency, disclosure, due diligence, good governance, and accountability.”
Gaffney pointed out that SCF loans “bear all the hallmarks of the subprime market” with “a systematic failure to disclose.” This is exactly what makes them “great tools for terrorist funding.”
David Yerushalmi, a litigator specializing in securities law and an expert on international policy produced a memorandum examining the civil and criminal exposure inherent in SCFs in 2008 and concluded that banks and investment houses offering SCF products may be enabling or engaging in racketeering, antitrust activities, securities fraud, consumer fraud, and material support for terror.
Copies of Yerushalmi’s memorandum were sent to Wall Street firms and leading U.S.commercial banks. The Center for Security Policy sent the memorandum pointing out the similarities between subprime loans and SCFs. According to Gaffney’s article, only the former Merrill Lynch responded to the memorandum, but only with a note that curtly acknowledged its concern about terrorism.
Gaffney describes SCFs as a tool to overthrow the U.S. Government:
“What makes Shari’ah-Compliant Finance even more dangerous than subprime is that, in its effort to legitimize and institutionalize Shari’ah in America, it is advancing a criminal conspiracy whose purpose is the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution and government in favor of Islamic rule. That would make it sedition” [17]
Gaffney wrote that Alex Alexiev, the Vice President of Center for Security Policy, describes Gulf state’s Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), as “slush funds of the sovereigns… increasingly invested to promote Shari’ah law,” adding to what was in 2008 already estimated to be an $800 billion global industry. According to Alexiev, SCFs are:
“…a deliberate attempt to undermine Western markets and legitimize Shari’ah with practices that ‘imperil our free-enterprise system and national security — all the while exposing banks to financial risks that make the sub-prime fiasco look like a walk in the park.” [18]
Opponents of Shari’ah law believe that transparency and checks and balances are impossible when deference to religious “scholars” is policy. People in democratic nations do not realize they are unintentionally allowing seditious activity by promoting SCF. By not informing consumers and clients of the purpose of SCF, institutions are not providing accurate or transparent information from which a consumer can make a well-informed decision. Thus, it was also misleading for the U.S. Treasury to host a seminar on SCF without revealing its use as a tool in Islamic jihad. Instead of legitimizing Shari’ah in place of democratic constitutional values, the Treasury Department should have created regulations, oversight, and transparency mechanisms to eliminate the threat of Shari’ah compliant finance.
Proponents of Shari’ah finance hope to see it move deeper into mainstream global finance. American opponents maintain that Shari’ah finance is unconstitutional because it promotes a religion, and funds terrorism lacking transparency and credibility. Shari’ah interpretation varies between institutions and regions and is deficient in regulatory oversight.
SCF transactions are backed by a non-financial trade, rendering Shari’ah compliant products more complex than conventional transactions and lacking the likes of corporate treasury and derivatives products. Also there are a limited number of Islamic scholars to oversee the transactions and financial products for Shari’ah compliant financial products.
With Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital and BNP Paribas among the world’s top five issuers of sukuk, and the fact that the International Capital Market Association and the International Islamic Financial Market (IIFM) are planning to develop standard contracts for Islamic instruments, is telltale of who is controlling global financial infrastructure when global banks are putting their weight behind Islamic finance.[19]
Americans should urge our Senate and House leaders to investigate financial corporations that sell Shari’ah products, and put an end the U.S. ownership of SCF businesses by boycotting Banks that offer them. We should demand that our leaders close all U.S. banks that offer Shari’ah compliant products regardless of standardization, and we should demand the resignation of those in the U.S. government responsible for enabling and purchasing banks that have Shari’ah products and products.
The Center for Secure Policy and The McCormick Foundation have written a pamphlet that has specific steps and recommendations for ending Shari’ah compliant financial products. The pamphlet, “Shariah, Law and ‘Financial Jihad’: How Should America Respond?” can be downloaded at the McCormick Foundation Website and the Stop Shariah Now Project Website:
http://www.mccormickfoundation.org/publications/JihadReport.pdf
http://www.stopshariahnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=332&
[2] Shari’ah Finance Watch; http://www.Shari’ahhfinancewatch.org/blog/category/frequently-asked-questions/
[3] Gabriel, Brigitte; “U.S. Treasury Department to Host Islamic Finance 101 Forum!,” November 1, 2008, http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/494-us-treasury-department-to-host-shariah-compliant-financing-forum
[4] Alexiev, Alex; “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” April 3, 2008 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjBhMTM5MTlmN2YzNzE0MmFkOTg2OGYxNWM2MGNiNTQ=
[5] Roth, John; Greenburg, Douglas; Wille, Serena; National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, “Staff Report to the Commission”
[6] Ehrenfeld, Dr. Rachel, & Lappen, Alyssa A.; “America for Sale, “ Posted 04/01/2008, http://www.actforamerica92253.org/2008/05/23/america-for-sale-a-must-read/
[7] “Second Islamic Bank in Switzerland,” March 31, 2008, http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=1203758570498
[8]Watts, Christopher; “Is Islamic Finance at Tipping Point,” http://www.economist.com/sponsor/qfc/index.cfm?pageid=article104
[9] Gabriel, Brigitte; “What Opportunities Lie Ahead,” http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/email-archives/570-what-opportunities-lie-ahead-
[10] Morais, Richard C.; “International Investing Guide– Don’t Call it Interest,” July 23, 2009, http://www.sirajcapital.com/international.html
[11] Immon, Jeffrey; “America Must Not Own a Shari’ah-Based Financial Business,” November 10, 2008, http://anti-jihad.org/blog/2008/11/stopShari’ahnow/
[12] “Risk Specialists Companies Announces First Takaful Homeowners Products for U.S.,” December 1, 2008, http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081201005672&newsLang=en
[13] Gaffney, Frank Jr; “U.S. Treasury Submits to Shari’ah,” November 5, 2008, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1677/pub_detail.asp
[14]“Devon Bank Freddie Mac Announce Expanding Opportunities for Muslim Homebuyers,” Profitwise: News and Views, Consumer and Community Affairs Division, Consumer and Community Affairs Division
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,230 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60604-1413 October 2005
[15] http://www.DevonBank.com/Islamic/
[16] Mador, Jessica; “New Islamic Mortgages Now Available in Minnesota,” March 1, 2009, http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/02/28/islamicfinancing/
[17]Gaffney, Frank; “Wall Street: What’ Next,” September 16, 2008, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/16/into-the-fire/
[18] Alexiev, Alex; “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” April 3, 2008 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjBhMTM5MTlmN2YzNzE0MmFkOTg2OGYxNWM2MGNiNTQ=
[19] Watts, Christopher; “Is Islamic Finance at Tipping Point,” http://www.economist.com/sponsor/qfc/index.cfm?pageid=article104
4 comments October 5, 2009
