NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A Muslim soldier from Fort Campbell has been approved as a conscientious objector to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that status is on hold now that he's been charged with possession of child pornography.
Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 21-year-old infantry soldier, applied for the status last year after he decided Islamic standards would prohibit his service in the U.S. Army in any war. The Deputy Assistant Secretary, Army Review Boards Agency, recommended he be separated from the Army as a conscientious objector. But the discharge is delayed until the criminal charge is resolved.
He faces an Article 32 hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury, on Wednesday at the installation on the Tennessee-Kentucky state line. The hearing will determine whether he will face a court-martial. Abdo said he intends to fight the charge, which he believes is part of ongoing discrimination against him within the Army.
"It is because I am a conscientious objector and am fighting against going to Afghanistan that I have been charged with this crime," he said.
When he joined the Army in 2009, Abdo said he initially felt he could be a soldier and a Muslim at the same time. But he said his understanding of Islam changed as he went through training ahead of a planned deployment to Afghanistan and he worried whether going to war was the right thing to do. In his request, (for discharge) he stated that other soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim.
The military charge says 34 images of child pornography were found on a computer he used, a violation of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. . . Abdo's attorney, James Branum said anyone could have used the computer after Abdo turned it over, but they will learn more about the evidence against Abdo during Wednesday's hearing. "He is a very devout and practicing Muslim so I find it hard to believe,"
From The Daily Nation Where have we heard all this before. The Kenyans don't roll over and submit like we have.
Muslim students should not be allowed to wear hijab (head scarf) to school for the sake of equality, a court has been told.
A school, which has been sued by Muslim parents for stopping students from wearing head scarves, defended its decision saying it did not, in any way, discriminate against the rights of the students.
Kenya High School said school uniforms were critical in promoting discipline in the student community.
“If the court allows the Muslim students to wear head scarves, this will open a can of worms for all manner of demands for wearing of ‘religious’ regalia such as turbans, buibui, (like an abaya, long cloak, maybe a face veil) ornaments and dreadlocks,” the school said in an affidavit sworn by the board of governors secretary Rosemary Saina.
The school responded that it had done everything within its powers to ensure Muslim students were catered for. The school said it had done this by ensuring its washrooms were equipped with water bottles for the convenience of Muslims. It also said it had provided prayer rooms for Muslims and arranged for an Islamic preacher to attend to their spiritual needs once a week.
On Tuesday, High Court judge Daniel Musinga directed the parties in the matter to go for mention on July 4.
Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid
A simple strategy to treat all Muslim nations as a hostile bloc unless they prove otherwise, would be far wiser than treating Muslim nations as friendly (providing them military and economic aid) until we are fully and finally convinced that this friendly posture is an illusion. From the NYTImes:
Just who is the enemy of Muslim Pakistan? The Infidel nations, of which we are one (along with India), of course.
Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.
At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.
“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange.
That "three" probably consists of smoke and mirrors.
The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.
Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.
The Bin Laden raid and more recent attacks by militants in Pakistan have been blows to the country’s military, a revered institution in the country. Some officials and outside experts said the military is mired in its worst crisis of confidence in decades.
Because the Muslim populace does not want their military to cooperate with the Infidel US, regardless of the money the US continues to pour into Pakistan. Simples.
For Alain Gresh, Two Questions About Islam That Do Not Date
[Posted originally on Dec. 22, 2005]
[I have two questions for Alain Gresh, the silly redacteur-en-chef of Le Monde diplomatique, and author of the entirely predictable book of apologetics, "L'Islam, la Republique, et le monde." Gresh, born in Cairo to a Coptic father and a Jewish mother, believes that this background entitles him to be taken as an expert without having studied Islam at all. He is of a piece with Dominique de Villepin, who because he was born in Morocco, considers himself to have special insight into that world. He is of a piece also with Edward Said, an Arab who was not a Muslim, and who did not grow up in the Islamic world but in the U.S. from the age of 14, and who apparently thought that his mere "arabness" would somehow -- osmosis, anyone? -- give him special insight into what Islam is all about. And a good many people seemed to find that plausible, and to forgive such things as his dreamy belief that Muslims conquered Byzantium before conquering Spain, when it was the other way round, and by 700 years.
Gresh seems to believe that only sinister "anti-Arab racists" would raise questions about Islam and attempt to frighten one and all about this entirely inoffensive religion (yes, for Gresh it is definitely and wholly and solely a religion, not a belief-system with any political content or significance whatsoever). So what we have here, in the reactions of alarmed Infidels, from southern Thailand to the streets of Holland to the beaches of Australia to the outskirts of Washington, is simply "anti-Arab racism" in the clever disguise of "Islamophobia."
Question #1 has several parts, and you, Monsieur Alain Gresh, redacteur-en-chef of Le Monde diplomatique, must answer all of them -- but take your time. Here goes:
If poverty in Morocco gives rise to the Jihad, what caused Mike Hawash, Intel engineer completely integrated -- from the outside -- in American life, and earning $360,000 a year, to embrace the Jihad, make out his will, and set out to fight his fellow Americans in Afghanistan? And if "poverty" causes the Jihad, how is it that the richest country per capita in the world for many years (it has since fallen), Saudi Arabia, has produced so many Jihadis, who show up in Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and New York, and in Washington, and in Iraq, and everywhere? And if "poverty" in Morocco explains the growth in Jihadist sentiment, and not something else (such as a renewed attention to the world-view that Islam presents, in offering the Infidel as the Source of All Evil and All-Purpose Scapegoat) could you explain why Osama bin Laden, one of the scions of the richest family of commoners in Saudi Arabia, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, from one of the most powerful families in Egypt (his great uncle Azzam Pasha was Secretary of the Arab League, and was promoting the Jihad against Israel back in 1948), and himself a doctor, are the two most famous Jihadists in the world? And could you explain why the various studies of the background of many hundreds of terrorists all conclude that they are, on average, better educated (many of them having attended college) and much better off than the average resident of an Arab Muslim country?
Now please use a fresh blue-book for Question #2.
If "poverty" explains the violence and aggression of the Jihad, why is it that all over sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, and in the poorer cities of India and south Asia, that people far poorer, and far more desperate than any in Morocco never engage in anything like the Jihad -- though they certainly have lives more miserable and hopeless than the Jihadis of the various Arab and Muslim states?
Question #1, you will see, goes to the issue of whether Poverty Is Necessary for the Jihad -- and suggests that it is not. Question #2 goes to the issue of whether Poverty is Sufficient for someone to engage in the Jihad, or in other acts of violence and aggression that would constitute a kind of Jihad, even if outside of Islam.
And the answers to #1 and #2 demonstrate conclusively that Poverty is Neither Necessary nor Sufficient an Explanation of Jihad.
But one thing -- and one thing only -- is necessary and sufficient to explain the Jihad as a world-wide phenomenon (with, of course, local expressions, and a kind of mix-n'-match of personnel, so that a Pakistani might be in Chechnya, a Chechen in Madrid, an Arab in Jalalabad or Bali, and so on).
And that explanation is: the Ideology of Islam.
So come weez me, not to ze Kasbah, M. Gresh, but to ze Tres Grande Bibliotheque, ze last monstrositay (aftair les colonnes de Biran) of M. Mitterand, and togezaire we will read ze bookz about Islam, and you weel learn a lot, hein, and I can stop this Pepe-le-Moko routine, because it's getting on my nerves almost as much, dear reader, as it is getting on yours. .
ISI Members Not "Corrupt" But, Rather, Dangerously True Believers
From The Beaver County Times:
June 15, 2011
Many Pakistanis, from high-ranking officials to people in the street, were outraged that the United States didn’t inform their government that it was sending in Seal Team 6 to take out Osama bin Laden.
They charged this insult, as they perceived it, violated their nation’s sovereignty.
ï»¿ But as recent events have shown, the Obama administration knew exactly what it was doing in keeping Pakistani officials in the dark.
The Washington Post reports that twice in recent weeks, the United States provided Pakistan with specific locations on insurgent bomb-making factories, only to see the militants (learning that their cover had been blown) vacate the sites before military action could be taken.
Confirmation of this didn’t just come from U.S. sources. The Post reported Pakistani officials confirmed what happened.
Get this. The paper reports the Obama administration gave this information to Pakistani officials as part of a trust-building effort.
The administration apparently was doing a version of Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify” approach to arms agreements with the former Soviet Union. Only in the present case, it turned out to be, “Don’t trust, and then have your suspicions validated.”
It doesn’t matter whether the information was leaked inadvertently or the insurgents were warned directly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which is notoriously corrupt and inclined to turn a blind eye, and that’s putting it diplomatically, to insurgent activities — like bin Laden hiding in plain sight in Pakistan for years.
Because of Pakistan’s strategic importance to the war in Afghanistan, the United States must continue to work with Islamabad. But it must be very selective with the information is shares with Pakistani officials. Pure and simple, they can’t be trusted.
Here is an article that, in general, is good. The writer is suspicious of Pakistan, offers readers examples of how Pakistan cannot be trusted, and ends with that warning: Pakistan is not to be trusted.
But where he -- or she -- goes wrong is in a remark about the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Agency) which is described as "notoriously corrupt." Would that it were for then we in the rich West could buy them off. But they are not corrupt. They are much more dangerous than that. They are True Believers in Islam. They are people who are not merely hostile to the West, as almost all Pakistanis are, but murderously hostile to the West, and willing to protect, and support, and further the aims of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashker-e-Toiba. They are admirers of the Restatement Of Jihad by Brigadier General Malik.
That's the problem. The ISI is "notoriously incorruptible," notoriously full of True Believers in Islam, Islam, Islam.
Whitechapel - Islamic Forum of Europe sponsors a man who
Andrew Gilligan again. He needs to place that last piece of jigsaw about the core nature of Islam, and that there is no such thing as 'Islamism' and he is ready to go. But notwithstanding that flaw his information and research are faultless.
In two weeks’ time there will be a meeting in Tower Hamlets (sponsored by the IFE which controls the East London Mosque) with a man called Raed Salah, a Palestinian who reportedly wrote the following piece of poetry in the Hamas journal:
“You Jews are criminal bombers of mosques,
Slaughterers of pregnant women and babies.
Robbers and germs in all times,
The Creator sentenced you to be loser monkeys,
Victory belongs to Muslims, from the Nile to the Euphrates.”
The meeting isn’t taking place at the mosque – as I mentioned in my previous post, they’re in one of their periodic batten-down-the-hatches phases after a spell of negative PR. According to the organisers, it is taking place at an even more prominent, much more heavily publicly-funded Tower Hamlets institution – Queen Mary University. However, the university has been in touch to say that it will not be occurring there. Permission for the event was sought, but has been refused: an encouraging sign that the authorities are getting serious about tackling this sort of racism.
They will probably hire the Water Lily a newly opened retail,business and leisure complex which used to be Wickhams Department store and which is hosting a Hizb ut Tahrir conference next month. I don't suppose the Troxy will touch them with a 10ft pole after last year.
Theodore Dalrymple - Assisted suicide should not be made legal in Britain.
The no side of a debate in the Daily Express. In favour of culling the old and infirm is a woman from 'Dignity' in Dying.
It is said that hard cases make bad law and unfortunately it’s true that there are some very hard cases indeed. There are terrible ways to die that no one would wish on anyone and to which assisted dying might seem the reasonable answer. But that is not the end of the matter. What is deemed intolerable often depends on circumstances and it is well within the power of relatives to make the lives of the old and ill intolerable to the extent that they would rather die than continue living.
Anyone who has seen legacy-hunters hovering around the terminally (and not so terminally) ill will be under no illusion as to the capacity of greed, even on a small scale, to affect relatives’ and friends’ behaviour towards the infirm. And this ability to make ill people’s lives intolerable is not confined to relatives and friends – hospitals, nursing and care homes also have it. In terms of financial stringency it is not beyond imagination that indirect pressure will be placed on people to ask for the quick (and cheap) way out.
You can be incurably ill without being near to death and near to death without being incurably ill. It will therefore be difficult, perhaps impossible, to confine the right to assisted death to any specific group of people, however defined. Moreover the word “discrimination” now has such a negative connotation that before long people will demand to be treated no differently from the incurable or the dying.
They will claim that, since suffering can only be measured subjectively, they themselves are the only possible judges of what they suffer. Your suffering is incurable or unbearable if you say it is – why then should some have an easy escape and others not merely because they have a definable illness or are dying? Before long the right to assisted suicide will be interpreted not as the right to find someone who will provide you with an easeful death but the duty of the health service to kill you on demand. And if you have a right in this sense to death someone has a corresponding duty to kill you.
If anything, Pat Condell's understanding of Islam is improving. This is the first time I've heard him mention abrogation, a key weapon in deflecting those who say that both the Bible and the Koran have their good and bad bits.
WASHINGTON — The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.
In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.
On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.
“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.
They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.
On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.
“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”
It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.
“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”
Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.
The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.
Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.
The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.
While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.
Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.
It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.
Mr. Koh argued that the administration’s interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.
Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government’s forces.
The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration’s legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as “hostilities” even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.
In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.
LIndsay Graham Enjoys Squandering Lives And Money To Rescue Muslim Countries From Their Own Wretchedness
Graham raps Boehner, GOP candidates on Libya, Afghanistan
By James Rosen
WASHINGTON — Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham criticized his party's presidential candidates and congressional leaders for increasingly advocating an international isolationism that he said repudiates the legacies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
The South Carolina senator mocked seven GOP presidential candidates' discussion of foreign policy in Monday night's New Hampshire debate as "shallow" and full of "platitudes."
Graham, a military lawyer as a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, also criticized House Speaker John Boehner's threat to invoke the Vietnam-era War Powers Resolution against President Barack Obama over U.S. military involvement in Libya.
After delivering a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, Graham asked how many in the audience had watched the New Hampshire debate.
"I was very disappointed that no one articulated why it matters if we win or lose in Afghanistan," Graham said. "No one articulated what would happen if (Libyan strongman Moammar) Gadhafi stays in power. So we have Republicans talking about stopping our efforts in Libya."
Graham spoke as 10 House members — seven Republicans and three Democrats — filed suit against Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates for U.S. engagement in the NATO air strikes against Gadhafi for the last three months without congressional approval.
The lawsuit was filed a day after House Speaker John Boehner wrote Obama a letter protesting that Obama hadn't sought congressional support under the 1973 War Powers Resolution within 60 days of the March 19 start of the NATO air campaign in Libya.
"Either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution," Boehner wrote. "The House and the American people whom we represent deserve to know the determination we have made."
The White House sent Congress a lengthy memo later Wednesday justifying U.S. military involvement in Libya and saying the administration is complying with the War Powers Resolution because no American lives are at risk in the NATO air operation.
Graham aides said Boehner's stance broke with longstanding opposition to the War Powers Resolution — which a Democratic-controlled Congress passed to rebuke Republican President Richard Nixon — among many conservative lawmakers and scholars.
"Speaker Boehner is a good friend, but I don't remember all this talk (by Republicans) about the War Powers Act in the past," Graham said.
Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said: "President Bush sought and received congressional authorization for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
Democrats, though, criticized Bush on Iraq, saying his long ground war there exceeded the military action Congress had authorized before the March 2003 U.S. invasion.
Graham, the only member of Congress to have served active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, campaigned actively in 2008 for Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee who lost to Obama. [he's served, but as a military lawyer, and he hasn't thought about what would be a sensible definition of "victory" in both Iraq and Afghanistan, , hasn't considered if the men, money, materiel, morale, and attention squandered on those two places, in order to improve the lot of the people in them, made geopolitical sense; he's akin to those soldiers helping a crazed Alec
Guinness build that Bridge Over The River Kwai]
McCain, a former Vietnam War prisoner of war, backs strong U.S. military action in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya, and generally adopts muscular national-security policies.
Without naming him, Graham ridiculed GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, former chief executive of the Godfather's Pizza chain, for having said in the debate Monday evening that he wouldn't allow a Muslim to serve in his Cabinet.
"Everybody is for making sure we vet Muslims in the Cabinet," Graham said. "That is the least of my concerns. My concern is: Will the Republican Party come to grips with what it takes to win the very long struggle with radical Islam?" [could it be that it is not "radical Islam" -- which Graham has yet to define in any of his many remarks over the past eight years in defense of the iraq venture -- but Islam, and those who take Islam seriously, that should be at the very top of his concerns"?]
Ellen Carmichael, a Cain spokeswoman, said the debate participants' allotted time was too limited for him to present his views fully.
"Since the candidates were only allowed 30 seconds to respond to questions, and since there were seven candidates on stage, this debate should simply serve as a preview of Mr. Cain's positions on the issues," she said. "He looks forward to expounding upon his ideas and listening to the concerns of voters across the U.S. in the months to come."
Graham upped the ante in saying the U.S. should consider military intervention in yet another Middle East nation and weigh joining an international effort to dislodge Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, who's responded violently to protests there.
"Ronald Reagan has got to be turning over in his grave in a lot of ways," Graham said. "I want to re-energize a Republican Party that can carry the banner for national security."
Gary Howard, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, said the Texan making his third presidential run is following in Reagan's footsteps.
"Ronald Reagan had the courage and strength of leadership to admit that we do not understand the irrationality of Middle East politics and pulled our Marines out of Lebanon in the 1980s," Howard said. "Congressman Paul would show that same type of leadership and get our troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq and back defending this country." [it's not "irrationality of Middle East politics" at all -- it's the steady, immutable, implacable hatred of Muslims for the West, which makes them incapable of gratitude toward that West, and keeps them intent -- however trusting and generous the West shows itself to be, as it has so often -- on promoting Islam, and removing all obstacles to its spread, and to its future dominance. ;
Among the other debate participants, former Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Sen. Rick Santorum declined to comment on Graham's criticism.
According to translated Arab sources, it has been learned that the mother of Huma Abedin – Huma is Anthony Weiner's wife and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff – is an official member of the Muslim Brotherhood; Saleha Abedin belongs to the women's division known as the Muslim Sisterhood.
What has not been validated by western media – which has been confirmed by Arab sources – is that Huma has a brother named Hassan Abedin who is a fellow with the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies (OCIS). This adds to strong evidence that an extremely reputable British institution has been infiltrated.
The OCIS consists of an increasing number of Muslim Brotherhood members who sit on the Board. OCIS has Al-Qaeda godfather, Omar Naseef as well as the notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader and suicide bombing supporter – Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi listed as OCIS Trustees. Naseef continues to serve as Board Chairman.
In 2009, Qaradawi's role within Oxford and the Muslim Brotherhood was championed by the notorious Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi. OCIS has even presented an award for great scholarly achievement to Muslim Brotherhood member Shaykh Abd Al-Fattah Abu Gudda, who was an associate of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Even the Sunday Times acknowledges that the cradle of Islamic Jihad – Al-Azhar University – actively attempts to establish links with OCIS.
These Arab sources have been researched and translated by former Muslim and ex-PLO member Walid Shoebat, who successfully translated and exposed the words of Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in 2010; these discoveries helped to derail Rauf's efforts to build the mosque. Shoebat also uncovered the Arabic statements of Mosab Hassan Yousef, the Son of Hamas author who allegedly converted to Christianity. Shoebat's work revealed Mosab to have very unsavory and deceptive motives.
Now, back to the Abedins. As Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma accompanied the Secretary of State to the Dar El-Hekma women's college in Saudi Arabia. Huma's mother is the co-founder and a Vice Dean at the college.
The Shoebat Foundation has also translated Arab sources that identify Huma’s mother – Saleha Mahmoud Abdeen (aka Abedin) as a member of the woman's arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. This information was obtained via Al-Liwa Al-Arabi, which released the entire list on the investigation done by Egyptian security, showing Saleha as a member. This arm is also known as the International Women's Organization (IWO) or “Muslim Sisterhood.”
The 'Dostor' Egyptian newspaper confirms 63 International Missionaries from the Muslim Brotherhood's “Sisterhood” branch that spans 16 different countries; it's also confirmed by the Arab Centre for Studies, headed by researcher Abdul Rahim Ali.
This “Womens Division” of the Muslim Brotherhood can be found at the Muslim Brotherhood's official website. Shoebat translates the relevant excerpt thusly:
“The Womens Organization's goal in accordance with the Muslim Brotherhood rules, is to gain and acquire a unified global perception in every nation in the world regarding the position of women, and the necessity of advocacy work at all levels in accordance to the message of the Brotherhood as written in Women in Muslim Society, and the rearing of women throughout the different stages of life.”
True to this cause, another member of the Sisterhood – as confirmed by the list – is Suheir Qureshi. She spoke alongside Saleha Abedin as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was brought in due to the connection to Saleha's daughter. All three women spoke on issues of Women in Muslim Society. An Arabic news report of what happened during Hillary's visit is translated by Shoebat. In that report “Suheir Qureshi spoke of how elated she was of Hillary's historic visit.” Translating further, Shoebat reveals in English what was reported about the words of Huma's mother as well as those of Hillary:
“Saleha Abedin spoke after Shuheir Qureshi and beamed in the presence of Secretary Clinton. Saleha's speech preceded the former First Lady's. Then Hillary stood. She donned a broad smile as she approached the podium... Clinton started with a strong word and she spent a long time complimenting Dr. Saleha Abedin regarding her daughter. Hillary explained that Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office. She ended her speech by speaking of Saleha Abedin's daughter (Huma), that a person must be happy if mentioned in a positive light but there is no happiness that equals the compliment given to children in front of a parent.”
Exposed to State secrets, Huma's marriage to Weiner also gives her inside access to the inner workings of Congress. It is sacrilege in Islam for Huma’s mother to accept the reality that her daughter is married to a Jew, a marriage that is considered null and void by the highest authorities in Islam
Huma's brother has been key in furthering the Islamic agenda in the west. He is seen meeting with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on an agenda of “spreading Islam to the west.” He is well linked to Omar Naseef, a notorious associate of Al-Qaeda. According to a very detailed report from 2007, Naseef was identified as the likely force behind the Abedin family's departure from Kalamazoo, MI to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia circa 1977.
Whether coincidentally, ironically, or both the Muslim Sisterhood was established in 1977.
In still another significant translation by Shoebat, in 2008, Dr. Mumen Muhammad wrote about why Huma vowed to stay with Hillary even if the latter were to lose the presidential nomination to Obama:
“Abedin assures in press releases her continuance on the path with Hillary Clinton, even if Clinton failed as a candidate. The candidate's aids and other influential figures in the Democratic Party assure that they do not disregard Abedin running for election or taking her position in the political arena by the help in successive political administrations with the aid of the Clinton family itself.”
Indeed, the “Clinton family” played a key role in promoting the extremely powerful Turkish Imam and notorious Islamist Fethullah Gülen. In 2008, the former president heaped praise on Gülen, giving him a clean slate at the Turkish Cultural Center Friendship Dinner.
Gülen fled Turkey for the United States in 1998 – during the Clinton administration – after attempting to overthrow Turkey's secular government, a charge over which he was indicted in 2000; the Turkish Imam still lives in the U.S.
More than a little sympathetic to Muslim Brotherhood's goals, Gülen explained in a sermon that aired on Turkish television how his followers could best seize power from the Turkish government:
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers... until the conditions are ripe... Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside....
Georgetown University has some explaining to do based on documents obtained exclusively by PJM from a confidential law enforcement source. The documents reveal a scheme to pass $325,000 through the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been identified by the FBI as a front for the Hamas terrorist organization. The money was paid to Georgetown by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to promote its “Islamophobia” agenda, which includes its stated international objective of criminalizing any criticism of Islam.
Even more troubling: evidence that Georgetown is not the only American university to cooperate with CAIR and the OIC in their joint plan to subvert the First Amendment right to free speech.
The plot was apparently initiated in 2006 by discussions between the OIC, CAIR, and Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (CMCU). An email dated November 20, 2006, sent from OIC permanent observer to the UN Abdul Wahab to Nihad Awad and Hadia Mubarak — a CAIR board member and Georgetown CMCU “senior researcher” — urged them to expedite arrangements. The email also promised that funds would be transferred to Georgetown as soon as the OIC received a letter from John Esposito, director of Georgetown’s CMCU.
Abdul Wahab’s email was followed up with a January 11, 2007, joint letter from CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad and John Esposito, which is referenced in a January 15, 2007, letter of reply from OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (the letter is misdated as 2006). The letter offered $325,000 in cash from the OIC to finance an “Islamophobia” symposium to be convened at Georgetown University.
The OIC is the second largest intergovernmental body in the world behind the United Nations. It comprises every Islamic country in the world at the head of state level. OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu said last year that the OIC functions as the Islamic global caliphate and embodies the “Islamic solidarity” of the ummah. Included as an agenda item in the OIC’s 10 year plan — stated in English on their own website — is to push for the international criminalization of Islamophobia (1.VII), in defiance of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights protections of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Georgetown’s CMCU was endowed in December 2005 by a $20 million grant from Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, one of the richest men in the world, who also gave another $20 million for a similar center at Harvard. Back in February 2008, I wrote about the extremist Wahhabi agenda that the center actively promotes. Congressman Frank Wolf has also written to Georgetown President John DeGioia expressing concerns about the potential Saudi influence of U.S. government foreign service personnel trained at the university. Wolf also queried whether the CMCU had ever written anything critical of the Saudis’ abysmal record on human rights, religious freedom, freedom of expression, women’s rights, minority rights, protection of foreign workers, due process, and the rule of law. Needless to say, they haven’t.
John Esposito, the CMCU’s director, described Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian at an August 2007 CAIR fundraiser in Dallas as “a good friend of mine,” even hiring Al-Arian’s son Abdullah as a researcher for the center. Esposito’s protégé, Hadia Mubarak, who now operates as a researcher at the Gallup Poll’s Muslim World project, is a virulent bigot who has gone so far as accusing other Muslims as having “a deep hatred of Islam” for daring to criticize American Islamic organizations and institutions that are Saudi-financed and promote their extremist Wahhabi agenda — such as the Georgetown CMCU.
During the period when this scheme came together, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case — the largest terrorism financing trial in American history. Not coincidentally, Esposito served as a defense witness in that trial. His testimony was apparently unpersuasive, as the defendants were convicted on all 108 charges and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. During that trial, FBI Special Agent Lara Burns testified that CAIR was a front for the terrorist group Hamas. Admittedly mirroring the agenda of the OIC, and presumably its aim to criminalize the defamation of Islam, CAIR has established an observatory for “Islamophobia.” CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad spoke last year at an OIC conference on Islamophobia held in Brazil. Nihad Awad was personally named an unindicted co-conspirator, along with his organization, in the Holy Land Foundation trial and is identified in federal wiretaps of a top-level Hamas meeting held in Philadelphia in 1993.
This symbiotic relationship between the OIC, Georgetown, and CAIR is expressed in their unity to promote the OIC’s “Islamophobia” agenda. But the attempts to pull off the Georgetown conference to that end experienced some setbacks, according to additional documents obtained from our law enforcement source.