These are all the Blogs posted on Wednesday, 19, 2011.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Hu's On First
China ends year with fast growth, slower inflation
By Aileen Wang and Kevin Yao
BEIJING | Wed Jan 19, 2011
BEIJING (Reuters) - China finished 2010 with a bang, its growth soaring past expectations while inflation slowed just a touch, numbers that could prod the government to ratchet up its easy-does-it approach to tightening.
A man threatened to kill his cousin and harm her family after she decided to stop wearing the traditional Muslim headscarf, a court has heard. Mohamed Al-Hakim, 29, allegedly phoned Alya Al-Safar to tell her she must die because of the ‘shame’ she had brought – leaving her too afraid to leave the house. He had already branded her family ‘bitches and whores’ because of her decision, the court heard.
Miss Al-Safar, 21, had stopped wearing the hijab a few days before the phone call. She said that Al-Hakim’s mother, her aunt Mardhiya Al-Musawi, ‘wasn’t happy’ that she had stopped covering her hair – a step she had been considering for more than two years. She received his call when she was with her parents and two younger brothers at their home in Hammersmith, West London.
Al-Hakim allegedly instructed her to play the conversation over a loudspeaker so that they could all listen at about midnight on June 9.
Miss Al-Safar, who did not have her head covered in court but did swear on the Koran, told the jury that Al-Hakim had said: ‘Listen to me carefully, it has been three days and I did not sleep. I have decided not to go out of the house for two weeks. Listen Alya, I am warning you if by the 19th of June you are not wearing the hijab back, I am warning you I will kill you and harm you. I am giving you ten days. You brought shame to your family, you should not have done that.’
Miss Al-Safar said: ‘He was calm. I was so scared, I really felt scared because my cousin was threatening me. I didn’t know if he was joking, if he was just mad, or if it was true and he would do it. He started shouting, “Listen to me, you had better do what I said. I have seen you on the Edgware Road [a busy street in central London] and if I see you again I will kill you”.
‘He said something about harming my father as well. I was so scared I didn’t want to leave the house and everyone in my family said, “Don’t go out”.’
Days earlier Al-Hakim, of Acton Park, West London, had called Miss Al-Safar’s mother to complain about the decision to ditch the hijab and had shouted down the phone, the jury heard. Her mother, Fatima Al-Musawi, told the court that Al-Hakim had said: ‘If Alya doesn’t wear the hijab I will kill her or send someone else to kill her. If I see her in Edgware Road, I will kill her dad with her.’
Her brother said that his immediate family supported his sister’s decision, but extended relatives were ‘really mad’.
Islamist extremists in Somalia murdered a mother-of-four in front of her community after tapping her phone for proof that she had become a Christian.
Al Shabaab militants arrested Asha Mberwa at her home in Warbhigly village on the outskirts of Mogadishu on January 7 – and cut her throat in front of villagers the following day.
One of Asha's relatives, who spoke to Compass Direct news agency on condition of anonymity, said he believed al Shabaab had monitored calls between him and Asha on January 5. He said he presumed that the militants had been able to confirm she had become a Christian through their conversation. He was trying to make arrangements for her family to leave the area.
Asha's four children – who are aged between four and 12 – are being cared for but are said to be very distressed. Their father, Abdinazir Mohammed Hassan, who was not at home at the time of his wife's murder, has reportedly fled and gone into hiding.
The transitional Government in Mogadishu has also embraced a version of Sharia which makes apostasy – leaving Islam – a capital offence.
We are asked to pray for her grieving and endangered family and for all Christians in Somalia.
KUALA LUMPUR: A group of 12 Canadians are reported undergoing militant training at an al-Qaida camp in Pakistan's lawless North Waziristan in apparent plots to carry out terror attacks back home. The Canadians, who may have converted to Islam, were helped to reach the Darpakhel areas of the lawless tribal belt after joining radical Egyptian group Jihad al-Islami, Hong Kong based Asia Times reported.
"The Canadians went to Afghanistan in February 2010; there were 12 of them. After nine months, al-Qaida's leaders decided to send them to North Waziristan and they reached Darpakhel in November last year," Arif Wazir, a local militant of Darpakhel, was quoted as saying in the report.
The report, quoting well placed Taliban sources, says militant training to Canadians is a part of al-Qaida plans to recruit, train and launch Western Caucasians in their countries... the aim is to “spread the flames of the South Asian war theatre to the West."
"In Afghanistan they received basic jihadi training, while currently they are busy doing some special courses. Their main learning is how to use sophisticated weapons, and how to connect with local smuggling networks in North America. They are also learning how to use ordinary material like sugar and basic chemicals to make powerful explosives. These militants will then return to their country to execute al-Qaida's plan of targeting big cities in Canada," Arif Wazir said.
A 30-year-old man Abu Shahid, sporting golden beard, is leading the Canadian group, the report said, adding that those who could not be independently verified and include: Jeam Paull (local name Sadiq Ullah), Leman Langlois (Sana Ullah), James Richard (Abdur Rehman), Otto Paul (Abu Usman), Thomas (Abdullah) and Paul Gall (Hafiz Ullah).
The news article also mentions that various militants of other nationalities are also being trained in North Waziristan and apart from Arab and Central Asian militants, one can find jihadis from the United States, Britain and Germany.
Europe On Trial â€“ Part Three, Or, Christians Forced To Eat Unclean Meat
I must confess to a very personal involvement with the issues in this story. I hope that my biases are obvious throughout. I recall with anger how the Pope was publicly vilified by the EU mandarins when, back in 2007 on the fiftieth anniversary of this vile Union, His Holiness called for some mention of Europe’s Judeo-Christian roots in the documents that govern the workings of this ungodly, unnatural and forced Union.
In absolute bafflement His Holiness asked two questions:
"If on the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome the governments of the union want to get closer to their citizens, how can they exclude an element as essential to the identity of Europe as Christianity, in which the vast majority of its people continue to identify," he said.
"Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it (Europe) to doubt its very identity?"
In their spiritual paucity they could only find one thing to say to him: “...the main task ahead for Catholics is to carry on a dialogue with religions like Islam...”. The message was delivered to His Holiness by the Italian Prime Minister at the time, Romano Prodi the arch Euro-imperialist. That, to my mind, is a clear indication of exactly where this appalling Union is going.
In exactly the same dismissive way nobody seems to care that so-called halal meat is unclean from the perspective of the average Christian such as I am, for, according to our core Christian beliefs, the animal from whence it comes was slaughtered in accordance with commands from the devil and is destined to feed devil-worshippers, i.e. Mohammedans. Everything, without exception, about so-called halal meats and foods is unclean and should not be touched, or consumed, by observant Christians for one cannot eat food dedicated to the devil and expect to remain untainted and pure. The same restriction does not apply to Jewish kosher foods since they are offered to G-d, not to the devil.
But the fact that many of us believe that doesn’t stop the left wing fascists of the EU bureaucracy from completely ignoring our complaints – the tactic they adopt whenever a Christian speaks – and coming down firmly on the side of a tiny minority of devil-worshippers - Mohammedans. This article explains the current state of play in Europe (it’s from the Hudson Institute and was written by Soeren Kern):
The European Union, bowing to pressure from Muslim lobby groups, has quietly abandoned a new measure that would have required halal [religiously approved for Muslims] meat products to carry a label alerting consumers that the animals were not stunned, and therefore conscious, just before slaughter. With the exponential growth of Europe's Muslim population in recent years, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.
Muslims have the right to choose halal foods, but non-Muslims do not have the right to choose not to eat the ritually slaughtered meat.
Halal, which in Arabic means lawful or legal, is a term designating any object or action that is permissible according to Islamic Sharia Law. In the context of food, halal meat is derived from animals slaughtered by hand according to methods stipulated in Islamic religious texts. One such method, called dhabihah, consists of making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck that cuts the jugular vein, leaving the animal to bleed to death without stunning. Of vital importance, according to the Koran, is that the animal's blood flows from its body by "natural convulsion."
Many non-Muslim veterinary experts say the method is cruel and should be outlawed. In Britain, for example, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an advisory body to the British Government, says in a report that cutting an animal's throat without stunning induces "significant pain and distress." The FAWC also says: "Slaughter without pre-stunning is unacceptable and the Government should repeal the current exemption."
The British Veterinary Association (BVA) says: "The BVA believes that all animals should be effectively stunned before slaughter to improve the welfare of these animals at slaughter. However, as long as slaughter without stunning is permitted, the BVA has argued for any meat from this source to be clearly labelled to enable all consumers to fully understand the choice they are making."
Animal-welfare legislation in Europe requires that abattoirs stun all animals prior to slaughter unless they are being ritually killed according to the practices of a non-Christian religion. But critics say the religious slaughter exemptions are being abused and millions of cows, goats, turkeys and chickens are being slaughtered according to halal standards and then sold to unwitting, non-Muslim customers, providing producers with a large and profitable market.
In Britain alone, it is estimated that more than 150 million halal animals are killed each year. Critics say this number is far more than is needed by the Muslim community, and that the growing success of halal products in Europe is being driven by the fact that the non-Muslim public is unaware of the halal origins of the meat. They say the ability to sell halal meat products by stealth has opened up vast new markets across Europe, which, by extension, is leading to a huge increase in the number of animals slaughtered using halal methods. The European halal food market is currently valued at €50 billion ($67 billion), and is expected to grow by at least 25% by 2020.
Critics of halal say that by dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU effectively is institutionalizing a discriminatory two-tier approach to identifying the origins of meats. This controversy, as with so many others, highlights the growing assertiveness of Europe's Muslim community, and demonstrates once again how the rise of Islam is stealthily overwhelming the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.
Amendment 205 to the EU food information regulations, passed by members of the European Parliament in June 2010 by a vote of 559 to 54, would have required all meat or meat products from animals slaughtered without stunning to be labelled as follows: "Derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter." Although halal meat is well labelled in specialist butcher shops and food outlets, the EU regulation would have alerted non-Muslim consumers to supplies entering the mainstream food system.
Not surprisingly, the move to require halal meat producers to provide consumers with more information on the packaging of their products has enraged Muslims, who claim that the move has little to do with animal welfare, and reflects a bias against Islam. In any event, halal slaughter is permitted in all but four European countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland) and halal-related controversies are becoming increasingly commonplace.
In Britain, for example, a London Daily Mail investigation has found that the country's major supermarket chains, fast-food restaurants, even some hospitals and schools are serving halal food without telling those who are eating it. Cheltenham College, which boasts of its strong Christian ethos, is one of several top British schools serving halal chicken to pupils without informing them. Even Britain's biggest hotel and restaurant group Whitbread, which owns the Beefeater and Brewers Fayre chains, admits that more than three-quarters of its poultry is halal.
In London, the Harrow Council has provoked a storm of protest after announcing plans to offer Islamic halal-only menus in the borough's 52 state primary schools. Parents are outraged that meat prepared according to Sharia law is being pushed on non-Muslim children. In Derby, the Dale Primary School has only halal meat on the school menu for certain days of the week to avoid cross contamination with non-halal meat. In Blackburn, the Daisyfield Primary School has become the first non-Muslim school to become certified by the Halal Monitoring Committee.
In Birmingham, the Domino's pizza chain has opened a halal-only outlet that does not offer its customers ham or bacon. Critics say the new policy discriminates against non-Muslims. Domino's says it has "thought long and hard" about not offering pork products at the store, which serves an area with a large Muslim population. The company says there are "alternatives, such as turkey ham." Meanwhile, most of the in-flight meals on British Airways could soon be halal.
Also in Britain, the 2nd World Halal Forum Europe 2010 recently was held in London. The theme of the World Halal Forum Europe was: "Halal Products & Services -- Going Mainstream."
In Spain, Muslims have rejected efforts by the Spanish rail company RENFE to offer halal menus on its high-speed trains. The Muslim Council of Spain says it is not enough for RENFE to simply remove alcohol and pork from its menu. The company must also take into consideration how the animals are slaughtered, what type of oil is used in cooking, as well as comply with a list of other demands.
In Spain as a whole, the Muslim population has undergone an almost twenty-fold increase in just two decades and the internal market for halal products is now estimated to exceed 2 million consumers, in addition to the estimated 7 million Muslims who pass through Spain each year as they cross the Strait of Gibraltar to and from North Africa.
In Belgium, the Justice Ministry recently launched a pilot project to train prison guards, as well as doctors and nurses, about practical problems related to halal. Muslim inmates in Belgian prisons often refuse medication because it contains animal fat, and Muslim patients in Belgian hospitals sometimes refuse medical care during Ramadan. As part of its halal training efforts, the Justice Ministry commissioned a practical guide titled "Comprendre le halal" (Understanding halal).
Also in Belgium, the parents of children attending the De Kleine Kunstenaar kindergarten in the town of Houthalen recently signed a petition objecting to their children being forced to eat halal meat on a school trip. "Due to their religious beliefs, Muslims can only consume halal meat, but that does not mean our children must eat it," the petition says. The parents are asking for an alternative burger for their children, but the school says that request is "practically impossible."
In France, the Franco-Belgian fast-food chain, Quick, has removed bacon burgers from its menu and replaced them with a version using halal beef and a slice of smoked turkey. René Vandierendonck, the socialist mayor of the northern French city of Roubaix, says the move amounts to discrimination against non-Muslim customers. He has filed charges with justice authorities against Quick for what he says is prejudicial religious catering. He has also lodged a complaint with France's main anti-discrimination authority on the matter. Marine Le Pen, vice president of the National Front Party, says Quick's halal option is "an Islamic tax" on diners. Xavier Bertrand, secretary general of the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) says Quick's menu change is undermining France's secular, integrationist social model.
Elsewhere in France, where the halal food sector has doubled in five years and is now valued at €5.5 billion ($7 billion), animal rights activist Brigitte Bardot says that 80% of French slaughterhouses are now halal because the method is cheaper and faster, and thus more profitable.
In Italy, the government in July 2010 signed an agreement with the Italian Islamic Community to establish a halal certifying organization. The Halal Italia certification scheme will guarantee compliance with Islamic laws for Italian food products such as tortellini and lasagne. The Italian market for halal is valued at €5 billion ($6.5 billion). Foreign Minister Franco Frattini says the Islamically-correct "Made in Italy" certification is designed to facilitate "the progressive integration of Muslim communities resident in Italy into the social fabric."
In Sweden, which has banned the religious slaughtering of animals since 1937, the Muslim Association of Sweden(SMF) is demanding that halal slaughter practices be legalized. SMF chairperson Mahmoud Aldebe says the Swedish government should respect the democratic rights of Sweden's Muslims to exercise their "religious freedoms" and help find a way to permit the practice.
In Holland, an elementary Catholic school in Weertdecided to serve only halal food for its Christmas meal. The school has about 400 students, only ten of whom are Muslim. Margo Janssen, the school principal, says that serving only halal food for Christmas is a Christian thing to do because it puts others -- Muslims -- first.
Also in Holland, several Dutch prisons are now serving only halal food. The Dutch Justice Department says it is too expensive to offer prisoners both halal and non-halal menus, so it has decided to offer only halal food. The prison in the Dutch town of Sittard is now being sued by a prisoner; he says that by being forced to eat halal food, he is receiving extra punishment.
The bold emphases are mine.
By the way, and just as a little end note, the new European Union criminal code, Corpus Juris, is destined replace the classic, longstanding British criminal code in the near future. Vital elements such as Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus are missing from this new code. Now, do you still think that I am merely being paranoid about this terrible Union? (See Frederick Forsyth “The Abolition of Habeas Corpus” and Lord Stoddart on Corpus Juris, http://www.bullen.demon.co.uk/ 11/18/03.)
Note: In an email last week to the board of directors of the American Conservative Union (the group that runs CPAC), Frank Gaffney laid out the extensive case against Suhail Khan, a member of that group’s board. In it, he discusses the vulnerability of the American conservative movement to influence operations from the Muslim Brotherhood. Here is the letter in its entirety.
14 January 2011
MEMORANDUM FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION
FROM: Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
RE: Muslim Brotherhood Influence Operations and the Conservative Movement
On Tuesday, you all received an e-mail from your fellow Board member, Suhail Khan. In it, he said he wants to “set the record straight” following several upsetting press reports – including a news article published by World Net Daily on 4 January 2011, an op.ed. by Paul Sperry in the New York Post on 11 January 2011 and several related videos.
In that correspondence and a series of interviews with left-wing media outlets and blogs, Suhail has attacked me and what he calls my “cohort” for expressing concerns about him, his family and his activities. Kahn’s comments provide what some would call a “teachable moment.” It is now imperative that each of you consider with care the actual facts of the matter so as to determine whether, as he claims in his e-mail, “the ACU has nothing to worry about.”
Let me say at the outset that, despite concerted efforts by Suhail and his supporters to portray this as a personal matter, that is not the case. It is a matter of national security, period. I will not respond to ad hominem attacks against me by him or others except to say they have no basis in fact. I trust that those of you who have known and worked with me for the past few decades will find such unsubstantiated calumnies discrediting not to their intended target, but to their perpetrator.
The issue before the ACU today is actually fairly straightforward: Has the conservative movement been subjected to a sustained and successful influence operation by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB or Ikhwan)? I believe it is demonstrable that the answer is “Yes.” Indeed, were that not the case, it would be remarkable. After all, every other significant element of our polity – notably, our government, academia, the media, the Left, religious groups and the U.S. financial sector – has been assiduously targeted by the MB for the purpose of disinforming, manipulating or otherwise neutralizing it.
That is the conclusion of an important new book, Shariah: The Threat to Americathat was published by the Center for Security Policy in November. It was authored by nineteen eminent national security practitioners and other experts, including: a former
Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey, a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Ed Soyster, a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin, and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
This group (which we dubbed “Team B II” in honor of a previous “exercise in competitive analysis” in 1976 that was much admired and utilized by Ronald Reagan) did not indulge in “conspiracy theories.” Rather, it drew extensively on the recognized authorities of Islam – the sacred texts, established traditions, scholarly consensuses, agreed interpretations and revered institutions – to lay bare an authentic conspiracy aimed at establishing worldwide the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military-legal program known as shariah.
Given your “need to know” whether the ACU and other elements of our movement have indeed been successfully targeted by the Ikhwan, I will have a complementary copy of Shariah: The Threat to America sent to you.
(1) How the MB’s Infiltration of the Conservative Movement Began
As you may know, it was 1999 when I first discovered how the Muslim Brotherhood intended to destroy conservatives from within, by our hand, as part of what its strategic plan calls “civilization jihad.” Shortly after the Center for Security Policy sublet office space that year from Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a colleague brought to my attention myriad ties between an organization housed within ATR’s suite – the Islamic Free Market Institute (better known as the Islamic Institute or II) – and Abdurahman Alamoudi.
Even then, Alamoudi was known in law enforcement circles as one of the most prominent and influential Muslim Brothers in the United States. Today, he is known as a convicted jihadist terrorist and al Qaeda financier who is serving 23 years in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.
In the early 1990s, however, the Clinton administration saw fit to assign Alamoudi the responsibility for identifying, training and credentialing Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military and prison system. As is recounted in Shariah: The Threat to America (pp. 124-130), the Brotherhood operative sought to ensure that, in the event Al Gore did not prevail in the 2000 campaign, Alamoudi’s access and influence at senior levels of the U.S. government would be undiminished. That was accomplished to a degree that must have exceeded his fondest dreams when he succeeded in founding and staffing the Islamic Institute with Grover Norquist as its first president and Suhail Khan as a member of its board of directors.
Here are a just a few of the indisputable facts concerning the connections between Alamoudi and other prominent MB operatives on the one hand, and the II, Norquist and Khan on the other:
Alamoudi provided at least $20,000 in seed money in checks drawn on a Saudi bank account to start the Islamic Institute.
Alamoudi’s longtime and trusted deputy, Khaled Saffuri, became the II’s first executive director.
Saffuri was also made the Muslim Outreach Coordinator for the Bush 2000 campaign. In the course of the campaign, Candidate Bush met with both Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian, another prominent Muslim Brotherhood figure who was subsequently convicted of running Palestinian Islamic Jihad out of his professorship at South Florida University.
After the election, Khan became a staff member in the Office of Public Liaison in the White House with responsibility for selecting, among others, which Muslims would be allowed access to the President and his team. By that time, Alamoudi had become politically radioactive for his public professions in 2000 of support for two terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah. But many of his Brothers and close associates in the Ikhwan’s American fronts were still afforded access to the White House – a practice that continues to this day.
(2) A Son of the Brotherhood
One of the aforementioned videos shows Abdulrahman Alamoudi officiating at a June 2001 American Muslim Council (AMC) convention where Suhail Khan was presented with an award. In his welcoming remarks, the MB leader says with evident affection, in part:
We have with us a dear brother, a pioneer, somebody who really started political activism in the Muslim community. And somebody different. A young man, not old and grumpy like many of us, but a young man who pioneered from many, many young men and women who started political activism when it was a taboo for the Muslim community, no doubt about it.
When Suhail Khan started not too many people were aware that we had to do something. I am really proud to be with Suhail Khan. Some of you saw [him] in today the White House but, inshallah, soon you see him in better places in the White House. Inshallah. Maybe sometimes as vice-president soon, inshallah. Allahu akbar.
Suhail Khan is the son of a dear, dear brother who was a pioneer of Islam work himself. Many of you know his late father [Mahboob Khan] who was part of all kinds of work and…Suhail inherited from his father not only being a Muslim and a Muslim activist, but also being a Muslim political activist.
This statement is important for several reasons. It makes plain a longstanding personal connection between not only Alamoudi and the younger Khan, but also between the MB operative and Suhail’s late father. The latter was himself a senior figure in the Muslim Brotherhood who worked for many years with Alamoudi.
Relevant facts about Suhail Khan’s pedigree with the Ikhwan include the following:
As Khan told an ISNA conference in 1999:
It is a special honor for me to be here before you today because I am always reminded of the legacy of my father, Dr. Mahboob Khan, an early founder of the Muslim Students Association in the mid-60s and an active member of the organization through its growth and development in the Islamic Society of North America.
The Muslim Students Association (MSA) was, of course, the first MB organization in America. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is today the largest Ikhwan organization in the United States and the elder Khan served as a member of its Majlis a’Shura (or governing council). The memory of Mahboob Khan is held in such high regard by the Brothers of ISNA that they give an annual service award in his name.
The elder Khan was also a founder (not to be confused with the imam) of three shariah-adherent mosques in California. Their degree of shariah-adherence can be found in the company kept by their congregations: The one in Southern California, the Islamic Society of Orange County, was the site of a fundraising visit in December 1992 by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as “the Blind Sheikh.” The visit preceded by two months the first attack on the World Trade Center, which was masterminded by Rahman. Then, according to a lengthy investigative report in the San Francisco Chronicle published in October 2001, two self-professed members of a terrorist cell recounted how, in 1995, they brought Ayman al-Zawahiri, a top Muslim Brotherhood figure who is now Osama bin Laden’s Number 2 in al Qaeda, to Mahboob Khan’s al-Noor mosque in Santa Clara.
It is instructive that Suhail’s mother, Malika Khan, is also active with a prominent Muslim Brotherhood front. She still serves on the board of directors of the California chapter of the Council on America Islamic Relations, an organization the federal government has tied to Hamas and that was an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation conspiracy.
The years-long and prominent involvement of both of Suhail Khan’s parents with the Muslim Brotherhood is relevant to the present question insofar as he has neither acknowledged the truth about the nature of his parents’ roles in the Ikhwan’s civilization jihad nor disavowed them. To the contrary, in response to Abdurahman Alamoudi’s warm introduction at the 2001 AMC convention, Suhail said, in part:
…Abdulrahman Alamoudi [was among those who] have been very supportive of me and I want to give them thanks. Many of you, of course, knew my father. He was someone who dedicated his life to the community and I’ve always felt that I have to work in the same – those footsteps. That this is something that’s important for our country as Americans and it is something that I keep in my heart everyday.
In another address to the ISNA annual convention in September 2001 – shortly before 9/11, Suhail Khan took evident pride in the leadership role his mother had played in a number of Muslim Brotherhood organizations:
She worked with her husband to establish organizations like the MSA, ISNA, CAIR, American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice. She worked hard to establish an Islamic center in Orange County. She worked hard to establish an Islamic center and MCA in Santa Clara, and she still works hard today. And, inshallah, I work for my mother and I work for you. There’s a dream that is America. And, inshallah, with your work and your help, we will make that dream a reality. Inshallah.
(3) Khan’s Job
An insight into Suhail Khan’s view of the work he has to do for his mother and the like-minded in ISNA can be found in his speech to the Islamic Society of North America convention in 1999:
This is our determination. This is the fierce determination we must resolve to bear in every facet of our lives. This is the mark of the Muslim. The earliest defenders of Islam would defend their more numerous and better equipped oppressors, because the early Muslims loved death, dying for the sake of almighty Allah more than the oppressors of Muslims loved life. This must be the case where we — when we are fighting life’s other battles….
As the many oppressed said during the civil rights movement in the sixties, we must keep our eyes on the prize. The prize being almighty Allah’s pleasure and blessing. The results of our effort are in his good hands. I have pledged my life’s work, inspired by my dear father’s shining legacy, and inspired further by my mother’s loving protection and support to work for the ummah. Join me in this effort. Join hands with me in supporting the work of the many valuable organizations who have dedicated themselves to our protection, to our empowerment as a Muslim ummah. Together, hand in hand, we can work toward the cause of Muslim self-determination.
Such statements are not “cherry-picked” or quoted out of context in a misleading way. While other passages of his 1999 ISNA speech were somewhat less transparent, these were clearly meant to communicate the same theme as the rest: his solidarity not only with his parents’ legacy but with his Ikhwan audience. The same can be said of his unbroken association over many years with the MB’s myriad front organizations listed in the Explanatory Memorandum and their successors.
Khan reiterated his commitment to the umma (the Muslim nation) in 2001 – albeit in more euphemistic terms since he was, after all, by that time a White House official. Here is how he described it during brief remarks immediately preceding his aforementioned expression of gratitude to Abdurahman Alamoudi at the AMC conference that year:
I appreciate your good wishes and your honoring me this afternoon for this small, very small contribution that I have tried to make for our community and our country. As many of you know, I have long worked as hard as I can for the benefit and the rights of Muslims and anyone else who needs help. And right now, of course, the Muslim community – my family – is one that needs representation, needs help and support. So any way that I can, working with you, I hope, inshallah, that we can keep working together. And please pray for success and pray for the right outcome in so many challenges that we have facing us.
(4) What ‘Right Outcome’?
One of the “successes” Khan was presumably referring to was a victory he and the Muslim Brotherhood’s leadership in America had sought for years: a prohibition on the use of secret evidence, particularly in deportation proceedings. Another recently released video, shot at a 2001 ISNA conference Khan addressed, illustrates how aggressively, for example, Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s al-Arian was promoting such a prohibition.
The backstory is that al-Arian had been working to accomplish this goal for some time through legislation sponsored by then-Democratic Representative David Bonior of Michigan and then-Republican Representative Tom Campbell of California, for whom Suhail Khan worked prior to joining the White House staff.
In a speech at the ISNA conference in 1999 decrying “the federal authorities’” use of secret evidence, Khan exhorted the audience not to cooperate with law enforcement (this stance has been a hardy perennial among Muslim Brotherhood operatives, particularly since 9/11; CAIR’s admonitions in this regard have recently received notoriety). Khan declared: “A Muslim is a brother to a Muslim. Neither he harms him nor does he hand him to another for harm.” He went on to urge his co-religionists to be “protectors of one another.”
Having failed to secure legislative relief, al-Arian extracted — thanks to Grover Norquist, Khaled Saffuri and Suhail Khan – a commitment in the course of the 2000 campaign from then-Candidate Bush as the quid pro quo for support from the “Muslim- American community”: In the second debate with Al Gore, Mr. Bush pledged that, if elected, he would order such a prohibition.
It is worth quoting at length al-Arian’s remarks and the repeated and insistent call to action he issued to the audience at the ISNA convention in 2001, as they provide a powerful insight into this particular influence operation:
There has been a lot of talk about the endorsement of President Bush. We did not—the brothers did not endorse him because of Palestine or Iraq. There was a single issue. That was the issue of civil rights to us. There isn’t any ethnic group in this United States that was empowered politically before they won their civil rights battles. Whether we like it or not, that civil rights battle has been defined to us in the issue of secret evidence. We wanted to raise that issue to the full front of the national debate….We’re able to do that to the point that everybody heard it on national T.V. Millions of people heard what is happening to us.
So far the president did not deliver on his promise. We must hold him accountable. The jury’s still out whether he would or wouldn’t. And whether he would, that would depend on our involvement. So I have a plan of action. I have a request, an appeal – a plea for everyone here. The White House has said that they will not issue a statement or a position before sometime in September. That means we have few days to work on this.
Our hope is to generate thousands of calls to the White House asking them to support HR 1266. Secret Evidence Repeal Act. Again, that’s HR 1266. The bill that has been sponsored, chiefly, by Congressman Bonior. That bill has to receive the support, has to receive the support of the White House so that eventually it will become the law of the land where no secret evidence will ever be used against anyone, Muslims or otherwise. [APPLAUSE] Brothers and sisters, the White House main number is 202-456-1111. Again, that’s 202-456-1111. Every single person here, everyone you know, must call that number. Phone calls are the best, that’s number one. I’ll give you the e-mail later.
You must call and say, please support the banning of secret evidence, please support HR 1266. We must get all Muslims, all our friends, all those who love the freedom and the freedom of association and everything that the Constitution stands for in the area of civil liberties and freedoms and due process. To make that one phone call, because then and only then we can say whether our involvement made a difference. The White House or the president’s e-mail is [email protected]
Secondly, please visit your congressman. Make a delegation to – make a point to visit your congressman and if they are not a co-sponsor yet on the bill, they must co-sign. You must make your voices heard.
Thirdly, please visit your editorial boards in the major newspaper in your town or city and let them know about this issue. Let them take a position in the editorial section as well as in the op-ed pieces.
Unspoken was the immediate and time-sensitive reason Sami al-Arian and his MB team were so determined to deny law enforcement the ability to make use of secret evidence: His brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, was being held in a federal detention center awaiting deportation on the basis of secret evidence that showed him to be a co- conspirator in running Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Al-Arian’s pressure campaign was clearly designed to strengthen the hand of the man who had taken this MB agenda item with him from Capitol Hill to the White House: Suhail Khan.
Evidently, it worked. President Bush was scheduled to fulfill this promise in a meeting attended by Grover Norquist and representatives of the various Ikhwan fronts. (Sami al-Arian could not attend in person, but was supposed to call in.) As it happened, the chosen day was September 11, 2001.
After the attacks that morning, the White House complex was closed and the invited MB representatives decamped to the conference room the Center for Security Policy shared at the time with ATR – a meeting I observed was attended by Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan. Shortly thereafter, President Bush started repeating the Muslim Brotherhood line: “Islam is a religion of peace”; “terrorists are trying to hijack Islam”; “jihad is a personal struggle, not holy war”; etc.
President Bush was also induced in the days that followed to receive a Koran in a private meeting with a senior Muslim Brother, Muzzamil Siddiqi, who had taken over Mahboob Khan’s mosque in Orange County. Siddiqi was subsequently invited to be the Muslim imam at the ecumenical national 9/11 memorial service on September 14, 2001. (Charles Krauthammer caustically noted that Siddiqi on that momentous occasion could not even bring himself to condemn terrorism.) Mr. Bush also paid a highly publicized visit to the Saudi mosque in Washington where he was photographed surrounded by prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives, including Nihad Awad of CAIR and Khaled Saffuri.
One thing George Bush did not do on 9/11, however, was prohibit the use of secret evidence in deportation and criminal proceedings – a tool that became all the more necessary to law enforcement in the wake of that day’s murderous attacks.
Shortly thereafter, Suhail Khan left the White House and was given a political appointment in the office of the Secretary of Transportation. His relocation followed the San Francisco Chronicle report tying al-Zawahiri to Mahboob Khan’s al-Noor mosque in Santa Clara. The article described how “two confessed members of a Silicon Valley terrorist cell say they brought Osama bin Laden’s top aide to the Bay Area several years ago to raise money for terror attacks.” (The Chronicle has never retracted this investigative report.)
Suhail Khan spent the rest of the Bush administration in the Department of Transportation, ultimately serving as the Assistant to the Secretary for Policy. In that capacity, as was emphasized in his e-mail to the ACU Board, he had access to classified information. Given the Department’s portfolio and his responsibilities, that would presumably have included secrets concerning: the policies and operations governing the Transportation Security Administration, port, rail, waterway and highway security, the movement of nuclear weapons and other hazardous materials, etc.
As recent experience with the Obama administration’s “czars” made manifest, the background investigations and vetting process for individuals whom political superiors wish to have cleared cannot always be relied upon to screen out all those who should not have access to sensitive information and facilities.
That is true in spades for individuals who were granted meetings with the President and other senior officials at the behest of a gatekeeper like Suhail Khan. Indeed, the Secret Service was publicly rebuked by President Bush after it had Sami al- Arian’s son, Abdullah, removed from a White House meeting on 28 June 2001, evidently over security concerns arising from his dad’s ties to terrorism. Mr. Bush personally called the mother of the young man he had dubbed “Big Dude” and promised that nothing like that “would ever happen again.” The message thus sent to the intelligence and homeland security communities was chilling.
(5) Khan’s Recent Activities and Influence Operations
In recent years, Suhail Khan and his patron, Grover Norquist, have been seeking to influence conservative groups and meetings in ways that serve the interest of our enemies and help in the name of “unity” to fracture the conservative movement. Illustrative examples include:
While a member of the Bush administration, Khan was elected to the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union. At the time, I warned publicly against such a step in the aforementioned article in FrontPage Magazine. He would have you believe that the ACU’s voting membership carefully considered the arguments presented and found them unpersuasive or unfounded. Informed sources report, however, that most of the electors were actually unaware of those arguments. In the absence of such knowledge, those who have for years promoted Khan as an authentic conservative – notably, Grover Norquist – had little difficulty securing the necessary support for his candidacy.
Khan’s ACU credentials have enabled him to “burrow in” and lay claim to more and more prominent roles in conservative circles. For example, he has been cast as the “moderator” on several CPAC panels, including a program in 2007 in which he precluded one of the nation’s foremost non-Muslim experts on Islam, Robert Spencer, from having equal time and his fair say in a debate with Dinesh D’Souzah.
In 2009, Suhail presided over a panel on what defines a “conservative foreign policy” on which I turned out to be the only one who favored Ronald Reagan’s strategy of “peace through strength.” One can infer from comments he made to various left-wing media outlets/blogs following publication of the aforementioned article in World Net Daily that he has used his influence at the ACU to preclude me from having a speaking role at CPAC this year.
Such blacklisting efforts certainly paid off when Geert Wilders – the courageous anti- shariah parliamentarian in the Netherlands who has been prosecuted by his government for “offending” Muslims – was supposed to receive at CPAC 2009 an award for his courage in defense of freedom. In the end, however, he was blocked from doing so and was relegated to making a presentation on the margins of the meeting. The question-and-answer session planned for the capacity crowd assembled to see him was abbreviated when several individuals associated with an ostensibly conservative Islamic organization styling itself “Muslims for America” were deemed by Wilders’ security detail to pose a possible threat.
According to Seeme Hasan, the mother of Ali Hasan – a 2010 Republican candidate for State Treasurer of Colorado who announced in December that he was becoming a Democrat because of the “racism and bigotry” in the GOP, and whose family foundation provides the financial backing for Muslims for America – Suhail Khan will be representing her son’s organization at the upcoming CPAC 2011 conference.
Thanks largely to Grover Norquist’s sponsorship, Khan has also been able to infiltrate other conservative circles. In addition to attending for years Norquist’s Wednesday meetings, he has recently been treated as a “conservative leader” by dint of his chairmanship of something called “the Conservative Inclusion Coalition,” which meets at the Americans for Tax Reform offices. He has taken to convening periodic meetings with young congressional staff members, some of whom work for legislators in positions of leadership.
Since departing the Bush administration, Suhail has also tapped into the Brotherhood’s highly successful “interfaith dialogue” strategem for coopting and influencing the clerical leaders of other faiths. He has an affiliation with the increasingly Saudi-funded Institute for Global Engagement, on whose board serves John Esposito. Esposito is a prominent apologist for the Islamists, a stance that has been rewarded with his installation as the founding director of the $20 million-plus MB dawa (proselytizing) operation known as the “Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding” at Georgetown University.
As Khan noted in his e-mail to the ACU Board, this tie-in has afforded him an opportunity to cultivate relations with prominent and well-meaning evangelicals and clerics of other denominations, as well as one or more wealthy conservative philanthropist(s). One such occasion entailed an excursion he led to Auschwitz and Dachau in which Jewish and Christian clergy were accompanied by an assortment of Muslim Brotherhood operatives, including notably Muzzamil Siddiqi. He claims that the purpose of the trip was to bring attention to the scourge of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.
As there are few more assiduous practitioners of anti-Semitic behavior and Holocaust-denying than shariah-adherent Muslims, it is clear to all but the most naïve that this exercise – like the rest of the MB’s “bridge-building” – is actually about dawa and more effective influence operations, not weaning Suhail’s “cohort” from their immoderate views and toxic shariah practices. In fact, the Brotherhood’s revered spiritual guide, Sayyid Qtub, wrote in Milestones that “the chasm between Islam and [the unbelievers] is great and a bridge is not to be built across it so the people on the two sides may mix with each other but only so that [the unbelievers] may come over to Islam.” (Emphasis added.)
In recent months, Khan has also been permitted to attend weekly lunches previously chaired by the late Paul Weyrich. I personally observed him use one such occasion for an influence operation on a congressional staff member for a senior Republican leader. After I showed an ad describing the history of triumphalist mosques built over the sacred ground of conquered peoples and the explicit ambition of the imam who wants to build one by Ground Zero to bring shariah to America, Khan quietly told the staffer that he knew Faisal Abdul Rauf, that the imam is actually a moderate and that I was falsely describing him and his agenda. Khan’s effort to run interference for Imam Rauf, by misrepresenting him as other than an MB operative, is a perfect example of the Ikhwan’s civilization jihad.
The Bottom Line
The foregoing litany comprises but a partial rendering of the problem we confront. Yet, it illustrates what a sophisticated, sustained influence operation looks like in an open society like ours. At a minimum, I hope you agree that it provides ample grounds for the American Conservative Union to “worry” about the extent to which it has been penetrated and manipulated by Suhail Khan and his enablers.
These individuals are now increasingly brazen in their aggressive pursuit of the Muslim Brotherhood’s overarching goal – eliminating and defeating our civilization from within, by our own hands. Such a divide-and-conquer strategy is certainly evident in, and being advanced by, campaigns these so-called “conservatives” have been mounting on behalf of initiatives that are anathema to most bona fide conservatives. For example, they seek to:
close Guantanamo Bay and bring its detainees to the United States;
bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to civilian trial in New York;
repeal the Patriot Act;repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military;
build the Ground Zero mosque;
leave our borders insecure and promote amnesty for illegal aliens;
cut defense spending; and
bring the troops home from Afghanistan forthwith and without regard for conditions on the ground.
I respectfully suggest that such policy prescriptions and their predictable, destructive consequences require the American Conservative Union – as part of the soul- searching and reorganizing that has been necessitated by other issues in recent days – promptly to reach the necessary conclusion: For the good of the organization and the movement, this influence operation must be terminated at the earliest possible moment. In addition, its perpetrators must be removed from the Board of Directors and any other positions of responsibility they currently hold.
I appreciate that this recommendation is one few members of the ACU – or for that matter most other conservatives – relish contemplating, let alone acting upon. After all, it necessitates confronting and breaking fellowship with individuals who have been colleagues, and perhaps friends. For such reasons, my warnings about this danger have gone unaddressed by our community for over a decade, even as it has continued to metastasize.
Whenever I confront a hard problem like this, I think of my old boss and ask: What would Ronald Reagan do? In this case, we can be certain of the answer. As an
actor and union leader, Mr. Reagan confronted Communists who by the post-war era had thoroughly penetrated the American film industry and were seeking to undermine America through the influence Hollywood exercised. Mr. Reagan stood up to the Communists and their allies – despite enormous pressure to look the other way, the damage to friendships and no small risk to his own personal safety and that of his family.
Thanks in part to his inspiring example, conservatives across the country took it upon themselves to expose Soviet efforts to penetrate not only Hollywood but the nation’s politics by infiltrating Communist agents into various private sector institutions and the government. Back then, conservatives took the lead in educating the public and pillorying those who tried to excuse the problem away, or to attack the messenger.
Today, American institutions are being infiltrated by a different foreign but no less totalitarian enemy – adherents to shariah led by the Muslim Brotherhood. We can no longer ignore the fact that the conservative movement is one of those targeted institutions. Ronald Reagan and a generation of conservatives were vigilant and effective against the Communists. We must do no less now against the Ikhwan.
I would welcome a chance to discuss this matter with you, either individually or with other Directors.
In the meantime, thank you for taking this information aboard – and, I pray, to heart.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
President, Center for Security Policy
Australia's Anjem Choudary? Aussie Convert to Islam Lets the Gremlin Out of the Bag
I seem to have found the Australian equivalent of the UK's Anjem Choudary: a zealous Muslim, in our case a convert to Islam, who in the plainest of language exposes for us classical Islam's Will to Power.
'Islamic preacher Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon points heavenwards to emphasise his message for the governments of Australia - there is no God but Allah and only his laws (i.e. Sharia in all its ugliness and cruelty - CM) should be obeyed.
'"My attack is on the Prime Minister of Australia", he said yesterday.
Are you paying attention, PM Julia Gillard? He means it. He's not joking. This man, who used to be an Australian citizen, is now a Muslim sharia-pusher bent on removing you from office and replacing you with a Muslim sharia despot. He is preaching treason and sedition. - CM.
"I hate the Parliament in Canberra. I want to go straight for the jugular vein and advise the parliament that they have no right to legislate. They should immediately step down and let the Muslims take over."
In your dreams, you treacherous bastard! Hand over our lovely country to - what? - a tiny group of recent immigrants plus the deluded converts such as yourself, so they can turn it into some monstrous mix of what we see already in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran? Such wonderful countries, aren't they? - CM.
'An Australian-born convert to Islam, Siddiq-Conlon is the self-anointed leader of a group called Sharia4Australia, which is pushing for the introduction of sharia courts as a first step towards achieving Islamic law.
'One day Australia will live under sharia; it's inevitable", he said.
Keep sounding your mouth off, mate, nice and loud so everyone can find out just how much arrogance and overweening lust for temporal power lurk in the dark heart of the Mohammedan Mob - CM.
"If they (Australians) don't accept it, that's not our problem. We hope, and our objective is to have a peaceful transition (yeah: you want us to just hand over our country to power-crazed psycho Muslim despots, eh? just like that? - CM), but when you look at history that has never been the case. There's always been a fight. It is inevitable that one day there will be a struggle for Islam in Australia.
Yup, go ahead and threaten Jihad, you traitor; I hope the police and the defence forces and the RSL are listening to you, and taking notes. - CM.
'A masters graduate in architecture from the University of Technology, Sydney (what a terrible waste of an education - CM), Siddiq-Conlon formed Sharia4Australia last year.
'He said he had three objectives. The first is to persuade Muslims they must hate "taghoot", the worship of any God other than Allah, which includes democracy.
'His other objectives are to advise elected governments they have no authority to rule,
'and to educate non-Muslims on the benefits of sharia, including punishments such as stoning adulterers and severing the hands of thieves.
I observe he focuses on 'morality' and 'law and order' stuff, but doesn't mention the execution of those who leave Islam, and the execution of those who 'blaspheme'. And is he going to rhapsodise about the beauties of the dhimmitude 'protection' racket? Or the delights of 'marriage' to a prepubescent girl, which Khomeini once described as 'a divine blessing'? - CM.
"If chopping off the hands is the punishment given by the sharia court then we say glad tidings, because chopping off the hands - when you understand what is sharia - is a mercy to that person.
I think you'd be singing a different song, mate, if it was you, falsely accused of theft by a malicious fellow Muslim, getting your hands cut off in 'chop-chop square' in Saudi Arabia - CM.
"Why is it a mercy getting your hands chopped off? Because it can be expiation for your sins.
I think I prefer the Biblical punishment for theft: you keep both your hands, and work your tail off to restore what you stole, or the value thereof, plus a bit on top - CM.
"It is better to get punished in this life than to go underground into the grave or into the hellfire for eternity.
And of course, if you're a psycho sadist, it's so much fun throwing rocks at a thirteen-year-old gang rape victim until she's a lifeless pulp, while telling yourself you're saving her soul. - CM.
'Siddiq-Conlon will join a debate tonight at the Parramatta Town Hall in Sydney on the merits of sharia versus democracy.
'The event was organised by self-styled debate promoter Zaky Mallah, who was acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005 but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill a commonwealth officer after his passport was cancelled.
Why is this person still running around loose? - CM.
'The pro-democracy case will be argued by an Australian army veteran, self-described "concerned Aussie" (we should all be concerned - CM), and senior member of the pro-gun Firearms Forum, Jack Zedee.
I hope Jack has been reading Mr Robert Spencer's books, or Rev Dr Mark Durie's The Third Choice, or studying up on the useful materials provided by the Barnabas Fund - CM.
"The issue with Mr Conlon and Sharia4Australia is they are preaching hatred. (Not just 'hatred' - sedition and armed insurrection - CM). His views horrify me", Mr Zedee told The Australian.
'Police and private security are expected at the debate, after both sides claimed to have received death threats. Mallah said he had tried to cancel the event but the debaters insisted on proceeding.
'Siddiq-Conlon shrugs off concerns his campaign will damage the moderate Muslim community.
"If it causes a backlash against the Muslims, I can't help that. This is a necessary debate".
Keep talking, mate. Nice and loud. Because what you're describing is, plain and simple, the agenda that all orthodox sharia-compliant Quran-and-Hadith-believing Mohammed-imitating Muslims are supposed to pursue and have indeed pursued throughout the recorded history of Islam, the things that I'd bet my bottom dollar a great many apparently-moderate nicely-smiling Muslims in Australia would just love to see happen (even if they pretend otherwise for the moment while they don't have the numbers and the clout) and - without the smallest pretence at camouflage - you're putting it right out in the open. The gremlin is out of the sack and we can all see the teeth and the claws. - CM.
Sen. Lieberman Announces His Retirement from the US Senate
Sen. Lieberman and wife Hadassah
Given the rumblings in Connecticut politics today’s news conference in Stamford, Connecticut convened by Sen. Joseph Lieberman marked his exit from the US Senate center stage. His career in the US Senate spanned four consecutive terms, three as a Democrat and one as an Independent. Lieberman was the first Jewish Vice Presidential candidate paired off with former Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Lieberman’s bid for President in the 2004 primaries faltered and he withdrew. With a Democratic Governor on Capitol Hill in Hartford, a newly elected Democratic US Senator, former Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and low poll approval ratings from Democratic voters in the nutmeg state increasingly divided over his national security policies it was a virtual impossibility for him to seek his former party’s nomination. Couple that with rising Republican Candidates like Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, champing at the bit to run again in 2012, Lieberman had few options left, but to announce the inevitable, his retirement.
Watch Sen. Lieberman's announcement of his retirement here:
Surrounded by his wife Hadassah, a daughter of Czech Jewish Holocaust survivors, his children and grandchildren, Lieberman doubtless drew a tear and wistful smile from his loyal Hartford and Washington office staff. He gave these remarks at today’s press conference:
“The reason I have decided not to run for re-election in 2012 is best expressed in the wise words from Ecclesiastes: ‘To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven.’
“At the end of this term, I will have served 24 years in the U.S. Senate and 40 years in elective office. For me, it is time for another season and another purpose under Heaven.”
“I go forward with a tremendous sense of gratitude for the opportunities I have had to make a difference.”
[. . .]
“Along the way, I have not always fit comfortably into conventional political boxes—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. I have always thought that my first responsibility is not to serve a political party but to serve my constituents, my state, and my country, and then to work across party lines to make sure good things get done for them. Whatever the partisan or policy differences that divide us, they are much less important than the shared values and dreams that unite us and that require us to work together to make progress for all. To me, that is what public service and leadership is all about.
[. . . ]
“I do not intend today to be the end of my career in public service. Having made this decision not to run enables me to spend the next two years in the Senate devoting the full measure of my energy and attention to getting things done for Connecticut and for our country.
“I will keep doing everything in my power to build strong bridges across party lines -- to keep our country safe, to win the wars we are in, and to make sure America’s leadership on the world stage is principled and strong. I will keep doing everything I can to keep our economy growing and get our national debt under control, to combat climate change, to end our dependency on foreign oil, and to reform our immigration laws.
“And when my Senate chapter draws to a close in 2013, I look forward to new opportunities that will allow me to continue to serve our country—and to stay engaged and involved in the causes that I have spent my career working on, and that I care so much about.”
The Democrats in Connecticut had lost their moral compass and rejected Lieberman opting for an anti-war, and ,some of us would say, an anti-Israel candidate, Ned Lamont in the 2006 Independent campaign. Lieberman won that contest as an Independent because he had two thirds of GOP registered voters and a third of Democrats, the latter drawn mostly from conservative lunch bucket unionmembers. Lieberman won high marks for his defense of the Groton Naval Sub Base preserving tens of thousands of jobs.
Given opportunities to side with the GOP, he demurred and when elected as an Independent decided to caucus with the Democrats to obtain the bully pulpit of his Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) Chairmanship. His rumored change in party affiliation to run as Vice President on the GOP national ticket in 2008 with his Arizona Senate boon companion, John McCain was allegedly nixed by some Bush insiders, notably Karl Rove.
Lieberman delivered for his constituents. That was vividly on display when I worked in his 2006 Independent Campaign and saw the loyalty he had coined with labor leaders, first responders, police fraternal and veteran groups. He also had a fan in former Republican Governor Jodi Rell with whom he worked effectively on Connecticut issues in Congress.
As an Orthodox Jew, he was unstinting in his personal observances and a valued defender of Israel and the Jewish people. For that and more he will be sorely missed.
Senator was kind and thoughtful to me personally. During a campaign stop at a Coffee Shop in Westport, Connecticut we chatted about persons we both mutually admired Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and pastor John Hagee of Christian United for Israel.
When he assumed his Chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Affairs Committee (HSGAC), we worked effectively on several issues with his Committee and Washington office staff. He sent a personal congratulatory note about a New English Review article on an agenda for conducting hearings on Muslim Extremism in America in June 2007. He endeavored, not always successfully, to awaken the American public to the threat of Muslim extremism in America with hearings on a range of related topics. My colleague Joe Shahda and I argued in a June 2008 New English Review article for taking down al Qaeda Goggle You Tube training videos in support of the Senator’s ultimately successful effort to convince Dr. Eric Schmidt of Google to comply with the HSGAC request.
In June 2008 another NER article on The Oil Bubble led to interaction with his HSGAC staff who were developing hearings on the spike in the energy marketplace pricing and the lack of effective commodity trading controls.
When he heard of my cancer treatment, ultimately successful, he sent a personal note with the hand scrawled message: “You are in my prayers… we need you”.
Senator Lieberman will be sorely missed for his integrity and stalwart bi-partisanship.
Despite his announced resignation we haven’t seen the last of him by any means.
By Charles Hutzler for AP (H/T The Voice of the Martyrs USA) :
BEIJING — The police stripped Gao Zhisheng bare and pummeled him with handguns in holsters. For two days and nights, they took turns beating him and did things he refused to describe. When all three officers tired, they bound his arms and legs with plastic bags and threw him to the floor until they caught their breath to resume the abuse.
Hang on, we'll hear more about the identity of "the police" later in the story (hint: they are "youthful").
"That degree of cruelty, there's no way to recount it," the civil rights lawyer said, his normally commanding voice quavering. "For 48 hours my life hung by a thread."
The beatings were the worst he said he ever endured and the darkest point of 14 months, ending last March, during which Gao was secretly held by Chinese authorities. He described his ordeal to The Associated Press that April, but asked that his account not be made public unless he went missing again or made it to "someplace safe" like the United States or Europe.
Two weeks later, he disappeared again. His family and friends say they have not heard from him in the more than eight months since. Police agencies either declined to comment or said they did not know Gao's whereabouts. The AP decided to publish his account given the length of his current disappearance.
Gao had been a galvanizing figure for the rights movement, advocating constitutional reform and arguing landmark cases to defend property rights and political and religious dissenters, including members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. His disappearance in 2009 set off an international outcry that may have played a role in winning his brief release last year.
Weeks of inactivity were punctuated by outbursts of brutality. He was hooded several times. His captors tied him up with belts, made him sit motionless for up to 16 hours and told him his children were having nervous breakdowns. They threatened to kill him and dump his body in a river.
"'You must forget you're human. You're a beast,'" Gao said his police tormentors told him in September 2009.
Excessive even for China's often abusive police, the treatment given to Gao highlights the authoritarian government's willingness to breach its own laws to silence critics.
Perhaps China's Hu Jintao would offhandedly desire, as Jordan's King Abdullah II, to have some sort of a government similar to Britain or the U.S., with voting and somesuch. But the problem is that a democracy includes the idea that the government is constrained by its own laws. There are no checks and balances in China, there is no method of recourse for citizens whose rights are trampled by the government.
"Why don't you put me in prison?" Gao said he asked Beijing police at one point. "They said, 'You going to prison, that's a dream. You're not good enough for that. Whenever we want you to disappear, you will disappear.'"
The Public Security Ministry, which oversees police forces, did not respond to telephoned and faxed inquiries about Gao. Police in Beijing, Shaanxi and Xinjiang - locations where Gao said he was held - declined comment on his current predicament as well as his past treatment.
"We didn't handle the case of Gao Zhisheng and we don't know who did. As far as we know, he did stay in Xinjiang to visit his relatives for a period of time," said a Ms. Li from the information office of the Xinjiang Public Security Department.
Gao said that in February 2009, police first spirited Gao from Beijing to Yulin, a poor area of barren yellow hills where he grew up. Within weeks, police brought him back to Beijing by car, covering his head with a pair of underwear. There, he said he was kept in a room with lights on 24 hours a day, its windows boarded up, and fed rotten, dirty cabbage twice a day.
On April 28, he said, six plainclothes officers bound him with belts and put a wet towel around his face for an hour, bringing on a feeling of slow suffocation.
Two months later, he was sent back to Yulin and then on to Xinjiang's capital, Urumqi, where his treatment improved. He said he was occasionally allowed evening strolls, police escorts trailing behind, during the several months he was kept in the Wild Horse apartment block on Urumqi's outskirts.
The most brutal period of Gao's 2009-10 disappearance began with a Sept. 25 walk. A group of Uighurs, a largely Muslim minority group, approached him and punched him in the stomach. They handcuffed him, taped his mouth and eyes shut and took him into the upstairs room of a building, beginning a week of mistreatment that culminated with the 48 hours of pistol-whipping and other abuse.
Earlier that summer, communal violence erupted between Uighurs and members of the Han Chinese majority, and the city was tense. But Gao said he knew his assailants were plainclothes police. "Bandits would never use handcuffs," he said.
His captors told him they were members of a counterterrorism unit and boasted about their harsh interrogation methods.
Gao said the torture was worse than a previous disappearance in 2007, when security forces gave him electric shocks to his genitals and held burning cigarettes close to his eyes to cause temporary blindness.
Gao said he learned later that he was being held in Xinjiang's Public Security Department detention center. His guards told him he was being held with suspects from the deadly July communal riots.
"I said, 'All people, criminals should have their rights protected.' They bent me over, forcing my head to bow 90 degrees while standing. It was painful," Gao said.
I don't know to what degree the Chinese government forcibly relocates its citizens. But I find it odd that after threatening to "make him disappear," they then sent Gao, a practicing Christian, to Muslim-majority Xinjiang province where he was beaten by Muslim "counterterrorists" as described in the first few paragraphs of the story. When (assumedly non-Muslim Han) police in Beijing were unable to break his will, they shipped him off to Xinjiang.
Note that Gao was described as one of the best lawyers in China, and that he worked to protect religious minorities' rights. The Muslims in Xinjiang did not respect him as a fellow "Person of the Book." They instead joined the atheist government in beating him and trying to break his spirit. Perhaps the calculation was that the Chinese government had the power, and was more useful to have on their side.
We hear increasingly that Muslims are “the new Jews.” Muslims are not "the new Jews." In Western Europe all of the non-Muslims, both the indigenes and other non-Muslim immigrants, are "the new Jews," -- though it must also be added that for the moment it is especially Jews in Western Europe who are "the new Jews."
For the most powerful current carriers of antisemitism in Europe are Muslims. 50% of the antisemitic attacks in Western Europe have been attributed to Muslims, who make up less than 5% of the population. And of course Arabs have many times shown pro-Nazi sentiments -- from Rashid Ali in Iraq, who staged a pro-Nazi coup, to Anwar Sadat, who was jailed by the British for his pro-Nazi plotting (while Nasser's brother-in-law distinguished himself after the war by publishing an Arabic edition of Mein Kampf), to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler, expressed his enthusiasm for the Endlosung and, what's more, helped raise an S.S. brigade of Bosnian Muslims.
Muslims have been allowed to settle in every country of Western Europe, because of the ignorance, negligence, and simple-minded belief of the political and media elites that "everyone is essentially the same and wants the same thing." The people pay first for that madness; the elites will pay later on. Those Muslims do not accept the legal and political institutions of the countries to which they come, although those countries are far more advanced and better-run, in every respect, than the Muslim lands they come from -- lands whose failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, are a direct result of Islam itself. No, they come, essentially fleeing that Muslim disarray and misrule. But unlike those who fled the Nazis, or the Communists, they are not grateful. And what's more, they bring with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, the very thing that was the main cause of the failures of their own societies, with their despotisms, and their inshallah-fatalism, and their encouragement of mistreatment of women and all non-Muslims, and everything else that makes Islam, in practice, what it is, and what we Infidels, though we may not quite understand the relationship of Islam to the behavior and attitudes of Muslims, recognize as the hideous mess that it all is.
In Great Britain, as in every other country of Western Europe, it is the Muslim immigrants alone -- not any others -- who pose a problem that is permanent, that will not go away, no matter how much tender solicitousness is shown them, no matter how much money is thrown their way, or how much bending-over-backwards to accommodate the most outrageous demands, or if not to accommodate them, at least not to treat them openly as outrageous, when everywhere those demands are made, and keep being made. They range from special hours at public pools so that men and women may not be together, or that even non-Muslim men may not contaminate a pool when Muslim men are swimming, to demands for prayer-rooms at airports, at taxi stands, in schools, at workplaces. They include demands for special treatment, that is, for Muslim workers (time off for prayers, or not being required to touch certain products, or not having to do this, or do that), and Muslim students.
They include attempts, successful in some places, to rewrite textbooks so that the history of Islam is not merely sanitized, but turned into an appealing and glorious tale, while the history of Christianity becomes one of monstrously exaggerating, and misstating, the history of the limited-in-time-and-space-and-goals Crusades. And when it comes to Jews, in ignoring or limiting the study of what has come, a bit too glibly I'm afraid, to be called "the Holocaust." Muslim students in France have refused to study this subject, just as they refuse to study the history of France itself, claiming it is of no importance to them -- mere Jahiliyya.
The point out these claims -- you can supply your own list, an ever-growing list -- is that even where the authorities sometimes come to their senses and deny those Muslim demands, the demands will never end, because Islam and non-Islam are not compatible in the Muslim view. The ideal of Shari'a flatly contradicts not only the American Constitution, but all of the major principles and achievements of advanced Western democracies, including the rights of individuals to free speech and freedom of conscience.
Look at Muslim attempts to limit any critical discussion or comments on Islam. Several translators of Salman Rushdie were attacked; at least one was killed. Theo van Gogh was killed. A member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders, and an Italian journalist, Magdi Allam, and the celebrated apostates Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, are all living with Muslim death threats, threats that require them to change their lives, and for some of them to live in permanent hiding under permanent armed guard. The entire population of Denmark was threatened with death if the government of that country did not violate the most solemn right, the right to free expression, and punish those who had drawn, and those who had published, some cartoons of Muhammad. The entire Muslim world threatened to boycott Danish goods, as they have Dutch goods because of the appearance of a fifteen-minute film made by Geert Wilders, that save for a single question that he added, consists entirely of excerpts from the Qur'an and the Hadith, with not a word changed for effect, over accompanying videos from news stories showing Muslim behavior that corresponds to, and was no doubt prompted by, those very texts -- and hundreds of others just like them.
It is disgusting for Muslims to claim to have been victimized by this film and the cartoons, when it is they who have made it their mission in the Middle East to destroy Israel, and to kill, or expel, or reduce to the status of permanent dhimmis any Jews who remain. It is they who in the countries of Western Europe have been the main carriers and promoters of anti-Semitism. It is they who also have been quick to exploit the pre-existing antisemitism to further their misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel and Israel's attempts to merely defend itself from a malevolent, inexhaustibly vicious and cruel enemy.
There is no other an immigrant population -- not Hindus, not Chinese Christians or Confucians, not Vietnamese Buddhists, not non-Muslim (or casually syncretistic) black Africans, not Andean Indians, not Siberian Tunguz from the frozen North nor Aborigines from the sun-baked South -- that poses the same problem. It is a problem that cannot be remedied or diminished, as the immigrants who are Believers in Islam are members of the "Umma" to which, they are taught, they must owe their sole loyalty.
Some, a very few, of those who call themselves "Muslims" but merely mean by this that they are not going to openly identify themselves as apostates but reject the ideology of Islam, and have no intention of attempting now or ever to change Infidel institutions, or to be hostile to Infidels, may -- but only "may" (because we never know when awareness of that "identity" may spur an embrace, a return, to what Islam inculcates) -- not represent a threat themselves. Nonetheless, and this is unpleasant to state but true, even those who may be the "moderate" Muslims of the only kind of "moderation" that could conceivably be of value to Infidels -- that is, those who exhibit a real and deep rejection of the tenets of Islam that support Islamic supremacism, and, therefore, support mistreatment of Infidels -- can nonetheless, by their very existence, that is by swelling the ranks of those who, in democratic societies, are assigned to the category of Muslims, may by that fact increase the power of the real Muslims by helping them, those real Muslims, exaggerate their numbers and therefore their ability to make pusillanimous politicians, the kind unwilling to see Islam as the permanent threat that it is to the laws and customs of an advanced society, to art, and to science, and to individual autonomy, but all too willing to bend to the dictates of those who are perceived to vote as a bloc, promote the goals of Islam.
And if Muslims all over the countries of Western Europe are a menace to the Infidels among whom they have settled in a way that no other group of immigrants has been, and do not cease to be a menace in the second or third generations but, rather, become ever-more militant (as has been seen in Germany, in France, in Great Britain), it is also true that Muslims have for decades enjoyed great favor in official circles. See, for example, Exhibit #1 in Great Britain, which is not The Guardian nor papers like it but, rather, the BBC, especially the BBC World Service. The BBC employs a very large group of Arab and Muslim staff members, and of non-Muslims who have, for ideological reasons -- antisemitism or leftist political views, or both -- been willing collaborators in the effort to present the Muslim view of things, above all in the misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel. This bias had its effect. And elsewhere in the British press, and radio, and television, the apologists for Islam (who ordinarily overlap with the anti-Israel brigade) have been much in evidence, as they have in other countries of Western Europe.
The failure of Israel and of its supporters to recognize this has of course contributed to the steady blackening, over the past few decades, of Israel's image. That has had consequences for Israel, obviously, but has also helped to confuse the understanding of those Infidels who have been steadily misinformed about the Arab and Muslim Jihad against Israel. This has helped it to be accepted as a "nationalist cause" by these soi-disant "Palestinians," rather than as what it not only is, but always has been and always will be: an attempt to deny a non-Muslim people a state of their own, whatever its size, and whatever its inoffensiveness or even repeated demonstrated willingness to aid the economic well-being of its neighbors, as if that would somehow overcome what even successive Israeli governments did not realize cannot be overcome in such a way, not now, and not ever.
Every single country in Western Europe, whether it be ruled by the Common Law (Great Britain) or by Civil Codes, whether it have a long tradition of enshrining easygoing Tolerance as a kind of state religion (The Netherlands, Denmark), or possibly have become so solicitous of human rights because of a keen awareness of a fascist or quasi-fascist past (Germany, Spain, even Italy), has had the same problem with its Muslim population, differing only in intensity and scale, but in nothing else. Muslims who believe in Islam do not and cannot accept the political and legal institutions of non-Muslims. It is not what Islam teaches. It is not what Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, prescribed long ago -- and what he prescribed long ago, 1350 years ago, remains valid for all time and for all places.
Surely the people of Europe, despite their governments, and despite the Esdrujula Explanation -- the timidity and stupidity and rigidity and cupidity of their ruling elites -- have to act on this now, and not later. Either they will preserve their own ways, their own superior ways, their free and skeptical inquiry, their modes of artistic expression, either they will preserve, protect, and defend all of the material and spiritual achievements of their own civilization, against those who have only contempt and even hatred for that civilization (without knowing quite why, but knowing in some cases only that, as "Muslims," they must have such contempt, must act on such hatred), that is, either they will defend the civilizational legacy that they have so far done so little to deserve, or they will not. And if they do, they are going to have to recognize that the main threat is not "qitaal" or open warfare, but the slow and steady stillicide that drop-by-drop of Muslim demands, based on an unopposed and growing Muslim presence, that works away at, eats away at the foundations of Europe.
It is demographic conquest by Muslims that can undo Western Europe. This conquest can be headed off only by halting all Muslim migration, and by cutting off the use by rich Arabs abroad of the Money Weapon that helps deepen the Muslim presence as it pays for mosques, and madrasas, and communal institutions to strengthen Muslim power, and of course, for powerful former diplomats, and journalists, and academics. In some cases the rich Arabs buy up whole departments, or set up whole "centers" of Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies. Or else they gain the cooperation, and more, of corruptible members of the intelligence agencies, the armies, and the police forces, of Western Europe. The governments of Western Europe have to cut off all that, or at least do as best they can, and not make the mistake of themselves supporting with government funds mosques or indeed any Muslim institutions in the vain hope that a tame imam or ten or a hundred will make a difference, when it is the immutable texts of Islam itself, and the hold they have over the minds of men, that are the problem. And campaigns of Da'wa must be checked, by banning them if possible, and if not, then by monitoring them vigilantly, and attempting to immunize, in advance, the populations -- such as black prisoners -- who are most frequently targeted by Muslims for such campaigns.
All those who can be identified as economically or psychically marginal are likely to be especially susceptible to the siren song of Islam. Such groups and people should, as a matter of national security, be identified, and campaigns specifically tailored to such groups should be instituted. For example, black ministers might be employed to describe to prisoners what the role of slavery is in Islam, and of the length and nature of the Arab slave trade (which began sooner, and ended -- where it did end -- much later, than the Atlantic slave trade). The Arab slave trade was particularly cruel and violent -- with young black boys castrated in the jungle, and then taken by slave coffle and dhow to the slave markets of Islam, with scarcely 10% surviving the journey. The slave trade in the Persian Gulf was ended by the Royal Navy. The slave trade in North Africa was ended by the French. There never was, there never could be, a Muslim William Wilberforce. And even today, blacks are enslaved by Arabs in West Africa and in the Sudan and, many believe, slavery still continues, hidden from Western view, in the Arabian Peninsula. Remember, in 1962, when under Western pressure Saudi Arabia officially ended slavery, there were still hundreds of thousands of black slaves in Saudi Arabia.
Another point of purchase to render people less susceptible to Da'wa is to show how almost all forms of music are banned in Islam. There is no Islamic religious music, for example, no Bach, and no Muslim equivalent of gospel music. Note how the Islamic rebels in Algeria murder the singers of Rai, or how in Afghanistan the Taliban killed the traditional wedding-singers, or how Muslims such as those in Hamas blow up or smash music stores in Gaza. This is the kind of thing that helps make an impression.
But are the governments of Western Europe prepared, as yet, to see Islam, to see the spread of Islam, and the growth of a Muslim population, as the security threat it is, or will they remain frightened of the implications of that recognition?
It's still hard to say, but there are signs of sanity breaking out. The evidence mounts up, and up, and up. The texts of the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira are there. Muslim defenders never mention those texts. They stay far away from what those texts inculcate. They prefer always and everywhere the strategies of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque.
To sum up, as has been done a hundred times before, with the exact same sentence:
"The large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation, for the indigenous Infidels, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale presence."
Though long, that oft-repeated sentence is meant to be lapidary. But the stone on which it is meant to be inscribed is that which should hang in public places all over Europe, or in the mental equivalent of such public places, so that something effective will at long last be done -- implacably, relentlessly.
There is another sort of stone, however, on which the same lapidary sentence might be written, and then read, in quite another spirit, a spirit of triumphalism, by not Infidels but by Muslims, at some future date. For as a famous writer once began a novel, there is "plenty of space on a gravestone, bound in moss" to "contain" -- well, to contain all sorts of things, including that would-be lapidary sentence above.
One hopes that such a sentence would not have to be placed on the tombstone of Western civilization, a civilization that could be undone by the initial indifference and ignorance and negligence of its political and media elites, and then further undone by the failure of the governments and peoples involved to do what they need to do, coute que coute, in order to defend and protect their own civilizational legacy, out of stupidity, or timidity, or cupidity, or rigidity, or some, or all, of this mnemonically-sdrujula'ed list.
Numbers, "mere numbers," alas, do count. Demography turns out be a very large part of Destiny.