Dem's Iraq Policy Suggestions Border On The Surreal

By William A. Mayer, E&P -

December 5, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - - Agitated beyond all reason, the Democrat party while of near unanimity when it comes to disapproval of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, seems frozen into a state of catalepsy, preventing them from articulating any alternative at all.

Front and center we start with Richard Holbrooke - shadow President Kerry's Secretary of State - who postulates:

"I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy...It's not something you can expect in a situation that is moving this fast and has the level of detail you're looking for."

Translation - We will charitably call it a policy of Aquarianism - Democrats only consider themselves competent in the field of foreign policy during periods of time when peace and love rules the stars.

Not so poetically, Bill Clinton's sensitive Secretary of Defense Perry offers:

"I believe the assessment that if we pull out it will leave an unsettled situation that is bad for the neighborhood and bad for us. Therefore I'd be willing to stay longer if I believed what we're doing would lead to progress in six to 12 months...But I have not seen that evidence, so I'm skeptical that it will. . . . So it may be what we're pursuing, if not effective, then there's no point to it."

Mr. Perry might want to avoid making any further public pronouncements on the matter, because though his prescription fails intellectually perhaps the most troubling aspect is that it seems to have been written by that half-witted idiot son that your Uncle Bob keeps locked in a closet.

On the other hand, perhaps Perry's assessment was simply lifted - in a Biden-esque manner - from "Being There," and really penned by Chauncey Gardner.

If so we might suggest adding, "In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again," clarifying it greatly.

Ah...then there is the voice of reason, Jimmy Carter's odd little former saber-rattler, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

"We have to face the fact that the war is not going well and is costing us too much, not only in blood and money but also in the U.S. position in the world, discrediting our legitimacy, credibility and morality even."

Shades of Chauncey again...

Is this equivalent of mountain fog really considered an adequate policy upon which a fickle public might be led, especially contrasted against the Democrat's painfully detailed fault finding with Bush's war strategy?

And what is one to make of the DNC's remoras in the media who accept and report such bilge uncritically?

Speaking of Uncle Bob, lastly...there is - the shadow President himself - John Kerry, morosely opining on the Dec 4 edition of "Face the Nation."

Kerry - "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs - of the of the historical customs - religious customs."

Sheiffer - "Yeah!"

With the gauntlet now drop-kicked by Congressman Murtha, should the foregoing wisdom be seen only as malformed attempts to wrest the bit from his mouth, or is it - more darkly - the type of glimpse one occasionally gets into the personality of serial liars, if one only allows them enough rope?

©1999-2006 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.

Knight Ridder's Scandalous Coverage of the Iraqi Elections

October 18, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - - On a day [Sunday October 16, 2005] when the success of the Bush Administration's establishment of not one, but two democracies in the Mid East, should have been the story, a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper - the Contra Costa Times - [a Knight Ridder product, edited by Chris Lopez and based in Walnut Creek, CA] chose to devote the majority of its Iraq coverage to largely invented and negative news.

True, the story "Turnout Signals Progress" [the only semi-positive Iraq story in this entire edition] was above the fold and on page one, however the body of the story was relegated to page 9.

Sharing the front page was the piece "Imbalanced Army Contributes To Civil War Threat In Iraq." It was assigned roughly the same column space [text] as the lead story. The remainder of this negative story was placed on page 8, but ahead of the obligatory "Progress" piece, indicating its relative ranking of importance in the minds of the newspaper's management.

Page 8 was devoted to negative speculation about Iraq and including the article "Violence, Sectarian Divide Tear At The Lives Of Iraq's Soldiers."

All of this occurs on the day that Iraqis ignored foreign led Islamist terror - defying negative U.S. media coverage - to go to the polls. This slanting of the news seems to demonstrate that local management is holding to the overall Knight Ridder ideological line, that the war on terror is a mistake. Towards that end, Editor Lopez made the decision to feature news seemingly out of step with the actual events on the ground on such a momentous day.

Even the "Progress" story had to share space and was relegated to the bottom third of page 9. Occupying the entire top half of that page was an opinion piece disguised as reporting and picked up from AP, "Sunni Arabs Finally Have A Say On Constitution At Polls."

It is significant to note that it was the Sunnis who supported Saddam and who now constitute the core of the Islamist terrorists, both inside and outside of Iraq. While the article suggests that somehow the Sunni's have been denied participation in the democratic process the fact is that they were not barred from voting in January, they simply listened to their radical Imams and refused to vote.

How is that the fault of Washington or the Iraqi majority?

In large part this piece and the overall Times' coverage is simply devoted to conjuring up reasons why - even as democracy takes hold - the left believes it simply can't work.

Correction, the leftist press does not necessarily believe that democracy CAN'T work in Iraq, the fact is that they HOPE that it doesn't work, because that would affirm the wisdom of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies.

Page 10 - the lead story, a half page is "Iraqi Women's Rights Retreat As Men Fight." How are women's rights decreased when they now have the right to vote, the right to assemble and right to be educated, something heretofore unheard of in Iraq and in traditional Muslim society?

Under Saddam, the regime that would have been still in power today had people like Mr. Lopez [and John Kerry, the presidential candidate the Times endorsed last November] carried the day, women had one right.

They had the right to be raped, something the left prefers over "Bush enabled" democracy.

The Sunday CC Times' continued agitation against the war on terror and the war in the Iraqi is the essence of bias. That bias starts at the top, with the editors.

We at CC Times Watch direct the CC Times' readers to observe that the editors are either unwilling, unable or both to address the newspaper's bias.

The paper refuses to publish letters to the Editor from conservatives who suggest bias while at the same time the Times' letters to the Editor page is replete with the output of small cabal of Cindy Sheehan clones, who are allowed to make the most outlandish charges as long as they are directed against the President and the war against the Islamists.

What the Contra Costa Times engages in is not journalism, it's reportorial advocacy of a policy of defeat, at a time when the Western world is in the midst of enduring its most serious crisis since the darkest days of the Cold War.

If one is to judge from the CC Times news content, Mr. Lopez refuses to accept the fact that the Islamists have declared war against the West.

That attitude is what led to 911.

The Times' coverage of the war on terror and specifically the war in Iraq is transparently partisan, negative and most important - factually incorrect and imbalanced to the point of absurdity.

It's an accepted fact in media circles that Knight Ridder's coverage of the war has been among the most slanted of any major print news organization. The front section of the Contra Costa Times proves that nearly every single day.

Mr. Editor, instead of playing games we suggest that you hold a public meeting to address these issues.

©1999-2005, all rights reserved.

Scenes of Slaughter - the Zawahiri-Zarqawi Communiqué

October 14, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - A strategic Islamic terror planning document has fallen into the hands of US intelligence and has now been translated.

Dating from July 9, 2005 it represents communication between two of the three [along with bin-Laden] key directors of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

News of this was most extensively covered by the cable networks, specifically Fox News, but it appears to have flatlined in most of the print media, including our own little leftist daily in San Francisco's East Bay, the Contra Costa Times.

On a day [October 12, 2005] when Dr. James Dobson's alleged collusion with the Bush administration on the Miers' nomination was the lead item - above the fold - the Times ran the Knight Ridder piece on the Zawahiri letter [the Times is a Knight Ridder product] and in deference to that item's great import, placed it on page twelve, nine back from a weepy-eyed article pleading for clemency in the case of "Tookie" Williams - former leader of the Crips gang and a convicted 4 time murderer - who has an imminent date to ride "old sparky."

The Times' coverage is significant for what it doesn't tell its readers about the Zawahiri-Zarqawi letter. It provides absolutely no background and uses a limited series of excerpts from the document forcing the argument that the foreign fighters in Iraq were created by the Bush administration's liberation efforts.

Ayman al-Zawahiri is a 54 year old Egyptian physician and the former head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad also known as al-Jihad [responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 and for numerous terrorist incidents in Egypt since then including the massacre of over 60 civilians in Luxor in 1997 and the attempted assassination of Egyptian president Mubarak in 1995]. Zawahiri trained with bin-Laden in Afghanistan and helped him organize al-Qaeda. He was sentenced to death in absentia because of the Luxor atrocity. His present location is unknown.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a lifelong professional terrorist, born to Palestinian parents but raised in Jordan. He has been an active jihadist since an early age operating in his native Jordan then moving on to Afghanistan and Iraq post 9-11.

Zarqawi was living in Northern Iraq and running his terror network at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a fact little-reported by the major media.

Zarqawi is the party who personally sawed off the head of Nicholas Berg in 2004. He is believed responsible for the plot which led to the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan in October of 2002, for which he too was sentenced to death in absentia.

Zarqawi is currently directing al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq. Though he is thought to have been seriously wounded by coalition forces earlier this year he has seemingly recovered.

Though primarily about the Zawahiri document, we must detail one critical aspect of Knight Ridder's coverage of this story.

Central to the Knight Ridder thesis is the argument that Operation Iraqi Freedom has resulted in an amplification of al-Qaeda's power - that it serves as jihad central, a recruiting ground for radical Islam.

The absurdity of this lies in the fact that both Zawahiri and Zarqawi have been active jihadists for over twenty years and many of these Iraqi jihadis are really members of the disaffected irregular army of Islamist thugs that have been plying their trade in such disparate locales as Bosnia and Kosovo, nearly every "secularist" nation in the Middle East, Chechnya and across the rest of Central and South East Asia for at least that long.

In his piece, Knight Ridder reporter John Walcott specifically states:

"While the Bush administration calls Iraq "the central front in the war on terrorism," the letter indicates that al-Qaeda believes that U.S. led invasion of Iraq has created an opportunity to rally Muslims behind "the greatest battle of Islam in the era."

Nowhere in the document is it claimed that the U.S. "invasion" - Knight Ridder is unfamiliar with the work "liberation" - created this "greatest battle," in the sense of the radical players now active in Iraq having been spurred on to jihad by this administration's actions.

The Zawahiri document, fully read gives a quite different meaning to this claim. It refers to ancient battles, indicating Iraq's central and historic role in Islam's many fissures, going back 1,500 years.

"...your historic battle against the greatest of criminals and apostates inthe heart of the Islamic world, the field where epic and major battles in the history ofIslam were fought...People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extentof danger to Islam of the Twelve'er school of Shiism. It is a religious schoolbased on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions ofMuhammad of heresy in a campaign against Islam..."

Since Mr. Walcott seems unfamiliar with Islamic history, a short note - the "epic" battle referred to by Zawahiri is the battle of Karbala, Iraq [the massacre of Imam Husayn - grandson of Mohammed - and his family in October of 680]. This conflict remains the defining point in the blood feud which motivates the animosity between the Sunni and Shia sects and which grew out of the issue of succession after the death of Mohammed in 632.

The document makes clear the extreme intolerance of the Islamists, who don't even consider the Shias to be Muslims, but rather "apostates," as Zawahiri observes noting "the religious nature of this conflict."

Such myopia results from editorialists pretending to be reporters, something Knight Ridder's coverage of the war on terror constantly suffers from.

to his great credit, in his October 6th address President Bush warned that it was al-Qaeda's long-term goal was to build an empire that stretched from Spain to Indonesia.

On that subject Zawahiri minces no words.

"...our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner ofthe Prophet."

This communication indicates the parallel lines of argument employed by both the Islamists and the leftists, seeking to impose a Vietnam template of failure and disgrace. Ordinarily that might give a reporter pause for concern, though not so here.

"The aftermath of thecollapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-isnoteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us..."

There is also delusional revisionism regarding the Taliban.

"...We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation ingovernance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone. They did not have anyrepresentation for the Afghan people in their ruling regime, so the result was that theAfghan people disengaged themselves from them..."

Not to mention skinning even your Muslim opponents alive along with a litany of more bureaucratic failures.

The Islamists are zealots of the first order, however for the time being Zawahiri counsels Zarqawi that they must hide their true feelings lest these heretics not participate in jihad.

"...From the standpoint of not highlighting the doctrinaldifferences which the masses do not understand, such as this one is Matridi or this oneis Ashari or this one is Salafi, and from the standpoint of doing justice to the people,for there may be in the world a heresy or an inadequacy in a side which may havesomething to give to jihad..."

Of course the "heretics" and "blasphemers" will eventually be dealt with when their services are no longer needed.

"...Indeed, questions will circulate among mujahedeen circles and their opinion makersabout the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time. Is it something that isunavoidable? Or, is it something can be put off until the force of the mujahed movementin Iraq gets stronger?..."

Above all, in their most elemental form the leaders of the Islamists are pragmatic, while ultimately intolerant of all but their own narrow - almost impossible to define to outsiders - religious interpretation, they realize the key role that short-term compromise means.

They are also most acutely aware of the overarching role the media plays in public perception of this conflict.

No mention of al-Qaeda's obvious media savvy was made in the above noted Knight Ridder piece.

"...However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more thanhalf of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are ina media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far ourcapabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities ofthe kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet.That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to thequestions and answering to doubts. We don't need this...."

On this point Zawahiri is entirely correct, the media indeed is where this war will be fought, actual battlefield developments spun to best, or worst effect.

For their part Knight Ridder, the New York Times, CBS, CNN, Al-Jazeera and the others will continue to intentionally create and cast an atmosphere of defeatism, dread and lies around the war on terror. They do this because the majority of their reporters are partisan Bush-haters, so blinded that their natural instinct towards self-preservation have been short-circuited.

We refuse to mince words any longer over the deportment of these people. They are largely uninformed, unpatriotic ideologues, governed by a herd mentality. While this document from Zawahiri should be seen as a near Rosetta Stone - offering a vital glimpse into the mind of an enemy that has repeatedly declared war on all of Western civilization - instead it is being used as cannon fodder by a journalistic army of boobs who are too deluded to realize that should the Islamic Caliphate ever seriously touch them, that they should pray for a fate as relatively painless as that suffered by their compatriot Daniel Pearl at jihadi hands.

©1999-2005, all rights reserved.

Not Home Freeh - Clinton And The Khobar Towers Investigation

By William A. Mayer, E&P

October 12, 2005 - Washington, DC - - In June of 2001 a Federal Grand Jury in Alexandria Virginia returned a 46 count indictment against fourteen individuals thought responsible for the June 25, 1996 bombing of the US Air Force housing complex, Building 131 at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Five years earlier, on the day of the Khobar bombing, never missing an opportunity to role-play as the sensitive but tough Chief Executive, Clinton proved once again that the most dangerous place to be in DC during his presidency - aside from Ft. Marcy Park - was between himself and a television camera, in this instance tersely making this statement, feigning rage while studiously biting his lower lip:

"The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished."

On the following day June 26, 1996, grandstanding as he prepared to fly to Lyon France for the G7 Summit, Clinton committed the following gaffe - a revealing Freudian slip.

"Let me be very clear: We will not resist" - the president then correcting his misstatement - "we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them. Anyone who attacks one American attacks every American, and we protect and defend our own."

He went on to claim, "...Last night, I directed an FBI team of 40 experts, investigators and forensic experts to go there to work with the Saudi Arabian authorities."

In fact it was FBI Director Freeh who immediately dispatched the team to Saudi Arabia and the size of the contingent was 125, not 40.

"Louis Freeh, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was visiting relatives in New Jersey when he was told about the bombing, and he immediately dispatched a hundred and twenty-five agents and employees to Saudi Arabia." - Elsa Walsh, "Louis Freeh's Last Case," New Yorker Magazine, April 14, 2001

At the end of his statement he refused to answer a reporter's question, "Mr. President, will the FBI be able to conduct an independent investigation?"

The juxtaposition of Clinton's misstatement along with his refusal to even promise an "independent investigation" looms mightily in retrospect.

What is clear is that the Clinton's Justice Department's interest in the matter was in preventing the issuance of an indictment in the case for 5 years, a period of time in which leads went cold while the president obstructed justice in the matter, doing everything in his power to frustrate and curtail his long suffering FBI Director's investigation.

Clinton's obstruction took place because it quickly became obvious that the Khobar Tower bombing plot was orchestrated by the terrorist state of Iran - coordinated by its Revolutionary Guard.

Mr. Clinton's actions in shielding Iran show such an amazing degree of deference that its Mullahs might just as well have been his personal clients.

Fortunately, Mr. Freeh is in the news again, as is Mr. Clinton - the former pushing his new book, "My FBI," the latter as the seeming butt of that work.

The bad news for Bill and Hillary Clinton is that Mr. Freeh is apparently unskilled in the Kerry-esque art of nuanced language and is savaging his former boss:

"Bill Clinton raised the subject [Khobar] only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library...That's a fact that I am reporting." - Louis B. Freeh

In a time when sham indictments by partisan Texas Democrats serve as daily gruel for the haters of the left and their media supporters, a factual re-examination of Clinton's obstruction of the Khobar Tower's investigation might well draw the proper contrast between real and imagined wrongdoing.

If this saga's blowback also serves to hinder a Hillary Clinton candidacy in '08 - deracinating whatever good will still accrues to the co-presidency of William Jefferson Clinton, so much the better.

As outlined in our previous piece 10 Years And Counting - Still No Exit Plan From Clinton Created, European Al-Qaeda Base the Clinton Administration had a curious hands off regard for the terrorist state of Iran and the Khobar Towers case treads upon that same ground, but in a different way.

From the outset we see the same cast of foreign policy amateur players - Clinton, NSC Director Anthony Lake and Lake's Deputy Sandy Berger. Augmenting this cadre was the Don Knotts of diplomacy, Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

From Freeh's vantage point he saw the unprecedented scandals fall, one upon another: Whitewater/Madison Guarantee, corrupt aides such as Web Hubble and Bernie Nussbaum, Jennifer Flowers, the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, Hillary's attempted health care putsch and "cattle futures" speculation, the curious death of Vincent Foster, Travelgate, Clinton/Gore's massive Chinagate campaign funding abuses, Janet Reno's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to deal with it and a dozen other scandals including Clinton's pardoning of the FALN Puerto Rican terrorists and Filegate.

About the latter Freeh opined:

"The prior system of providing files to the White House relied on good faith and honor. Unfortunately, the FBI and I were victimized."

Clinton was not held in high regard by the professionals at the FBI. Regarding a briefing demanded by Secretary of State Madeline Albright on the Chinese angle to the campaign contribution investigation, Robert "Bear" Bryant [Freeh's National Security Deputy] knowing that the information would eventually filter back to Bill Clinton, exclaimed incredulously to Freeh in a telephone conversation:

"Why should we brief him?...He's a crook. He's no better than a bank robber. Would we tell a bank robber about our investigation?" - Elsa Walsh, "Louis Freeh's Last Case," New Yorker Magazine, April 14, 2001

Clinton's motivation to hinder the Khobar investigation, which now prompts the unusually harsh criticism of a former FBI Director, bled throughout his administration. While the FBI necessarily took the lead role delving into the Saudi bombing, Congress was also pursuing it independently, though it also found itself being stonewalled at the highest levels.

On July 7, 1998 Arlen Specter charged Defense Dept. Secretary William Perry with obstructing the Senate's investigation into Khobar.

"...This letter constitutes a formal complaint on the obstruction by you, others and the Department of Defense on the inquiry by the Intelligence Committee to determine whether there was an intelligence failure relating to the terrorist attack in Dhahran on June 25, 1996 on the following...Prohibiting key witnesses from being interviewed by this Committee...the concerns we had on prohibiting General Downing from testifying...Refusing to give this committee access to an Air Force report which, was reported in the Washington Post on October 10..." - Congressional Record, July 7, 1997

From the outset Freeh sensed that while the Clinton team publicly feigned interest in getting to the bottom of Khobar, in private they sabotaged it:

"Freeh also heard from his Saudi counterparts that there had been little followup to the Administration's statements; as a result, a mixed signal was being sent about the seriousness of United States resolve. Freeh came to believe that the Clinton Administration feared jeopardizing its strategic relationships in the Middle East by pressing too hard; in fact, by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed that he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new Administration." - Elsa Walsh, "Louis Freeh's Last Case," New Yorker Magazine, April 14, 2001

The simple fact is that the key evidence that the FBI developed and which led to the 2001 indictment [containing a total of 38 references to the Iranian government] came only as a result of the sudden cooperation by the Saudis - orchestrated by George Herbert Walker Bush, who had serious clout with the Royal Family after the first Gulf War - and who had been asked by Freeh to intervene in the matter.

"...he approached former President George Bush and asked him to intervene with the Saudi royal family...On November 9, 1998, Freeh finally got what he had been seeking for two and a half years. From behind a one-way mirror, F.B.I. agents watched and listened as Saudi law-enforcement officers posed the Bureau's two hundred and twelve questions to eight suspects. The suspects confirmed their involvement in the bombing and described how the Iranians had ordered, supported, and financed the attack." - Elsa Walsh, "Louis Freeh's Last Case," New Yorker Magazine, April 14, 2001

From the Clinton administration's ill-reasoned intervention in Bosnia to its refusal to confront the obvious in the Khobar Towers case, the only constant seems to be a policy of tilting towards Tehran.

Why was that?

One reason is Mr. Clinton's understanding of Iranian history, a subject which he expounded upon in an interview he did with Charlie Rose in Davos, Switzerland in January of 2005:

"Iran's a whole different kettle of fish, but it's a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back in [Rose says "CIA" in the background] and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government, because he was in Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of the parliamentary democracy back in the '50s; at least, that is my belief."

So great were the "crimes" the United States committed against Iran that Clinton felt it - unbelievably - necessary to apologize.

"I apologized when President Khatami was elected. I publicly acknowledged that the United States had actively overthrown Mossadegh and I apologized for it..."

This is a shocking thing to see in print, an American ex-president apologizing to the Mullahs and evidently swallowing the standard hard-left/Marxist line on Iran - one indistinguishable from that put forth by Noam Chomsky and Gar Alperovitz - and goes a long way to explaining where the leader of the Clinton team was coming from ideologically.

But as the interview progressed it got even stranger; Clinton seemingly having an Al Gore moment:

"It [Iran] is the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections...In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own..."

This country that the ex-president so admires is the same one which held 66 American hostages for 444 days [until freed by the mere presence of Ronald Reagan], killed 19 American servicemen in at Khobar and continues to underwrite the terrorist organizations Hizbullah, Hamas, Al Gama'at al-Islamiya, al-Jihad, PKK [Kurdish Worker's Party], Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine].

Iran is exporting Islamic terror all over the world - even funding Hizbullah bases in South America. To the surprise of few, Clinton's "progressives" are building nuclear weapons, already having medium range ballistic missiles thoroughly capable of delivering them.

At some point determining the motives of people like Bill Clinton is a wasteful and futile exercise, the fact is that he has consistently - for reasons which are obvious, and not so obvious - demonstrated a willingness to betray America to an ideology indistinguishable from the threat represented by the Third Reich.

Taken as a whole, the Clinton administration's promoting of Iranian influence in Europe during the war in the Balkans combined with his obstruction of justice in the Khobar Towers bombing investigation - acting as an agent for Tehran - should force us to realize the national security threat that the Clintonista regime represented in the past and might again in the near future.

A conservative led national discussion of this matter might possibly be the best opportunity to stop a Hillary candidacy dead-cold before '08 - already discredited Clinton hacks like document thief Sandy "The Burglar" Berger and hatchet man Lanny Davis are mounting the counter-attack.

In our opinion, if the Republican party flinches on this one, it may very well cease to be a relevant political force.

©1999-2005, all rights reserved.

Read His Lips - Bush Keeps His Promise

October 4, 2005 - Washington, DC - - In the spirit of full disclosure, this is not the piece written and then discarded early yesterday afternoon.

Over the now six years that I have been running this right-wing asylum I have learned a few tricks, one of which is that even 12 hours of perspective is sometimes helpful in sorting things out.

Ok, suck it up, we got an almost grandmotherly Harriet Miers instead of Attilla Scalia and some of us...many of us are still fuming.

We were upset - and I was personally far more than merely upset, but it got better - because we had visions of pools of liberal blood in the streets. Since the fading days of the Reagan Administration we have sought that "ultimate showdown" in which the leftward drift forced by the culture war is halted, then reversed via a national debate held over a momentous event, such as a SCOTUS nomination fight.

Looking back over things it was a silly concept, we all should know that glacial drift is not halted in a single afternoon by an isolated event no matter how epochal in nature it might seem in rough outline at the outset.

No, the Miers nomination is exactly what Mr. Bush promised us, assuming he is an honest and decent man which I do.

She will not lead us into ideological battle ala Patton; there will be no order to "fix bayonets boys we are going over the top." On the other hand she will most likely in an unobtrusive - unless a prowling intellectually audacious conservative lurks somewhere in her - and tidy manner deliver votes indistinguishable from those penned by Thomas and Scalia.

Under the conservative George Bush, revolution was never an option and nothing in his background should have ever indicated that.

Bush is a true conservative in the definitional sense, straight out of a political science 101 text - probably not as conservative as many of would order up off a menu - but of course this isn't diner at the Escofier Room and political tactics are not the soup de jour.

Of primary concern remains to what degree Meirs honors the concept of stare decisis - the rule of precedent - in cases like Roe v Wade remains to be seen, but in grand form she will in no way be a squishy moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor around which pacts better left unmade get forged around ridiculous constructions invoked over homage to foreign jurisprudence. Her obeisance to that important legalism might be further revealed in the upcoming hearings, or it may not if the Ginzberg precedent remains in force.

As we have written here previously, what many of us want is not technically a conservative at all but a reactionary, someone who is willing by force of will to reverse the course of contemporary history. That sentiment may be the correct prescription but Bush was never the one to deliver that. In a larger sense one might consider that in its wisdom our form of government was designed in large part to limit the possibility of such boldness, such revolutionary ardor in the first place, since it can cut in all directions and history harbors many examples of such rampaging out of control in disorderly and messy ways.

It's not often that we can gather enlightenment from the left, but in literally hours of reading their take on this nomination I came upon the following bit of wisdom.

"I wish people would wake and smell the coffee here. Bush clearly stated that he expects Miers to interrupt the law as our founding father intended!! ORIGINAL INTENT is nothing more than CODE for rightwing judge!! Call her to the carpet!!"

If Meirs does indeed - as I believe she will, "interrupt the law as our founding father intended" - then I am a happy camper, next case - Mr. President can we chat a bit about government spending?

©1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.

After the Flood

By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher -

September 6, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - Our species always looks for meaning in disastrous events. It's as if the human need to make sense of nature's random acts can - by force of will alone - create lessons not necessarily in evidence, and therefore soften the blow of conditions beyond our control.

There are however some great truths to be learned from the devastation of Katrina, though they are not very reassuring.

This event has the look of an accident scene; a grinding head-on between the social engineers and the test tube culture they were responsible for creating. In detail the video streams out; a constellation of glass shards litter skyward, then rain down - falling hard - before flood-waters of Biblical proportions consume all.

Much of what you will read about this event will be bilge, because on the surface at least, this is mostly about Black folks, and if people lie about sex, they certainly lie about the embittered relations between Black and Caucasian society.

As we attempt to come to some conclusions regarding the breakdown of society in New Orleans it might be helpful to invoke an analogy.

In mechanical engineering there is a specialty that involves materials testing and modeling. It purpose is to stress-test building and other materials to the breaking point, assaying such things as shear-strength and elasticity of various substances. This process is vital because it gives structural engineers the information that they need to construct for example, safe buildings, bridges or even levees.

New Orleans has just been subjected to this type of testing, involuntarily and by natural processes, not man-made.

It should not have been surprising to find that given sufficient power, a hurricane could overwhelm the physical infrastructure in a city like New Orleans that had been designed to provide a limited amount of protection against encroachment by water.

In similar fashion many cities wait to die, though by different means; San Francisco sitting atop the San Andreas fault, being among them.

What was unexpected is the way in which the population reacted to that disaster - a total social breakdown and massive uncontrolled looting - with militias of gun toting thugs marauding the streets and committing indiscriminate acts of violence.

In that sense New Orleans did more than simply break under testing, it turned inward on itself, assumed critical mass then detonated in response to the crisis.

This response indicates that New Orleans was an unstable society to begin with, always on the brink.

But the experimental testing of a region is only one aspect of this living laboratory; another experiment - the one which produced places like New Orleans - started far earlier and it did not just involve that city.

It involves all of America and centers on a downward spiraling deviation from traditionalism.

But how does an established society become unhinged from its past?

What force could wield sufficient power?

The only one which has the authority to tax on a national basis and through legislative, executive and judicial fiat direct the course of society - the federal government.

One looks for a watershed of causation under such circumstances. The question arises how far back to go?

Do we go back to the Lincoln administration and the Civil War, a period which firmly and permanently elevated the role of the federal government?

Or FDR's dabbling in alphabet-soup socialism, the New Deal?

Or maybe the Second World War, a time when nearly all of American enterprise fell under the domination of Washington, albeit for noble purpose?

While all of these might be considered of import we believe that the most direct cause for what we are today viewing with alarm in a small rural Southern state has its roots in Lyndon Johnson's social programs, which permanently and negatively left their mark.

Robert Rector, of the Heritage Foundation, is probably the greatest authority on Johnson's grandiose scheme - the Great Society, he writes [emphasis added]:

"When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty more than 30 years ago, he announced that it was an investment that would repay its cost to society many times over. Since that time, the United States has invested some $7.9 trillion in programs that provide cash, food, housing, and medical and social services to poor and low-income Americans. But while the nation was pouring this flood of resources into the War on Poverty most social problems got worse, not better. A deluge of illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse, and welfare dependency besieged American communities. The war on poverty failed." - Broadening The Reform, The Heritage Foundation, 2000 - Robert Rector

As Rector so rightly observes what we call poverty in the United States today is not classical poverty, today's poor drive new cars, do not go hungry, have access to medical care, own numerous color televisions and often own their own homes which are not in disrepair.

What affects today's poor is entrapment in a culture that encourages "...behavioral poverty...that heavily reinforced illegitimacy, divorce and non-work."

Though this culture directly and primarily affects people of color, the larger society has been injured by it also, in the form of a general debasement of standards, loss of hope and an encouragement of social deviancy.

Upon examination, New Orleans was already broken before it was "tested."

In the 2003 FBI Violent Crime Summary New Orleans earns the distinction as the murder capital of the United States with a homicide rate of 25.5 per 100,0001 - the highest in any major American city.

And lest you draw the incorrect conclusion, that it's only the poorest, most deprived segment of this city which has driven the crime rate, be mindful that the U.S. Dept. of Justice has assigned a special taskforce to attempt to remedy the rampant corruption and lawlessness within the New Orleans police department.

This agency has amassed the unenviable reputation as being out of control. It has seen its officers convicted of high-profile crimes including a 1994 case involving murder-for-hire and a 1995 case in which a New Orleans police [March 4, 1995, New Orleans police officer Antoinette Frank] officer was convicted of robbing a Vietnamese restaurant and then coldly executing three witnesses to the crime.

Actually, Frank failed her mental exam for the department, but retained her own "expert" psychologist whom she employed to brow beat the department into hiring her, with disastrous results.

But isn't this exactly what we have come to expect from a system which no longer has clear standards and can so easily be manipulated by pimps, in this case those invoking government sponsored bigotry?

This bigotry is all encompassing and gushes from fresh wounds created daily by judicial edict. Hence we legally deny that we are a Judeo-Christian nation, but we send little children home from school with extra credit assignments requiring them to fast...for Ramadan.

Said another way, the Johnson years institutionalized multiculturalism and perverse diversity, and the graphic pictures we see coming out of New Orleans are an outgrowth of a society which was and remains intensely and negatively mis-directed by the social legislation of that period.


1. 2003 FBI Violent Crime Summary

©1999-2005, all rights reserved.

Democrats "Going To War" Over Future Of Supreme Court

July 8, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - For conservatives the upcoming battle for the SCOTUS is the culminating event in the Bush administration, its highest calling.

Many of us have held our tongues - withholding criticism of the President - in anticipation of being able to bring the GOP to the point where it might be able to influence the future course of the American judiciary.

Whether or not it was all worth it remains to be seen.

The strategy the Democrats will employ is already transparent. They will filibuster any conceivable Bush nominee, mouthing inane justifications about conservative judicial activism, as if that concept isn’t entirely nonsensical.

So far, nearly 5 years into his presidency, President Bush remains an enigma.

To those that know him he is an intensely likable, intelligent and truly humble man.

Yet he remains a mystery.

The man who so clearly, and at an early age enjoyed wielding power, acting as George Herbert Walker Bush's hatchet man - for example, firing Chief of Staff John Sununu when he proved to be out of touch with Republican sentiment - is nowhere to be seen.

That Mr. Bush harbors deeply held beliefs - and will act upon them regardless of pubic sentiment - is obvious.

The question is how far these beliefs extend and how far, if at all, he is willing to depart from his gentile "new tone."

So far the talk emanating from the White House is not reassuring.

Though in its infancy, the strategy seems to be one of finesse, demurely suggesting that the Senate comport itself in a "dignified" manner, though the Senate under Republican control has been neither dignified nor collegial.

Arrayed against the considerable firepower that the Democrats and their war-dog 527s have at their disposal, a WH policy of finesse could prove the President's undoing, yielding a humiliating judicial defeat at the hands of a vociferous and morally bankrupt minority and immediately relegating him to lame duck status.

Viewed through originalist eyes, the Supreme Court has already done much harm to the Constitution, individual rights and the concept of federalism.

Its current direction is dangerous, because it clearly views itself as the dominant socio-political institution in much the same manner as does the Barrack court in Israel, which wields dictatorial powers.

Liberals of course cheer such excess, because the court has become their legislative agent by extension ? completely isolated from normal public scrutiny or repercussion.

Does this president owe us personally?


All of us involved with this process have been betting on the come?line, rolling the dice in anticipation of exactly this opportunity.

Does this president owe allegiance to his oft?repeated campaign promise to nominate Supreme Court justices with the same judicial philosophy as associate justices Scalia and Thomas?


Every president since Richard Nixon has been promising to re?align the court, six of the eight current members have been appointed by Republicans and yet the leftward drift intensifies.

It goes without saying that the GOP has been entirely too accommodating. The idea that a nitwit like Orrin Hatch would actually suggest to Bill Clinton that ACLU hack attorney Ruth Ginsberg would be viewed as a reasonable jurist, and then having that judgment proven right by an overwhelming Republican show of support is why that party has been found to be lacking in gray-matter.

It’s hard to imagine a higher stakes game and we hope that the president understands that from an intellectual, flow-of-history standpoint and not just as another high stakes political skirmish.

We hope that in looking at this event that the WH assesses its previous failures as essentially caused by timidity and the self?congratulatory tendency to view themselves as above mere political process.

Well, Mr. President, Washington is if anything a political town.

It was before you came here and it will be - God willing - 100 years after you leave.

It is those hundred years that you should be thinking about, how America might look then and whether or not it will even be recognizable. Limited governance - bound by tradition - is all we can hope for; is really all we need or should desire.

Absent a limit on ultimate judicial authority the theory of tripartite republicanism rings hollow.

We view it as the job of this president to slam the door shut on further judicial tyranny, we hope that he can do that with sufficient authority and finality so that he might possibly even illuminate a public who is so disconnected and dumbed-down that they are incapable of naming even one member of this high court.

We have no illusions about our 55 member Senate majority.

Under the leadership of Bill Frist - and the Bush administration’s curious hands-off approach - it is a constant source of embarrassment. While we fervently hope that Mr. Frist can pull a working majority from his numerical majority we remain studiously skeptical, having been through similar charades entirely too often to have much reason to hope.

©1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved. 

Republican Sellout - The Day The Bush Presidency Died

May 24, 2005 - PipeLineNews - Associated Press claims this was a moderate decision, but of course most of us know better.

We know that Senate Majority Leader in name only, William Frist and President Bush totally caved to the Democrats and there will not now - nor ever in the future - be a "nuclear option."

They do not have the votes.

As a result, hopes of a reformed judiciary lie dashed at the feet of Republican arrogance and malfeasance.

And whom do we have to blame?

On the squishy right - Mike DeWine of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, John McCain of Arizona, John W. Warner of Virginia, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and the Bush Administration.

And on the left - who else but KKK Kleagle Robert Byrd and company.

With regard to the GOP, the name Vidkun Quisling comes to mind, the Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.

The left, far from selling their own out, actually carried the day, a perfect example of a committed minority being able to roll a criminally stupid bunch of Republican cowards.

Leave the spin on this one where it belongs, in a DC gutter and please note: anyone from the RNC who tells you this is anything but the end of the Bush presidency is lying.

The fallout from this is going to be massive. It immediately boosts Democrat chances in 2008 because without the GOP grassroots there is no Republican party. This news will create a firestorm within the conservative movement whose allegiance has already been tested to the breaking point over spending, the continued unchecked influx of illegal Mexicans and a hundred lesser issues.

The issue itself, which created the controversy, the extra-Constitutional Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees, hasn't gone away because - post agreement - each Senator still retains the unchecked discretion to filibuster at his or her will.

"The agreement said future nominees to the appeals court and Supreme Court should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democrat senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met." - AP

On Tuesday morning, Senator Reid stated the obvious, that each and every judicial nominee was "an extraordinary circumstance."

As if to drive the stake deeper, on Monday evening, WH spokesman Scott McClellan characterized the Senate's abdication of responsibility as "progress."

After the dimensions of the fiasco had finally set in, Harry Reid - Senate Minority leader - summed it up most succinctly:

"Tonight the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason and behalf of responsibility. We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, will not be tolerated by Democrats or Republicans. And your attempt, I say to the vice president and to the president, to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control is over."

This is a sad day, no doubt we will learn from the experience, but the fact remains that this is going to be hard to take; there is no getting around that.

© 1999-2005 PipeLineNew, all rights reserved.

The Newt-Hillary Danse-des-Deux

By William A. Mayer E & P,

May 16, 2005 - PipeLineNews - One must observe Newt Gingrich's courtship of Lady Hillary with a great deal of concern tinged with no small amount of sadness.

Not the pairing itself, no matter how troubling that is in light of the Clinton's role in the destruction of Mr. Gingrich, but the nature of the potential partnership, one which need be - as speedily as possible - consigned to the deepest recesses of Hades.

Much is clear; Newt is damaged goods, the Clinton's killed him - with 125,000 negative ads.

Gingrich was the guy who stole Tiny Tim's crutch.

Why he is sidling up to these people now is pathetic, but no mystery, it's a transparent bid to return to whatever passes for legitimacy in DC these days.

Why that might appeal to someone as learned as Newt is grist for another day.

But first, let's dispense with what is a pipedream for some; Newt has as much chance of ultimately gaining the GOP nomination as I do, which is to say he has no chance whatsoever - under any conceivable condition, in any place or at any time.

As I mentioned to a friend recently, Newt having been wronged so grievously and maliciously by the left, is no longer a viable political aspirant.

This is a sad fact, since Newt deserves iconic status as our perfect political warrior. He had an agenda which was respective of conservative values and he had the organizational and inspirational ability to direct his troops towards that end.

But where is he now?

Nibbling around the cesspool of socialized medicine.

Newt would most likely be quick to object to the term socialized medicine and claim that his proposals are far from that.

He would be dead wrong.

This essay is neither about the Newt/Clinton inspired 21st Century Health Information Act of 2005 - sponsored by Congressmen Tim Murphy (R-PA) and Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) - nor is it about Newt's new Center for Health Care Transformation.

The fact remains however that the proposal he has endorsed is merely the stalking horse for what will assuredly be another go at a "Hillary lite" federal takeover of the American health care system.

While the Murphy-Kennedy bill claims to be aimed at a freer exchange among medical professionals of health care information it really will result in just another ridiculous layer of bureaucracy, using Medicare disbursements to browbeat practitioners into compliance.

All on the basis that the federal government knows best.

Strategically this is all Hillary's game, her upside in any debate wherein the GOP even entertains a gander at such a preposterous idea is nearly 100%.

Her downside, nil.

Now this is not about to become a mini-exposition on the dangers of further federalizing America's system of health delivery - despite this nation's slow slide towards that seeming eventuality - an idea which has been gaining momentum with every passing year since 1965, the year when Medicare sprung from LBJ's fetid loins.

I would rather contemplate the larger question, which is Newt's dabbling in social engineering.

First, it's necessary to demarcate the boundaries between Newt the PhD and Newt as a champion for the conservative movement.

As an intellectual, it is Newt's right to employ his considerable intellect in exploring whatever issues might be of interest to him.

As a politician however he must be judged by a different standard, one which takes note of the nature of his proposals and where they place him philosophically.

In this regard Newt's support of this health care initiative reinvents him as merely another ivory tower societal architect.

Public policy based intellectualism is almost by definition anti-conservative. Institutions and systems are examined - often by unelected - but always unaccountable task forces, "problems" are identified and "solutions" proposed. If we are unfortunate, we find these solutions imposed upon us in the form of federal dictates, traditionally so complex that the relatively few in Congress who decide these things ever manage to even read the entire text of the legislation they are voting on.

At best, when the courts delve into these matters they tend to further complicate them.

It is through such modalities that government designed horses are unrecognizable as such.

Newt must certainly be aware that this is a methodology at odds with the traditionalism championed by the founding father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke.

Honoring tradition is a conservative proposition because it provides guidance that is organically and historically derived - not merely set forth and imposed. Problems of a political nature best yield to this fundamental process, flowing from what has been tested over time, and rigorously and publicly vetted.

Solutions so derived are not artificial constructs. Conservatives do not propose 5 year plans because historically this has often resulted in bodies stacked like cordwood in places like Dachau.

Conservatives have an innate and reasonable distrust in the process whereby pure reason is employed as the primary tool of statecraft. Such problem solving relies upon praxis, bending the world to fit around prideful human ego.

This tension - between a conservative traditionalist right and continued left-wing social meddling - serves as the underlayment for nearly every policy debate that now rages in Washington. In a post-modernist, post-Judeo-Christian world, truth is dead.

As Dostoevsky's character Fyodor Karamazov observed, "If God is dead, then all is permitted."

But in a conservative world, all is not permitted. By this simple logic Newt has joined the other side and that fact is indeed unfortunate.

© 1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved 

Some Thoughts On Outsourcing

By William A. Mayer, E&P PipeLineNews

April 22, 2005 - PipeLineNews - For some reason, perhaps the current mini-turmoil in US securities markets, outsourcing is in the news again, including a new book - Outsourcing America - written by two academics, Ron Hira a PhD at the Rochester Institute - an electrical engineer who holds an assistant professorship in Public Policy, and Anil Hira - a professor of Political Science and Latin American Studies at Simon Fraser Institute.

Why these two should be taken as prophets of the new order in this matter is rather puzzling to me, usually it is assumed that such issues would be parsed by scholars trained perhaps in economics, but alas good and rigorous economists are in short supply these days.

The subject of outsourcing was last in the news during the presidential elections last fall, it was used - to little advantage - by John Kerry in an attempt to bash the Bush administration over its supposed lack of concern over American jobs, that despite the questionable record of Mr. Kerry's cash cow - Heinz' - hideous record on outsourcing, sending fully 60% of its jobs overseas.

The general theory which serves to tar the concept of outsourcing presumes that at some point in time whatever industries are extant on American soil must remain so in perpetuity. In large part the claim that outsourcing could easily be controlled in a non-destructive manner ignores the fungibility both of capital and labor.

To the extent that US public policy drives companies and jobs offshore that is something that certainly should be addressed. Tax policies, environmental regulation, labor regulation and tort reform should all be looked at. But it must be understood that these free market impediments were placed by government at the behest and as a result of leftist intellectual meddling in the first place.

Removing such shackles would result in freer domestic markets and fewer restrictions. However, physically stemming the supposed flow of vital jobs overseas requires the services of the only agent whose reach would be comprehensive enough - the Federal Government. Such intrusion would of course operate at counter purpose to the free market model, though it could - temporarily at least - be effected via legislative and executive fiat.

Having paged through the Hira brother's book, I am by no means certain that it really offers much in the way of new thinking on this subject, certainly the existence of a University of California study suggesting that a certain number of white collar jobs could be "vulnerable" appears only to be a revelation to those who assume that stasis is the natural state of an economy.

Having some limited experience along the lines of this discussion, I thought that my observations might have some applicability.

An admission: I am one of the evil ones, guilty of outsourcing, specifically with regards to computer programming. The details are really unimportant, but the lessons I have learned may offer some insight as to why I view the outsourcing issue less of a threat than some. This is not to say that such issues have no relevance, just that they are not quite of the nature and seriousness that some claim. I also know enough to be aware that limited experience does not necessarily have universal applicability, but nonetheless I feel it might be instructive.

There are six general areas in which I feel contracting services to providers outside of the continental United States present very real problems that tend to mitigate their major appeal - price.

The first realization is that foreign prices for domestic services are no longer really very cheap. That labor rates are less outside the US than inside is axiomatic, but one must look at prevailing wage rates within those countries to understand how this works. Let's say you have a project requiring a certain number of programmers for a specific amount of time. The programmers, being intelligent people have the option of taking such an assignment or of taking advantage of offers from other potential employers. That immediately requires that the rate of compensation exceed what they can get for a similar commitment of time and effort from the competition. These are the same considerations which make a foreign doctor leave their homeland and move to the United States to become a nurse; they can make more money here and have a far better lifestyle than in their homeland - despite their diminished status.

Now a curious effect of the globalization of the labor market is that its very existence augurs against some of the worst of the outsourcing myths. Specifically, a new call center located in the heart of a city that had previously provided a stable pool of programmers offers higher wages, better benefits, better working conditions and less stress so it siphons former programmers away.

For those who say why not just raise the ante - increase the wage - one must read further because the value of the service offered and surrounding issues then comes into play.

One aspect little spoken of is one of time offsets. This means in general that when American workers are heading home at the end of their work day, that their foreign - especially Asian - compatriots are just heading to work - on the following day.

Someone has to direct these workers, check their output, communicate and solve issues that arise, so that lowers the total value of the service because it requires overtime by someone here on the mainland to run the offshore operation. You can't merely place an order like you would at a McDonalds and expect the next morning to get your hamburger as you expected it all hot and oozing that special sauce. These are complex transactions, not so easily managed.

Quality issues arise. In general foreign service providers do not have the skill level of their American counterparts nor are they as efficient, period. Others might have had different experience but calling oneself a Cold Fusion or Java programmer does not mean that they are all of the same skill level. The end product of sloppy programming might indeed work but the code might be so inelegantly written, take up so much disk space or be so idiosyncratic that no one else can understand its flow if it becomes necessary to modify it.

Thus it might be of little value.

While English remains the world-wide language of business, communicating with English speaking foreign providers of services is always problematic. It's the difference between an American learning textbook correct Spanish grammar and then expecting to be able to easily communicate on a business trip to Mexico city. This also bears upon cultural differences, some of which are manifested in communication difficulties caused by the use of idiomatic terms and colloquialisms.

Cultural differences bear on such things as deference - some cultures still retain class type mindsets that defer to the perceived higher caste level of the employer with diminished regard for the product. In this world you will be called "sir" and your direction attended to, even though it might compromise the project when it could simply be politely challenged, thus saving much time and money.

America is a culture of work; we define ourselves by how busy we are, how many hours we toil. This is by no means a universal human attribute and because of that your first brush with the attitude of foreign workers might prove unsettling. Work attendance in many instances is not considered compulsory by foreign workers; almost any excuse might seem valid to them, giving a worker freedom to attend to whatever he or she might feel more pressing. When the workers do manage to actually come to work do not be surprised if they can't attend fully to the day's business because they "are busy reformatting their email" or some such inane excuse. Then there is the matter of holidays; in some societies there seem to be more holidays than work days.

Inability to properly direct foreign workers bears on the previously mentioned time offset issues as well as the cultural complications. As to the latter, my feeling is that American's are pretty thick-skinned, they can take a certain amount of blunt talk without it cramping their spirit or output. Not so the case with many foreign workers whose egos are more delicate than tropical flowers, to the point where they might even conceal their progress on a project's code until they can thoroughly "test" it even though bringing a faulty idea to that point is extremely wasteful if it happens not to work, or be so creaky as to be useless as an application.

As a result many US employers are rethinking the whole outsourcing paradigm, such as it is. Those doing the hiring are finding that simply looking at the price disparity between foreign provided services and the domestic product yields a false picture, one fraught with unseen difficulties that only become apparent once you are locked into the process.

Even such seemingly simple enterprises as call centers being placed offshore have come under scrutiny. Americans do not like having someone in Calcutta fielding their customer service issues, to these customers foreign service lacks value - you might argue the PC line - saying that attitude is jingoistic, but people vote with their pocketbooks regardless of your judgment.

As a bit player in this controversy I have no universal offerings aside from the observation that I trust our relatively free markets more than I trust controlled markets and I trust in capitalism above all else. As we proceed towards a truly global economy countless dislocations will arise, will be dealt with and then will arise again and anew - in different form - to be attended to once again.

That is the nature of business and the less governments get involved with micro managing it, the better.

© 1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.

Radical Muslim Group Fraudulently Promoting Fundraising Event

By William A. Mayer, Editor & Publisher, PipeLineNews and Beila Rabinowitz, Militant Islam Monitor

April 12, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - According to the official announcement being circulated by the Assadiq Educational Islamic Foundation in Boca Raton, Florida, the Mayors of Coral Springs and Boca Raton will be in attendance at a special celebration of:

"the birthday of the last messanger [sic] of God, Mohammad Rasul-Allah."

Each of the Mayors has also been designated as a "guest of honor."

These are their respective statements:

"Thank you for your email regarding the Assadiq Islamic Education Foundation event to be held in Boca Raton on April 30, 2005. I am outraged that my name has been associated with this event. I have not received any request to attend or be "honored" at the event and would certainly not accept any such invitation. It is particularly upsetting because one of the advertised speakers is William W. Baker. Several of my family members perished in the Holocaust, and any suggestion challenging the historical record of the Holocaust is repugnant to me.

I am, of course, seeking to contact this organization to express my extreme displeasure and demand that my name be removed from any advertising for this event."

Mayor Steven L. Abrams
City of Boca Raton
201 West Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33432


Let me first say that, until I spoke recently to Mr. Art Teitelbaum of the ADL, I had no idea who William Baker is or what viewpoint he represents. Now I know, but since I have not seen any of the publicity for the upcoming event, I am at a disadvantage. The very notion that I am "sharing the spotlight with Baker" is offensive to me.

Having said that, I will recount a simple flow of events which has led to this misunderstanding and unintended consequence. In February of this year, the City of Coral Springs hosted a celebration of Eid. As you may know, Coral Springs is a front-runner with regard to building multi-cultural relations and to the fostering of communication and goodwill between people of different races, colors and creeds. At the Eid event I met a young cleric named Imam Mohammad Jawad Al-Qazwini, who communicated well and seemed to my wife and me to be the kind of leader who would seek out the paths to peace and understanding. About one month ago I received a message from him, inviting me to attend a dinner of his educational foundation. No mention was made as to who the speakers would be. I replied that I could not stay for the whole evening and could not be a guest of honor, but that my wife and I would be happy to drop by for half an hour to pay respects. I do not know if you are familiar with the life of a Mayor, but I can assure you that brief appearances at events is an almost daily occurance, and often several in one day. The idea being to spread goodwill and information, and to build relations. The next thing I heard was your message, which quite surprised and shocked me. I am still making enquiries as to how the Assadiq Islamic Educational Foundation felt at liberty to use my name to promote the event, and because they did so without my permission I will not be attending the event. I will be contacting them directly to stop their use of my name.

I am sending this message in response to yours and also with the hope that you will pass it on to those who have an interest in this matter.

Rhon Ernest-Jones
City of Coral Springs


The Assadiq Educational Islamic Foundation [AEIF] is a radical Islamic organization, whose Imam - Mohammed Al-Qazwini - has deep familial ties to Iran as well as the extreme Shiite Muslim sect in the city of Karbala, Iraq.

Shockingly, the AEIF website even features a "dripping blood" graphic that seems to belie any possible claims of moderation on their part.

As noted above by Mayor Abrams, one of the "celebration's" keynote speakers will be a disgraced neo-Nazi, William Baker, whom the flyer seems to represent as being currently affiliated with Robert Schuler's Crystal Cathedral in California, when in reality he was fired - years ago - from that organization shortly after his background became clear.

The flyer also claims that Baker is "one of the most outstanding figures in the Christian world." - a lie of rather astounding proportions.

According to a February 2002 article in the Orange County Register - Hour of White Power

"...Baker was chairman of the neo-Nazi Populist Party in 1984 and organized its national convention that year. The Populist Party was established and directed by Willis Carto, head of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby. The dean of American neo-Nazi politics, Carto also founded the Costa Mesa-based Institute for Historical Review, a group whose central purpose is Holocaust denial....During the same period, Baker wrote and published Theft of a Nation, a 1982 book whose salient feature is its unrelenting pro-Arab, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish politics. Writing on contemporary Middle East politics, Baker stated that "true justice and real conciliation" requires that "all Jews who entered Palestine during the British Mandate from 1917 to 1948 and after the establishment of the state of Israel should return to the various countries of their origin" and that the "Zionist state of Israel . . . should be dismantled and eventually eliminated..."

That the Assadiq Educational Islamic Foundation makes use of such fraudulently disingenuous tactics in promoting its agenda is not really surprising, since most of what the media recognizes as "moderate" Islam turns out to be of the closet Wahhabi persuasion, often funded by radical Saudi interests.

We also make note of the fact that the Council On Islamic American Relations, CAIR is affiliated with this event. That occurrence we find totally in keeping with the tenor of the event, since CAIR specializes in masquerading under the guise of moderation while conducting its stock in trade - cultural jihad - towards its ultimate goal of an American Muslim Caliphate.

© 1999-2005 William A. Mayer & Beila Rabinowitz, all rights reserved.  

National Review - Which Side Are You On?

By William A. Mayer, E&P - PipeLineNews

March 31, 2005 - Washington, DC - PipeLineNews - CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, bills itself as an Islamic Civil Rights group, along the lines of the NAACP.

In actuality CAIR is neither a civil rights organization, nor is it like the NAACP.

CAIR is an Islamist pressure group - a captive of Wahhabist/jihadi theology.

It is an enemy of secular, republican government.

No lesser authority than Daniel Pipes characterized the organization, in an April 22, 2002 article, as "'Moderate' friends of terror."

Since January, CAIR has succeeded in cowing Fox Broadcasting, Dell Computer and Spherion Staffing, into ridiculous actions to atone for trumped up "anti-Muslim" actions.

In the case of Dell, CAIR went so far as to take advantage of a group of about 30 Somali nationals - who were resettled in Tennessee, from the hell-hole which is Africa, by the US Dept. of State - and use them to wage psychological jihad against Dell on the groundless charge that Dell was impeding their free exercise of the Islamic religion on the job.

Now CAIR has mounted the head of Rich Lowry, Senior Editor of National Review, on their trophy wall, alongside that of Fox's Gail Berman and Michael Dell.

National Review was once the most hallowed of modern conservative icons; created by William F. Buckley at a time when few remembered the towering intellect of Edmund Burke.

As such, NR stood for something, alas that is no more.

Here is the controversy.

A few weeks ago CAIR began a public relations campaign against NR. They charged the magazine with complicity in promoting two books - The Life and Religion of Mohammed & The Sword of the Prophet - that were allegedly anti-Muslim.

By anti-Muslim, CAIR really means truthful.

What CAIR did was coordinate, via its E-zine - CAIR Islam Infonet - an email and telephone bullying effort against one of National Review's key advertisers, Boeing Aircraft.

Of course this got National Review's attention, it being natural for any advertising driven organization to be concerned with the potential loss of a key source of revenue.

National Review's decision was to remove from its bookstore, the books that were claimed to be offensive, thus awarding CAIR total victory on the PR front.

Contacted on the matter, Anne F. Eisele, Boeing spokesperson, was extremely forthcoming. She spent considerable time with us on the phone in a March 30 conversation.

Ms. Eisele denied that Boeing had, at any time, threatened or in any way suggested to NR, that the books be removed from the magazine's online bookstore.

Her specific statement was:

"You asked did Boeing ask National Review to remove the books in question from its website or did the company in any way pressure National Review in its apparent decision to do so? The answer is no. I confirmed that with our head of advertising, the only company official to have contact with the National Review."

Mr. Lowry, Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Nordlinger will not speak to us on the matter. Though we have left numerous voice-mail messages for them, they have been totally unresponsive.

Yet, squirreled away in the NR online blog-section, we are greeted with the following transparency by Editor Lowry:

"So, National Review didn't sit down and say, "Hey, let's have a public fight over Mohammed and aggressively market books about him," then reverse course. In contrast, Robert Spencer and some others on the right feel very strongly that it is important to discredit Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror. That's certainly their prerogative, but it is not the tack NR has taken, even as we have vigorously attacked Islamic terrorism."

There is a name for this, it's called caving.

Caving seems to have become somewhat of a cottage industry - among faux conservatives - over the past few weeks.

We have seen it in the actions of William Frist, the leadership of the House and in the Bush administration on a number of issues - over the so-called "nuclear" option, over Congress' unwillingness to enforce a legally constituted subpoena in the Schiavo case and on illegal immigration.

The press has it easy; they operate in the world of ideas and ink, only doing battle with words. Consequently, they are seldom if ever called upon to make their actions consistent with what they say.

In this matter they have been tested and found wanting, demonstrating a considerable chasm between pontification and action.

As Bill Bennett once glibly remarked, "Hypocrisy is better than having no standards at all."

But at this point shouldn't we all hold ourselves to a little higher bar, one that might possibly include conduct?

As with all matters pertaining to how we deal with fraudulent organizations like CAIR, there is a more important point.

Every capitulation strengthens them.

CAIR thrives on these public relations victories, it fuels their cultural jihad.

My writing partner Beila Rabinowitz calls these actions Shaykh-downs, and that is precisely what they are.

These little media excursions are the actions of religiously bigoted thugs.

When we acquiesce to their strident demands we legitimize and embolden them - both in the eyes of their followers as well as with the public in general. This empowers them to go before school boards and convince them to allow CAIR to institute multicultural religious indoctrination sessions in classrooms, which might go so far as to include "extra-credit" fasting on the part of Christian students in observance of the Islamic feast of Ramadan.

Is that what we want?

It's certainly anathema to most conservatives, unfortunately, it is apparently less so, to the folks at National Review.

©1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.    

Breaking With the Republican Party

By William A. Mayer, E&P - PipeLineNews

March 21, 2005 - Washington, DC - PipeLineNews - A week or so ago, Michael Barone penned a piece claiming that the Democrats were out of gas. While that may be the case, it fails to deal with the larger issue currently confronting the United States.

That matter centers on our traditional culture being inexorable outlawed by a judiciary which considers itself supreme in all matters.

Given that the Republicans have broken faith with those who gave them their electoral success, we can no longer in good conscience support them.

We did not come to the decision to sever support for the GOP lightly or without an adequate amount of reflection, tested over time.

We at PipeLineNews have consistently supported the Republican Party since our inception six years ago. During the 2004 election we carried RNC and WH press releases - gratis - by the hundreds. We moderated expression of our mounting concern about GOP waffling so that George W. Bush along with an alleged conservative majority in Congress would be elected. Our newsletters echoed the party line.

That support, that relationship is now over.

There are a myriad of reason why we now take this action, and out of respect for the developments surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, we are not going to make this a long drawn out piece.

We commend President Bush in his war on terror, that will remain the high-point of his tenure, however he and the Republican Party have in a larger sense failed this society, all of it.

With the announcement by William Frist that he no longer has the votes and/or intestinal fortitude to force the "nuclear option" through the Senate, the handwriting on the Congressional wall is clear.

With TomDeLay's announcement that he and the House Leadership are washing their hands of the Schiavo affair in a manner reminiscent of Pontius Pilate - refusing to enforce a duly executed subpoena - they have sent a sent an ominous message to the grassroots upon which they relied for re-election only months ago.

These people can no longer obfuscate on the issue; there will be no rolling back an arrogant, activist judiciary - which is rapidly approaching that of the Barrak Supreme Court in Israel - on their watch.

With President Bush's March 23rd, announcement, chiding citizen efforts to help enforce US immigration laws in Arizona, while supporting corrupt Mexican despot Vicente Fox's increasingly strident support of continued and increasing illegal immigration, we see no way to stem the destruction inherent in the dilution of our culture aside from revoking our support of both this administration as well as the Republican Party.

That, gentle readers is it in a nutshell, we will expound upon this in much greater detail after the end of Holy Week.

©1999-2005 PipeLineNews, all rights reserved. 

Roper v Simmons: The High Court And Youth Murder - Judicial Sedition

By William A. Mayer, E&P - PipeLineNews

March 3, 2005 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews - While no one in the conservative community should be surprised at another 5-4 decision by one of the worst courts to rear its head since the days of Earl Warren, today's decision in Roper v Simmons is particularly mendacious.

Beginning in 1988 with Thompson v Oklahoma, SCOTUS started nipping around the edges of the concept of what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment

The court's progressive liberals have a hidden agenda - which can be determined by the sheer inertia of their opinions.

At some point the death penalty itself with be declared unconstitutional, most likely again, by a deeply divided court.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Dissenting, Justice O'Connor, showing once again her unpredictability [especially having employed much of the majorities' faulty methodology in the University of Michigan quota cases - ruling that race could be a factor in the college admissions process] writing:

"The court's decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the court's moral-proportionately analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling."

In our opinion O'Connor's mildly worded but still powerful dissent fails to apply the correct amount of heat to the matter and the grave damage that such seditious decisions do to the concept of the separation of powers and the ideas upon which the American judicial system are based.

As Judge Scalia so clearly points out in his brilliant dissent [which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Judge Thomas joined].

"In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people?s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since ?[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, "bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them." Id., at 471. Bound down, indeed. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years - not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to "the evolving standards of decency,"

As Scalia clearly points out, these five justices have set themselves up as the final arbiter of public morality - extant laws, and the real state of public opinion on the matter be damned.

The majority position is a sloppily written personal opinion piece, failing to rise to a level even approaching legal scholarship. It relies not upon jurisprudential reasoning but rather upon some exploratory questive process akin to divination by the reading of goat entrails.

Here are the facts of the case.

In 1993 Christopher Simmons, then 17, and a cohort Charlie Benjamin, robbed the St. Louis home of Shirley Cook, kidnapped her and then murdered her.

Before the incident occurred, Simmons discussed the idea, numerous times, with two of his friends, Charlie Benjamin - 15 - and John Tessmer - 16.

During these discussions Simmons demonstrated a very clear intent to not only to engage in a robbery but also to commit a murder. Simmons even went so far as to state that he intended to bind the victim and dispose of the still living body by throwing it over a bridge into a river.

All along he exhorted his friends to join him, claiming that their status as juveniles would protect them if caught.

And that is precisely how the murder took place, Simmons and Benjamin entered Ms. Crook's home, which awakened her. Christopher Simmons - with Benjamin on the lookout - then physically assaulted Crook, binding and gagging her with duct tape. They then drove her to the Merrimac River bridge and tossed her over into the river, like a bag of garbage, where she drowned.

Roper v Simmons is an obscene decision and the majority should be ashamed.

It not only imposes the personal opinions of five unelected, increasingly out-of-touch individuals - apparently completely unbound by the traditions of the juridical thought process - upon the nation, but along the way and for good measure, it stomps the concept of states rights into oblivion, while doing violence to nearly all of our founding principles.

This decision encourages stone-cold youth killers like Simmons to - in a premeditated and calculating manner - fashion grisly deaths for defenseless victims, knowing in advance, that no level of violence, pain or suffering inflicted will ever cause them to confront the ultimate penalty.

If any event can light a fuse under William Frist's glad-handing bony ass, to finally stand up to the 45 Democrat swine that hide behind Bob Byrd's white sheet on the matter of judicial nominations, this certainly must be it.

© 1999-2005 William A. Mayer/PipeLineNews, all rights reserved. 

Radical Muslim Group Invited To Participate In White House Faith Based Program Conference

By William A. Mayer & Beila Rabinowitz - PipeLineNews

March 1, 2005 - Washington DC - PipeLineNews - Demonstrating the administration's sometimes spotty ability to coordinate America's war on terror - on a government-wide basis - the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has invited a representative [Director of Communications, Mohamed El Sanousi ] from the radical Islamist organization ISNA - Islamic Society of North America - to participate in a 'White House Leadership conference' scheduled for March 1st 2005.

The conference is a follow-up to one held the previous year to which ISNA was also invited. At that conference ISNA was encouraged to submit proposals and names of groups which "would benefit from the conference and the funding for faith based initiatives."

ISNA should not be an unknown quantity in official Washington, as it appears as one of 25 Islamist organizations whose corporate tax returns were requested by Senator Grassley?s Finance Committee in Dec of 2003 as part of a bi-partisan initiative. Also listed among those organizations is the Holy Land Foundation which has already been shut down by the Department of Justice because of its direct funding of terrorism.

ISNA's radical bent is well documented.

Past president of ISNA, Muzamil Siddiqi has made statements threatening the United States because of its support for Israel. He has also publicly supported Hamas and Hezbollah

The former VP of ISNA is Siraj Wahhaj.

On February 2, 1995 Wahhaj was referred to - by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White - as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the 1993 plot to bomb New York City landmarks, a plot hatched by Omar Abdel Rahman, the 'Blind Sheik' who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 1995.

ISNA operates hundreds of US Mosques through an "arms length distance" relationship with the North American Islamic Trust [NAIT] and as such seems instrumental in channeling Saudi Wahhabist money into the country.

Non-Wahhabi American Muslims estimate that fully 80% of US Mosques have fallen under the dominion of the Wahhabi sect, mainly because of Saudi "Da'wa" or faith spreading.

ISNA should be considered an umbrella organization, a clearinghouse of sorts, which facilitates relationships between Islamists. ISNA is also closely allied with the Muslim Student Association, another of the groups listed on the Senate Finance Committee's IRS request.

Denoting possibly either a circling of the wagons mentality over this embarrassing breach in security or a complete lack of concern, numerous calls to both the majority and minority sides of the Senate Finance Committee as well as Jim Towey's WH Office of Faith Based Programs have been unreturned.


Sen. John Kyl (R) AZ, a member of both the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Chair of the Senate Terrorism, Technology & Homeland Security Subcomittee, conducted hearings in June of 2003 before his subcommittee, during which the following testimony was given:

"Rather, Wahhabi control over mosques means control of property, buildings, appointment of imams, training of imams, content of preaching ? including faxing of Friday sermons from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ? and of literature distributed in mosques and mosque bookstores, notices on bulletin boards, and organizational solicitation. Similar influence extends to prison and military chaplaincies, Islamic elementary and secondary schools (academies), college campus activity, endowment of academic chairs and programs in Middle East studies, and most notoriously, charities ostensibly helping Muslims abroad, many of which have been linked to or designated as sponsors of terrorism.

The main organizations that have carried out this campaign are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which originated in the Muslim Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), and CAIR. Support activities have been provided by the American Muslim Council (AMC), the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences, its sister body the International Institute of Islamic Thought, and a number of related groups that I have called "the Wahhabi lobby." ISNA operates at least 324 mosques in the U.S. through the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). These groups operate as an interlocking directorate." - June 26, 2003 - Stephen Schwartz, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Below is the text of the Senate Finance Committee's request:

December 22, 2003

The Honorable Mark Everson
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224

Via mail and telefax (202) 622-4733

Dear Commissioner Everson:

The purpose of this letter is to inquire about and conduct oversight on the issue of organizations, particularly tax-exempt organizations such as charities and foundations, which finance terrorism and perpetuate violence.

Many of these groups not only enjoy tax-exempt status, but their reputations as charities and foundations often allows them to escape scrutiny, making it easier to hide and move their funds to other groups and individuals who threaten our national security. This support for the machinery of terrorism not only violates the law and tax regulations, but it violates the trust that citizens have in the large majority of charities, foundations and other groups that do good works in the United States.

Government officials, investigations by federal agencies and the Congress, and other reports have identified the crucial role that charities and foundations play in terror financing. While much attention has been paid to where their money ends up, the source of their funds is equally important. Often these groups are nothing more than shell companies for the same small group of people, moving funds from one charity to the next charity to hide the trail. These groups also receive donations from foreign sources, including countries the government has identified as having a significant problem with terrorism. The federal government and the Congress have identified several countries -- some of which, ostensibly, are our allies -- particularly in the Middle East, as a primary source of funds for charities and foundations that are under investigation or have fallen under suspicion for terrorist financing.

The Senate Finance Committee retains exclusive jurisdiction over tax matters in the Senate. We have a responsibility to carry out oversight to ensure charities, foundations and other groups are abiding by the laws and regulations, to examine their source of funds, and to ensure government agencies, including the IRS, are policing them and enforcing the law efficiently and effectively.

We ask that you provide copies of all IRS materials -- including information protected by Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code -- for the attached list of charities, foundations, other tax exempt organizations, and other groups. The material should include Form 990s and Form 990 PFs, including the donors list for both types; Form 1023s, the charities' applications for tax exempt status, and any and all materials from examinations, audits and other investigations, including criminal investigations. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 6103(f)(4), Chairman Grassley hereby authorizes the following Finance Committee staff -- Dean Zerbe, John Drake, Pat Heck and Matt Stokes -- to review this information.

We would appreciate receiving this material no later than Friday, February 20, 2004. Please have IRS officials contact our staff to arrange the details of delivery. We thank you in advance for your cooperation.


Charles E. Grassley

Max Baucus
Ranking Member

Attachment: Charities, Foundations, Other Tax-Exempt Organizations, and Other Groups

All charities, foundations and tax-exempt organizations, groups or entities who have been designated or listed by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) from September 11, 2001 to today.

The SAAR Foundation and all members and related entities
Global Relief Foundation (GRF)
Benevolence International Foundation (BIF)
Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA)
Muslim Student Association
Islamic Association for Palestine
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF)
Muslim World League
International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO) or Internal Relief
Al Haramain Foundation
Alavi Foundation
Institute of Islamic and Arabic Science in America (IIASA)
Islamic Assembly of North American
Help the Needy
Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)
Islamic Foundation of America
United Association for Studies and Research (USAR)
Solidarity International and/or Solidarity USA
Kind Hearts
Islamic American Relief Agency and/or Islamic African Relief Agency
Islamic Society of North America

International Islamic Relief Organization
World Assembly of Muslim Youth
Rabita Trust
Human Appeal International

Some of the charities, foundations, other tax-exempt organizations or groups listed above may be included in the first category of entities listed or designated by OFAC. You do not need to provide duplicate records for these entities.

© 1999-2005 William A. Mayer & Beila Rabinowitz, all rights reserved 

Editorial Archive