Florida Trail Of Terror

PipelineNews.org: A Journal Of PoliticsPipelineNews.com - The right news, right now!


Iraq IS Vietnam All Over Again

April 12, 2004 - by William A. Mayer

Much has been written since the Senate?s resident drunken murderer popped off about the current fight to sublimate Iraq being equivalent to ?George Bush?s Vietnam."

For once Kennedy is correct, but for the wrong reasons.

First we have to remember that Vietnam was Kennedy?s Vietnam, just to set the record straight, so the minority party?s chief inebriate should know of whence he speaks.

There are actually many divergences between Iraq and Vietnam, but overall the critique fits and we should embrace it.

Vietnam was the first American war in which the left ? a loud minority within the Democrat party at that time - acting through its media fifth column, successfully convinced a nation that a conflict had been lost when in fact it was on the verge of success.

And therein lies the parallel, except that now the media bombards us dawn to dusk and the unpleasant truth is that the left is now a loud majority within the Democrat party.

The dominant print and electronic media outlets have an agenda to shape Iraq in the image and likeness of their own last huge victory - Vietnam.

Vietnam was a victory for them because they not only were instrumental in the defeat of the most powerful army in the world but that it allowed them to conquer the dominant American political party and topple the first Republican president since Ike, their long time nemesis Richard M. Nixon.

Nixon had the temerity to suspect that the DNC, Daniel Ellsberg, the Berrigan brothers, SNCC, SDS - not to mention VVAW spokesman John Kerry - and others were acting in consort with a foreign enemy of the United States. Nixon carried through in the only manner someone who seriously took his oath of office could, he bugged, infiltrated, investigated and went through the files of those that he and the FBI suspected of harboring evil intent.

Unfortunately a handful of his bungling operators were discovered and he did not have the fortitude to make the case as it should have been made, a national security imperative.

Once Woodward, Bernstein and CBS?s Dan Rather & Cronkite decided to run with it, all hope was lost ? which is what the left specializes in anyway.

The media who cut their teeth on Vietnam, flexed their muscles in destroying Nixon, and they continue to do so.

And so it comes full circle, Iraq is now the nexus of contention and a Republican is once again the president.

The media, joining with the internationalist/socialist majority in the Democrat party want two things, an Islamic victory in Iraq and the ouster of George W. Bush. They see the armed forces as an extension of what they feel to be Bush?s illegitimate government and a growing American body count as progress towards discrediting him.

Ultimately they seek to supplant Congress with the United Nations, believing that the issues facing the United States are entirely too serious to be left for mere Americans to decide ? Kerry has as much as said that already and as recently as last week.

The leftist press is nothing if not self impressed and absorbed; it already fancies itself as the legitimate shadow government, and the ?just like Vietnam" charge is indicative of how deeply this feeling percolates through its psyche.

It should not come as a surprise then when hate filled pustules like Kennedy and Robert Byrd, trot out the shop worn lexicon of the left?s real glory days. We actually owe them a debt of gratitude for being so shamelessly direct and transparent.

The danger however, is that if the ghost of that godforsaken Southeast Asian country is allowed to regularly haunt public thinking on Iraq then it too may suffer the same fate - the threat is very real even with the Democrat?s blueprint clearly in view.

The threat is so credible, and for all the reasons we have railed about here at PLN now for over 5 years now, but which can really be summarized with two words.

Cultural deconstruction.

On December 8, 1941 the public was culturally capable of making - what seems in retrospect - the easy decision to engage totalitarian tyranny. They could easily size up the threat and deduce that all out war was the appropriate response.

The then American culture had not yet become obsessed with the fear of the label ?discrimination" as it factored into the judgment that certain yellow skinned populations wanted to kill them.

We can?t say that today, our leaders simply can?t state the obvious:

  • We are at war with terror and the terrorists are all disciples of radical/Salafi Islam. We will kill them.
  • Radical Islam is a subset of Islam in general.
  • Radical Islam may be a minority or it might be a majority, the absolute numbers are unimportant except to the extent that greater numbers necessitate a greater application of firepower.
  • We know that the enemy has a certain ethnic composition - therefore it is primarily those people who will find themselves under examination, not Anglo Saxon nuns or 70 year old Black men.
  • Those people will be profiled at every opportunity and if we err, we will err on the side of our national security, if a few eggs get cracked along the way, blame the attackers, we didn?t start this.
  • This is where we stand right now, our leaders - the elected Republican majority ? for most part understand the above points, but they lack both courage and a supportive environment.

    I have no doubt that we will, before this is all over, have done what was necessary to bridge the huge chasm between the brutality that will be necessary to defeat Islamic terror and the cultural impediments against doing so.

    There may be insufficient political will to do this now. A minority president - even a well-meaning, honorable one like George Bush - faces obvious political constraints which are not easily overcome.

    Perhaps it will take some, even more terrible attack or set of circumstances, to forcefully - tectonically - re-align the culture, to make it accommodative of what needs to be done.

    What needs to be done is something akin to the controlled barbarity we routinely inflicted upon the enemy in World War II, incinerating non-military targets - Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Tokyo - bombing German ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt and the oil fields of Ploesti, Rumania - oft manned by Jewish and other ?subhuman" civilians - piteable victims of Hitler?s holocaust.

    The so-called sensible Muslim community, or what passes for it, must be made to understand that the GPS coordinates for Mecca ? Longitude = 39.8240 East; Latitude = 21.4220 North ? are not proprietary information and that their holiest shrine is less than 20 minutes away from a glassy fused-silicon death.

    Until such a threat is once again credible, Iraq and the greater war on terror will more resemble Vietnam than not.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved 

    The Real 60 Minutes' Interview With Condoleeza Rice

    March 30, 2004 - by William A. Mayer

    Ed Bradley - Q Thank you for agreeing to sit down and talk to us, Dr. Rice.

    DR. RICE: Nice to be with you Ed, (she winks at him) that little diamond ear ring is a nice touch. (moving closer) Are you feeling ok? You look really pale and emaciated, have you been tested recently?

    Q (Glaring) The Bush administration's handling of the war on terror is the most talked about and controversial topic in the country these days; hearings are being held here in Washington; books are coming out criticizing the administration's handling of the war. As the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, how do you feel about all of this?

    DR. RICE: Well Ed you have to remember that what you, Don Hewitt and your friends down at the Rump Corral talk about is not necessarily what is of interest to a nation in the midst of a war for its survival. The book that you are referring to, the one written by Richard Clarke - the one bought and paid for by your employer - can simply be dismissed as gangrene leaking out of a party whom I demoted because his policies were entirely wrongheaded and ineffective.

    Ed, since President Bush took office we have declared war on radical Islam, jailed or killed two-thirds of the al Qaeda directorate, established a forward position to eventually liberate all of the Middle East, freed 50 million people in Afghanistan and in Iraq from despotic rule, destroyed Al-Qaeda?s forward-operating bases around the world, destroyed many of their funding sources and confiscated much of the assets they have deposited in various banks. We have put all foreign governments on notice that we are not taking this Jihadist shit any longer. We told them if they don?t stand with us they do that at their own peril.

    What part of that don?t you understand? Is that an earpiece or does your hearing aid battery need replacing?

    Q Did you watch Richard Clarke's testimony last week?

    DR. RICE: You mean the Clinton mole I fired? No, sorry Ed, when you work for this president you concentrate on what is important, which even includes protecting the rights of people like you to be assholes. If it makes you feel any better, though, I did read a transcript of his testimony.

    My staff had it printed on toilet paper.

    Q If you didn't see it live, I'm certain that you saw it on the news reports. How did you feel when he made that apology?

    DR. RICE: Well, I just considered the man?s histrionics another demonstration of why he was fired. You of all people must have recognized the traits; that he is an egotistical, difficult little bugger who was in so far over his head and confused by the reality of the threat that he had to look up to see down.

    Q But my question is, how did his apology make you feel? Did you think he was grandstanding? Did you think it was sincere?

    DR. RICE: Well it kind of made me feel like I feel when I sit across from you, Ed. Vaguely ill, and ashamed to be a human being.

    Q One final question on his apology. When he apologized he said, "I failed you, our government failed you - your government failed you." Will the families of those people who were killed hear an apology from you? Do you think that would be appropriate?

    DR. RICE: (looking heavenward) Look Ed?Clarke, Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Terry McAuliffe, Ted Kennedy and the entire leadership of the Democrat party have a lot to be apologetic for, as far as I am concerned they can?t possibly say it often enough.

    Q When you look back at the period of time between the inauguration and September 11th, is there anything you wish that you had done differently?

    DR. RICE: Not really Ed, except that we probably should have revoked your visa the last time you visited Fidel Castro.

    Q But do you think that you or the administration made any mistakes, any misjudgments between the inauguration and 9/11?

    DR. RICE: Failing to jail the Clintons comes to mind.

    Q Let's talk for a minute about the 9/11 Commission hearings that were held last week. The commission said that when the Bush administration came into office, you spent eight months considering a new strategy to combat al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, but took little action. The commission released findings saying, "The new administration began to develop new policies toward al Qaeda in 2001, but there is no evidence of new work on military capabilities or plans against this enemy before September 11th." Would you agree with that finding?

    DR. RICE: That?s not a finding, it?s a political statement with nothing to back it up. Where I come from it?s called a lie, Ed, look the word up and use it the next time you run into Leslie Stahl.

    The policy that failed is the one that President Bush discarded, the one through which the Clinton administration weakened this country over a period of 8 years, to the point where Al-Qaeda felt free to attack this country with impunity.

    Q So you disagree with the finding?

    DR. RICE: (leaning over and lightly tapping Bradley?s cranium) Earth to Ed, are you listening?would you prefer my answers in Ebonics?

    Q But why did it take eight months to come up with a new plan?

    DR. RICE: Well, mostly because the previous administration?s holdovers were fighting a pitched battle in those eight months to continue to help our enemies and destroy America?s defenses, it was sort of like a CBS editorial board meeting.

    Q On Thursday, the White House indicated its willingness to have you testify before the commission, as long as your testimony is in private, behind closed doors, and as long as you're not under oath. The Secretary of State, Defense, the Director of the CIA, have all testified in public, under oath, before the commission.

    DR. RICE: I did not testify, Mr. Bradley. You might want to try to be more precise. Sitting National Security Advisors do not testify before Star Chamber proceedings. I merely sat down with them to make them aware of just how insignificant the White House considers their effort.

    Q But there is a long list - not to cut you off, but there is a long list of presidential advisors who have testified before the Congress in public and under oath.

    DR. RICE: Well of course Ed, if you are like Anthony Lake or Sandy Berger ? who were being investigated for criminal activity - then meeting with investigative authorities is what the law demands.

    Ed, do you actually have a research staff? Doesn?t anyone brief you about these things?

    Q I mean, I think unfortunately for you there are some people who feel that the administration is hiding behind this executive privilege, that there's something to hide.

    DR. RICE: The only thing that I am trying to hide is my utter contempt for insufferable fools such as you.

    Q If they subpoena you to testify in public, under oath, will you?

    DR. RICE: We will decide what is appropriate. We might decide to simply send all of them to Guantanimo Bay for a little R & R with Johnny Jihad and his friends.

    Q But there are some people who look at this and say that this was an unprecedented event; nothing like this ever happened to this country before -- and this is an occasion where you can put that executive privilege aside; it's a big enough issue to talk in public.

    DR. RICE: Ed, for you maybe, being able to remember the names of your last three bath house buddies, might also be unprecedented, but I fail to see how that is relevant here.

    Q (squinting) In the eyes of the American public, do you think that the credibility of the Bush administration has been at all damaged by your failure to testify in public?

    DR. RICE: Not at all Ed. As a matter of fact the President is just starting to get his message out there and by the time that this is over on November 2 you will be lucky if CBS? W. 57th digs and the DNC aren?t being torched by angry mobs of patriots.

    Q Let's move on.

    DR. RICE: (leans forward and taps him on the knee) Speaking of MoveOn, Ed. We thought the mauve outfit you wore to the MoveOn director?s meeting last night was a little loud. (she hands him the FBI transcript of the meeting)

    Q Very funny Dr. Rice. Can we really move on now? Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism - and I'm quoting here - "farther to the back burner."

    DR. RICE: If you fed Shelton, Clarke, Clinton and the other liars into a wood-chipper tomorrow, the world would be a better place, end of comment. I thought you wanted to move on?

    Q After 9/11, Bob Woodward wrote a book, in which he had incredible access and interviewed the President of the United States. He quotes President Bush as saying that he didn't feel a sense of urgency about Osama bin Laden. Woodward wrote that "bin Laden was not the President's focus or that of his national security team." You're saying that the administration says fighting terrorism and al Qaeda has been a top priority since the beginning.

    DR. RICE: Bob Woodward made up Deep Throat too Ed, that ring any bells?

    Q I understand, but you've listed -

    DR. RICE: (hollers at the set director) Can we get a translator over here?Q But the appearance here, because there are other examples of countries with state sponsored terrorism - Iran, Libya, Syria - he didn't ask him about that; he asked just about Iraq. The perception is, people listening to what Clarke had to say, is that the President was preoccupied with Iraq. DR. RICE: Well we can?t help it if people like you avoid reality because it conflicts with the talking points you get from Jimmy Carville every morning, now can we?

    Q Al Qaeda has become a decentralized collection of regional networks, said to be working autonomously. Does that make them more dangerous today?

    DR. RICE: Ed, generally when an organization is getting blown to bits and is forced to live in rat holes it is considered to have been weakened. Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Let?s make it really simple. (adopting a parental tone) Eddy, if mommy and daddy make the bad people go away forever then you don?t have to hide under the bed any more.

    Am I simplifying this enough for you?

    Q We've had this war on terrorism since - concentrated since 9/11. But it's been reported that if you look at the 30 months since 9/11, there have been more attacks by al Qaeda than in the 30 months prior to 9/11.

    DR. RICE: No shit Jackson. Are you aware of the fact that after the bombing of Pearl Harbor that a bunch more battles were fought than during the previous 30 months? You did hear that we won World War II, didn?t you?

    Q But here's what I'm saying - you had a 30-month period leading up 9/11 in which you had fewer attacks than the 30 months afterwards, when you have this war against them.

    DR. RICE: Ed, trust me, I heard what you said, you are screaming like an idiot and your breath smells like a dead wino?s ass, but I digress.

    You have the attack in '93 against the World Trade Center, the 1998 attack against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the attack against the Cole, just for starters. And Clinton?s response was what? Getting blow jobs from Monica and just about half of the DC press corp.

    Was that helpful?

    Did that make us safer?

    Q Is the Bush presidency, or the Bush legacy, at stake here?

    DR. RICE: Ed, how many times over the last 3 ½ years have you asked that question? Next question please.

    Q But you say we're safer - don't you expect another attack on this country?

    DR. RICE: We are resigned to further attacks, both from Al-Qaeda as well as the Fourth Estate, it goes with the territory.

    We have absolutely no doubt, however, that America will be triumphant in the end.

    Q One final question. Is al Qaeda more dangerous today than it was on September 11th?

    DR. RICE: Ed, were Saddam?s sons more dangerous after we blew the shit out of them? Was Il Duce more dangerous after his people hanged him?

    Do you see where I am going with this?

    Q So capturing or killing al Zawahiri doesn't -

    DR. RICE: In the long run he is just another mad dog that eventually needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice. Ed, it?s a long list and we are working our way through it rather methodically, the list is getting shorter.

    We call that progress.

    Q The decision - the decision to go to war with Iraq. Nearly 600 American soldiers have died, thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed and continue to die due to guerilla violence and terrorist attacks. Given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found and there's no proof that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda, the country is split about why we're even in Iraq and if we're fighting the right war.

    DR. RICE: I fully understand the editorial position of CBS. That notwithstanding, if for some reason it?s comforting for you to live in a fantasy world, that is certainly your prerogative.

    Q Are you prepared if they say, we don't want a democracy in Iraq?

    DR. RICE: If they don?t want a democracy, then all that means is that we have a few more people there that need to assume room temperature. Let?s call it fine tuning the processWhen Iraq is democratic ? and we will make (slams fist into her palm) that happen - then we will have a base to transform the entire Middle East as I said at the beginning of this ridiculous conversation. That includes the Saudis who we know are at the heart of this problem. When this finally plays itself out, the world will be a very different place, the Democrat party will only be a bad memory, Islamic fundamentalists will be on the Endangered Species list and high octane gasoline will be 28 cents a gallon.

    Q If you will, may I ask you just one follow up to that? You do expect a vote in Iraq, yes?

    DR. RICE: We will have elections. There will be elections in Iraq.

    Q And if the result of those elections the Iraqi people say, we want an Islamic republic, not a democracy?

    DR. RICE: Ed for the last time the problem is Salafi Islam, we will not allow it quarter anywhere on the planet, you just aren?t paying attention. Now Mr. Bradley I do have to get back to my job, besides it smells funny in here.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved 

    The Disgrace Of Richard Clarke

    By Wiliam A. Mayer, March 26, 2004

    The fact that the media is skewed left isn?t debatable, so we will not waste otherwise usable bandwidth arguing that proposition.

    To see the frenzy surround the testimony of an incompetent liar before a 911 Commission comprised primarily of Democrat hit-men and gutless Republican fools, is merely another indication of just how much in bed with the left the U.S. media is and how far they are willing to go to deny the President a second term and give succor to the enemies of freedom.

    When viewed objectively, Clarke?s campaign is nothing more a vendetta against an administration that denied him advancement; having been ingloriously booted from his previous NSC position by Condoleeza Rice then demoted to a bench warming role, that of cyber virus-boy.

    He was thus placed so far outside the information loop with regards to the Bush administration?s planning for Al-Qaeda?s destruction, that at best his views are mere supposition, since he no longer had access or even the respect of his peers.

    We find it laudatory that Dr. Rice so quickly sized Clarke up and made the correct determination that he was as personally defective as he has since proven vindictive.

    Bottom line - Clarke is a self-serving fabricator, and current ?enfant Terrible of the Kerry/Clintonista/Soros politics of personal destruction unit.

    Fact: Clarke?s 2002 background press briefing [cleared for release by the White House] to reporters, including Fox?s Jim Angle, and his statement to the Commission are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

    He was either lying in 2002 or he is lying now

    Either one or the other is a purposeful untruth and since he is now trying to promote a blood money book ? a travesty cruelly wrought upon the ultimate sacrifice made by 3,000 American innocents on September 11, 2001 ? his transparent motives becomes all the more ghastly

    Legal truism: a witness once impeached is always thereafter suspect.

    During his stint in the Reagan administration, Clark was renown for hatching loopy plans, one of which was constructed to undermine Libya?s Moamar al-Gaddafi by subjecting him to SR 71 induced sonic booms accompanied by mock vessels washing up on Tripoli?s beaches, thus suggesting an imminent attack might follow.

    Such idiocy got him laughed at within that administration, and he was hastily shut up.

    Clarke was the Clinton team?s go-to terror guy for 8 years, a time during which nothing was done to eliminate Al-Qaeda.

    He was the chief implementer of Clinton?s much maligned cruise missile showboat attack on unoccupied Al-Qaeda tents and donkey carts in the Afghan desert after the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenyan were bombed.

    In the light of the major media?s current state of malfeasance, it goes without saying that using a meaningless but dramatic foreign adventure in an attempt to shift the public?s focus away from the seamy Monica affair, would never have crossed anyone in the Clinton machine?s mind.

    Farther down the ? now bloodied ? primrose path is the belief that bombing the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, precisely on the same day that Monica Lewinsky returned to the Grand Jury - August 20, 1998 - was a mere coincidence.

    Things like that always just happen in the District of Columbia - ignore the man behind the curtain!

    On the day following Clinton?s haphazard missile stunt, then Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, as much as admitted the entire effort would prove ineffective:

    "We recognize these strikes will not eliminate the problem?"

    Not only would this action not ?eliminate the problem", but it is now clear that merely rattling the cages of both the Afghan Taliban and Bin-Laden with a single, unfocussed attack - by drones, nonetheless, Clinton/Clarke being allergic to the actual deployment of military force which might result in additional poor PR for the wounded president ? actually emboldened the budding Jihadis and thus set the groundwork for 911.

    Clarke was perfectly accommodative and supportive of Clinton?s total disinterest and laxity in even developing intelligence on Al-Qaeda - to the degree that he only met with his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, twice during his entire second term.

    Once every two years, just like clockwork; commitment with a capital ?C."

    Clarke?s motives are so obvious that even an Inspector Closseau could trace them, his March 24 testimony hadn?t even been concluded when the bomb throwers at MoveOn sent millions of Emails out at 2:52 pm PST ? highlighting and spinning the event in an effort to raise money.

    The following from our MoveOn mole:

    ?We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message. You can see a rough story board of the ad and donate to get it on the air?"

    Another anomalous coincidence or merely additional evidence of a massively coordinated, Kerry friendly ? anti-Bush, ploy? Of course MoveOn had an advance copy of Clarke?s statement - to believe otherwise simply doesn?t pass journalism?s most basic bullshit test.

    The same is true of Clarke?s claim of being a ?hawkish" Republican.

    As an Insight magazine search of FEC records reveals:

    ??According to FEC records, Clarke has been giving his money to Democratic friends -- not Republicans -- running for national office. In 2002, while still on the Bush National Security Council (NSC), Clarke gave the legal maximum limit of $2,000 to a Democratic candidate for Congress, Steve Andreasen, who tried to unseat Republican Congressman Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota. Andreason had been director for defense policy and arms control on the Clinton NSC. In making his donations of $1,000 on July 22 and another $1,000 on Nov. 7, 2002, Clarke listed his occupation as "U.S. Government/Civil Servant," according to FEC records indexed with the Center for Responsive Politics.

    Clarke maxed out again in the 2004 election cycle, donating $2,000 to another Clinton White House veteran, Jamie Metzl, who is running as a Democrat for Congress from Missouri. Metzl was a staffer on the Clinton NSC and worked for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) as deputy staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With that donation, made on Sept. 15, 2003, after his resignation from the Bush NSC, Clarke listed his occupation as "Self-Employed/Consultant."

    What the President?s critics would have us believe is that we should take - as gospel - the claims of a failed policy wonk and jilted office seeker while he is in the midst of a national publicity tour to promote his book, published by Simon & Schuster ? Hillary?s enabler ? and as promoted by 60 Minutes, the same people who resurrected Bill and Hillary from his 1992 bimbo eruption.

    Furthermore, we are also asked to believe that, contrary to the evidence, Clarke is not minutely coordinating his media foray with such implacable lefty foes of the Bush administration as MoveOn.org.

    What the President?s critics are now demanding is that he should have taken even more vigorous action before 911 than the measures they now, even after the fact and in the wake of the Spanish attacks, so roundly oppose ? a World War II level - unilateral - deployment of force sufficient in size and ferocity to utterly decimate Islamic terror.

    That is an absurd proposition on its face, and the fact that it is so loudly being trumpeted in the usual haunts will provide a rich source of analytical grist for political scientists for years to come.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved

    John Forbes Kerry ? Domestic Terrorist

    March 19, 2004 - by William A. Mayer

    We are not sure exactly what one has to do, in these days of moral ablation, to disqualify oneself from running for elective office.

    The Clinton years notwithstanding, there have always been parameters within which national candidates must comport themselves - certain minimum standards that even prospective politicians might reasonably meet.

    This year, however is very different.

    It?s quite clear that the Democrat Party is busted - a sprung watch - beyond repair. The nominative process that we find ourselves within, clearly demonstrates this.

    That a bizarre, snarling, hate filled candidate of the diminutive stature of Howard Dean was almost anointed - as if deemed by heavenly hosts perched upon excelsior clouds - is reason enough to be suspect of the health of the party.

    Yet on Dean?s heels comes an even more troubling individual who surfaced in the carnage of the media?s frenzy to de-elect Howie.

    That individual is of course, John Forbes Kerry.

    John Forbes Kerry.

    Roll those words around in your mouth and what do you get?

    You get a craggy - almost gaunt looking, but virile - New Englander.

    You get a Skull & Crossbones Yalie, a war hero and the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

    You get a guy who says he can speak for the little guy, but whose personal fortune is about $750 million and whose cash-cow wifey?s company outsources 6 out of 7 of its jobs to Third World dung heaps.

    One minor complication, however?John Forbes Kerry is a domestic terrorist.

    That's not a typo.

    John Forbes Kerry is a domestic terrorist.

    In large part due to New York?s real newspaper of record - the Sun - and journalist Thomas H. Lipscomb - the true story of Kerry?s membership in the radical revolutionary group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, has finally seen the light of day.

    While Kerry was the national spokesman for VVAW [1970-1971] the group coldly discussed a plot to invade the capital building and then assassinate pro-war United States Senators. This was nothing less than a plan to violently overthrow the lawful government of the United States.

    ?My plan was that on the last day we would go into the [congressional] offices we would schedule the most hardcore hawks for last ? and we would shoot them all...I was serious." Scott Camil, VVAW

    From one of the New York Sun's series of articles:

    ??Mr. Nicosia also read quotes from FBI surveillance documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act as he was preparing his 2001 book, ?Home to War."

    ?My evidence is incontrovertible. He was there," Mr. Nicosia said in an interview yesterday. ?There?s no way that five or six agents saw his ghost there," said the historian, who lives in Marin County, north of San Francisco.

    Mr. Nicosia said that the records show Mr. Kerry resigned from the group on the third day of the meeting, following discussion of the assassination plan and an argument between Mr. Kerry and another VVAW national coordinator, Al Hubbard.

    Reading from an FBI informant report, Mr. Nicosia said, ?John Kerry at a national Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting appeared and announced to those present that he resigned for personal reasons but said he would be able to speak for VVAW " at future events." ? Josh Gerstein, New York Sun - March 19, 2004

    Please note that even Kerry?s ?resignation" from the group was a self-serving act of convenience not conscience, only driven by Kerry?s desire to run for political office.

    It's beyond comprehension that after attending at least one meeting where an active and serious assassination plan was discussed, Kerry was still willing to be their spokesman - anything that would get him media face-time.

    Kerry has lied about his VVAW experience and his ?anti-war" activities for over 30 years. His campaign has only now come clean because the evidence arrayed against him includes at least 6 different eye-witnesses and the testimony of FBI undercover agents who were also at those meetings.

    Set against the realities of the war on terror, if holding a leadership position in the VVAW and his participation in discussions about assassinating United States Senators is not grounds for barring John Forbes Kerry from ever seeking elective office, we can?t imagine what is.

    Kerry has never publicly rejected the VVAW, he has never apologized for his role as the organization's official spokesman nor has he rejected its terrorist agenda.

    John Forbes Kerry is so monstrously ego-driven, so reckless, so lacking in veracity, judgment and temperament, that his candidacy should be rejected outright. If it proceeds it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democrat Party, a party that will be crushed at the polls on November 2.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved

    Bernardin Center At The Crossroads - "Excessive Placidity" Towards Islam, II

    March 10, 2004 - by Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer

    In the last of this series, we raised serious questions regarding the Catholic Theological Union?s Bernardin Center, questions centering on the Bernardin Center?s interfaith outreach programs to Islam.

    We believe that these programs, rather than building bridges to understanding, are granting legitimacy to radical, anti-Christian, anti-American, Salafi Muslim organizations, such as the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation, Al-Quds University and individuals like Oussamma Jamal, Mustafa Abu Sway and Azzam Tamimi.

    To quote briefly from the previous article, Interfaith Outreach And ?Excessive Placidity" Towards Islam

    ?Dr. Scott Alexander is the director of the Catholic-Muslim Studies Program at the Bernardin Center, which is part of the Catholic Theological Union. On Feb 9, 2004 the Bernardin Center held one of its "Conversations in Faith" events, this one entitled - "Choosing Peace: Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Preparing Our Children for Life Together."

    This program has been underwritten by a grant from the Chicago Community Trust.

    The featured speakers at the event were Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Elaine Shuster, President and CEO of the Golden Apple Foundation, Chicago, and Oussamma Jammal, President of the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, IL. The event was moderated by Carol Marin, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

    The Bridgeview Mosque has a history of terrorist ties going back to the 1990's, and has been under federal watch for many years. The Mosque's spokesman is Rafiq Jaber; he is the head of the Islamic Association in Palestine, the U.S. wing of Hamas.

    Some of its members have been arrested on terror related charges.

    "In 1993, one Palestinian-American who was a member of the mosque was convicted in Israel of distributing money and weapons to operatives of Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian group. He was given a five-year sentence. - New York Times, September 21, 2001

    That Palestinian American is Mohammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah, head of the Quranic Literacy Institute.

    Jamal's Mosque has also been linked to the following groups.

  • Islamic Association for Palestine - "The FBI memo said that the Islamic Assn. for Palestine, like Holy Land, had received "large sums of money" from Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook" LA Times Editorial December 6, 2001.

  • American Middle Eastern League for Palestine - "These facts strongly suggest that the IAP and the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine [a sister group] are part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus." - Statement by the Department of Immigration & Naturalization
  • Quranic Literacy Institute - See above - Mohammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah.
  • North American Islamic Trust - Owns approximately 25% of US Mosques, is funded by Wahabi/Salafi radical Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Siraj Wahhaj was a character witness for the ?Blind Shayk" Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Wahhaj was also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a 1995 plot to blow up New York landmarks. Wahaj is a former board member of NAIT.

    NAIT also owns the Islamic Academy of Florida - "a criminal enterprise" as described in the federal indictment handed down in February against the school's founder - Sami al-Arian and others alleged to be Hamas fundraisers.

  • American Muslim Society - Named as a Hamas front group in the ongoing federal case, Stanley Boim, et al, v Quranic Literacy Institute & the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
  • Holy Land Foundation - Shut down by FBI as known Hamas front group, has received at least $271,000 in Hamas money.
  • Islamic Society of North America - "the Islamic Society of North America is one of dozens of nonprofit groups whose tax records have been requested by the Senate Finance Committee as part of an investigation of potential terrorist ties." - The Washington Times
  • Steve Emerson - a pioneer in the field of investigating radical Islamic activity - described a visit to the Mosque in his book American Jihad - ?...the Imam of the Mosque was Jamal Said...the walls of the vestibule were covered with Hamas posters...you could see daggers plunged into Jewish hearts wrapped in the American flag.?"

    CTU and the Bernardin Center are aware of the controversy surrounding their interfaith efforts and they are in receipt of the information that we have gathered, along with our demand that the interfaith outreach to Islam be halted pending independent review.

    Unfortunately, our efforts to evoke a response from CTU?s Bernardin Center have been unsuccessful, neither calls nor Emails to the Center?s Director, Sheila McLaughlin, have been returned and our last communication with program director Scott Alexander ended with him rudely, and loudly, hanging up on us.

    In a courageous Chicago Tribune article - "Hard-liners won battle for Bridgeview mosque" - Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Kim Barker, Laurie Cohen, Stephen Franklin and Sam Roe detailed the forcible takeover of the Bridgeview mosque by Salafi radicals.

    Sheik Jamal Said stood before the packed mosque and worked the crowd like an auctioneer...the prayer leader asked for a donation...He asked for $5,000, and three men raised their hands...The crowd declared, "Allahu Akbar" or "God is great." $1,000? More hands. $500? Even more. In less than five minutes, he raised $50,000.

    The recipient of the worshipers' generosity was Sami Al-Arian, a Palestinian activist accused by the U.S. government of aiding terrorists. And the prayer leader's passionate appeal is a reflection of the ascendancy of Muslim hard-liners at the mosque, one of the most outspoken and embattled in the U.S.

    The mosque did not become this way without a struggle...the Tribune has pieced together the details of a bitter fight in Bridgeview that saw religious fundamentalists prevail over moderates.

    The story is a rare look inside the transformation of an American mosque, the role of Middle Eastern money in shaping Islam and the tensions many Muslims feel as they try to create enclaves in the U.S.

    It also provides insight into the wave of fundamentalism sweeping many parts of the world, creating divisions between East and West, between Arab governments and militants, and within Islam itself.

    Among the leaders at the Bridgeview mosque are men who have condemned Western culture, praised Palestinian suicide bombers and encouraged members to view society in stark terms: Muslims against the world. Federal authorities for years have investigated some mosque officials for possible links to terrorism financing..." - Chicago Tribune February 8, 2004

    The Tribune article - of which we were unaware at the time our first installment was published - adds detail to our major points regarding the Bridgeview Mosque, most importantly it provides an in-depth detailed look at the internecine warfare being waged by the extremists - both against American national security interests as well as more moderate Muslims within that place of worship.

    It is the Wahabi form of Islam with which Bernardin's programs curry favor. The process serves only to empower the fundamentalists who also use this quasi-official imprimatur to strangle proponents of moderate Islam.

    Not content with merely involving Islamists as speakers at the Center's events, we note that Sayyid Sayeed, Secretary General of the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] actually sits on the Bernardin Center's National Board of Advisors.

    ISNA is one of dozens of Muslim organizations whose tax records are being sought by the Senate Finance Committee in a probe of ties to terrorism. Sayeed has also recently spoken at anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan's, Nation of Islam events.

    Terrorism expert Steven Emerson reports that, "In September 2002, a full year after the 9/11 attacks, speakers at ISNA's annual conference still refused to acknowledge Bin Laden's role in the terrorist attacks."

    As noted in our previous article, the Bernardin Center is also currently administering a Lilly Foundation funded outreach to Al-Quds University, in Jerusalem.

    In addition, Scott Alexander has initiated a student exchange program - funded by a $2 million dollar grant from the Lilly foundation - with Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, an institution known for its Hamas sympathies. One of the Muslims involved in this program is Professor Mustafa Abu Sway, a visiting Fulbright Scholar at FAU, who is presently under investigation by the State Department for his membership in Hamas.

    Another involved with the Al-Quds program is Azzam Tamimi.

    Consider, for example, an interview given by Tamimi to a leading Spanish newspaper last November. Headline: "I admire the Taliban; they are courageous." Tamimi begins by assuring the interviewer that "everyone" in the Arab world cheered upon seeing the Twin Towers fall. "Excuse me," says the interviewer, "did you understand my question?" Tamimi: "In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy. That's what you asked me, isn't it?" The interview continues in this vein, to a point where Tamimi accuses the United States propping up all of the dictators in the Arab world. "They must be eliminated if anything is to change." Interviewer: "And how to eliminate them?" Tamimi: "The people of those countries should rebel, fight, sacrifice, spill blood. The French Revolution cost lives. The American revolution cost lives. Liberty is not given, it is taken!" Later, Tamimi gives his solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict: "The Israelis stole our houses, which are today occupied by Jews from Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Morocco, Ethiopia, Brooklyn. They should return to their homes, and give ours back to us!...That's non-negotiable. Therefore I support Hamas." - Martin Kramer - Campus Watch

    A very close associate of Tamimi's is another Bernardin Center Board member, Dr. John Esposito.

    So I am puzzled. Professor Esposito has an academic partnership with one Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian residing in London. They have co-edited a book. Tamimi has published another book in a series edited by Esposito (in the preface, Tamimi calls Esposito "my ustadh," my teacher). Tamimi also runs something called the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London. Esposito sits on its board of advisors?the only American to do so. In short, this seems to be a close liaison. The problem is, Azzam Tamimi is Hamas - Martin Kramer - Campus Watch

    It's hard to escape the conclusion that it is the policy of the Bernardin Center to break bread, not only with "edgy" members of fringe groups, but people associated with organizations like Hamas.

    In the final analysis, whose interests do the Center's programs serve?

    They don't serve Christianity - a declared enemy of radical Islam, and they certainly don't serve the national security interests of the United States, which is now engaged in a war against it.

    The program's organizers have exhibited a reckless disregard of caution in the selection of participants placing the outreach effort at odds with the current teachings of the Vatican, which has decried - through mouthpiece publications like La Civilta Cattolica the turning of a deaf ear towards radical Islam because of its history of oppressing both Christians and Jews.

    Whom do these programs serve?

    Well, that is indeed the $64,000 question - one which those who are involved in and fund these programs must ask themselves.

    As presently configured, these programs serve only two groups:

    One, the program's directors and coordinators who are feted by well-meaning but uninformed Jewish and Christian groups, who unfortunately take the participants and speaker's good intentions on faith - believing the peace and love mumbo jumbo simply because they are being intentionally shielded from the truth.

    Two, the radical Islamists themselves, who lionize those associated with the programs because they provide good press, plausible deniability and grant them unearned standing as moderates.

    The longer this ruse continues, the more damage accrues to CTU and the Bernardin Center's reputations. During this troubled time in Church history, does Catholicism really need more controversy, more scandal, more cover-ups?

    It is no longer arguable that there is something seriously wrong with the way these programs are structured and run, and we once again demand that Bernardin's interfaith outreach programs to Islam be halted pending a thorough and independent review.

    Unless or until this happens, CTU's activities in this area are doing a great disservice to Catholicism.

    © 2004 Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer - PipeLineNews.org - all rights reserved.

    On Burying Vatican II?s Heterodoxy ? One Catholic?s Opinion

    March 2, 2004 by William A. Mayer

    With the March 1, 2004 6-1 decision by California?s Supreme Court forcing Catholic charities to provide birth control to its employees, the Church finally has reaped the full measure of what it has sown.

    Let me explain.

    Since the sixties, the Catholic Church has engaged in an orgy of revisionism. Nearly a thousand years of tradition were cast aside because Church leadership, swelled by the sin of self-pride and an over reliance upon rationalism, elevated the flawed judgment of a small group of men above that common body of wisdom that had been revealed by the Holy Spirit over the previous millennia.

    The effect has been swift and catastrophic.

    Over a short forty year time-span, the Church has been visited with afflictions, the likes of which, only a fool would misinterpret.

    Since Vatican II the Church has fallen victim to serious attack by its secular enemies because it has abandoned the moral high ground in pursuit of a false ecumenism. In its zeal to make it appear to be accommodative to the secular world, it has become soiled by that world and lost within it.

    The Holy Mass has been debased, rendering a pale imitation of what it traditionally was, a re-enactment of the passion of Christ. The Eucharist is no longer worshiped; it is routinely and daily touched by unclean, unconsecrated hands. The priest is now only the presider; he no longer fills the shoes of the Fisherman.

    The Mass has been shorn of its essential reverence for that supreme act of love ? the act of Christ?s dying to atone for mankind?s sins.

    One must wonder if the transubstantiation - the beautiful and mystical changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ [which has been official Catholic Dogma since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215] ? even takes place during these ceremonies any longer.

    I pray that it does, but I have my doubts.

    On the social front, the Church has embraced a soft-headed liberal philosophy ? hardly distinguishable from socialism ? as well as heretical theories which legitimize violent Marxist revolution under the guise of ?liberation" theology.

    Yet in matters of self defense the Church now seems to council pacifism, against all previous teachings and the bitter experience of World War II - about which the Church still feels the need to explain why it was not more critical of the evils represented by Nazism and Soviet Communism.

    The Church has, to put it charitably, looked the other way while its priestly ranks have been swelled by an organized and activist homosexual lobby. It is now estimated that between 30 and 60% of Catholic male clergy is gay. Catholic teaching institutions, the seminaries, now serve as judgment-free zones of an openly gay subculture. In these institutions, it is the straight ? heterosexual ? males who are persecuted.

    This deviant infiltration is the sole reason for the huge increase in criminal sexual activity committed by the Catholic clergy. Let?s be clear about this, what is facing the Church right now are thousands of cases of homosexual predation on male children.

    These are gay crimes, plain and simple.

    Aside from the human carnage produced by this great breaking of faith, the Church has spent at least $572 million dollars in settling claims arising from the scandal, money that could have gone to the truly poor and needy.

    This wholesale cultural change has introduced a ticking time bomb, one planted deep within Catholicism?s bosom. Various studies suggest that as a consequence of the homosexualization of the clergy, AIDS is now rampant. Exact figures are of course, hard to come by, but serious students of the issue maintain that the rate of AIDS infection within the male Catholic clergy is at least 4 times higher than in the general population and very possibly 8 -12 times higher.

    From the outside at least it seems that divine judgment has already been partially rendered.

    And now it comes full circle.

    The Church, once ? for all its transgressions and failings - a moral beacon, has been laid low by the leftist California Supreme Court which now seeks to force it to offer the full gamut of birth control services ? even abortion - through its various charities and social programs, in direct contravention of Church?s most sacred teachings on the sanctity of life.

    And this is only the start - barring a constitutional amendment which expressly bans homosexual marriage - at some point Catholic priests will be forced by law to perform these odious ceremonies under the concept of ?equal protection." Those who are pushing this cultural agenda via the courts fully understand the process. Once rendered, the case law surrounding these decisions becomes the new starting point, if you will, upon which the concepts can be made ever more and more expansive.

    Already it has led to the incomprehensible reasoning that finds the oldest sect in Christianity not being considered a church and the Boy Scouts of America being deemed a religious organization and banned from holding meeting in public buildings.

    The ill-considered ?reforms" since Vatican II have proven to be an abomination, they have brought this forth. Rather than furthering the word of Christ, they have served to secularize the Church, dumbing it down to the lowest, politically vapid common denominator and made it easy prey for those who mean it harm.

    Through the Church?s blindness and lack of moral courage it must take major responsibility for creating the the type of society in which this could happen. Because it has been timid in enforcing a time honored moral code it has given the impression that nothing is sacred, that simple standards of conduct no longer apply and that nearly everything is permissible and open to debate.

    It has created an atmosphere wherein a court dare challenge it on matters of theology and now it must make a momentous decision, whether to capitulate or resist an immoral decision by a secular institution.

    Will the Church summon the fortitude to resist the state with the same sense of honor and duty that Saint Thomas a Becket resisted Henry II in 13th century England?

    To the point of death?

    Given what I have seen play out during my life as a Catholic, perhaps I am not the best judge of that.

    It is often said that the meaning of God?s actions are unknowable to man, and who am I to demur?

    However, outside whatever cosmic reason there is for this being visited on the Church at this particular time and place, it may represent an issue around which traditionalists may coalesce and reassert orthodoxy.

    It may indeed be time to start the process of rolling back the manifest evils that imperfect vessels have visited upon the Church and finally bury Vatican II - not in some dank corner?by cover of darkness ? but in the light of day and in a place which will forever serve as a warning to future generations that God is not mocked with impunity.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved

     

    Interfaith Outreach & "Excessive Placidity" Towards Islam

    February 18, 2004 - by Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer

    Berkeley California has always been a city of contrasts. The staid appearing, ivy covered halls of the University of California campus, are known for the brilliant ? albeit, communist ? physicists who built the first nuclear weapons. UC Berkeley is also renowned for demonstrations - national guardsmen in the streets - tear gas & free speech ? as long as it?s of the leftist variety.

    This month, on opposite ends of the campus a thoughtful speech by Dr. Daniel Pipes is juxtaposed against a, later in the month, Muslim Student Association sponsored celebration of "Islamic Liberation Through Jihad" featuring a - direct from jail - speech by convicted cop killer, H. Rap Brown, now known as Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin.

    We attended Dr. Pipes' February 10 speech at Pimentel Hall. That address consisted of a learned, 40 minute thumbnail critique of radical - or Wahabi/Salafi - Islam. Unfortunately - but not surprisingly - the speech was disrupted at least a dozen times by - kaffiyeh coiffed - pro-Palestinian students and hangers-on, who chanted "racist," "free Palestine," "Zionist Jew," and other - even less complimentary - epithets.

    The first such outburst led to Dr. Pipes making the observation that he makes perhaps 120 speeches on this topic every year, but it is only on American universities where such anti-free speech antics underline the need for the heavy security detail which necessarily shadows him on his forays into academia.

    Similar dichotomies are being played out all over America.

    In Florida, Imams, Islamic scholars and members of the academic world, talk peace but preach Jihad.

    In Chicago some of the most extreme members of the Islamic community are not only being welcomed into the bosom of mainstream Christianity they are actually being recruited - on an official basis- via interfaith outreach efforts by groups within the Catholic Church.

    As far as the Church is concerned, the problem extends far past the current obsession, by some, with making nice to Islam.

    Beneath the surface, the Church is deeply conflicted, theologically, over social teachings and the secularizing changes brought forth by Vatican II.

    "Social Justice" is the key phrase.

    It is the all-encompassing theory under which left-wing driven, multicultural diversity has insinuated itself into the fabric of both the ordained and laity of the Church.

    It's clear that many Catholic academics are academics - and all that entails, in the post modernist, negative sense - first, and Catholics second, third, in name only?or not at all.

    In like manner, many supposedly mainstream Catholic publications are infected with the same anti-American, anti-traditional, progressive revisionist disease, as are their secular cousins.

    Let us consider Claretian Publications', US Catholic, which engages in near schismatic misrepresentation of underlying, basic Church teachings - the revisionism being presented as if were spoken ex-cathedra.

    In 1891 Pope Leo XIII wrote an Encyclical entitled Rerum Novarum, a treatise on capital and labor. It was the Catholic Church's official response to socialism in general and Marxism in particular [the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, the first volume of Marx?s three volume masterwork - Das Kapital - was released in 1867].

    US Catholic characterizes that Encyclical as being supportive of the concept ?of human dignity through just distribution of wealth."

    Quite to the contrary. Rerum Novarum, is actually a spirited defense of capitalism and an attack on socialism.

    "Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal."

    Other Encyclicals are similarly man-handled.

    Further perusing the US Catholic Internet site, we come across an opinion piece authored by Fr. Michael J. Baxter, an Ivy League academic.

    Fr. Baxter?s article, regarding the Catholic Church and pacifism, turns St. Thomas Aquinas? Just War theory on its head. Baxter proceeds by making the a priori conjecture that - with regard to the question of war - there are two competing theories [Aquinas? and pacifism] both of equal validity, which is simply incorrect. Noted, traditional Catholic scholar Fr. Richard John Neuhaus and others have opined on this subject and forcefully argue that such enterprises as the war on terror and specifically, the Iraqi war are justifiable under Aquinas? Just War theory.

    "As St. Thomas Aquinas and other teachers of the just war tradition make clear, war may sometimes be a moral duty in order to overturn injustice and protect the innocent. The just cause in this case is the disarmament of Iraq, a cause consistently affirmed by the Holy Father and reinforced by 17 resolutions of the Security Council.

    Whether that cause can be vindicated without resort to military force, and whether it would be wiser to wait and see what Iraq might do over a period of months or years, are matters of prudential judgment beyond the competence of religious authority.

    In just war doctrine, the Church sets forth the principles which it is the responsibility of government leaders to apply to specific cases -- see Catechism No. 2309.

    Saddam Hussein has for 11 years successfully defied international authority. He has used and, it appears, presently possesses and is set upon further developing weapons of mass destruction, and he has publicly stated his support for the Sept. 11 attack and other terrorist actions.

    In the judgment of the U.S. and many other countries, he poses a grave and imminent threat to America, world peace and the lives of innumerable innocents. If that judgment is correct, the use of military force to remove that threat, in the absence of plausible alternatives, is both justified and necessary.

    Heads of government who are convinced of the correctness of that judgment would be criminally negligent and in violation of their solemn oath to protect their people if they did not act to remove such a threat." Fr. Richard John Neuhaus

    Father Baxter?s presentation is misleading and is filled with what we have come to expect as de rigueur from lefty academics of all stripes ? obvious pique at the Bush administration.

    Baxter's tone is disrespectful. He suggests that [and this piece was written before the commencement of hostilities] the 375,000 Catholics in the US Armed Forces should have made the decision to lay down their arms and not participated, demonstrating that Fr. Baxter has less than a rudimentary understanding of the legal tenets underlying conscientious objection. The law is quite clear, either you are a pacifist or you are not ? you are opposed to war in all forms, in all times, or you aren?t considered a pacifist. There is no such thing as selective conscientious objection.

    Additionally, Selective Service law has never recognized the Catholic Church as a traditionally pacifist sect, as are the Quakers, who have a long history of such belief.

    In our opinion, Baxter, actually exhorting Catholic servicemen to disobey the valid orders of their Commander in Chief, borders on the seditious.

    ??If half of the Catholics on active duty decided to conscientiously object to participating in this particular war, that would be more than 185,000, even if it were as few as 10%, that would still be 37,500?"

    In asking what has gone wrong with he Catholic Church one might as well ask the question - "What has gone wrong with academia and social institutions in general? - because all are victims of the same progressive contagion.

    Not only are supposedly mainstream journals like US Catholic championing this movement, but the very educative bedrock institutions of the Church - such as the Catholic Theological Union - are not only along for the ride, they are driving the train.

    CTU produces more Catholic scholars than any college in the United States.

    Dr. Scott Alexander is the director of the Catholic-Muslim Studies Program at the Bernardin Center, which is part of the Catholic Theological Union. On Feb 9, 2004 the Center held one of its "Conversations in Faith" events, this one entitled - "Choosing Peace: Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Preparing Our Children for Life Together."

    This program has been underwritten by a grant from the Chicago Community Trust.

    The featured speakers at the event were Arne Duncan, CEO of Chicago Public Schools, Elaine Shuster, President and CEO of the Golden Apple Foundation, Chicago, and Oussamma Jammal, President of the Mosque Foundation in Bridgeview, IL. The event was moderated by Carol Marin, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

    The Bridgeview Mosque has a history of terrorist ties going back to the 1990's, and has been under federal watch for many years. The Mosque's spokesman is Rafiq Jaber, he is the head of the Islamic Association in Palestine, the U.S. wing of Hamas.

    Some of its members have been arrested on terror related charges.

    "In 1993, one Palestinian-American who was a member of the mosque was convicted in Israel of distributing money and weapons to operatives of Hamas, the terrorist Palestinian group. He was given a five-year sentence. - New York Times, September 21, 2001

    That Palestinian American is Mohammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah, head of the Quranic Literacy Institute.

    Jamal's Mosque has also been linked to the following groups.

  • Islamic Association for Palestine - "The FBI memo said that the Islamic Assn. for Palestine, like Holy Land, had received "large sums of money" from Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook" LA Times Editorial December 6, 2001.

  • American Middle Eastern League for Palestine - "These facts strongly suggest that the IAP and the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine [a sister group] are part of Hamas' propaganda apparatus." - Statement by the Department of Immigration & Naturalization
  • Quranic Literacy Institute - See above - Mohammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah.
  • North American Islamic Trust - Owns approximately 25% of US Mosques, is funded by Wahabi/Salafi radical Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Siraj Wahhaj was a character witness for the ?Blind Shayk" Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Wahhaj was also listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a 1995 plot to blow up New York landmarks. Wahaj is a former board member of NAIT.

    NAIT also owns the Islamic Academy of Florida - "a criminal enterprise" as described in the federal indictment handed down in February against the school's founder - Sami al-Arian and others alleged to be Hamas fundraisers.

  • American Muslim Society - Named as a Hamas front group in the ongoing federal case, Stanley Boim, et al, v Quranic Literacy Institute & the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
  • Holy Land Foundation - Shut down by FBI as known Hamas front group, has received at least $271,000 in Hamas money.
  • Islamic Society of North America - "the Islamic Society of North America is one of dozens of nonprofit groups whose tax records have been requested by the Senate Finance Committee as part of an investigation of potential terrorist ties." - The Washington Times
  • Steve Emerson - a pioneer in the field of investigating radical Islamic activity - described a visit to the Mosque in his book American Jihad - "...the Imam of the Mosque was Jamal Said...the walls of the vestibule were covered with Hamas posters...you could see daggers plunged into Jewish hearts wrapped in the American flag."

    Jamal Said was the Bridgeview Mosque Imam in 2001. After 9/11 the Bridgeview Mosque held a press conference, Jaber, Said, and Jamal, were in attendance. Oussama Jammal was quoted as saying "How certain are we that Arabs were behind it"?"

    One of the featured speakers at the February 9 ?Conversations in Faith" program, Emily Soloff of the American Jewish Committee, withdrew from the event after receiving information from us regarding Oussama Jammal's militant Islamist associations.

    The Chicago Community Trust, which is funding the interfaith program, was informed of the militant Islamist ties of Oussama Jamal, but did not fit to undertake any action regarding his speaking and told us to "contact Scott Alexander' the "Director of Catholic Muslim Studies" at The Catholic Theological Union.

    According to a letter form the CTT Director of Communications Jennifer Jobrack:

    "The Chicago Community Trust made the grant to the Catholic Theological Union with the understanding, as we do of all of our grant recipients, that they would do the due diligence on their proposed speakers. I strongly suggest that if you have any concerns about their choices, I strongly suggest that if you have any concerns about their choices, you take it up with the Bernardin Center at the Catholic Theological Union. I would suggest Scott Alexander would be the best contact there as he runs the program."

    Due diligence begins with the program organizer, but it also extends to those who fund such programs.

    Scott Alexander?s credits include his having attended conferences sponsored by some of the most radical Islamic groups in the United States ? Islamic Circle of North America [ICNA] and the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA].

    In addition, Scott Alexander has initiated a student exchange program - funded by a $2 million dollar grant from the Lilly foundation - with Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, an institution known for its Hamas sympathies. One of the Muslims involved in this program is Professor Mustafa Abu Sway, a visiting Fulbright Scholar at FAU, who is presently under investigation by the State Department for his membership in Hamas

    Another involved with Al-Quds is Azzam Tammimi, head of the UK based Institute for Islamic Political Thought.(IIPT) Tammimi is associated with Hamas and the militant Hizb Ut Tahrir group, which calls for the destruction of Western society and the implementation of a world wide Islamic government based on Sharia law.

    In many ways Scott Alexander's own philosophy seems to be more accommodative and understanding of Islam than Catholicism, as I discovered, when attempting to contact him - phone calls to his CTU office are answered with a recording beginning with "Al-salamu alaykum!" - the ancient Muslim greeting.

    Dr. Alexander at first indicated he was interested in a dialogue.

    Dear Mr. Mayer:

    Thank you for your e-mail and the concern you have expressed over the integrity of our interreligious dialogue programs here at Catholic Theological Union.

    This past week has been an extraordinarily busy one for many of us involved with the Conversations in Faith program and we intend to respond to your concerns as soon as possible, ideally by Monday morning.

    In the meantime, please accept my personal best wishes.

    Scott

    It quickly became clear, however, that despite protestations to the contrary, Dr. Alexander was uninterested in dealing with out inquiries. There has been no response whatsoever to a series of questions that we forwarded previously, annotating some of our concerns regarding his program. Moreover, it was only by happenstance that one of our telephone calls found him in his office, finally gaining brief access to him.

    From that conversation and a reading of his public statements we have come to the conclusion that he seems to have assumed the mantle of Muslim apologist rather than dispassionate scholar.

    In general Dr. Alexander believes that since September 11, Muslims have had their civil rights violated by the Bush administration. He feels that Muslims are the victims of unfair profiling and that his program is not legitimizing odious individuals or organizations.

    We inquired whether or not he knew much about Oussama Jamal. He responded that he had known Jamal for approximately 3 years and that he had never heard him say anything vaguely troubling, nothing anti-Semitic or pro-terror.

    I asked Dr. Alexander if he was familiar with the fact the Jamal's Mosque had been under federal scrutiny for a decade and that at one time the vestibule of the Temple was filled with Hamas recruiting posters?

    Dr. Alexander's response was alarming, he claimed that Hamas and their terrorist activity was really no different than what the "Christian evangelical right" - people like Jerry Falwell - have brought forth.

    Unbelievable as it might seem, Alexander feels that conservative, evangelical Christianity is responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics - and is not morally different from groups who conduct suicide bombings against Israeli women and children.

    These are outrageous, indefensible positions for a scholar to take, let alone a Catholic scholar entrusted with cultivating discourse, reason and understanding.

    We have have heard similar sophistry numerous times before, most recently in a [2/13/04] telephone conversation with Ibrahim Hooper, the national spokesperson for CAIR - the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

    Hooper claimed that Representiative Peter King?s (R. NY) warnings regarding disciples of radical Islam representing a potential ?Enemy Within" as being racist and without foundation. He terminated the conversation when asked if members of his organization have been arrested on terror charges ? which of course they have.

    Dr. Alexander's viewpoint is troubling, and our impression of him was not forged by a single conversation but also by a series of interviews he has given to US Catholic and other publications.

    In these interviews Alexander acts not only as an apologist for Wahabi/Salafi Islam but even more ominously, he seems to think that it is the Bush administration and the war on terror which represent extremism.

    "I believe, and this is very unpopular, that metaphorically in those planes that hit the towers September 11 was more than just a lot of fuel that would incinerate the lives and hopes of thousands of people and their loved ones. There was also a script for how to set the whole world ablaze, addressed to George W. Bush and written by Osama bin Laden...Bush says, "Thank you," rehearses his lines, and delivers them marvelously...if Osama is still alive today, he must be saying, "Never in a million years did I imagine it would be this good, that I would have this impact on human history." And he has had this impact because of the development of an extremist reaction on our side." - US Catholic August, 2003

    The following recent statement, is easily interpreted as establishing a moral justification for Jihad.

    "He said dignity of every human being should be respected and the solidarity of the human family enhanced, let alone the natural law, which Alexander considered as parallel to fitra in the Islamic context. 'When nationalism is used to raise a fraction of the universal family in terms of economy, social service and military sphere then this is the nationalism that contradicts the fitra and the natural law,' Alexander added." Statement by Dr. Scott Alexander - MAS-ICNA Convention Dec. 25 - 28, 2003

    Statements of this nature are neither atypical nor are they unpopular in both Muslim and secular academic circles. Dubious accuracy aside, the real question remains as to the appropriateness of having an ideologue as director of CTU's Catholic-Muslim Studies Program.

    We use the term ideologue with great precision, because from all outward appearances Dr. Alexander has abandoned the world of ideas and embraced the world of political advocacy. By his statements, attitudes and apparent preconceptions he has called into question whether he is really suited to direct a program which, as he has fashioned it, is whitewashing a serious problem and given legitimacy to questionable individuals and organizations.

    This calls the entire program into question.

    When we first contacted Dr. Alexander, we had only the intention of pursuing some concerns regarding his methodology ? of course we expected to be taken seriously, as his response to one of our Emails indicated would happen ? ??and we intend to respond to your concerns as soon as possible?"

    This was not, however, the case. Given Alexander?s pressing duties in putting the finishing touches on the Feb 9 conference, we would have been more than willing to postpone the matter for a few days at which time we could examine the matter in a calm and rational matter.

    Unfortunately, the access which we were given, justifies our questioning of the Bernardin Center?s Catholic-Muslim Studies Program"s direction and focus.

    It appears that this program's director is, for whatever reason, more of an uncritical advocate for Islam than such a position calls for.

    Dr. Alexander seems unwilling to review the body of evidence that has been presented over the last decade which points to Wahabi/Salafi Islam aggressively building an infrastructure of organizations that represent a threat to national security and to Christianity.

    This body of evidence has not escaped the attention of Church elders in Rome. They having already taken steps to make clear that what they term - "Excessive Placidity" - towards Islamic abuse of Christianity will not be tolerated.

    ROMA ? There is a conspicuous absence among the new cardinals created on October 21 by John Paul II: Archbishop Michael Louis Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.

    The current explanation is that Fitzgerald was not made cardinal because of his excessively placid approach to Islam...?La Civiltà Cattolica," edited by a group of Jesuits in Rome, is a very special magazine. Every one of its articles is reviewed by the Vatican secretary of state before publication. So the magazine reflects his thought faithfully.

    We made Dr. Alexander aware of, the above referred to, historical study:

    The Church and Islam. ?La Civiltà Cattolica" Breaks the Ceasefire ? ?Through the prestigious magazine, the Vatican denounces with unusual harshness the oppression of Christians in Muslim countries. A testimony from Egypt."

    It appears online, in English at La Civilta Cattolica and one might think that it would at least serve as food for thought.

    This problem is not new, nor are similar resources unavailable to scholars ? Dr. Daniel Pipes [member, Board of Directors for the US Institute of Peace] has written 12 books on the Mid-East many of which touch on the nature of radical Islam. As previously mentioned, Steve Emerson?s groundbreaking book, American Jihad, should be considered required reading on the subject.

    Dr. Alexander?s apparent bias places him outside the realm of serious scholarship as well as far outside the current state of Vatican thinking regarding the nature of extreme Islam.

    Therefore, we call for an immediate, thorough and unbiased review of the Bernardin Center?s Catholic-Muslim Studies Program, and that further "interfaith outreach" to the Muslim community be immediately terminated pending that review.

    In this time of serious national peril it is irresponsible to proceed further down the current path, to do so bestows an undeserved mantle of legitimacy upon individuals and groups whose ties to radical Islam are disturbing and makes a mockery of the sprit with which such programs should be imbued.

    ©2004 - Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer, PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.

    Tequila Sunset - President Bush And Border Politics

    By William A. Mayer

    It has only been a few weeks since President Bush?s speech on immigration reform. Normally, we would take a measured approach before reacting to it, wanting to see further evidence ? specific legislative language or a markup of the bill ? before passing judgment on it.

    Unfortunately, we can?t wait until the policy initiative is codified into legislation. The very idea being advanced by the Bush team is repellant, in and of itself. We cannot allow it to go unchallenged.

    The initiative is a de-facto granting of amnesty. If it allows illegals to remain here, legally gain access to driver?s licenses and rights normally accruing only to U.S. citizens - including government services as well - then arguing over what to call it is a ridiculous exercise.

    The initiative does nothing about stemming the flow of illegal [and let?s be perfectly clear about this, there is really only one country at issue here, Mexico] aliens streaming into this country in a manner not unlike the Mongol hordes who streamed into central Europe from Asia in the 13th century.

    The census bureau estimates that 500,000 illegals sneak into the United States every year, in addition 1 million legal immigrants are granted permanent residency annually. Over the last 30 years, 30 million immigrants have taken up residency in America. According to the most conservative and authoritative source - Mark Krikorian's Center For Immigration Studies - 8 to 10 million of these immigrants are illegals.

    The size of this influx of immigrants - regardless of the legality of their status - materially and in most part negatively, affects our culture. The Bush plan ignores this aspect entirely.

    The United States represents, to this author at least, the flowering of the best ideas to come out of Western civilization ? self rule, limited constitutional government, private property, equality before the law, free market capitalism, a complex shared common culture of arts & sciences and a morality based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic. Granting entry to so many people who have no common experience with such ideas strikes at the root of our civilization.

    If that makes us ?nativist" - a pejorative used recently by the Wall Street Journal editorial board to describe conservative opponents of a ?guest" worker program, so be it.

    To even consider what will be done to remedy problem posed by illegals before we have the discussion regarding legal immigration, puts the proverbial cart before the horse.

    The President?s proposal does not take into account the corrosive effect of essentially unrestricted illegal immigration. Since the proposal seems to indicate that employer's willingness to accept foreign workers will be the determining factor in deciding how many Mexicans will be granted entry, it does indeed seem that the floodgates will be completely opened allowing unrestricted passage to whomever can claim they have a job waiting for them in America.

    The immigration plan totally ignores the fact that entire localities in border-states like California, Texas and Arizona are being turned into illegal Mexican barrios. It?s not even necessarily, the areas closest to the borders, which are being affected. In the San Francisco Bay area parts of communities, which previously housed working class primarily native populations, are now grimy, crime infested Hispanic ghettoes.

    The problems arise in these Nuevo communities not because the people are illegal, but because they represent the least educated, least acculturated, most desperate classes in Mexican society. They are in general - and simply - the worst element in a country not noted for its contributions to Western civilization.

    The President?s policy sends a duplicitous mixed message. It rewards law-breakers - as did Mr. Reagan?s more honestly couched amnesty of 1986 ? at a time when our entire foreign policy is based upon spreading the rule of law throughout the non-democratic world.

    The new immigration plan represents an official surrender, an admission that we have lost the battle on this vital issue. It seems to be perfectly accommodative of a never-ending stream of mass migration from one of the poorest countries in the world to the richest, dragging down native wage rates, increasing social service and medical costs - as long as there are willing employers.

    For the record, we have been entirely supportive of Mr. Bush?s presidency.

    We believe that he has been Churchillian on the question of national security. We continue to vigorously and fully supportive of the war on terror and its component of pro-active engagement of radical Islamic forces and countries.

    We are also mindful that in Washington, politics is always a major consideration, which is why we have bitten the bullet over McCain-Feingold, the $180 billion Farm Bill and the now $530 billion Prescription Drug Bill - all on the theory that the constituencies for these three measures is of such a nature that they would eventually be passed [most likely in more injurious form] regardless of opposition by the Bush team.

    We cannot, in good conscience, invoke Ronald Reagan?s 11th Commandment [Thou Shalt Not Criticize Thy GOP Brother or Sister] in this matter however.

    The issue is entirely too important and because of that, compromise isn't an option.

    We have talked to staffers at the offices of various Republican Congressmen and the feedback, from the grassroots activists, is one of concern over the President?s immigration proposal.

    There also seems to be, at least, anecdotal evidence that the Mr. Bush's proposal is hurting fundraising - though overall his campaign fundraising juggernaught continues in high gear - raising cash at a historic rate.

    Still there is much cause for concern on the political end. The upcoming November election is crucial - in actuality they all are - but more so the 2004 race, especially now at a time when all of the Democrat candidates, if elected, seem intent on turning away from the successfully prosecuted Bush anti-terror campaign.

    That is an eventuality that we can?t afford. We have in large part already forgotten the bloody lessons of 9-11 and the Democrat party, seemingly stuck in a mindless state of hatred of George W. Bush, will make the election close. They will stop at absolutely nothing, former Clintonista - junkbond trader Robert Rubin - is said to be plotting with billionaire money manipulator - George Soros - on a plan to artificially disrupt the stock market in the weeks before the election.

    This is no time to alienate the President's conservative base - his most ardent supporters. Tactics aside, this is not the time to even consider making such far-reaching changes to immigration policy.

    A more honest way to deal with the immigration issue might be as follows:

    1. Enforce the laws on the books right now. Illegal means illegal - cap the problem we have to deal with at the 8-10 million already here and stop any further influx of Mexico?s dispossessed into America NOW. If 11,000 Border Patrol personnel are not enough to do the job [and, for the record the overwhelmingly majority of them vigorously oppose the Bush immigration policy statement] peel some money off the bloated Prescription Bill or the 2005 Farm Bill and fund whatever number of border agents are deemed necessary to accomplish the job. It?s time to quit fooling around.

    2. Start the dialogue regarding immigration in general and whether it is really good for our culture to be allowing legal immigration in such high numbers. You can?t even start to consider how to bring the illegal population into compliance until you set an overall immigration policy for legals.

    3. Start the dialogue, again, on some sort of national identification methodology, which will clearly identify legal citizens as such. We can never deal with the illegal alien problem adequately until we can at least clearly identify them. If we are not going to seriously weigh [from a cost/benefit perspective] a national identity system they we aren't really serious about solving the problem.

    4. Increase funding for the INS deportation program [approximately 130,000 a year are currently being deported, but the emphasis has necessarily been shifted more to those with potential terrorist ties to the Mid East]. We would also be well advised to tell Vincente Fox to stuff a burrito. Fox is not our friend. He is a corrupt semi-dictator of a backwards and racist banana republic - one of the reasons why so many - primarily dark skinned Mestizos - are leaving Fox's Mexican hellhole and seeking a better way of life here in America.

    5. Stop kowtowing and pandering to radical Latino pressure groups like LULAC and MALDEF, they will never vote for Republicans - despite what Mr. Rove predicts - and they will never support realistic immigration policies. The truth is that conservative Hispanics who work hard and obey the law are disproportionately in favor of ending the onslaught of illegals, they correctly see them both as lawbreakers and as threats to the legal Hispanic job base. Thus the Bush policy change alienates the very group within which it seeks to curry favor.

    In conclusion, we have not and will not abandon George W. Bush.

    Repeat, WE WILL NOT ABANDON GEORGE W. BUSH, and we fully and wholeheartedly support his re-election.

    Period, exclamation point.

    Given the circumstances of his narrow electoral victory, his inheritance of the Clinton recession and the occurrence of the World Trade Tower terror attack, he has done far better than we had any right to hope for under such trying circumstances.

    His actions, in defense of this republic, combined with a vision that has already brought us tax relief, the anti-late term abortion bill, funding of faith based programs, student competency testing, education vouchers, promotion of real and meaningful diversity in his cabinet and appointments and a host of other accomplishments demand that he be re-elected - hopefully with a much stronger margin in the U.S. Senate.

    But that will not stop us from, gently, pointing out when the Bush team errs, and his proposed immigration policy is much worse than just leaving the current mess alone and festering.

    © 2004 William A. Mayer/PipeLineNews, all rights reserved.

    This ?N That II

    By William A. Mayer

    A couple of evenings ago I had a telephone conversation with a colleague on the East Coast. If it had taken place between two heads of state, a spokesman would have characterized it - in governmentese - as a ?wide ranging, frank, discussion," which it indeed was.

    One of the topics we discussed was how the news media works with regard to its ability to elicit truthfulness.

    With the first real primary election so close I thought that might prove interesting fodder for this week?s fish wrap.

    In general, news organizations are in the business of creating unique intellectual property ? content ? based on the happenings of the day, the Oxford English dictionary defines news as ?information about important or interesting recent events."

    There are two sides to the news trade; there is basic reportage ? straight reporting, fact gathering and checking ? and analysis, which leads to opinion ? editorial. Often there is a blurring between the world of reporting events and editorializing within those reports.

    As a personal aside it is my opinion that much of the political content on the Internet is the latter, editorial, many times poorly written screeds by people who lack any credentials whatsoever and little analytical ability beyond Bush good/bad ? Democrats good/bad. I receive, and reject, a distressing quantity of these types of manuscripts.

    It is a universal truth that all those involved in the news gathering/writing process have biases. Such preconceptions and biases, in media organizations like the New York Times, are legendary; where editors such as the recently and not so dearly departed Howell Raines, turned the organization inside out to reflect his own biases ? promoting and protecting incompetents and fabricators simply because of the color of their skin or the biases they brought to the table.

    Watching what little I could stand of the Thursday [Jan 22] Democrat debate caused me to consider to what degree that process lent itself to ferreting out the truth. It struck me that the very way news organizations operate, impedes such a determination.

    I think most will agree that for better or worse, Fox News has become something of either an icon or a lightening rod - depending on your particular political philosophy. Now I can already hear some of you saying, ?But Fox isn?t really conservative" a statement with which I heartily concur. But that isn?t the point being considered here.

    Let?s take the case of the so-called Reverend Sharpton.

    Over the last 4 or 5 years I have written a number of pieces slamming him for his past record, his race baiting statements in small part but primarily for his involvement in situations which have led to the loss of life, to put it most charitably, not to mention the Tarwana affair.

    Now lets explore some of the forces limiting full disclosure at Fox or at any news organization, really.

    You are the overall news director/managing editor, let?s say.

    You need a piece on someone like Sharpton and you assign a reporter the job putting the story together.

    The reporter most likely puts together an outline, a working slug line, major points, etc., which leads to a conclusion. Contacting the party directly is always good. A fresh quote or response to a question is what puts the ?new" in news.

    Now here comes the rub, let?s say during the debate, Brit Hume or Tony Snow ask Sharpton something like this.

    ?Reverend Sharpton, two demonstrations that you organized in the past ended in tragedy. They resulted in the murder of seven people ? one a Jewish youth, a Rabbinical student who was knifed to death in Crown Heights, the others burned to death at Freddie?s Fashion Mart in Harlem. These people who would most likely still be alive if it had not been for your presence at and your organizing these events, doesn?t that make you unfit to be president?"

    The day after such a question, do you think Sharpton is going to take that call, or if he does that his statement would be fit for television or your home newspaper?

    The point being that unless the media creates content it can?t survive. Calling a spade a spade, no pun intended, deprives them of one of the most important means of creating that content.

    Obviously the Sharpton case is extreme, but then he is an extreme individual.

    Let?s take another case, more mainstream. Let?s look at John Kerry.

    Kerry, these days, wears his military service and purple heart on his sleeve. It is usually the second thing out of his mouth out on the stump, ?Hi I?m John Kerry, did I tell you I served in Vietnam?"

    Kerry did indeed serve with valor in Vietnam, that is beyond dispute. But it is also not the point.

    The point is -and it is undeniable - that Kerry totally rejected his military service, he turned against the military - with a vengeance - and his remaining brothers and sisters still in harm?s way in Vietnam. He joined forces with Jane Fonda, Marxist radicals and protesters, forming the Winter Soldier project. He demonstrated against the war, giving aid and comfort to the Vietnamese communist insurgents and the Viet Cong. He made a big deal of publicly throwing away [symbolically at least, it is believed he used medals purchased from a pawn shop] his awards for valor as an expression of his hostility to the military and opposition to the war.

    He made a statement, the veracity of which has never been denied by him.

    ?I am not proud of these medals. I am not proud of what I did to receive them?We never took one prisoner alive?We just wasted them?"

    He characterized the US military effort in Vietnam as a war crime, the effort as a whole - not just specific occurrences of atrocities. He believed that the very way the war was being conducted constituted a violation of the Geneva Accords.

    Yet in dealing with people like Kerry ? because he is just an example of what we are talking about ? such inconsistencies are never mentioned, never broached or even referred to tangentially.

    Same reason as with Sharpton, plus an additional one. Despite his far left positions, Kerry is a mainstream candidate; he may very well even be the one to represent the Democrat party in the 2004 general election. Access to his campaign is vital; placing reporters on his campaign busses and jets is vital. A news organization would be hobbled if it did not have real and direct access to the Democrat candidate.

    Again there is the rub, Fox News, pulls its punches to preserve this access. Truth is, they all do.

    Once you understand that fact, everything else makes sense..

    With this type of thinking in place it is easy to understand by former Clinton administration piggies like Carville, Panetta and Sid Vicious Blumenthal get invited back again and again to spit their venom - like cobras - without much in the way of objection or debate. That is also why you will never find people like me get invited because I would not play that game and make nice with people for whom I detest.

    Without access, you have no content and without content your are out of business.

    We are not picking on Fox News, specifically. Of all the major television news crews they, in my opinion, do a far better job of striking a reasonable compromise between the need for access and the competing need to deliver a product that is stripped of spin.

    This is why we should not expect really controversial candidates, positions or ideas to be adequately vetted by the big boys and girls. For the most part it is self contradictory, mutually exclusive expectation.

    That is one of the reasons why sites such as PLN are popular, we don?t have to answer to shareholders, we don?t have huge bureaucracies to wade through in order to get decisions made and we don?t need no stinkin? pc lens to view events through.

    Are we biased?

    Absolutely, we wear our bias as a Red Badge of Courage.

    But people know were we are coming from and don?t have to sniff around the bushes to figure out where a piece is coming from.

    I have corresponded with and spoken to innumerable ?straight media" reporters, one specific individual from the Seattle Post Intelligencer comes to mind. He is a fairly young guy, quite bright and engaging and I wanted to discuss a recent piece of his. When I suggested that he was really overlooking some fairly obvious aspect of the story he said that he totally agreed with me but his editor would not countenance ?going down that path." That intellectual avenue was a sin against their self-imposed straight jacket of political correctness.

    It simply was never going to happen as long as that editor was around.

    I could detect the sad tone of his admission; it was almost confessional in nature.

    Here was a young hotshot who could actually put three words together in an interesting, informative manner. Yet he was hamstrung by considerations far beyond his control.

    Sad really. The diminution of a budding star. He is the type of individual who - with a little guidance - could do some nice work.

    Unfortunately it is reporters like this that burn out early and leave the business ? a business that is increasingly filled with hacks with a political agenda a mile wide.

    ©2004 William A. Mayer/PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved.

    By Beila Rabinowitz & William A. Mayer

    From dirty bomb plotter Jose Padilla - employed at a Ft. Lauderdale Taco Bell - to Padilla?s alleged partner - Adnan El Shukrijumah [apparently fingered by recently captured senior al-Qaeda planner, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed] - who was last sighted at a Subway sandwich shop in Tampa 2001, the trail of terror continues in Florida.

    Fourteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers either came from or through Florida ? The 3 main ringleaders - the "pilots" - Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi & Ziad Jarrah and 11 of the foot soldiers - Ahmad Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Satam M.A. Al Suqami, Wail M. Alshehri, Waleed M. Alshehri, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri (not related to Wail & Waleed Alshehri), Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi.

    Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker also has roots in Florida.

    Other notable Floridians - Imran Mandhai, Shueyb Mossa Jokhan ? accused of conspiring to bomb the Miami Israeli Consulate and Safraz Jehaludi - currently being held on charges of threatening to blow up the White House.

    Despite elaborately embroidered rejections of radicalism and events constructed to showcase Islam?s ?moderate" nature, the fact remains that Federal investigators say they have heard it all before. One senses that the claims of moderation are ringing hollow with increasing frequency, and for good reason.

    For residents of the area, it's déjà vu all over again. Virtually every Florida Mosque and Islamic Center has played host to one or more people who are either fugitives from the law, or in jail on terrorism related charges.

    Florida universities continue to harbor professors with militant Islamist agendas. Professors like Mustafa Abu Sway - a documented member of Hamas and the FAU visiting Fulbright Scholar - are exploiting their positions at Florida universities. They further their radical Wahabi agendas, hiding behind the facade of "interfaith outreach." Sway teaches a course about Islam at the FAU Lifelong Learning Center; one of his lessons is entitled - "Jihad and Otherness."

    Why Florida?

    Why not?

    For starters, Florida, especially South Florida, is home to 150,000 Muslims, mostly of Middle Eastern extraction.

    The area is also home to at least 23 Mosques.

    It is in many ways a transient society; nearly eight million tourists from all over the globe shuffle through the area each year, bustling amusement parks, cheap accommodations, miles of strip malls ? offer plenty of cover in which to remain anonymous.

    "It's a melting pot. It's not like in Montana where you would stick out like a sore thumb," said Ben Graber, a Broward County commissioner. "Here you just blend in with the population."

    Quiero plutonio?

    Back in the good old ? pre domestic terror - days your biggest concern about the guy behind the counter at a Taco Bell restaurant was that he might spit in your burrito. But this is the 21st century and now you have to worry if he's working for Osama bin Laden and trying to build a radiological weapon on nights and weekends.

    Mohammed Javed Qureshi, the owner of a South Florida Taco Bell, employed Jose Padilla and his wife Cherie Stultz.

    It was Padilla's association with the Pakistani born Qureshi that sparked his interest in Islam. It directly led to he and his wife's conversion. After their conversion to Islam, Padilla and his wife - now known as Al Muhajair and Marwa - continued working at the Taco Bell until leaving in 1994.

    "If you had known him, you would have never thought of him as a violent person," said Raed Mousa Awad of the Al-Imam Mosque that Padilla attended in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "He was a polite, shy, serious gentleman, according to my observations." ABC News - June 17, 2002

    Unfortunately, the pattern linking obfuscation, disinformation and sketchy characters continues, as Raed Awad was also under observation by law enforcement for his involvement in terrorist fundraising. He left South Florida around the time Padilla did and "moved to Alabama". His children claim they do not have his address.

    Awad claimed he did not know when Padilla converted to Islam or who converted him. He says that he met Padilla in 1995 and that he attended services daily - sometimes once or twice a day.

    "He [Padilla] was very active in the social activities of the Mosque and well known in the Muslim community." ? ABC News

    Yet Awad claimed not to remember him.

    A leader at Awad?s Mosque, Yusef Shakoor, remembers Padilla as shy and helpful, but went on to say that he had no standout qualities or personality.

    In addition to attending prayers at the Mosque, Padilla studied the Koran on Saturday at the Dar Ul Uloom Institute in Pembroke Pines.

    Maulana Shafayat Mohammed, the prayer leader at the Institute, described Padilla as an oddity who definitely stood out - "...he was a Hispanic who converted to Islam and always wore a red scarf over his head."

    From no "standout qualities" to an "oddity," everyone in the Muslim community appears to have a different and conflicting story about Jose Padilla. There is an obvious reason for this subterfuge - to confuse the media, investigators, researchers and above all, the public. It is not an accident that Qureshi, Rafiq Mahdi and others have given varying accounts to the regarding South Florida events involving Muslim extremists.

    It is now common practice for these people to go by two, three or more differing names; arranged in varrying order - depending upon the demands of the occasion. For example - Mohammed Qureshi, Mohammed Javed and Mohammed Javed Qureshi - all the same individual.

    In like manner, Qureshi never refers to himself as the owner of the Taco Bell that employed Padilla, he usually says that he was Padilla?s supervisor, which is technically correct but seemingly calculated to avoid disclosure of the fact that he was not only his ultimate supervisor but his employer as well.

    "Da' wah in North America begins with the packaging"

    Muslims are called upon to be evangelical and the practice of Da' wah underlines that philosophy. It means reaching out through religious preaching to those not of the faith - attempting to convert them. The devout are supposed to spend at least two hours every week engaged in such activity.

    Compared to Muslims, most fundamentalist Christians are pikers in that regard.

    This "packaging" concept really is a marketing ploy and if truth in advertising were applied to the above statement - which was taken directly from the from the Islamic Foundation of South Florida website - it should be rephrased - "Da' wah in North America begins with lying."

    To claim that Jose and Cherie Padilla weren't ?well known in the community" is absurd. As a chubby Hispanic, red durag [a biker head scarf] coiffed, gangsta? - with a Jamaican born wife - it would stand to reason that Jose would have been remembered by the community who took him in.

    However, after Padilla's arrest the community was struck by a bout of collective amnesia prompted, no doubt in no small part, by the nature of his overseas sales pitch to al-Qaeda.

    Managing complex fabrications is difficult, sometimes the truth just slips out. One spokesman for the community, Sofian Abedelaziz Zakout, the director of AMANA, the American Muslim Association of North America, has spoken of meeting Padilla, Shukrijumah and two - now jailed - terror suspects.

    Shukrijumah was particularly fond of employing a withering blizzard of aliases - El Shukrijumah, Jumah Adnan El Shukri, Muhammad Shir Muhammad Khan, Mohammed Essagh, Abu Arif, Ja'far Al-Tayer, Jaffar Al-Tayyar, Jafar Tayar, Jaafar Al-Tayyar.

    Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout employs the same tactic.

    In some cases the spelling is merely altered - as is the case with Shukrijumah's father, Gilshair - Shukri Jamal M.

    After Adnan Shukrijumah had been identified as a dirty bomb suspect and Mohammed Atta's possible successor, the Mosque that employed his father, which is also the Islamic Caribbean American Society fired him due to the unwanted negative publicity.

    Zakkout identified Gilshair as one of the directors of the Shamshuddin Islamic Center in North Miami Beach.

    In 1999 Sofian Abdelaziz Zakout was the Vice President of a now defunct "charity" called Health Resource Center Palestine which solicited funding for the Islamic Association of Palestine on it's website - IAP is a virulently anti-Semitic group which distributes hate filled "news" content to the Arab press.

    ?I am in support of the Hamas movement" - Nihad Awad, the former PR director for the IAP

    The HRCP also listed the brother of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton's, Ibrahim Dremali - Ishaq - as its Gaza coordinator. His name was spelled Drimly instead of Dremali. Both Ibrahim Dremali and Sofian Abdelaziz Zakkout testified as character witnesses on behalf of Adham Hassoun, who is accused of setting up the Florida office of the al-Qaeda front group, Benevolence International.

    Hassoun is also the man authorities believe is responsible for financing Jose Padilla's trip to Egypt.

    Dremali and Zakkout both made indignant statements to the media regarding Hassoun?s detention.

    After speaking with Hassoun by phone, Muslim community activist Sofian Abdelaziz said Hassoun's civil rights "have been broken."

    The Principal of the School of Islamic Studies in Broward - Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Shah [co-founded by Mohammed Qureshi and associated with a Mosque on the same property which was attended by Padilla and Hassoun] made the following understatement:

    ?Hassoun has been an active part of the local Muslim community for many years"

    Shocked, amazed and astonished!

    ?I?m astonished," Shah said of the arrest and of other recent arrests tied to federal investigations of possible terrorist activities in South Florida.

    Qureshi and Imam Madhi of Masjid Al-Imam have given Islam friendly but conflicting versions of the conversion story to the media.

    Qureshi said Padilla constantly marveled at how peaceful he seemed. "He asked me where could he go to be a Muslim." Qureshi allegedly told him - "to find a Mosque through the yellow pages" - a strange response, to say the least, from a devout Muslim who was the proprietor of a school/Mosque complex.

    According to Querishi, Padilla stated that "something [at the Mosque] touched his heart. He said he had wanted peace of mind, and now he said he felt at peace with himsel" and then added "He [Padilla]changed his demeanor."

    Denial of associations reigned supreme - Imam Rafiq Mahdi of the Al-Imam Mosque in Sunrise held a press conference with Sheriff Ken Jenne and stated "that there was no record of Jose Padilla having attended any services".

    Mahdi merely stated the obvious, since they don?t register their worshippers, no record would exist. It's a poor ploy - several newspapers reported that Padilla and his wife were very much in attendance at Masjid Al-Imam.

    Hassoun and Padilla worshiped at the same Fort Lauderdale Mosque, Masjid Al-Imam, through much of the 1990s, according to prayer leader, Rafiq Mahdi. Members of the Masjid Al-Imam - which has about 200 worshipers - said Padilla and his wife regularly attended.

    The spiritual leader in those years, Raed Awad, was chief Florida officer of another charity targeted for possible terror links, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

    Peter Feaver, director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies at Duke University, said it wouldn't be surprising if al-Qaeda sleeper cells and sympathizers are continueing to use Florida as a base. CBS news reports the same.

    Local government officials there are more specific, openly speculating that there may be as many as 1,000 "sleepers" living outwardly normal lives.

    It may be total happenstance, but Qureshi's Taco Bell is situated quite close to the offices of the Benevolence International Foundation, whose director - Adham Hassoun - was well known as a "Palestinian activist" in local Islamic circles.

    Hassoun had been chosen by Ernaam Arnaout - bin Laden?s personal envoy - to set up an office for the al-Qaeda fundraising operation known as the Benevolence International Foundation. Hassoun, a Jordanian national, is now on jail on charges of funding terrorism and is fighting deportation from the U.S.

    Arnaam Ernaout - a Syrian national married to an American - was recently sentenced to 12 years in jail for supporting al-Qaeda. He admitted to using money from BIF to buy tents, sleeping bags and boots for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

    Law enforcement officials believe that Hassoun met Jose Padilla at the Mosque belonging to the school for Islamic Studies in Broward. It was Hassoun who recruited Padilla, assisted him in acquiring an American passport and supposedly paid for his trip to Egypt - his "Arabic language study" sabbatical. Jose Padilla was arrested on May 8, 2002 at O'Hare airport in Chicago returning from Pakistan and is currently being held in a military brig, held as an irregular enemy combatant.

    Before they left, Qureshi remembers the couple seeking advice on how to buy a car with the little money they were able to scrounge up. They were hoping to find better-paying jobs ? she in office work, he in construction, he recalled.

    ?I mean from Taco Bell in Davie, the guy?s boarding the plane in Pakistan?" he said. ?What is going on in this world?"

    What indeed, Mr. Qureshi?

    Mohammed Javed Qureshi had kept in touch with Cherie Padilla after Jose left for Egypt in 1999. According to Qureshi, Jose was being taking care of by friends, listening and learning.

    Padilla started calling himself "Ibrahim." Eventually he legally changed his name to Abdullah al Muhajir, even though "Jose" was tattooed on his arm.

    He quit the Taco Bell in 1994, and by 1998 was headed to Egypt, telling friends he hoped to teach English in Cairo.

    Javed said he would occasionally hear from Padilla's ex-wife that he was "doing fine, that someone had provided him shelter, that he was listening and learning."

    The Padillas were divorced in 2001 with Jose giving an address in Egypt.

    During the divorce, Padilla's wife Cherie, sought counseling with the father of Padilla?s alleged partner in terror, Adnan Shukrijumah.

    Gilshair's own terror connections went back to the followers of Sheik Abdel Rahaman in Brooklyn. In 1995 Gilshair testified as a character witness on behalf of Clement Hampton El who was convicted of plotting to blow up the Holland tunnel and the United Nations.

    An enterprising tour guide could come up with a "Terror Tour" of South Florida. It would include at least 23 different Mosques in addition to schools and other dwellings within a 20 mile radius of the - "last seen" location - of some the FBI's most wanted terror suspects. The tour could finish up at the empty homes of those currently matriculating at various federal - maximum security - gated institutions of higher learning.

    The Qureshi name is ubiquitous in the school registry of the Islamic Foundation of South Florida - now the parent organization for Shah's School for Islamic Studies.

    The IFSF site lists Pasha Qureshi as a registrar. Samina Qureshi on the Al-Falah [success committee] and Zahra Qureshi on the Youth and Camp Committee. The Principal of the Elementary School - Zulfiqar Ali Shah - is the president and CEO of the Universal Heritage Foundation in Kissimmee.

    Shah showcased his new foundation with an innaugural - and highly controversial - Islamic conference the theme of which was supposed to portray Islam as a religion of peace and religious accommodation. The original list of conference speakers read like a who's who of radical Wahabis and the event ended up giving UHF a very black eye in the community.

    Shah's organization is situated on a 31-acre parcel of land, which it shares with Pastor Lee Wasson's Kissimee Christian Academy. The landlord is Super Stop Petroleum, Inc. It obtained the property in a bankruptcy proceeding. Wasson's tennancy considerably predates Shah's as he was a tennant of the party in bankruptcy, David Peoples, who operated a travel and culinary school on the propery called the Southeastern Academy. It is this former Southeastern Academy that UHF now occupies.

    Super Stop Petroleum is one of approximately 160 companies in which Denise Qureshi is the registered agent. In addition to Super Stop, the Florida Department of Corporations lists ? MAQ Financial Group, Q Research Group, Pembroke Park Investments, American Money Orders, 441 Investments, Homestead Subco, HWY 31 Investments, HWY 80 Investments, and on and on and on.

    We have extensively covered this a previous article [scroll down to: Florida Islamic Conference Outed As Jihad-Fest] which detailed that Zulfiqar Ali Shah and Mohammed Javed Qureshi - in an apparent display of anti-Christian bigotry - are conspiring to drive the Kissimmee Christian Academy into bankruptcy through legal harassment, primarily a frivilous eviction proceeding.

    We must conclude, from the circumstances surrounding the court action, that Super Stop Petroleum is run not by Denise, but by Mohammed Javed Qureshi. In Pastor Wasson's only successful effort to talk directly with Super Stop Management, he was put in touch with Javed Qureshi, not Denise. After only briefly listening to the Pastor's request to attempt to work things out amicably, Javed abruptly ended the telephone call, snorting insolently "I am a busy man."

    End of conversation.

    In their only face to face conversation with Wasson, Dr. Shah made the claim that he didn't even know Qureshi, despite his numerous dealings with him.

    Though this amounts to persecution by Muslims who are knee deep in associations with terrorists - against a struggling Christian School whose presence on the property predates UHF's arrival - local major media in Florida has shunned the story. PipeLineNews has even contacted Fox News in New York and they won't touch it either.

    Zulfiqar Ali Shah has a long history of senior management positions with extremist Muslim organizations. He was the former president of the Islamic Circle of North America, about which Steve Emerson author of American Jihad, stated - ??openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organization, praises terror attacks, issues incendiary attacks on western values and policies, and supports the imposition of sharia [Islamic code of law]."

    So serious is the problem with the Islamic Circle, that in December, 2003 the Senate Finance Committee - under the leadership of Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) - requested from the IRS tax returns, lists of contributors, applications for tax-exempt status, and all materials from examinations, audits and criminal investigations on 25 noble sounding Muslim groups, one of which is Shah?s former haunt, the Islamic Circle of North America.

    During Shah's period of leading the ICNA, Ashrafuzzman Khan was its Vice President - as well as the head of the ICNA local chapter in Queens New York.

    To many immigrants, however, Khan was better known as the mad-dog leader of a death squad active in the Bangladesh war.

    On 24th September 1997, a criminal complaint [case no. 115/1997 Ramana Thana] was filed against Asrafuzzaman Khan, as a result of war crimes allegedly committed by him during the Bangladesh Liberation War.

    It is alleged that Khan personally murdered at least 7 intellectuals during that war, that he was a member of the much feared Al-Badr terror squads.

    Professor Giasuddin Ahmed was killed as a result of the death squad activity. His sister, Mrs. Farida Banu, filed the case in Bangladesh.

    In the complaint Mrs. Banu claims that Khan, along with others, kidnapped Ahmed. His body was found later at the Rayar Baazar killing fields, a disposal site used by the Al Badr death squads.

    ?Asrafuzzaman Khan, was one of the chief Al-Badr executioners. It has been clearly proved that he himself shot to death 7 teachers of the Dhaka University in the killing fields at Mirpur. A certain Mofizzuddin, who drove the vehicle, which took these helpless victims of Asrafuzzaman to Mirpur, has clearly identified Asrafuzzaman as the "chief executer" of the intellectuals. After Liberation, Ashrafuzzaman?s personal diary was recovered from 350 Nakhal Para where he resided. On two pages of the diary, the names of 19 teachers of the University have been entered, as well as their addresses in the University quarters" - From the Weekly Thikana, a Bengali print journal published from New York December 15, 2000

    This really is only a cursory glance at what is going on, not just in South Florida, but also in many other parts of the country.

    Connect the dots and follow the associations?they are chilling.

    Fact: The Wahabi brand of thought dominates Islam in the Middle East. Middle Eastern nations are directly and primarily responsible for funding the majority of US Islamic institutions.

    In his book, Inside Islam, Reza F. Safa states that the majority of American Mosques are funded by jihadist Saudis, that over the last 25 years they have spent nearly $90 billion on such projects in the US and the West and that 80% of this nation?s 1,200 Mosques were built as a result of this effort.

    Islam is a supremely aggressive religion. The Muslim American Society has single handedly converted 1 million American Blacks to Islam, the Saudis have contributed $8 million towards building Los Angeles? biggest Mosque.

    From their mouths, to Allah's ear

    ?Either the best Muslim will get power, or the worst Kaffir [worst infidel, etymology ? comes from a North African word essentially the same as nigger, not so surprising since it was the Muslims who sold the African slaves]. Allah has created us as the Khaleefah [leaders] and we do not know Biology, Chemistry, Geology, when the Muslims knew those sciences they rules those lands and controlled them. We need to learn these sciences then we know how to control this earth. Rasool (S) struggled for 13 years, he was tortured abused, made sacrifices, even lost his uncle. Victory will not come sitting down. We need to prepare ourselves in all aspects." - Zulfiqar Ali Shah from remarks on the History of Islam prepared for the consumption of young Muslims.

    Anyone - who with a critical eye - has elevaluated the manner in which the Islamic world has operated for 1.400 years will note that it has demonstrated little tolerance for other beliefs - hence the origin of "holy wars against infidels" - jihad.

    This intolerance, in the face of 911 and increased public scrutiny, continues unabated. Supposedly mainstream Islamic institutions expressly created for educating Muslim youth, in reality operate as thinly disguised Madrasses - little factories of fundamentalist religious bigotry and hate.

    ??The fundamental theme of Islam throughout history has been -there is no god but Allah?Islam alone can provide the power for Muslims to liberate oppressed peoples from The control of those who worship the false gods of modernist and postmodernist cultures, namely, from taghut, so that these false gods will no longer be in a position to persecute or put obstacles in the way of sincere people and so all religion will be exclusively for Allah.

    Our task in general is to stand against the flood of modernist civilization overflowing from the swamp of materialistic and sinful desires?Western secularism moved into a Muslim world already estranged from its Qur?anic roots, and delayed its advancement for centuries, and will continue to do so until we drive it from our lands. Moreover, we will not stop at this point, but will pursue this evil force to its own lands, invade its Western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts by the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam spread throughout the world?" Jan 18, 2004 Young Muslims USA Newsletter.


    The Young Muslim USA organization has even bussed Muslim teenagers into Washington, DC so they could add their voices in protest against the war in Iraq, which liberated 25 million of their Islamic brothers and sisters.

    The slick looking signs these kids were given were obviously done by professionals.

    The placards they held carried familiar leftist slogans such as "Defend Iraq Against US Imperialist Attack" - "For Class Stuggle Against US Capitalist Rulers" and "No Justice, No Peace" many complete with the logos of the Socialist Worker's Party, a communist front group.

    Unbelievably, only a few years ago, Muslim youth organizations were actually soliciting impressionable Islamic kids to participate in Summer Jihad Camps, here it the headline of a flyer, from the Young Muslim USA organization.

    Young Muslims North East Region

    presents...

    Jihad Camp

    August 20th - 26th, Pennsylvania

    Note that the date was exactly two weeks before September 11, 2001.

    The Summer camps continue, albeit under a different guise. Sometimes now they are called Akhira camps. Akhira is the Arabic word for afterlife. Nice concept - Summer Death Camps.

    "Our [Young Muslim USA] Summer Camp will help educate and prepare the youth with the proper understanding of the concept of the Akhira (The Hereafter) in Islam. This camp is for brothers with ages ranging from 14 to 25 years"- from the flyer

    Curious...healthy young people - males only - preparing to meet Allah.

    The speakers at these events always include radical jihadis.

    For example, in addition to Zulfiqar Ali Shah, three of the speakers at the 'Jihad' and Akhira [afterlife] camps were:

  • Sirraj Wahaj - a member of the advisory board of CAIR and in 1995 was declared an unindicted co conspirator in the attempt to blow up New York City monuments.
  • Imam Abdul Malik who runs the radical Masjid Tarwhid in New York. He also spoke at the UHF's 'Islam for Humanity' inaugural event Malik recently produced an audio tape entitled "Thugz in the Masjid" which "explores issues related to thug life and it's adaptation by Muslim Youth."
  • The activities at these Muslim youth camps?

    Wrestling - Archery - Paintball Combat Sports

    For some reason the paintball images have been pulled from the Young Muslim USA site, but the following comes from similar Muslim paintball activity, this from of all places, Kentucky.

    Makes you feel all warm and cozy, brings you right back to...Afghanistan?

    Had enough? Feel reassured now that you understand the Islam is the religion of peace?

    This is the real problem when dealing with Islam in a Western setting. The religion is not being truthfully evaluated because an invidious process has been set in motion. Our own loss of intellectual vigor is partly to blame. It is manifested as an inability [or even desire] to critically reason about such demanding subjects, but the main antagonist is the left's moral relativism, which causes many to take at face value high sounding statements by Muslim spokesmen, like Shah, Qureshi and others.

    As has been written here in the past until we see significant and meaningful - concrete - demonstrations of good faith by the Muslim community, we remain unconvinced of the sincerity of claims of moderation. Until we see Imams stand before their followers and reject Hamas, Yasir Arafat, religious martyrdom and the Palestinian Intifada, until we see young Muslim men demand to join the US Armed Forces so they can participate in the war on terror and rid the world of those who have allegedly defiled the true spirit of Mohammed, we remain unconvinced.

    We remain unconvinced because it is all cheap lip service, frosting on a poison tart, marketing, packaged Da?wa.

    "...Law enforcement officials are not sure what exactly El Shukrijumah may be planning, but they say he could target gas stations, fuel trucks, subway systems, trains, or bridges. "Our No. 1 priority," Larry Mefford, assistant director of the FBI's counter terrorism division, told U.S. News, "is to find sleeper cells if they exist"

    Since Mr. Melford broached the subject, let's pursue it a bit - we don't advocate giving people ideas but this type of speculation is already out there.

    There is absolutely no doubt that al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups are actively planning further, even more devastating attacks against the United States. Unless we are 100% effective in stopping them, the question is only a matter of when the next attack will occur, not if.

    Suppose that entire chains of - lets say - gas stations or fleets of fuel tanker trucks - or both - come under surreptitious control of al-Qaeda types.

    The standard gasoline transport tractor trailer rig features two stainless steel containers, each with the capacity of approximately 8,500 gallons, for a combined single vehicle capacity of 17,000 gallons of gasoline. According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - that amount of gasoline is equivalent in energy content to over 100,000 pounds of TNT.

    A similar load of liquid hydrogen would be far more deadly, it has over twice the energy content of gasoline and its laminar flame velocity is nearly 10 times as fast [2.7 to 3.3 m/s for hydrogen vs. .37 to .43 m/s for gasoline] hence a far higher potential explosive effect.

    Of course that number is theoretical and you are not going to get these kinds of yields by simply tossinging a few books of matches in front of fuel carrying semis. However, with the proper amount of oxidizer and correctly applied ignition, the energy release from such potential mobile bombs would be massive.

    Imagine the effect that would be caused by the simultaneous detonation of hundreds of gas stations during rush hour while gasoline, liquefied natural gas and propane transports were set off on major bridges, as well as outside political and military targets?

    There are many other possibilities along these lines, the point is merely that in a high tech society such as the United States it is impossible to control every potential source of destructive energy available to crafty, scientifically aware, foes.

    Absent that we have to judge people by what they do, what they say in private, when they think they are not being overheard by outsiders and by their associations.

    On these three fronts American Islam, not to mention the Islamic movement outside of the United States, stands looking very suspicious, at least.

    At worst?

    Well let's just say it's a sobering thought and that failure to fully plan for nightmare scenarios - given the stakes - is not an option.

    Editorial Archives