"Tom Brown's Schooldays" 2008 Style

"You are hereby placed on detention."


When I was a small kid growing up in the 1950s (and television was a novel thing), one of my favotite movies was "Tom Brown's Schooldays", a film about a young British schoolboy and his adventures at Rugby School. The movie (there were two or three made over the years)was an adaptation of an 1857 novel. I guess the biggest reason I liked the movie was its stirring theme music.

I was reminded of Master Tom recently while browsing through the British blog, Lionheart. The editor of Lionheart has often run afoul of British authorities due to his unrelenting reporting on the outrages of many of Britain's Muslims. One of his latest reports concerns the recent outrage at a school near the English town of Stoke-on-Trent. (Stoke-on-Trent happens to be a "Partner City" of the German town of Erlangen, where I spent my Army time and which is the subject of one of my books.)

But I digress. Just recently, two boys were punished for refusing to take part in prayers at Alsager High School. Not Christian prayers, mind you, but Islamic prayers to Allah. As part of a class on religion, the class was told to put on Islamic headgear, kneel down on prayer rugs, and go through the Muslim prayer ritual. As punishment, the two boys got detention, and the rest of the class missed their refreshment break. Predictably, many of the children's parents reacted with anger that their children were forced to take part in prayer rituals of a faith they do not practice-and that two boys received punishment for refusing.

Master Tom Brown faced a lot of predicaments at Rugby School, but never had to experience this!

I wonder what else the good headmaster and staff at Alsager High had planned for the children. Perhaps they could have taken them on a field trip to one of the more radical mosques and listened to the imam condemn British society. Or maybe attend one of those exciting demonstrations where folks hold banners demanding the murder, butchering or decapitation of those that insult Islam. I know some good film clips circulating on the Internet showing the stoning to death of women in Iran for the "capital crime" of adultery. That would wake the little rascals up, wouldn't it?

As Lionheart correctly points out, this is just another example of the UK submitting to a very vocal, threatening, and, at times, violent element in its society.

As many others point out, there is nothing wrong with teaching comparative religions in public schools. There is something wrong in pushing a particular religion down the throats of unwilling children and their families. It is undeniable that given what is going on the world today, many in the educational establishment are desperate to provide a positive image of Islam in the spirit of mutual understanding. It is happening not only in the UK and Europe, but here in the US as well. It is being carried to such extremes that it is engaging in mistruths. Any scholarly discussion of Islam has to include current events. Islam is at a crucial crossroads in its history, and I don't think any of us know which faction within the religion will win out. If educators are trying to present only a positive image of Islam to schoolchildren while ignring present-day realities, then they are doing everyone a disservice-including decent, peace-loving Muslims who dare to speak out.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just within the field of education in the UK.

Maybe, if the modern-day Tom Browns eventually decide to enter the field of law, they might follow in the footsteps of Britain's top judge, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, who recently opined that the Kingdom should accept Shariah law-presumably to allow Muslims to settle their civil affairs independent of national laws.

And if Master Tom's successors decide to turn to a career in the clergy, they could do no better than emulate Rowan Williams-the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has echoed Lord Phillips' surrender call to Sharia.

It is easy to decry the decline of Great Britain and ask, "What would Winston Churchill say?" But here in the US, we are also yielding step by step. Many of our universities are not only silent, but complicent in providing forums for young radical Muslim students to spout hatred not only against Israel, but Jews and America as well. My own university (the University of California at Irvine), is one of the worst in this regard.

What is so unsettling about Britain is that we in the US seem to be heading in the same direction, albeit a little more slowly. So, at the risk of repeating what is becoming a tired old adage:

What would Winston Churchill say? Come to think of it, what would Tom Brown say? And while we're on the subject, what the hell would Benny Hill say?

Obama on Iraq

"President Obama, you are cleared for takeoff."
"Roger, uh, which button do I push first"?


Barack Obama has raised a few eyebrows lately with his recent comments on the situation in Iraq. As he announces his upcoming trip to that country, he is creating more confusion about what he really intends to do if he becomes president.

The confusion started when Obama explained to reporters that during his time in Iraq, he would consult with military leaders on the ground, and, based on that, would "refine" his policy. Two hours later, he was speaking a different tune to reporters, insisting that his determination to end the war and give his military a new strategy (withdrawal) was unchanged.

When one reporter pointed out discrepancies between what he was saying then vs what he had said mere hours before, Obama hemmed and hawed and blamed the McCain campaign for creating the confusion.

Well, excuse me, Senator Obama, but no one from the McCain campaign took any part in your two explanations to the press within hours of each other. What created the confusion was likely-your own confusion.

The question must be asked (if the mainstream news media is willing to follow up) is whether Obama is starting to re-think his Iraq policy based on the surge and recent success in that war-a success that the MSM doesn't want to talk much about. Can Obama, who claims he was against the war from the start (as an Illinois state senator)acknowledge that maybe-just maybe- we are winning in Iraq and that maybe-just maybe- we should see it through? Or is he committed to getting out and damn the consequences in order to please his constituency?

I have a feeling that Obama right now doesn't even know what he should do, something that I suspect would be a recurring theme in an Obama presidency.

Rotten Fruit in Orange County-Part VI

When former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona was indicted on federal corruption charges, he proclaimed loud and clear that he would be vindicated. Since then, his attorneys have worked long and hard (and up till now unsuccessfully) to get most of the evidence excluded from the trial (scheduled for August). First they tried to get tape recorded conversations between Carona and his former crony, Don Haidl, thrown out on legal grounds. Now that that has failed, they are still trying to get certain tapes thrown out on the grounds that they "likely to offend and anger the jury".

I'll say!

In these conversations, Carona (who has called himself an evangelical Christian) is heard using racial epithets, vulgarity and bragging about his high-flying life style and sexual exploits as OC Sheriff.

"......Not that I haven't, you know, drank some great wine, and had great booze and ...got some, you know phenomenal (sex) along the way."*

Of course, the issue to be decided is whether the tapes prejudicial nature outweighs their probative value. As today's Orange County Register pointed out in its editorial, the very corruption charges leveled against Carona revolve around his acceptance of various gifts and favors while in office. Carona's attorneys argue that these conversations are irrelevant.

Meanwhile, Orange County has appointed a new sheriff, Sandra Hutchens, to try and clean up the squalid mess left behind by the man Larry King on Life Support once called, "America's Sheriff".

* OC Register editorial Local p 6 dated July 7, 2008

John Kerry and "Judgement"

John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry expounding on "judgement"


This weekend, John Kerry (who supports Barack Obama for president) lashed out at John McCain, specifically claiming on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Arizona senator lacked the "judgement" to be president. Kerry, who reportedly asked McCain to be his bi-partisan running mate in his 2004 quest for the presidency, has now apparently "flip-flopped" on his opinion of the Republican standard-bearer.

And why not? Wasn't it John McCain who spent 20 years in a church listening to a racist, anti-American preacher (Jeremiah Wright) rant against America and white people in general?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a 20 year relationship with a radical leftist Catholic priest in Chicago (Michael Pfleger), who once threatened to "snuff out" a gun store owner? Wasn't it John McCain who funneled government earmarks in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to said priest?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a financial relationship with Tony Rezko, now a convicted racketeer?

Wasn't it John McCain who had a political activist relationship with an unrepentent Weather Underground fugitive (William Ayers-and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn)?

Yeah-that John McCain!

You gotta hand it to Mr Heinz-Kerry. He knows judgement when he sees it.

And he sure doesn't see it in John McCain.

Let's Play "Name That City"

All of the above scenes took place in the same city. Can you name it?





a Teheran, Iran
b Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
c Islamabad, Pakistan
d Cairo, Egypt
e London, England

The answer is e-London, England.

Think about it.

The "Drug Wars (20), New Delhi, India 1990

"I hear DEA's in town."
"I hope they know we have the right of way."


To anyone visiting India for the first time, the country can easily overwhelm your senses. From the poverty, to the cows in the streets, to the snake charmers, all the other animals you see in places you might not expect to see them, to the smells, the food-India is indeed different. It is easy to dismiss it as a primitive country, but that would not be fair. The people are interesting-and I mean that in a positive way. On my first trip to Delhi, I found many of the women to be strikingly beautiful. Of course, in a country like India, a visitor will come back with stories aplenty.

Although I had previously landed in Delhi while flying from Bangkok to New York in the 1970s, my first real trip was in 1990 as part of a DEA International Training team. On this occasion, we spent two weeks in Delhi conducting a drug training seminar for drug cops at India's National Police Academy.

Our lodging was at the Delhi Hyatt Hotel, a luxury hotel that provided us with much-needed comfort over the two weeks. On school days, we were transported in a van to the police academy, which was rather run-down with ceiling fans beating back the heat.

Prior to beginning the school, our team was told by the State Department Embassy coordinator that we should provide a block of instruction on "Human Rights". It was not in our schedule (certainly the Indians had not asked for it), and we pretty much told the diplomat we would "take care of it". We then proceeded to forget about it.

In my first class, I was about 5 minutes into my lecture when one of the students let out a belch. I didn't say anything about it, deciding to let it pass without comment. A couple of minutes later, another student belched. I soon learned that this was considered normal as the students continued belching throughout the class-and during the entire two weeks.

Later, I participated with other team members in a class on interrogation techniques. We held a mock interrogation of a drug suspect using standard American techniques. At the conclusion of the class, one student came up and asked me if I would ever torture a suspect. When I replied that I would not, he asked why, seemingly not accepting my answer. I then explained that if I were to do such a thing, I would be subjecting myself to arrest, prosecution and loss of my job. He then retorted that I didn't understand. "You wouldn't be doing it for yourself, you would be doing it for your country", he explained. At that point, I tried to find a diplomatic way of ending the exchange.

Indeed, shortly before our arrival in Delhi, there had been a controversial incident in the city police station where a suspect, under interrogation, had supposedly jumped to his death from the window of police hqs. It got quite a play in the local press.

On another day, as we were on our way to the academy (just down the street) we came upon the scene of a bus accident. Apparently bus accidents were not uncommon. It was also not uncommon, if there were injuries, for the bus driver to get out and run from the scene, in which case, a crowd would proceed to stone the bus. That was the case on this occasion. As we tried to steer around the scene, rocks were flying. A couple of projectiles came flying into our car, just missing our heads as we retreated into the police academy.

On some days, after class, we would go to the DEA office, located in the American Embassy, one of the largest and most impressive compounds we own around the world. On one occasion, I met a visiting DEA agent and his family who were on R&R (Rest and Recuperation) from their posting in Pakistan. (Does that tell you anything about Pakistan?)

While at the embassy, I was made aware of a cartoon that had recently appeared in the State Department's monthly magazine that depicted an embassy cocktail party. In the cartoon, a couple of DEA agents were chatting with a State Department official. The diplomat was a stereotypical State Department type, dressed in a suit with a haughty-taughty expression and holding a cocktail in his hand. The two DEA agents were portrayed as "cowboys", boots, cowboy hats, cigarette packs tucked into their shirt sleeves and holding beer cans. The caption was, "Yeah, we're DEA agents. How did you guess?" Our DEA country representative in India had reacted by sending a letter to the editors of the magazine protesting the cartoon and reminding them that "diplomacy starts at home". (In a subsequent edition, the editors printed the letter and admitted that they had screwed up.)

Of course, since the Taj Mahal in Agra was only a couple of hours away by train, we spent our Saturday off going to see the Taj. It turned into an exhausting all day affair, rising at dawn to catch a 6am train and returning at 11pm. Once was enough, and on my second trip to Delhi with DEA International Training a couple of years later, I stayed at the hotel while the others made the trek.

The final blow (to me) was en route home. The night after departing Delhi, in Frankfurt, Germany, I came down with a severe case (delayed reaction) of the "Delhi Belly" and had to be taken to the Army Hospital. Fortunately, it passed and I was able to continue home without delay.

Hey Jordan-Summon This!

Interpol alert: From top to bottom:

Fousesquawk
Geert Wilders
Kurt Westergaard




In the grand tradition of Iran's lunatic Ayatollah Khomeini (who issued a Fatwa against British subject, Salmon Rushdie) and the murder of Dutch Filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh on a Dutch street by a Muslim immigrant a few years back-comes this out of the Kingdom of Jordan: During the past month, a Jordanian prosecutor has filed charges for blasphemy and "contempt of Muslims" against Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergaard, as well as 10 Danish newspaper editors who published the cartoons that infuriated the Muslim world and set off deadly riots across the globe. In addition, also charged with similar "crimes" is Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, whose offense was to make a short film (Fitna or Strife) that stated that the Koran incited violence. The charges against the Danes came in early June, while charges against Wilders came early this month. The warrants issued by Prosecutor, Hassan Abdullat, in Amman come as a result of a complaint filed by a Jordanian group called "The Prophet Unites Us". Thus, the Jordanian prosecutor has summoned all of the above Europeans to report to Jordan for trial or international arrest warrants will be issued.

Can you say "Chutzpah"?

Though neither Denmark nor the Netherlands have signalled any intention of arresting their citizens and extraditing them to Jordan, all of the affected individuals may have their ability to travel outside their own borders restricted if international arrest warrants are obtained. An international arrest warrant could be circulated within Interpol. On the surface it would seem implausible that Interpol would enforce arrest warrants on these charges (They do not honor warrants based on political crimes) However, given the cowardly manner in which many European countries are conducting themselves in the face of Islamic intimidation, who knows?)

In the case of Wilders (who is a Dutch Member of Parliament), he appealed to his foreign minister, a certain Maxime Verhagen, to summon the Jordanian Ambassador in Holland for a lecture on freedom of speech. Verhagen declined, stating that it would represent "interference in Jordanian judicial matters"!!??!

Meanwhile in Riyahd, the Organization of Islam Conference (OIC), a league of 56 Muslim nations, expressed "disappointment" that the Dutch prosecutors could take no action against Wilders based on "free speech issues" (something they would know nothing about).

So now, Middle East prosecutors are filing charges against foreigners in the West who dare to criticize Islam-and this from one of the so-called "moderate, pro-American" nations. Have you ever heard of such brazen arrogance? And what about the cowardice of the Dutch Foreign Minister who will not speak out and summon the Jordanian Ambassador for a good chewing out? At what point does any self-respecting nation tell these fans of the 7th century that, here in the West, we have freedom of speech, and we will never give up our citizens to some Third World banana republic (which Wilders has correctly called Jordan).

A note to the Jordanian prosecutor, who is so concerned about "contempt of Muslims": You could go a long way toward eliminating said "contempt" if you would go after and eliminate the killers that are giving Islam such a bad name around the world.

The entire civilized world should stand shoulder to shoulder with the Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaards and Salmon Rushdies of the world.

Colombia: Score One For The Good Guys

On Wednesday, the Colombian military pulled off a daring rescue of 15 hostages (including three Americans and Ingrid Betancourt, a former presidential candidate who had been held captive for 6 years, from their captivity at the hands of the insurgent group, FARC.

The above rebel group, which has financed their insurgency against Colombia with drug trafficking and kidnappings (with not a little support from Hugo Chavez), has suffered a series of setbacks in recent years. According to most estimates, the guerrillas have seen their numbers decline by half in the last few years to about 9,000 due to Colombian military actions, deaths of their leaders and defections.

In the latest operation (which coincided with John McCain's visit to the country to lend his support to a trade pact between Colombia and the US, as well as the Colombians' efforts against the drug traffic),Colombian military had infiltrated the FARC in an undercover capacity and had convinced the guerrillas to deliver 15 hostages to a central gathering point for "delivery to the prime FARC commander". Once the hostages were loaded onto undercover helicopters, they were flown to freedom. No lives were lost in the operation.

Also participating in the operation were American counterparts, who provided intelligence and logistical support to the Colombians.

Though the operation is an obvious success for the Colombian government and their president, Alvaro Uribe, not all Americans are cheering. It should be remembered that Uribe, in his recent visit to the US, was shunned by the Democratic leadership in Congress. According to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Uribe and the Government of Colombia are "persona non grata" due to perceived "Human Rights" abuses against rebels and union leaders, the last group being of special concern from US labor unions, such as the Teamsters Union. The Teamsters had, in fact, criticized the trip to Colombia by Senator McCain. Democrats and labor leaders in the US oppose the pending trade pact between the US and Colombia.

(Here's a trivia question: How many Teamsters presidents can you name in the last 50 years who have not gone to prison? My point: I could care less what the historically-corrupt Teamsters Union says about our relationship with Colombia.)

The fact of the matter is that Colombia is a democratic nation that has been fighting vicious drug cartels and guerrillas for decades. There is a long list of courageous police, prosecutors, politicians, and journalists that have risked-and sacrificed their lives to stand up to the drug cartels and guerrillas. The policy of the US is to support Colombia in this endeavor and, in my view, it is the correct position. That our government played a supporting role in this latest operation is a point of pride.

It would be nice to hear some Democrat like Reid or Pelosi utter a statement of praise for the Colombian governemt for this great operation. But I won't hold my breath.

The US must continue to stand side by side with Colombia, which is arguably, our greatest ally in the region. They are fighting the good fight. Most Colombians are good people who deplore the criminality that plagues their nation. To me, it is troubling that the Democratic Party in the US has no interest in supporting Colombia.

UK Puppy Flap-Are You Kidding Me?

It doesn't get any more offensive than this, folks.


As further evidence that the UK is surrendering to Shariah law and genuflecting to its minority Muslim population-now comes this:

Police in Tayside, Scotland recently created posters advertising police contact numbers that featured a cute little puppy sitting on a policeman's hat. When they passed the posters around to various shopowners, they were met with hostile reactions from Muslims who rejected the posters, and local Muslim leaders protested the "affront" since dogs are considered "unclean animals" under Islam.

So now a European country is being hit with more accusations of "offending Islam". How? By featuring a photo of a dog!

Rather than laugh it off, the police have now apologized to local Muslims for "offending them". According to the police spokesman, the cops had "neglected" to clear the "offending" photo with their "diversity advisor". This mistake won't happen again promised the police.

Seems to me that an apology isn't enough. Heads should roll (no pun intended). How about more diversity training for the obviously Islamophobic cops. Put the puppy to sleep, I say. In fact, since British Muslims consider dogs to be so offensive, why not round up and destroy all canines in Britain? Confiscate them from their "infidel" owners by force if necessary. So now, instead of rounding up terrorist and bombers, the cops can put their resources to better use-rounding up dogs! Maybe that will bring peace and harmony in the UK.

What is wrong with those Brits? Even the Archbishop of Canterbury was quoted recently stating that "eventual Shariah law in the UK was inevitable". Whatever happened to the old idea that immigrants should assimilate and adapt to the values of the host country?

Whatever happened to those British soccer hooligans? Hell, at least they were fighters. Have they succumbed to Shariah law as well?

If only Prince Charles were King!!

(On second thought, he'd have to get rid of Camilla.)

Supreme Court Gun Decision

L-R Sharon Tate-Charles Manson
What if Sharon Tate had had a gun?





Last week's 5-4 decision by the US Supreme Court declared Washington DC's total ban on gun possession unconstitutional. Once again, the swing vote came from Anthony Kennedy, the one unpredictable vote on the Court. While an encouraging result, equally troubling is that only one vote upheld the citizens' right to own firearms.

The chief legal argument revolved around the language of the Second Amendment, which refers to a "well-regulated militia". Liberals have used this phrase to argue that only a duly authorized "militia" could be armed, not private citizens. Nevertheless, the court affirmed the right of private citizens to own firearms.

In terms of background, the city of Washington, plagued by high crime and murders, tried to ban firearms altogether in an effort to solve the problem. It didn't work. The criminal element continued to be armed on the streets. The fact that they could not buy guns in Washington was of little consequence. The Washington experiment was proof that gun control in America doesn't work. It only would ensure that innocent, law-abiding people would be disarmed-and at the mercy of the criminals.

Perhaps, in some past era in our history (I don't know when-I am only speaking theoretically), we could have created a society without guns. Not now. The horse left the barn long ago. We live in a society with a violent crime problem that is a disgrace to any nation that calls itself civilized. The question is this: How can law-abiding people protect themselves and their families from vicious predators, both in the home and on the street? I am afraid that is to allow them to arm themselves. We cannot depend solely on the police to protect us. By the time they arrive, we will already be dead.

Yet, that is precisely what liberals want to achieve-a society where only police are allowed to have guns. What they will achieve is a society where only police are authorized to have guns-and only police and criminals will have them.

What the liberals choose to ignore is that statistics indicate that crime goes down in places where people are allowed to own guns. It is a deterrent to criminals who deliberately seek out and choose victims they perceive to be defenseless. Liberals can quote statistics on handgun crimes and assaults all day long. Unfortunately, no one keeps statistics on how many crimes are averted or nipped in the bud by armed citizens. How many lives have been saved because an intended victim or by-stander was armed?

When I was in DEA, there were many anecdotal stories about agents who came across crimes in progress and were able to intervene with their guns-myself included.

When we look back at all the senseless murders that have happened in our country over the years, how many lives could have been saved if someone on the scene was able to take effective action before the cops arrived? Wouldn't it have been great if someone in the Sharon Tate home was armed when the Manson family came charging through the door? How about the killings at Virginia Tech? More recently, just in the past 24 hours, a Palestinian terrorist's killing spree was brought to an abrupt end when an off-duty soldier shot the killer in the head.

But wait a minute, you say. If everybody is armed, won't we have more domestic shootings in the home or during a barroom argument or during an incident of road rage? I am afraid the answer is yes, but that is a price I am prepared to pay. Overall, I think we would save lives. Another argument I often hear is that legal gun ownership would take us all back to the Wild West.

When did we ever leave it?

But shouldn't there be some restrictions? Sure. Convicted felons should not have guns. People with diagnosed mental problems should not be allowed to have guns. Of course, there should be age limits, training and background checks. I don't even have an objection with licensing. I also don't see any reasonable purpose to own an Uzi. My position may not be completely in line with the NRA (which I do not belong to). They alienated me many years ago when they opposed laws against bullets that would pierce body armor (worn by cops).

At any rate, the above decision is welcomed, but 4 justices don't believe that a citizen should have a gun to protect him/herself. As I mentioned in my posting on the death penalty for child rapists ruling, the next president will probably have the chance to put 2-3new justices on the Supreme Court-as well as a host of federal judgeships. It is one of the most important things a president does.

Keep that in mind come November.

Recent Comments About UCI

"Anti-Semitism at UCI? What anti-Semitism? Musa, Malik Ali? Never heard of 'em."


I am including recent updates from Reut Cohen and Red County Blog on the on-going situation at UCI in regards to MSU-sponsored anti-Semitism. It appears that the university is going on the offense with some of their professors publicly defending the university against charges of tolerating anti-Semitism and other radical expression by the Muslim Student Union and their sponsored hate-mongering speakers.

First is a description of two of the MSU's favorite speakers, Addul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali as provided by Reut Cohen, recent UCI grad and former officer of Anteaters for Israel.

Next is an article published in the liberal periodical, The Nation by UCI History Professor Jon Wiener followed by my own response.

Last is an excerpt of an interview of Erwin Chemerinski, newly-hired law school dean by Marlo Jo Fisher in the Orange County Register in which Chemerinski declares he has no knowledge of anti-Semitism at UCI. They are numbered 1-4.

1 Below is courtesy of Reut Cohen, a recent UCI grad and former officer of Anteaters for Israel

"Abdul Alim Musa and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, two radical imams, are no strangers to UC Irvine where they regularly spread their seething hatred of America, Israel and Jews on behalf of the Muslim Student Union (MSU). These speakers are involved with the As-Sabiqun movement which aims for Islamic revivalism and enabling Islam to take "complete control of ... the lives of all human beings on Earth." Below is information about both speakers and the radical and hateful As-Sabiqun movement.

DiscovertheNetworks.org includes the following information about Musa:

Imam Abdul Alim Musa is the founder and director of the As-Sabiqun movement, which aims to “enable Islam to take complete control of … the lives of all human beings on Earth.” He serves as director of Masjid Al-Islam in Washington, DC, and is a senior member of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) -- a pro-Iranian, pro-Hezbollah, Islamist think tank. Musa also sits on the governing body of the Muslim Alliance of North America, which is headed by Siraj Wahhaj. In addition, Musa is a frequent speaker on American college campuses, often at the invitation of the Muslim Student Union and chapters of the Muslim Students Association. In 2004 the San Francisco Bay View described Musa as “one of the highest-ranking Islamic leaders in the Black community, nationwide and specifically in the Islamic movement.”

Two days before 9/11 -- at a September 9, 2001 fundraiser at UC Irvine on behalf of the cop-killer Jamil Al-Amin -- Musa said:

“Imam Jamil coined a phrase, and that phrase meant this: ‘If you don't give us justice. If you don't give us equality. If you don't give us our share of America. If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”

During a May 9, 2007 “Islamic Revival” event at UC Irvine Musa discussed his belief that the U.S. carried out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:

“When you hear about some bomber that blew up the World Trade Center or blew up this or blew up that, I'm telling you brothers and sisters, that is your CIA. That is your government blowing up people, blaming it on us … Didn't Adolph Hitler burn the Reichstag, blame it on the people and he became the Fuhrer and what happened? He could suspend civil liberties. And he could wipe out and he could war against all of his enemies. That's what Adolph Hitler did, isn't that right? He burned the Reichstag himself.... They blew up the World Trade Center, blamed it on us, and then come out with the PATRIOT Act and all these criminal laws. Right?”

At the same event, Musa said:

“Who ran the slave trade … who funded [it]? You’ll study and you will find out: the Jews … It was the Jewish bankers … in Vienna, with pockets full of money, funding and insuring, that’s who did it…. you can’t tell us about no holocaust. Between the African Americans and the Native Americans, everybody else’s stuff was [supposedly] small potatoes [according to Jews].”

Here is a bio for Amir Abdel Malik Ali:

Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali (also known as Abdul Malik Ali and Abd Al-Malik) is a black Imam associated with the Masjid Al Islam mosque in Oakland. A graduate of San Francisco State University and a former Nation of Islam member, he is a frequent guest lecturer at Muslim Student Union and Muslim Students Association events. A passionate supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, he helped organize a July 1999 rally in San Francisco at which Imam Abdul-Alim Musa proudly displayed a cashier’s check made out to “Hamas, Palestine.” Malik-Ali endorses suicide bombings as a legitimate “resistance” tactic: “Palestinian mothers are supporting their children who are suicide bombers, saying, ‘Go honey, go!’ That ain’t suicide; that’s martyrdom.”

Also among Malik-Ali’s notable quotes and positions are the following:

“The enemies of Islam know that when we come back to power we’re gonna check ’em.”

“Stay conscious and ask Allah to raise the Muslims and give us victory over the disbeliever.”

“When it’s all over, the only one standing is gonna be us [Muslims].”

“Sooner or later, today’s Muslim students will be the parents of Muslim children. And they should be militants.”

“Neo-cons are all Zionist Jews.”

Israelis ought to return “to Germany, to Poland, to Russia. The Germans should hook y’all up. You [Israelis] should go back to Germany.”

“In America, you’re mostly fighting with your tongue, but you should also learn how to fight with the sword.”

At the Sixth Annual Muslim Student Association Conference held at UC Berkeley in February 2004, Malik-Ali denounced “the white man, who is the enemy.”

At the Universal Heritage Foundation’s December 2003 Islamic Conference in Florida, he warned moderate American Muslims that their desire to be “liked” was turning them into “‘house slaves’ in the mansion of a racist, imperialistic and destructive America.”

He has described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a “pretty good guy.”
DiscovertheNetworks.org notes the following about As Sabiqun:

Founded in the early 1990s by Imam Abdul Alim Musa, As-Sabiqun (whose name means “The Vanguard” in Arabic) is a Sunni endeavor that seeks, through “an organized Islamic movement,” to establish Islam “as a complete way of life in America” -- “in total, complete, and uncompromised service of Allah.”

On July 4, 1994, As-Sabiqun enumerated its major organizational objectives in a document that stated, most notably:

"We resolve to work with other communities (movements) … toward the end of harnessing the power of Muslims and their resources for the purpose of reestablishing the system of governance known as Khilafah, or the Caliphate, patterned after the leadership exemplified by Prophet Muhammad."

"We resolve to utilize all the tools of Islam to develop an analysis and plan of action to totally and completely obliterate the hold of jahiliyyah [spiritual ignorance] and enable Islam to take complete control of our lives, and ultimately, the lives of all human beings on Earth."

"We resolve to shape the ideas, beliefs, and moral viewpoints of the people into an Islamic mold. Toward this end we will … develop the comprehensive educational system that is necessary to inform, inspire, and direct the society toward Islamic revolution (or evolution)."

"We resolve to make Islam a living force by challenging and breaking the hold of social and political forces seeking to suppress and destroy Islam."
Believing that “Islam is fully capable of producing a working and just social, political, economic order,” As-Sabiqun “does not advocate participation in the American political process as an ideal method for advancing Islamic issues in the U.S.” Instead, it calls for “a strong and active outreach to the people of the U.S.” -- an effort aimed at persuading Americans to embrace Islamic beliefs, customs, and institutions. The movement endorses “cooperation on domestic social issues with like-minded non-Muslim groups,” but only “as long as Islamic ethics and morality are not compromised.”

As-Sabiqun’s major ideological influences include the writings and crusades of Malcolm X, Maulana Mawdudi, Shaikh ‘Uthman dan Fodio, Sayyid Qutb, Kalim Siddiqui, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna.

Though As-Sabiqun is a Sunni entity, it has publicly voiced support for such Shi’a movements and organizations as the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Lebanon-based terrorist group Hezbollah. According to Abdul Alim Musa, Muslims today ought not engage in the "counter-productive" habit of focusing on the differences between Sunni and Shi’a Islam; rather, they should aim to unite in their struggle against non-Muslims."

2 Below article is by Jon Wiener, History professor at UCI in "The Nation". Note the title and his use of labels such as, "Right wing Zionists" and "Republicans" used to described concerned US Senators. (courtesy of Red County blog)

Warriors For Zion
June 19, 2008

"Columbia and Barnard aren't the only campuses where right-wing Zionists have fought bitter campaigns in the name of defending Israel and Jewish students. The unlikely site of the latest battle, as intense and angry as anything in Manhattan, is the University of California, Irvine (UCI). I should know--I teach there."


Warriors for Zion--in California

Jon Wiener: Accusations by right-wing Zionists of anti-Semitism at the University of California, Irvine, are suspect at best.


"While the campaigns at Columbia and Barnard failed to persuade those schools to deny tenure or otherwise penalize faculty members the right-wing Zionists found objectionable, at UCI the professor who occupies the chair in Jewish history, Daniel Schroeter, has decided to leave after being condemned for failing to support the right-wing Jews' campaign. Thus that campaign has had its first big success--but instead of getting rid of a Palestinian professor, they've gotten rid of a Jewish one.

UCI has been described as a place where rocks are thrown at Jews, swastikas painted on campus buildings and Hamas slogans displayed at a commencement ceremony. These charges have been disseminated widely--not only in the Jewish press, including the Jerusalem Post, but also in such mainstream media outlets as Fox News, where Bill O'Reilly featured the Hamas commencement story. And they were listed in a formal complaint filed by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) with the US Office of Civil Rights (OCR), arguing that Jewish students at UCI were the target of harassment and that the university had failed to protect them from anti-Semitic acts.

The OCR exonerated the UCI administration in a report issued in November. You might think that would have been the end of it, but the report only escalated the ZOA claims of Jewish victimization and its campaign against UCI. Three Republican senators--Arlen Specter, Sam Brownback and assistant minority leader Jon Kyl--and five members of Congress recently expressed "concern regarding anti-Semitic incidents aimed at Jewish students" at UCI and complained about the OCR report.

The OCR issued its report after federal investigators visited the campus eleven times to monitor demonstrations and interview students and staff. Stone-throwing at Jews? The ZOA complaint listed one stone thrown at one Jew in 2004. Swastikas on campus? The ZOA complaint listed one swastika found in a men's room toilet stall--with Bitch Ass Asians written underneath. "The campus police investigated the incident immediately," the OCR found, "but were unable to determine the culprit or the motive." The swastika was promptly removed. And the "violently anti-Semitic" commencement where Muslim students displayed "Hamas slogans"? At the 2004 commencement some Muslim students wore green stoles over their gowns that contained Arabic script. The script, according to faculty members who read Arabic, spelled out the creed recited daily by all devout Muslims, "There is no god but God"--the equivalent of the Jewish "Shema Yisrael" ("The Lord is One").

After the OCR concluded that there was "insufficient evidence" that the UCI administration had failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, an off-campus, ad hoc Jewish group issued its own report in February. It urged Jewish students "with a strong Jewish identity" to leave UCI and newly admitted students not to enroll.

And then there's Daniel Schroeter, an internationally recognized scholar of Moroccan Jewish history who was appointed to UCI's Teller Family Chair in Jewish history fourteen years ago. Recently he's been denounced not for anything he said but for not taking a public position in favor of the ZOA campaign. Part of the problem, apparently, was that he worked on a program promoting campus dialogue between Muslims and Jews, and he brought to the campus Muzammil Siddiqi--a Muslim scholar who often speaks to Jewish groups. Siddiqi, who received an award in 1999 from the National Council of Christians and Jews, was invited by George W. Bush in September 2001 to participate in the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance at Washington National Cathedral. Nevertheless, Schroeter was condemned by some local Jewish activists for bringing to campus someone with "connections to terrorists." Clearly feeling the pressure, Schroeter decided to accept an offer from the University of Minnesota. Cheaper real estate and a bigger Jewish studies program were factors, but Minnesota is also a place where the Jewish studies faculty have not been targeted or harassed by right-wing Zionists.

It's true that the campus has an active Muslim Students Union, which sponsors Zionist Awareness Week, during which speakers denounce Israeli treatment of Palestinians and have shouted "Death to Israel!" It also sponsored an event titled "Holocaust in the Holy Land" and had a torn Israeli flag marked with what appeared to be blood. One speaker at Zionist Awareness Week in 2006, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, said, "The Zionist Jews own Fox News.... They got the CIA. They got the media. They got Congress."

The ZOA complaint argued that Zionist Awareness Week created a "hostile environment" for Jewish students. The university's position has been that the Muslim Students Union has a free speech right to make these statements as long as it does not target individuals. And of course the Jewish students have a right to hold their own rallies and put up their own signs.

The statement by the three senators criticizing the OCR for exonerating Irvine appears to have a broader legislative purpose. Their letter, addressed to Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, whose department oversees the OCR, argued that Jews are a protected group under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a clear endorsement of the ZOA position that Jews have the same right under that law to federal protection from anti-Semitism that blacks have to protection from racism.

The ZOA, which claims a national membership of 50,000, is a militant defender of Israeli settlement of the West Bank and regularly targets liberal Jews and others who criticize that policy. The lead item on its website in April attacked the Harvard Hillel for sponsoring a Breaking the Silence tour, in which Israeli soldiers who have served in the territories speak out against Israeli policy, describe their actions in the territories and talk about "what being part of an occupying army does to the occupier" [see Eyal Press, "Israeli Army Vets Speak Out," The Nation online, March 1]. ZOA head Morton Klein said the exhibit sponsored by the Harvard Hillel "incites hatred of Israel, violates the Jewish law of not bearing false witness, and plays into the hands of Israel's enemies."

In the most recent round of this battle, the ZOA condemned the national Hillel summit in March for inviting UCI chancellor Michael Drake to speak on the university and anti-Semitism. That criticism was featured in a widely read story in the Jerusalem Post. At the conference Drake condemned anti-Semitism but defended the principle that the university should remain "content neutral" and refrain from regulating student speech. The ZOA has demanded that Drake not only condemn anti-Semitism in general but also denounce specific anti-Semitic statements made by campus speakers.

After Drake's appearance at the Hillel summit, leaders of four Jewish student organizations at UCI issued a statement saying they "strongly supported" the chancellor and declared that while "verbal anti-Semitism...unfortunately continues to exist on campus," Jewish student life was prospering, with more than100 students attending Hillel's weekly Shabbat dinners and seventy-one joining the Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi.

For a while it looked like the campaign may have gone too far. The report that called on Jewish students to shun UCI attacked the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Orange County Jewish Federation and Hillel for "complicity" with UCI in failing to protect Jewish students. But the ZOA claimed a crucial victory in early June when it announced that the OCR would open a new investigation of anti-Semitism at UCI, focusing on Muslim Students Union activities in May 2007. A triumphant ZOA declared that if UCI is found to have failed to protect Jewish students' rights, the entire campus "can lose its federal funding."

3 My response to Professor Wiener's article, which I posted in Red County:

I don't know anything about Wiener, but after reading his article in the Nation, I suspect that he is approaching this issue from a liberal, politically-correct perspective.

Often a writer's language gives away their agenda, and Johnathan has hit the nail on the head in pointing this out. Using terms like "Right-wing Zionists" and identifying concerned senators as "Republicans" is illustrative.

Does Wiener really think that all of us who object to the MSU and their speakers are "Right-wing Zionists-or even Zionists"? Does he really want to split legal hairs in defining which groups are entitled to protection from acts of hate? In my view, all groups should be protected equally. Unfortunately, for many liberals, it all boils down to who the victim is and who the offender is. Certain victims and certain offenders do not fit into their liberal agenda.

Wiener mocks reports of swastikas and rock throwing, yet concedes one example of each. Is he aware of the recent caricature of Ariel Sharon shown on the MSU mock Israeli wall? Is he aware of the recent reported incident where a Jewish student was allegedly followed to her car by MSU males and surrounded after filming a Malik Ali speech? Maybe Wiener would like to hear from Jonathan or Reut Cohen regarding their experiences in filming MSU events.

This reminds me a bit of the Jamiel Shaw case in LA where an innocent young black high schooler was shot down for no reason. The defendant is an illegal alien gang member who had just been released from jail without his immigration status being checked. Yet, when the Shaws turned to the city in an effort to have LA's Special Rule 40 amended to allow cops to pro-actively remove illegal alien gang members from the streets, they were met with nothing but opposition. Even black activists have refused to take the Shaw's side since it doesn't fit into their liberal agenda.

In the case of Wiener, I suspect that his position on anti-Semitism at UCI being fomented by the MSU and their speakers is formed by his political agenda.

To paraphrase Wiener's own words, I know the problem at UCI is real. I teach here too.

Gary Fouse
adjunct teacher
UCI-Ext


4 Then there is this exchange between newly-hired UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinski and Marlo Jo Fisher, Orange County Register reporter on the question of anti-Semitism at UCI. (OC Register 6-29-08- courtesy of Red County blog)

Q. Some Jewish people have described UCI as "the most anti-Semitic campus in America." You are Jewish. What do you think about that?

A. This is something I looked at very closely. I think it's a misapprehension. There was a letter written by students at several Jewish organizations on campus talking about the wonderful Jewish student life here. As a Jew, I have never seen the slightest evidence of anti-Semitism on campus.

There have been some speeches on campus against Israel that crossed over into anti-Semitic speech. But a university has to be a forum for all ideas, even if we don't agree with them.

Q. If your children were raised Jewish, would you send them to UCI?

A. My children have been raised Jewish; there's a picture of my son's recent bar mitzvah right there (he points). If I had any trepidation at all on this point, I would not have accepted a job here. If I had the slightest concern, I would not have come.

Comment: This is an interesting observation from the noted liberal law professor about his observations at UCI since he is a new hire, having spent recent years at Duke University. At present, Chemerinski is just moving in to his new office space at UCI, with the law school scheduled to open in 2009. My question: what makes him an expert on the situation at UCI?

UCI is fully aware that the school has a nation-wide reputation for radical activity by the MSU and anti-Semitic expression. If the university wants to engage in PR, then perhaps they can explain why they provide a platform for hate mongers like Musa and Malik Ali to spout their anti-Jewish venom at UCI. Of course, their defense is "Free Speech". No one has been arrested for their vile words at UCI (and I am not advocating that they should be). Yet, it seems to me that a self-respecting university would tell the MSU to move their speakers to some city park.

Chancellor Michael Drake recently stated in a meeting with Hillel (a national Jewish campus organization) in Washington that "there was no room for hate speech at UCI". That statement does not square with the vile words uttered on UCI's campus for the past several years by characters such as Ali, Musa and others.

Wesley Clark's "Clarification"

Wesley Clark "clarifying" his remarks on John McCain
(OK, it's not really Wesley Clark, but you get the point.)


In response to the flap resulting from Wesley Clark's dismissive remarks over John McCain's military service over the weekend, the retired general is now "clarifying" his comments. Actually, he is digging himself a deeper hole.

While not apologizing to McCain, Clark is now denying that he was being derogatory in any way toward the Arizona senator's war record. Today on "Good Morning America", Clark stated that he was merely trying to make the case that Obama has the judgement necessary to be president as compared to McCain.

Judgement?

General Clark, are you talking about the judgement that allowed Obama to spend 20 years in a church listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright?

Or perhaps you mean the judgement that allowed Obama to maintain a 20 year relationship with Father Michael Pfleger, the radical priest. Or the judgement that led Obama to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in government funds for Pfleger's projects.

Maybe you are referring to the judgement that led Obama into a political relationship with William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn, two ex-Weather Underground members who remain unapologetic about their past terrorist activities.

Or perhaps you are referring to the judgement that led Obama into a years-long financial relationship with now-convicted racketeer Tony Rezko.

Judgement?

As I stated before, General Clark will get no criticism from me when it comes to his military career. Unfortunately, since retiring, Clark has become a pathetic political hack, first doing the bidding of the Clintons and now Obama. In doing so, he has disrespected the courageous military service of McCain, who was a lower-ranking officer.

McCain, as his his wont, has chosen to remain above the fray and not lash back. As of now, it seems that Bob Dole has taken the lead among Republicans with his public condemnation of Clark's remarks. (Where are the voices of the other Republicans?)

Wesley Clark is an embarrassment, a political climber who still sees himself as a future president riding on the coattails of whomever will carry him to the next step up the ladder. In trying to extricate himself from this latest statement (an act of poor JUDGEMENT), Clark is only digging himself deeper.