The below article appeared today in the Orange County Register (11-3-08). It was written by Register reporter Marla Jo Fisher, who has been following the on-going controversy at UC-Irvine between Muslim and Jewish students. Specifically, her article concerns a 2-week trip taken by 15 UCI students, Jewish and Muslim, to Israel in September. Last week, they reported on their experiences to a packed hall at the UCI campus.
Jewish and Muslim UCI students come together
MORNING READ: Students on both sides of issue trek to Israel to investigate first-hand what they've been arguing about.
By MARLA JO FISHER
The Orange County Register
"IRVINE: It was a trip people said could never happen.
Jewish and Muslim student leaders from UC Irvine, whose feud over Israelis and Palestinians has sparked national headlines and even a federal probe, set aside personal misgivings and the lack of any official sanction to explore together the issues over which they'd been sparring.
"It was so profound and so eye-opening, I can't even put it into words," said Sepi Termechi, a UCI student leader with the Jewish group Hillel, in a short video students produced about the trip.
Flying, driving, sleeping and eating together throughout Israel and the Palestinian territories, the 15 Irvine students met people whose children had been killed by Islamic suicide bombers – and those whose children were slain by Israeli snipers.
They heard from politicians, taxi drivers and people in the street.
And, as they told a full-house crowd of 450 at UCI's Crystal Cove auditorium last month, they returned with a new take on an argument they thought they knew well.
"I learned it was OK to disagree and it was OK to not have the same viewpoint as everyone else, said Sameera Ali, a UCI senior who belongs to the Muslim Student Union.
"And you can still have a discussion and not hate each other."
Bad reputation
Muslim and Jewish students have clashed at UCI for years about the Israeli government and the way it has dealt with Palestinians. While similar clashes have taken place at campuses around the nation - and controversial speakers on both sides of the issue have stirred tempers - UCI has gained a reputation in the blogosphere as one of the nation's most anti-Semitic campuses.
Officials at UCI deny this, as have students on both sides of the question. But frictions remain.
Outside groups with their own agendas have added fuel to the fire, culminating in a federal investigation that found no wrongdoing on the part of UCI officials, but remains a sore spot for some Jewish observers.
And the atmosphere has only fueled tension between campus student groups.
Carter sparks idea
The idea for an Israel trip was sparked in May 2007 by ex-president Jimmy Carter, who came to UCI to talk about his controversial new book on Israel and the Palestinians.
During his standing-room-only speech at the Bren Center, Carter challenged feuding students to go see the situation first-hand. He even promised to find them the money to go.
After the speech, some students immediately began discussing how they could take such a trip, but decided against accepting Carter's money. His positions on Palestinians had angered supporters of Israel, potentially making any trip sponsored by his foundation seem politically motivated.
Instead, the students decided to raise the money on their own.
However, they were disappointed when the University of California - citing a U.S. State Dept. warning against travel to Israel's West Bank and other territories - declined to offer money or any official sanction for the trip.
And that turned out to be a good thing, says graduate student and Middle East expert Daniel Wehrenfennig, who helped organize the project.
Without UC money, Wehrenfennig says, students had to turn to their own communities to raise the $60,000 they needed - and that including making requests of polarized groups that opposed each other politically.
Students come together
Campus activists from both sides of the Palestinian issue, who angrily faced each other down at annual events such as UCI's Zionism Awareness Week, sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, were invited to come along.
Some were initially loathe to participate.
"We called them out and said, 'You're so passionate to defend your position, but you have not really been there'," Wehrenfennig said. Even students who had been to Israel, he said, had not seen both sides of the issue.
Wehrenfennig, a doctoral student from Germany, used contacts from some of the 100 interviews he's conducted in Israel to help the students design an agenda. He also accepted suggestions from friends and supporters here.
As they planned the trek, Wehrenfennig said he saw loud, showy antagonists begin to show something new - mutual respect.
While the political demonstrations remained as controversial and strident as ever, he said they would end with students involved on opposite sides shaking hands and talking.
"The way things were before, they would scream at each other and go away, but would not engage," he said.
"There was no communication between the groups."
The full tour
For two weeks in September 15 UCI students from a variety of groups, and students of the Middle East, toured Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Bethlehem, Hebron, Qalqilyah, Nazareth, Ramallah and Haifa.
Accompanied by Professor Paula Garb and UCI Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez, who asked to come along as an observer, they visited mosques, churches, synagogues, checkpoints, terror victim burial sites and refugee camps. The group met with Holocaust survivors, negotiators, business people, soldiers and politicians.
Last month, the group made its first public appearance to talk about the trip. Their audience included UCI Chancellor Michael Drake, Irvine Mayor Beth Krom and philanthropist Susan Samueli.
Gomez said his proudest moment came when Ron Nachman, the mayor of Ariel, one of the largest Israeli settlements on the West Bank, told the students what he thought of them.
"He looked us over and said, 'I'm impressed with you guys,' " Gomez said. " 'I invited (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice here and she was afraid to come.
"You guys," he added, "were not afraid.'"
My response dated the same date (November 3, 2008)
"As one who has been teaching part-time at UCI for 10 years, it is a hopeful
sign if the Muslim and Jewish students who took a trip to Israel have come back with
greater understanding of both sides of the issue. I do take issue, however with
some of Marla Jo Fisher's comments in her article of November 3, 2008.
Ms Fisher states that "UCI has gained a reputation in the blogosphere as one of
the nation's most anti-Semitic campuses." She goes on to state "that outside
groups with their own agendas have added fuel to the fire."
It should be stated that 99% of the students at UCI are not involved in the
controversy whatsoever and are certainly not anti-Semitic. The problem is that
the Muslim Student Union, for years, has been bringing in virulently
anti-Semitic, anti-America, anti-Israel and, yes, anti-Jewish speakers to the
UCI campus on a regular basis who engage in what could only be called hate
speech. That is what has brought UCI its dubious reputation. Let me offer a
couple of examples:
Amir Abdel Malik Ali is an Oakland-based imam who regularly speaks at UCI. He
openly calls suicide bombers in Israel "heroes and martyrs".
Mohammed al-Asi is a Washington DC-based imam who has appeared on more than one
occasion at UCI. On one occasion at UCI, he stated, "Jews are low-life
ghetto-dwellers" and, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can't
take the ghetto out of the Jew."
In addition to the Israel and Jew-bashing, these speakers regularly condemn
everything about America.
All of which is conveniently ignored by Ms Fisher as she blames "outside groups
with their own agenda" for fanning the flames."
Well, I am not an outsider. I work (part-time) at UCI, and my "agenda" is
standing up to and reporting on the hate speech that is brought to UCI by a
small minority of students and their speakers. I have personally heard the
words of these radical haters sponsored by the Muslim Student Union. I have
spoken out in the school newspaper, the UCI EEO office and the Orange County
Human Rights Commission, the latter of which was a complete waste of time.
As stated above, I welcome any endeavor that will bridge the gap between our
Muslim and Jewish students over the Israel-Palestinian issue. The real test of this trip will be the next time the MSU hosts a week of speakers on campus. If the same speakers and the same rhetoric comes back, then what will it have accomplished?"
Gary Fouse
At this point, I don't know if the Register will print my reply. It seems that Ms Fisher has her own agenda, which is to pooh-pooh the idea that there is anti-Semitism at the campus on the part of the MSU. She also seems to be a supporter of the university administration, which has been severely criticized for their unwillingness to condemn the hate speech by MSU speakers. Notice also that there was gratuitous slap at Condoleeza Rice as Fisher quoted Vice Chancellor Manuel Gomez, who in turn quoted the mayor of the town of Ariel (an Israeli settlement on the West Bank), "I invited US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice here, and she was afraid to come. You guys were not afraid".
Of course, Ms Fisher conveniently failed to mention that a US Secretary of State might be reluctant to visit an Israeli settlement in the West Bank because of the diplomatic message it might send. That would be a consideration that visiting university students would not be concerned about.
Finally, Ms Fisher appears to be very selective in choosing her sources for information. For example, she has brushed off the Independent Task Force on Anti-Semitism, whose findings are apparently contrary to her own. Why would a reporter trying to get the facts not get input from all interested sides?
As I stated in my response to the OC Register, I hope that this visit to Israel will lead to greater understanding between Jewish and Muslim students on campus. The proof of the pudding, however will be the next MSU-sponsored week of events on the campus. If it's the same speakers with the same rhetoric, then the trip will have failed to achieve its purpose.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Carona Trial-From "America's Sheriff" to "The Little Sheriff"
"The Little Sheriff"
Thank God, former Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona decided not to plead guilty to federal corruption charges. As a result, Orange County residents will get a daily dose of just how ridiculous this guy was.
Friday's testimony by Lisa Jaramillo was highlighted by a new figure in the trial; "The Little Sheriff" (Mike Carona's penis). Seems that Mike, who we now know was using his office to score more than money, liked to refer to his male organ as, "The Little Sheriff". In fact, so proud was he of his junior partner, that he sent a couple of birthday cards to Lisa (which were shown to the jury by Prosecutor Ken Julian.) In one of the cards, Sheriff Mike asked Jaramillo (the wife of his asst Sheriff, George Jaramillo), if she wore "butt-floss-style panties". In both of the cards in question, Mike signed them with his own name, those of his family and "The Little Sheriff".
At one point, Lisa broke down on the stand, turned to Debbie Carona (a co-defendant) and said, "I know I wasn't a very good friend."
Of course, it has already come out that Sheriff Mike was having sex with another co-conspirator, Debra Hoffman and Lisa's sister, Erica Hill.
And to top it all off, Judge Andrew Guilford, at one point, asked the attorneys (who were arguing for exclusion of testimony regarding the affairs with Hoffman and Hill), "I didn't hear a motion to strike 'The Little Sheriff'".
With this trial expected to go a couple of months, this should keep Angels' fans entertained until another baseball season begins. As for the lack of NFL football in Southern California-who cares? We have the Carona trial.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Obama Has Aunt Living in US-Illegally
Zeituni Onyango
"I am my brother's keeper (but not my half-brother or my aunt)."
Just as you thought this election couldn't get any more bizarre, now it has been revealed that Barack Obama (who talks about being his brother's keeper) has an aunt living in public housing in Boston and who is in the country illegally.
The aunt, Zeituni Onyango, is the half-sister of Obama's deceased father. Obama referred to her as "Auntie Zeituni" in his book, "Dreams from my father". She is Kenyan and was ordered to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge.
Well, orders shmorders.
Today, Onyango sits in a Boston public housing project in a building for disabled persons, apparently living in some degree of poverty-and apparently being ignored by Obama.
The Obama campaign is saying that Obama was unaware of her status and believes the law should be fully applied. Apparently, Onyango had contributed $260.00 to Obama's campaign, which is being returned, according to an Obama spokesperson. It has also been reported that Onyango attended Obama's swearing-in ceremony as US Senator.
So how should the public react to this? On the one hand, this adds to the hypocrisy of Obama talking about being "his brother's keeper" and deriding those who object to his redistribution plans as being "selfish". We had already known that Obama had a half-brother in Kenya living in a tin shack outside Nairobi. What has Obama done for him? Moreover, I would like to know what Obama has done to help his aunt regularize her status with Immigration authorities?
On the other hand, what should we expect from Obama in securing our borders when he has an aunt who herself is an illegal alien? If Obama has not done anything to help his aunt normalize her status here, has he turned a blind eye to her being here illegally?
With so many skeletens that have crawled out of Obama's closet, one must ask-how many more are there? At what point do voters conclude that enough is enough. At what point do the American people wake up and realize that Barack Obama is about to pull off the greatest con job in American history?
A Message From Radarsite
I am cross-posting the below essay by Roger Gardner, my colleague at Radarsite, in its entirety. It also includes a couple of articles I think merit strong consideration.
A message from Radarsite:
"Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsoever. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous.
However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this:
It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable.
Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision.
This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama." - rg
Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video
From Reuters
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.
The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.
Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.
Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.
But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.
"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.
In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.
Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."
Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.
In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.
SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."
(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)
(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives
1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:
Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)
2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:
"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."
Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is
bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007
"A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan.
It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.
Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.
To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur." rg
Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08
A message from Radarsite:
"Is there some subtle distinction between the 'persuadables' and the 'undecideds'? If so, I guess I am not politically astute enough to discern it. However I will say this: if two days before this fateful election you are truly undecided, I find this utterly incomprehensible. Where in the world have you been? What more would it take to move you? If at this late date you are still undecided this means you have remained untouched by the enormous accumulative weight of all of those infamous Obama scandals. All of Reverend Wright's 'Goddam Americas', all of the sinister implications of Obama's Ayers/Weathermen associations, Obama's outrageously cynical manipulations of our troop withdrawal timetables in Iraq, the Rezko scandals, the 'New Party' scandals, his radical African connections, and on and on and on -- none of this had any effect on you whatsoever. You still remain undecided. To me this is incredulous.
However, the purpose of this essay -- this final essay -- is not to admonish you, but to appeal to you. And yet if none of the above outrages have moved you from your adamant indecision, what can I possibly bring up here that would do the trick? There is I believe one last argument, one final outrage that just might do it. And it is this:
It is inarguable that our American troops are fighting and dying on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and even occasionally Pakistan. They are fighting our sworn enemies, enemies who go by multiple names but who are essentially the same people driven by the same bloodthirsty ideology -- Al Qaeda, the Taliban. etc. Whether or not you may have approved of these original military decisions is a moot point: our troops are there and the battles rage on. And our enemies have clearly defined themselves and their goals. They are not undecided, they are not persuadable.
Now I don't know about you but if I found out that our enemy's goals were endorsed and promoted by one of our presidential candidates, if I discovered that our enemy's most respected leaders were calling for the destruction of the opposition party, the Republicans, it would most certainly give me pause. In fact I would find it highly embarrassing to say the least. How could I possibly support a candidate who was enthusiastically supported by our enemies, a candidate whose stated foreign policies would work to their advantage? These facts alone would obliterate my indecision.
This then is my final plea. Please read the following two articles and decide for yourselves how you could in good conscience vote for Barack Hussein Obama." - rg
Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush "humiliated": Web video
From Reuters
Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:15pm EDT
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda leader has called for President George W. Bush and the Republicans to be "humiliated," without endorsing a party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, according to an Internet video posting.
"O God, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him," Abu Yahya al-Libi said at the end of sermon marking the Muslim feast of Eid al-Fitr, in a video posted on the Internet.
Libi, a top al Qaeda commander believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, called for God's wrath to be brought against Bush equating him with past tyrants in history.
The remarks were the first from a leading al Qaeda figure referring, albeit indirectly, to the U.S. elections. Muslim clerics often end sermons by calling on God to guide and support Muslims and help defeat their enemies.
Terrorism monitor SITE Intelligence Group said in a report on Wednesday that militants on al Qaeda-linked websites have for months been debating the significance of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain.
Some posters have also argued over the merits of trying to attack the United States before the election or waiting until later, the report said.
But SITE said it did not expect al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden or deputy Ayman al-Zawahri to openly favor a candidate.
"To support a particular candidate would debase al-Qaeda's long-standing argument that the United States government is a corrupt institution no matter who is at the helm," SITE director Rita Katz said in the group's November newsletter.
In 2004 bin Laden issued his first video in more than a year just days before the U.S. elections. It derided Bush and warned of possible new September 11-style attacks.
Bin Laden made little mention of Bush's Democratic challenger, John Kerry, telling Americans: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."
Kerry has attributed his loss in part to the video's high-profile reminder of the terrorism issue.
In 2006, after Democrats captured Congress, Zawahri issued an audio message saying all Americans remained al Qaeda's enemies regardless of party, SITE said.
SITE said militant postings on al Qaeda-linked websites typically discuss Obama in terms of his race, or his religion and foreign policy. Some forecast a racial crisis dividing the United States if he wins. Others say his planned phased withdrawal from Iraq would be a boon to al Qaeda's affiliate and give it a base for Middle East expansion.
Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been portrayed as likely to allow "the continuation of Republican control and aggressive policies toward the Islamic world."
(Additional reporting by Randall Mikkelsen in Washington; editing by Chris Wilson)
(dubai.newsroom@reuters.com)Obama on Iraq: Two Disturbing Alternatives
1. The Terrorists On The Importance Of Iraq:
Osama Bin Laden: Baghdad Is "The Capital Of The Caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Most Important And Serious Issue Today For The Whole World Is This Third World War … Raging In [Iraq]." BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "This Is A War Of Destiny Between Infidelity And Islam." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04)
Bin Laden: "The Whole World Is Watching This War And The Two Adversaries; The Islamic Nation, On The One Hand, And The United States And Its Allies On The Other. It Is Either Victory And Glory Or Misery And Humiliation." (Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04
Ayman al-Zawahiri: We Must "Establish An Islamic Authority … Over As Much Territory As You Can To Spread Its Power In Iraq … [And] Extend The Jihad Wave To The Secular Countries Neighboring Iraq." ZAWAHIRI: "So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity." (Complete Text Of Al-Zawahiri Letter To Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05, Available At: http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20051011_release.htm, Accessed 9/5/06)
Bin Laden: "The War Is For You Or For Us To Win. If We Win It, It Means Your Defeat And Disgrace Forever." BIN LADEN: "Finally, I would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help." (Bin Laden Threatens New Operations, Offers 'Long-Term Truce,' Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)
2. Barack Hussein Obama on Iraq War:
"Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed."
Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is
bringing security to Iraq?
A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That's why I'm going to bring this war to a close. That's why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that's only compared to earlier this year. We're back to where we started back in 2006.
Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007
Q: If you get us out of Iraq and somehow al Qaeda takes over anyway, what will you do then?
A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn't have been in Iraq. We're here now. And we've got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we're going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don't have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we've got to make sure that they don't establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that's where we've got to focus.
Source: 2007 AFL-CIO Democratic primary forum Aug 8,2007
"A short message from Radarsite: Anyone who has read the captured correspondence of the Al-Qaeda leaders concerning the importance that they attach to Iraq, and the central role that Iraq plays in their scheme for a world-wide Caliphate knows how delighted they would be if we followed the advice of Barrack Hussein Obama, and shifted our focus and resources from the oil-rich center of gravity in Iraq, the universally acknowledged keystone to the Middle East, to the mountainous wastelands of Afghanistan.
It is the opinion of this writer, that if we abandoned the Land of the Two Rivers to the enemy now, the long-term strategic consequences of this monumental blunder for our GWOT would be nothing less than disastrous. The idea that we could somehow return to the area if it at some point in the future it became infested with Al-Qaeda is at best naive and ludicrous, and at worst naggingly suspect.
Nothing would suit our enemies in Iraq better than a publicly proclaimed schedule of withdrawal of our troops and their eventual complete pullout.
To this particular observer the absurdity of this plan, which so obviously plays into our enemy's game presents us with one of two troubling alternatives: Either it was purposely designed to enhance the chances for our defeat in this crucial region of the Middle East and enhance the capabilities of our sworn Al-Qaeda enemies, or it is the dangerously delusional bumblings of a hopeless amateur." rg
Original Radarsite article published 2/27/08
Ohio Update - Joe the Plumber
The below article was published by stoptheaclu.com on November 1, and has been cross-posted by several other blogs. This gives updated information on the situation in Ohio involving state authorities doing official background checks on Sauel Joseph Wurzelbacher, better know as Joe the Plumber.
"As DrewM points out at Ace of Spades HQ, Team McCain needs to have an ad out on this in Ohio. Heck, they should put together a national ad, showing what life would be like under an Obama presidency, where, if you disagree, you will be investigated."
"Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case. Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American. The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance. Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
First of all, as has been said many times, isn’t this grounds for a criminal investigation of Jones-Kelley? Unauthorized access to personal records? Second, isn’t this a violation of the code of conduct for Ohio employees? I work for a really, really big company, and it would be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. And I have seen this in action. Not against me, but, other employees. This goes for other companies, as well. Of the employees involved, the only ones not terminated were those who owned up to it."
Fousesquawk comment: As I have said before in my posting, "What about the civil rights of Joe the Plumber" (Oct 30), this Obama's constant calls of "Change" a joke. If you think Obama is going to bring integrity to Washington, this is an example of why he won't. I ask you Democrats out there; do you think this is right?
"As DrewM points out at Ace of Spades HQ, Team McCain needs to have an ad out on this in Ohio. Heck, they should put together a national ad, showing what life would be like under an Obama presidency, where, if you disagree, you will be investigated."
"Vanessa Niekamp said that when she was asked to run a child-support check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher on Oct. 16, she thought it routine. A supervisor told her the man had contacted the state agency about his case. Niekamp didn’t know she just had checked on “Joe the Plumber,” who was elevated the night before to presidential politics prominence as Republican John McCain’s example in a debate of an average American. The senior manager would not learn about “Joe” for another week, when she said her boss informed her and directed her to write an e-mail stating her computer check was a legitimate inquiry.
The reason Niekamp said she was given for checking if there was a child-support case on Wurzelbacher does not match the reason given by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Director Helen Jones-Kelley said her agency checks people who are “thrust into the public spotlight,” amid suggestions they may have come into money, to see if they owe support or are receiving undeserved public assistance. Niekamp told The Dispatch she is unfamiliar with the practice of checking on the newly famous. “I’ve never done that before, I don’t know of anybody in my office who does that and I don’t remember anyone ever doing that,” she said today.
First of all, as has been said many times, isn’t this grounds for a criminal investigation of Jones-Kelley? Unauthorized access to personal records? Second, isn’t this a violation of the code of conduct for Ohio employees? I work for a really, really big company, and it would be grounds for discipline up to and including termination. And I have seen this in action. Not against me, but, other employees. This goes for other companies, as well. Of the employees involved, the only ones not terminated were those who owned up to it."
Fousesquawk comment: As I have said before in my posting, "What about the civil rights of Joe the Plumber" (Oct 30), this Obama's constant calls of "Change" a joke. If you think Obama is going to bring integrity to Washington, this is an example of why he won't. I ask you Democrats out there; do you think this is right?
Selfishness and Neighborliness in Obama's World
"John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic," You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
-Barack Obama in Sarasota, Florida, Thursday in defense of his so-called “spread the wealth” tax policies.
Hold on there, Mr Obama. You are making a fundamental error here when you are describing the selfishness of people vis-a-vis your term of "neighborliness".
The American people are not selfish, Mr Obama. We are the most generous people on the face of the earth. When disasters like Katrina or the tsunami in Indonesia occur, we are there before anybody. Our troops were on the ground in Indonesia distributing supplies while the useless UN was holding staff meetings in Tokyo trying to figure out what to do. The American public donated food and money-even while some bureaucrat at the UN was calling us selfish too.
But more to the point. When it comes to charitable giving, we have nothing to be ashamed of. The disclosure of your and Joe Biden's charitable giving, on the other hand, seems modest even when compared to everyday people. You have also said that, "I am my brother's keeper." Yet, you have a half-brother living in poverty in Kenya and now we learn of one of your aunts living in poverty in Boston. What have you done for them, Sir? (Yes, it's true. The woman, Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's father, is living in public housing in Boston-even though she is in the country illegally and was ordered to leave the country 4 years ago.)
But to the main point. Charity to others should be a private concern. Why does the government have to mandate our assistance to others through higher taxes and "spreading the wealth around", to use your own words? We are perfectly prepared to having our government render assistance to others in time of disaster. But we resent being called "selfish" when we expect to keep a little more of our hard-earned money rather than see government take it and distribute it to others who have not earned it.
Americans are the most neighborly people in the world. However, if you think that means the government should take charge and ensure our neighborliness, then you are talking about something entirely different.
And what you are talking about may very well cost you the election.
-Barack Obama in Sarasota, Florida, Thursday in defense of his so-called “spread the wealth” tax policies.
Hold on there, Mr Obama. You are making a fundamental error here when you are describing the selfishness of people vis-a-vis your term of "neighborliness".
The American people are not selfish, Mr Obama. We are the most generous people on the face of the earth. When disasters like Katrina or the tsunami in Indonesia occur, we are there before anybody. Our troops were on the ground in Indonesia distributing supplies while the useless UN was holding staff meetings in Tokyo trying to figure out what to do. The American public donated food and money-even while some bureaucrat at the UN was calling us selfish too.
But more to the point. When it comes to charitable giving, we have nothing to be ashamed of. The disclosure of your and Joe Biden's charitable giving, on the other hand, seems modest even when compared to everyday people. You have also said that, "I am my brother's keeper." Yet, you have a half-brother living in poverty in Kenya and now we learn of one of your aunts living in poverty in Boston. What have you done for them, Sir? (Yes, it's true. The woman, Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama's father, is living in public housing in Boston-even though she is in the country illegally and was ordered to leave the country 4 years ago.)
But to the main point. Charity to others should be a private concern. Why does the government have to mandate our assistance to others through higher taxes and "spreading the wealth around", to use your own words? We are perfectly prepared to having our government render assistance to others in time of disaster. But we resent being called "selfish" when we expect to keep a little more of our hard-earned money rather than see government take it and distribute it to others who have not earned it.
Americans are the most neighborly people in the world. However, if you think that means the government should take charge and ensure our neighborliness, then you are talking about something entirely different.
And what you are talking about may very well cost you the election.
A Reply to FJ
"You suck, Fousesquawk!!"
Sorry FJ, I published your retort, but I have no idea which thread you sent it under. Now I can't find it, so rather than go through my 700 plus essays (which you apparently did), I'll just give you the honor of a complete post, how's that?
FJ, in a comment said that he had been following the comments section of my blog (probably my back and forths with Lance and Bryan). For some reason, he takes exception to my use of the word, illuminati vs luminati, which might have been a semantic error on my part. He also objected to my calling Paul Krugman, ("one of the world's greatest economists") a worm. FJ goes on to say that I come across as a teenager and to "keep up the good work".
Did I get it all right?
Keep those cards and letters coming, FJ. Believe it or not, this is a site that welcomes disagreements. I may be a little sophmoric at times in my efforts to inject a little humor into a subject, but unfortunately for me, my teenage years ended some 45 years ago.
As for Mr Krugman, he may well be the world's greatest economist. I didn't attack him as an economist. I attacked him because he, as a political columnist, has attacked a lot of other people. He now opens himself up to retorts. When Paul Krugman comes face to face with one of those he has attacked, yes, like the ever-effervescent Bill O'Reilly, he acts like a worm. I described his actions when he was confronted by O'Reilly. He loves to dish it out behind his typewriter, I mean word processor, but he shrivels up like a worm in a heat wave when he has to go face to face with those he attacks.
Yes, Paul Krugman is a worm.
As for the luminati/illuminati exchange, you must be an expert at finding needles in haystacks. Inept as I am at the computer, I can't even find your comment now that I've published it.
Last comment: I hope you at least clicked a few of those ads while you were scouring through all my comment pages. Keep up the good work.
What If.............McCain Wins?
McCain Wins!!!
"Hey, look up there. Isn't that King Kong?"
"Nah. That's Keith Olbermann"
I may be whistling Dixie here, but what if John McCain wins Tuesday?
What will the Mainstream media say? For example, Chris Matthews, who has all but implied that he wants to have Barack Obama's baby, might break down and cry on national television instead of screaming hurray, like he did in the 2006 Congressional elections when hearing another Democrat had won.
Will the New York Times shut down?
Will Keith Olbermann finally go over the edge and take hostages?
Think of all the angry e-mails CNN's Jack Cafferty will be reading on The Situation Room. And poor Wolf Blitzer will be so discombobulated, he won't know what to say.
What will be the reaction in Hollywood? Will there be air traffic congestion over the skies of LA as half of the "stars" in Tinseltown leave the country-never to return?
And what will Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger tell their Sunday congregations?
And think of all the unrest in our universities as outraged professors lead outraged students on mass demonstrations.
And what about our European allies? Will they be in shock and scold us for not electing "The One"?
Will the Democratic Party cry foul and charge "voter intimidation" because a few thousand ACORN registrations were disqualified? Will Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi call for a congressional investigation of how McCain could win when all the polls said Obama was ahead?
Will they all blame it on the "Right-wing smear merchants" and bloggers?
Who knows what will happen if Mccain wins. However, if the odds are correct, I guess I won't see all that outrage from the left. Pity.
But wouldn't it be great?
The Mike Carona Trial Begins
Ex-"America's Sheriff" Mike Carona and his wife arriving at the courthouse
"Why is this man smiling?
This week, testimony began in the long-awaited federal trial in Santa Ana, California of ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who was once dubbed, "America's Sheriff" by Larry King On Life Support. Now Carona, his wife and ex-mistress stand accused of engaging in official corruption during Carona's 9-year term in office.
Friday, jurors heard the testimony of Lisa Jarramillo, wife of ex-Assistant Sheriff George Jaramillo, who has already served a year in jail for his part in the scandal. Mrs Jaramillo described illegal contributions and the gifts and favors passed back and forth between Carona, her husband and Don Haidl, a businessman Carona elevated to Asst Sheriff. (Haidl is cooperating with the Government after pleading guilty.)
Mrs Jaramillo, who served as a campaign fundraiser for Carona, also testified to overhearing Carona tell another person in the spring of 1998, "Sweetheart, if anyone goes to jail, it's going to be me, not you."
On another occasion, testified Mrs Jaramillo, she accompanied Carona to Haidl's Newport Beach home where he picked up 10 $1,000 checks.
Mrs Jaramillo's testimony will resume Tuesday.
Proposition 5 - Another Wacky and Dangerous Ballot Measure in California
"Hey Judge, I'm a drug addict too."
Next Tuesday, Californians will go to the polls to vote for Barack Obama (except me, of course). We will also vote on a bunch of voter measures, most of which are to authorize our state government to spend billions more on various projects. Proposition 8, which would define marriage as being between a man and woman, has gathered the most publicity out of the state. Yet there is another proposition on the ballot that (in my view) has much more serious consequences. That is Proposition 5, which would replace criminal sentencing for certain non-violent crimes in favor of drug rehabilitation treatment.
Of course, the ads in favor of Proposition 5 claim that millions will be saved in prison costs (Yeah, I guess so if you empty the prisons). They claim that these programs have already saved 84,000 lives. These claims are accompanied by images of clean-looking happy youths walking into the sunshine, etc, etc.
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley paints a different picture of Prop 5, which is truly frightening. According to Cooley, this proposition represents a get out of jail free card for tens of thousands of "non-violent" criminals if they assert in court that they are substance abusers in need of treatment. According to Cooley, it would be the prosecution's burden to show the court that the defendant is not a substance abuser.
Here is one scenario as outlined by Cooley:
A burglar breaks into your house, steals your valuables, takes off in your car, steals your ID and charges thousands of dollars on your credit cards. He is arrested, goes to court and says, "I am a drug addict", or he shows signs of being a substance abuser, for example, he shows up in court high or drunk. Unless the prosecution can prove otherwise, jail/prison is taken out of the equation because he is a "non-violent offender". Instead of jail, he goes to a drug rehabilitation facility.
Of course, under this system, billions would have to be spent to build new rehabilitation facilities. All this for criminal defendants, while non-criminal substance abusers have to depend on insurance or family financial assistance to go into treatment, which in most cases they could never afford themselves.
According to Cooley, the measure is being banked by four billionaires, one of whom is none other than George Soros, and if you don't know who Soros is-you should. This Hungarian-born financier made his fortune by speculating on and nearly breaking the British pound. Now he runs the Soros Open Society, which among other things, is pushing for such things as drug legalization and also financing the Democratic Party including Obama's campaign. Soros, in short, is trying to help establish a socialist society in America, and he is using his vast fortune to accomplish that goal.
If Proposition 5 passes Tuesday, Cooley predicts chaos in our criminal court system. One would think common sense would prevail, but this is California.
Article From the Investigative Project on Terrorism
The below article comes to us from the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) and concerns the Muslim Student Association Treasurer at San Diego Mesa College. It is troubling. While it concerns the words of one young man, my experiences at UC-Irvine convince me this is not just a lone voice.
I am posting this article as a warning to something that is growing right here in our midst. The original may be viewed at:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/797
MSA Chapter Official: Don't Vote; Destroy
IPT News
October 28, 2008
In the final days of the 2008 Presidential election season – with just 6 days now remaining until voters cast their ballots – both campaigns are carefully maneuvering to gain an edge, while still others are singularly focused on just "getting out the vote." Regardless of the outcome desired by these activists, there seems to be one unified message across the American political spectrum these days: Participate in our democratic system.
However, one college's Muslim student organization has sought to air a completely different message regarding the election: that of the Islamists.
A student named Farhad Akbari posted an essay on the internal Yahoo! Group of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at San Diego Mesa College on October 14. In his post, "The Issue of Voting," Akbari delves into the election, warning his fellow group members of the fate in store for those who cast a ballot for "a person who fights Islam, governs contrary to Islam, and is himself a kafir [infidel or unbeliever]…" Akbari does not reserve this treatment for any specific candidate. Rather, he holds both major party candidates in equal regard.
Continuing in his reproach of American democracy, Akbari writes:
"Whether you vote for the white kafir or the half-black kafir, they will kill our brothers and sisters. They will subjugate our brothers and sisters. And they will certainly support Israel in killing our brothers and sisters. There is no "lesser of two evils" here. They are both greater evils. The lesser evil is avoiding the situation, as both are equally poisonous to the cause of Islam…Brothers and sisters, I have one thing to say: DON"T [sic] VOTE."
In most cases, publicly proclaiming one's decision not to vote – even encouraging others to follow suit – would not be noteworthy. For better or worse, the right to vote in the U.S. democratic system includes the choice not to exercise that right. For many, this decision is one of protest – speaking out on a variety of concerns from the lack of third party viability, to the perceived unimportance of a single vote. "The Issue of Voting," however, is in a league of its own, considering what Akbari, the MSA chapter Treasurer, proposes to be the real answer to Muslim grievances by invoking the words of Islamic scholars:
"Those who do not govern according to to [sic.] the (law) which Allah has revealed [Shari'ah law], verily, they are the kaafiroon…
Democracy, like all other systems fabricated by the minds of men are untenable in Islam. It is an un-Islamic system…[and] there is absolutely no basis anywhere in the Qur'aan for western democracy and its parliamentary system. A government of democracy is a government appointed by Juhhaal (ignoramuses). Ignoramuses, fussaaq and fujjaar have no share in appointing a government in Islam. The Islamic system is Khilaafat…"
The moral of the story: don't support the "infidel" system; defeat democracy in the U.S. and replace it with Islamic law. So much for a mere protest.
While postings similar to Akbari's do not appear to be common among the group, it is telling that not one person responded to challenge his argument (nor does it appear that anyone followed up in support either). Additionally, the fact that the MSA members voted in as Treasurer an individual whose MySpace page includes a photo of him wrapped in a kefiya (reminiscent of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist militants) with a caption reading "not shown: AK-47/Suicide bomb jacket strap/anthrax/airplane/boxcutter" leads to questions about the activities of the MSA chapter on the whole. Akbari's newly created Facebook profile shows that he lists his "Political Views" as "Khilafa" – or a political system based on the Islamic caliphate and Shari'ah law.
As far as the chapter itself, it's not clear whether the San Diego Mesa College MSA is directly affiliated with the Muslim Students' Association - National (MSA) organization. The college's chapter is not among those listed on the MSA - West Zone USA directory of chapters. However, as noted in the IPT's dossier on the national, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the MSA has nearly 600 chapters, of which roughly 150 are directly affiliated.
MSA is a member organization of a national "taskforce" that recently sent out an "election advisory," encouraging Muslims to "full[y] participat[e]" in elections on Tuesday.
However, it must be noted that the radical rhetoric being spewed in San Diego is not an anomaly among MSA chapters on campuses nationwide. At chapters across the U.S. and Canada, directly affiliated to the parent organization and not, Islamism and its hate-filled ideology is on full display. Take, for instance, the March 2003 account of Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily.com, who, after secretly attending a private MSA (aka "Muslim only") event at Queensborough Community College in Queens, NY, reported what he saw. According to Klein, one of the speakers at the event, Mohammad Faheed, blasted America and its democracy, and encouraged the audience to help bring about its demise:
"We are not Americans!" [Faheed] shouted. "We are Muslims! [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house…we reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
Faheed continued, paralleling Akbari's more recent calls for Shari'ah:
"The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. We must join these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them…[the U.S.] is not strong. Vietnam, they lost. Somalia, they ran away from. America hasn't won anything since World War II. We can defeat America…Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of the Shariah."
Such radical sentiment against the United States rises to the highest levels of MSA leadership. At the April 2007 MSA-West Zone Conference, West Zone President Amir Mertaban told students their paramount loyalty is to Muslims first, no matter what they may do:
"Osama bin Laden – I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know what he said. I don't know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear? I am not saying support terrorist acts. I am not saying any of that. I am saying generally speaking. If a man comes and robs a store – if you're going to rob the store, go ahead and rob the store, are we going to condemn him? No, you support your Muslim brothers whether it is right or wrong. When they do wrong you grab them and you slap some sense into them, you're doing wrong. You see what I am saying.
So you never compromise on your faith. You be confident in every aspect of life. In every aspect of Islam you are confident. Four wives? Yes men are allowed to have four wives within this context. Jihad? Yes Jihad! Jihad is the tightest thing in Islam. Don't compromise on these little things. Be proud of it. Why? Because Islam is a perfect religion. If you sit here and you start saying, ‘Jihad is only an internal this and that,' you are compromising on your faith."
These comments beg the question: is it possible that the small, community college MSA chapters are as radical as some of their larger campus counterparts? San Diego Mesa College and Queensborough Community College – from two opposing coasts, both not directly affiliated with the national MSA, yet still espousing the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric seen at larger and more directly-affiliated chapters. It is clear that the Islamist infiltration goes far beyond what may first meet the eye.
I am posting this article as a warning to something that is growing right here in our midst. The original may be viewed at:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/797
MSA Chapter Official: Don't Vote; Destroy
IPT News
October 28, 2008
In the final days of the 2008 Presidential election season – with just 6 days now remaining until voters cast their ballots – both campaigns are carefully maneuvering to gain an edge, while still others are singularly focused on just "getting out the vote." Regardless of the outcome desired by these activists, there seems to be one unified message across the American political spectrum these days: Participate in our democratic system.
However, one college's Muslim student organization has sought to air a completely different message regarding the election: that of the Islamists.
A student named Farhad Akbari posted an essay on the internal Yahoo! Group of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at San Diego Mesa College on October 14. In his post, "The Issue of Voting," Akbari delves into the election, warning his fellow group members of the fate in store for those who cast a ballot for "a person who fights Islam, governs contrary to Islam, and is himself a kafir [infidel or unbeliever]…" Akbari does not reserve this treatment for any specific candidate. Rather, he holds both major party candidates in equal regard.
Continuing in his reproach of American democracy, Akbari writes:
"Whether you vote for the white kafir or the half-black kafir, they will kill our brothers and sisters. They will subjugate our brothers and sisters. And they will certainly support Israel in killing our brothers and sisters. There is no "lesser of two evils" here. They are both greater evils. The lesser evil is avoiding the situation, as both are equally poisonous to the cause of Islam…Brothers and sisters, I have one thing to say: DON"T [sic] VOTE."
In most cases, publicly proclaiming one's decision not to vote – even encouraging others to follow suit – would not be noteworthy. For better or worse, the right to vote in the U.S. democratic system includes the choice not to exercise that right. For many, this decision is one of protest – speaking out on a variety of concerns from the lack of third party viability, to the perceived unimportance of a single vote. "The Issue of Voting," however, is in a league of its own, considering what Akbari, the MSA chapter Treasurer, proposes to be the real answer to Muslim grievances by invoking the words of Islamic scholars:
"Those who do not govern according to to [sic.] the (law) which Allah has revealed [Shari'ah law], verily, they are the kaafiroon…
Democracy, like all other systems fabricated by the minds of men are untenable in Islam. It is an un-Islamic system…[and] there is absolutely no basis anywhere in the Qur'aan for western democracy and its parliamentary system. A government of democracy is a government appointed by Juhhaal (ignoramuses). Ignoramuses, fussaaq and fujjaar have no share in appointing a government in Islam. The Islamic system is Khilaafat…"
The moral of the story: don't support the "infidel" system; defeat democracy in the U.S. and replace it with Islamic law. So much for a mere protest.
While postings similar to Akbari's do not appear to be common among the group, it is telling that not one person responded to challenge his argument (nor does it appear that anyone followed up in support either). Additionally, the fact that the MSA members voted in as Treasurer an individual whose MySpace page includes a photo of him wrapped in a kefiya (reminiscent of Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist militants) with a caption reading "not shown: AK-47/Suicide bomb jacket strap/anthrax/airplane/boxcutter" leads to questions about the activities of the MSA chapter on the whole. Akbari's newly created Facebook profile shows that he lists his "Political Views" as "Khilafa" – or a political system based on the Islamic caliphate and Shari'ah law.
As far as the chapter itself, it's not clear whether the San Diego Mesa College MSA is directly affiliated with the Muslim Students' Association - National (MSA) organization. The college's chapter is not among those listed on the MSA - West Zone USA directory of chapters. However, as noted in the IPT's dossier on the national, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the MSA has nearly 600 chapters, of which roughly 150 are directly affiliated.
MSA is a member organization of a national "taskforce" that recently sent out an "election advisory," encouraging Muslims to "full[y] participat[e]" in elections on Tuesday.
However, it must be noted that the radical rhetoric being spewed in San Diego is not an anomaly among MSA chapters on campuses nationwide. At chapters across the U.S. and Canada, directly affiliated to the parent organization and not, Islamism and its hate-filled ideology is on full display. Take, for instance, the March 2003 account of Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily.com, who, after secretly attending a private MSA (aka "Muslim only") event at Queensborough Community College in Queens, NY, reported what he saw. According to Klein, one of the speakers at the event, Mohammad Faheed, blasted America and its democracy, and encouraged the audience to help bring about its demise:
"We are not Americans!" [Faheed] shouted. "We are Muslims! [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house…we reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!"
Faheed continued, paralleling Akbari's more recent calls for Shari'ah:
"The so-called terrorists are the only people who truly fear Allah. We must join these organizations. They are the only worthy causes, and the mighty superpower only fears them…[the U.S.] is not strong. Vietnam, they lost. Somalia, they ran away from. America hasn't won anything since World War II. We can defeat America…Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of the Shariah."
Such radical sentiment against the United States rises to the highest levels of MSA leadership. At the April 2007 MSA-West Zone Conference, West Zone President Amir Mertaban told students their paramount loyalty is to Muslims first, no matter what they may do:
"Osama bin Laden – I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know what he said. I don't know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear? I am not saying support terrorist acts. I am not saying any of that. I am saying generally speaking. If a man comes and robs a store – if you're going to rob the store, go ahead and rob the store, are we going to condemn him? No, you support your Muslim brothers whether it is right or wrong. When they do wrong you grab them and you slap some sense into them, you're doing wrong. You see what I am saying.
So you never compromise on your faith. You be confident in every aspect of life. In every aspect of Islam you are confident. Four wives? Yes men are allowed to have four wives within this context. Jihad? Yes Jihad! Jihad is the tightest thing in Islam. Don't compromise on these little things. Be proud of it. Why? Because Islam is a perfect religion. If you sit here and you start saying, ‘Jihad is only an internal this and that,' you are compromising on your faith."
These comments beg the question: is it possible that the small, community college MSA chapters are as radical as some of their larger campus counterparts? San Diego Mesa College and Queensborough Community College – from two opposing coasts, both not directly affiliated with the national MSA, yet still espousing the same hate-filled and violent rhetoric seen at larger and more directly-affiliated chapters. It is clear that the Islamist infiltration goes far beyond what may first meet the eye.
Quote of the Week
"This is the Land of Opportunity. It is not the Land of Handouts."
Mike Ditka speaking at a Sarah Palin campaign rally this week in Pennsylvania
Mike Ditka speaking at a Sarah Palin campaign rally this week in Pennsylvania
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
