NY: A Quick Look at Columbia University’s Muslim Students Association

 

By admin

 

In the past I have written numerous articles that show us that Islamic organizations, Mosques, and madrassas (Islamic schools) in America are not teaching Muslims to assimilate. They are being taught to stand with Islam above all. Today we will take a look at Columbia University’s Muslim Students Association (MSA). An association that was formed to unite Muslims in an effort to expand the reach of Islam.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Ever Merciful
And hold fast, all together, to the rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah’s favor on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, you became brethren; and you were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus does Allah make His signs clear to you, so that you may be guided. (Qur’an, Surah 3, Verse 103)

Constitution of the Muslim Students Association of Columbia University
We, the Muslim students of Columbia University, have agreed to and have adopted the present Constitution and do hereby establish an organization to be known as the Muslim Students Association, hereinafter called the Association.

SECTION 1.
The aim and purpose of the Association is to serve the best interests of Islam and of the Muslims of Columbia University and Morningside Heights. Towards this end, the Association shall:

1. Arrange and hold weekly Jummah prayers for students and members of the community throughout the year.
2. Arrange and hold other congregational prayers and Islamic religious celebrations at appropriate times.
3. Promote unity and joint action among Muslims through various religious, social, and other programs.
4. Strengthen interfaith relations on and off campus.

Interfaith dialogue is one of the strongest weapons in the Islamic arsenal. As non-Muslims are eager to hear what they want to told be told, and that is exactly what Muslims are telling them across the country. The results are that non-Muslims are dropping their guard in the war with Islam.

5. Endeavor to make Islamic teachings known to other communities

SNIP

SECTION 3.
The Association shall be a non-profit organization. In all matters, Inshallah, the Association shall act in accordance with Islam and shall shun any practices that are contrary to Islam.

It doesn’t sound like they have too much interest in assimilating, does it?
SNIP

ARTICLE III: Membership

SECTION 1.

A member shall be any Muslim or non-Muslim who wishes to be a member of the Association, and agrees to obey the constitution and the generally-accepted practices of the Association.

This is an attempt to get non-Muslims used to living under the rules of Islam.
SNIP

ARTICLE VII: Impeachment Procedures

SECTION 1

Impeachment procedures are provided as an utterly final resort, and every attempt should be made to correct any problem through other avenues.

SECTION 2.

An Executive Committee member may be removed from office for neglecting responsibilities (e.g. excessive absence), misdemeanor, misappropriation of funds, fraud, corruption, violation of the Constitution, and cover-up of such offenses, etc. In addition, an Executive Committee member may be removed for violating Islamic principles or laws that deem them unworthy to serve as a leader of Muslims, or for representing the Association in a fashion that is uncharacteristic of Islamic principles.

As you can plainly see they are all about Islam, and not American principles. The infiltration is clear.


http://loganswarning.com/2011/05/19/ny-a-quick-look-at-columbia-universitys-muslim-students-association/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Loganswarning+%28Loganswarning%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail

Arrests of South Florida imams carried out under new federal rules

 

Authorities hope to defuse tensions and calm concern about hate crimes

By Curtis Morgan, The Miami Herald

The trilling chant of the adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, rang out Sunday afternoon at the humble little white house behind a green fence that is South Florida's oldest mosque. Inside, a dozen men and one boy — shoes left outside as a cleansing gesture — quietly recited prayers and bowed to Mecca.

There was a single stark change in the ancient ritual this time — the longtime spiritual leader of Miami's Flagler Mosque was not there to lead it.

Dozens of federal agents appeared at the early morning prayer Saturday to arrest Hafiz Muhammad Sher Ali Khan, the frail 76-year-old imam, and two of his sons — including one who led the Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen Mosque in Margate — on charges of funneling money to the Pakistani Taliban to buy weapons and support militant training. Hafiz Khan and son Izhar Khan, 24, made their first appearance in federal court in Miami on Monday. Irfan Khan was scheduled to appear in federal court in Los Angeles late Monday afternoon.

A day after the raids, members of the mosque as well as South Florida's Muslim community remained concerned. Some fear ugly backlash. Nezar Hamze, executive director of the Council on America-Islamic Relations, said two hate calls had been directed at the Miami mosque and one at the Margate mosque. For other Muslims, he said, the case, built largely on bank records and taped phone calls, rekindled the sense they're being singled out for secret surveillance.

"The FBI has a very important job to do and we support it," said Hamze. "However, their job sometimes crosses the line and interferes with the rights of peaceful Muslim people."

 

But in at least small ways, the South Florida arrests also signaled a subtle positive shift in dealings between federal law enforcement agencies and the Muslim-American community it has monitored closely since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The raids were conducted under new national rules of engagement intended to show more sensitivity toward religious practices and tamp down the flames of haters after a series of outreach meetings in South Florida this year among federal law enforcers and Muslim leaders.

When U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer and John V. Gillies, special agent in charge of the FBI's Miami Office, announced the arrests, they stressed that other mosque members and the rest of the community should not be branded by the alleged terrorist actions of a handful of its members. Ferrer, in a phone interview Sunday with The Herald, reiterated that message.

"They are as American as apple pie," he said. "They are just as concerned about terrorist attacks as anyone else. They do not want to live in fear."

Ferrer said the outreach programs were initiated last year by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to address concerns over increasing tensions and hate crimes — including a pipe bomb explosion last year at a Jacksonville mosque — and law enforcement tactics that some Muslim leaders have criticized as heavy-handed, including planting undercover agents in mosques.

Along with the outreach meetings, the U.S. Attorney's Office earlier this month hosted a training session at Broward College in Davie for 65 federal, state and local agents and officers aimed at "at enhancing law enforcement officers' cultural competence and sensitivity on issues involving the Arab, Muslim and Sikh American communities."

Ferrer said his message to Muslim leaders is that they should not feel isolated. "We want to make it very clear that we are their U.S. attorney, we are their Justice Department."

Asad Ba-Yunus, a former Miami-Dade assistant state attorney who now serves as legal adviser for the Coalition of South Florida Muslim Organization, said the charges against the two imams and four others came as a "shock" but he praised the handling of the arrests.

After the heavily armed agents flooded the grounds of the Flagler Mosque, a small converted house in a modest neighborhood west of Milam Dairy Road and north of Flagler Drive, they waited for morning prayer to finish before arresting Khan outside.

"Instead of barging in with 25 agents and trampling all over the place, one agent took off his shoes and went in," he said. ""They respected the congregation that was there."

After the arrest, agents informed other Muslim leaders before going public, Ba-Yunus said, so there was some lead time to prepare for media inquiries. Ba-Yunus saw those steps as progress stemming from meetings with federal authorities.

Still, despite the kinder, gentler arrests, Muslim leaders say many in the community remain wary of federal authorities, their suspicions fueled by cases like one last year in Irvine, Cal., where a confidential informant's mission backfired. Mosque members, alarmed about his calls for violence, tried to turn him in to authorities.
Ba-Yanus said most Muslims presume their mosques have been infiltrated and, at a meeting with the FBI, he argued that building trust with honest community leaders would provide more reliable information. For many Muslims, Hamze said, simply voicing a political opinion against U.S. occupation of a country or a trip to the Mideast can trigger a visit from federal agents — a practice he said put up barriers to better cooperation.

As for allegations against Hafiz Kahn and others, Ba-Yanus and Hamze condemned any support of terrorism but said they wanted to see the evidence before passing judgment. In reading quotes from phone calls in the indictment, Hamze wondered if conversations had been misconstrued and "something had been lost in the translation."

Khan's 19-year-old grandson, Alam Zeb, accused of collecting and distributing money sent from the U.S. to the Pakistani Taliban, on Sunday denied the charges against him and his family.

"It is baseless," Zeb told The Associated Press in Sarsnai, a village in Pakistan's Swat Valley where the elder Khan used to live and established a madrassa, or Islamic school.


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/mh-feds-seek-muslims-trust-20110516,0,5855807.story

Abbas's Fable

 

by Efraim Karsh
The Jerusalem Post
May 20, 2011

http://www.meforum.org/2909/abbas-fable

In the opening episode of the iconic series Boardwalk Empire, Nucky Thompson, Atlantic City's bootlegging strongman, tells a group of pro-prohibition women activists a gutwrenching story about his abject childhood, ravaged by the vagaries of alcoholism. Asked by his driver, a young aspiring gangster, about the story's veracity, Thompson retorts: "The first law of politics is to never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

This episode comes to mind upon reading Mahmoud Abbas's recent New York Times op-ed. Turning the saga of Israel's birth upside down, the "moderate" PLO chairman and president of the Palestinian National Authority says not a word of the Jewish acceptance of Palestinian Arab statehood, as part of the UN partition resolution of November 1947, let alone the violent Palestinian response to the resolution. Instead he reminisces on his childhood in an attempt to turn aggressors into hapless victims and vice versa.

"Sixty-three years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria," Abbas writes. "He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child's story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine."

But was he expelled? Hardly. Not only did Abbas reveal a couple of years ago, in an Arabic interview, that his family had not been forcefully expelled and that his father was affluent enough to provide for them for a year after their flight (so no canvas tent), but none of the 170,000- 180,000 Palestinian Arabs fleeing urban centers, in the five-and-a-half months from the passing of the UN resolution to Israel's proclamation on May 14, 1948, were expelled by the Jews.

Quite the reverse in fact, huge numbers of these refugees were driven from their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces which had entered the country to fight the Jews, whether out of military considerations or to prevent them from becoming citizens of the prospective Jewish state.

In the largest and best-known example, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa (on April 21-22) on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, the effective "government" of the Palestinian Arabs, despite strenuous Jewish efforts to persuade them to stay. Only days earlier, Tiberias's 6,000- strong Arab community had been similarly forced out by its own leaders, against local Jewish wishes. In Jaffa, Palestine's largest Arab city, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea; in Jerusalem, the Arab Higher Committee ordered the transfer of women and children, and local gang leaders pushed out residents of several neighborhoods.

And what about Safed? Having declined an offer by Gen. Hugh Stockwell, commander of the British forces in northern Palestine, to mediate a truce, the Arabs responded to the British evacuation of the city with a heavy assault on the tiny Jewish community, less than a quarter their size. "Upon the British evacuation on April 16, we occupied all the city's strategic positions: the Citadel, the Government House, and the police post on Mount Canaan," recalled a local Arab fighter.

"We were the majority, and the feeling among us was that we would defeat the Jews with sticks and rocks."

What this prognosis failed to consider was the tenacity of the Jewish resolve to hold on to Safed, awarded by the partition resolution to the prospective Jewish state, on the one hand, and the intensity of Arab flight psychosis, on the other. As tens of thousands of Arabs streamed out of Tiberias and Haifa within days of the British evacuation of Safed, members of the city's leading families and ordinary residents alike decided that now was the time to escape – which is probably when Abbas's affluent family fled. In the words of a British intelligence report, "Such is their state of fear [that] Arabs are beginning to evacuate Safed although the Jews have not yet attacked them."

In a desperate bid to save the day, a delegation of local notables traveled to Damascus, only to be reprimanded as cowards fleeing the battlefield and ordered to keep on fighting. A subsequent visit by mayor Zaki Qadura to the royal court in Amman was far more affable yet equally inconclusive. While King Abdullah was evidently moved by the mayor's pleas, he argued that there was nothing he could do before the termination of the mandate on May 15 and that Qadura had better return to Damascus and put his case to president Shukri Quwatly. The mayor dutifully complied, and following his visit to Damascus some 130 pan-Arab fighters (of the so-called Arab Liberation Army) were sent to Safed, arriving in the city on May 9.

This was too little, too late. As fighting intensified, the trickle of escapees turned into a hemorrhage.

On May 2, following the bombing of the Arab quarter by the deafening albeit highly ineffective home-made "David's mortar," scores of Arabs fled Safed en route to the Jordan Valley, accompanied by a substantial number of Arab Liberation Army fighters. Four days later, the ALA's regional commander reported that "the majority of the inhabitants have left [Safed's neighboring] villages.

Their morale has collapsed completely."

Heavy artillery bombardments of Jewish neighborhoods failed to do the trick, and as the final battle for the city was joined on the night of May 9 a mass flight ensued. By the time fighting was over the next morning, Safed's entire Arab population had taken to the road; a day later, Hagana patrols reported that "the [Arab] quarter had emptied to a man," with evacuees leaving behind "a huge quantity of weapons and ammunition."

Such were the circumstances of the fall of Safed. There was no act of Jewish expulsion, as there were none in other cities that were rapidly emptying of their Arab residents at the time.

Rather it was fear that acted as the foremost catalyst of the rapid unraveling of Palestinian Arab society, reinforced by the local Palestinians' disillusionment with their own leadership, the role taken by that leadership in forcing widespread evacuations, and, above all, a lack of communal cohesion or of a willingness, especially at the highest levels, to subordinate personal interest to the general good.

But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

Efraim Karsh is research professor of Middle East and Mediterranean studies at King's College London, incoming director of the Middle East Forum and author, most recently, of Palestine Betrayed.

Man kills stepdaughter for not honoring Muslim religion

 

Posted: May 04, 2011 2:32 AM EDT Updated: May 11, 2011 5:47 PM EDT

 

 

Jessica Mokdad was allegedly killed by her stepfather for not honoring her Muslim religion. (Source: WDIV/CNN)

WARREN, MI (WDIV/CNN) - A Michigan man shot and killed his stepdaughter because he felt she was not honoring her Muslim religion, according to police.

Rahim Alfetlawi told investigators that he shot Jessica Mokdad in the head Saturday, because he was upset about her new lifestyle.

"He indicated he wanted her back in Minnesota, so she could [practice] a more conservative lifestyle," said Det. Cpl. Stephen Mills, with the Warren Police Department.

Alfetlawi allegedly left his home in Minnesota on Friday and stopped in Grand Blanc, MI, where Mokdad had been living with her biological father. But he was not able to find her.

"She wasn't wearing a scarf anymore and was becoming more Westernized, more American," Mills said.

Afetlawi helped Mokdad move some boxes from her great grandmother's apartment to her grandmother's home in Warren, MI.

Police said she was shot in a bedroom, just after she had arrived.

Afetlawi allegedly opened fire after Mokdad refused to reveal the whereabouts of her biological father.

"His account is that they hugged, and she reached for the gun," Mills said. "And he grabbed at it, and it discharged."

Alfetlawi is being held without bond and is charged with first-degree premeditated murder, in addition to two weapons charges

http://www.wdam.com/story/14567778/man-kills-stepdaughter-for-not-honoring-muslim-religion

How to Defeat Radical Islam

 

Big Think Editors

 

 

 

What's the Big Idea?

 "In the long term the best way to beat radical ideas is to make them redundant," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a politician and ardent critic of fundamentalist Islam. During her recent Big Think interview, she told us that this could be done by making clear to young Muslims that there are alternative narratives than those offered by radicalism. Given the death of Osama bin Laden's and the democratic revolutions sweeping the Arab world, are we now witnessing exactly that shift?

Hirsi Ali harkens this strategy to boosting "the immune systems of young minds" so that they are able to recognize totalitarian ideologies and to defend themselves against them, citing a two-pronged approach:  

"Part of it is, I would say, a defensive approach to prepare young people that they are going to be targeted by Islamists, that this is the message Islam is going to impart, this is the model framework that they want, these are the goals that they want to achieve. On the other hand, there must be an offensive strategy too where you provide that young group with a completely different narrative: when the Muslim Brotherhood says Islam is the answer to our political and economic and social problems, we must provide reasons why Islam cannot be the answer to all of those.  Islam may satisfy your spiritual needs, but can it really be the answer to our economic and political problems? And then provide the answers to that and why it can’t. That way you prepare young minds when they are approached by radicals to not only ask the question, but to throwback an answer."

There is a historical precedent for this approach, she adds, pointing to the fall of communism. "The communists or Marxist ideologies of the 1950s, 1960s were defeated by providing Eastern Europeans and people living in the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain with reasons, arguments why communism was a bad or why Marxism was a bad ideology for the state, why it wasn’t a solution for the economic or social or political problems."

Your Part in the Revolution

Social media tools like Facebook like Twitter contributed, at least in part, to the recent Arab Spring uprisings, evidence of new political narratives blossoming in the Middle East. {eople in the West can also use these technology to help combat radical Islam, says Hirsi Ali. The first step in taking part in this debate is to understand truly what the Islamist movement is all about:  

"Listen to what the Islamists are saying.  Go visit and do your own research on for instance, the brand and movement the Muslim Brotherhood.  What are their objectives?  How do they want to get to their objectives?  What are their recruiting tools?  What are they doing?  What are their activities?  What are they doing to get people on their side?  Once you understand that, you visit the mosques, the Muslim centers, their websites, etcetera, and you can then compose a counter message.  You go to and you approach the same people that they’re trying to appeal to and that they’re trying to persuade to take their side, and you provide the same people using the same methods that they are with a counter narrative."

For every website created by radical Islamists, our goal should be to put up a counter website with a counter message, says Hirsi Ali. "Doing this, you’re applying technology to not only explain to young people what is wrong with these totalitarian ideologies, but also to help them actively come up with solutions and answers for their own social problems."

Well, what are you waiting for?

http://bigthink.com/ideas/38334

DOJ, DHS video instructs law enforcement to obey sharia

By David Stein

“The First Three to Five Seconds: Arab and Muslim Cultural Awareness for Law Enforcement” is an outrageous example of the U.S. government appeasing the very worst elements of Islam, even at the expense of our own laws and values. This training film not only instructs law enforcement officers to obey Sharia gender rules when conducting investigations, it’s also a flagrant piece of pro-Islamic propaganda that presents Muslim gender discrimination as proof of Islam’s “strong connection to God.”

“The First Three to Five Seconds” was initially developed by the Department of Justice, and it’s now used by both the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to train all of their law enforcement personnel. “The First Three to Five Seconds” is described on the DHS website as a film that “introduces law enforcement officers to basic principles of the Arab American and Muslim American cultures.” However, the DHS description hardly does this instructional film justice.

To begin with, there is the outright pro-Islam propaganda. Naturally, all religions see their tenets and customs in a positive light. But it’s not the job of the United States government, in a taxpayer-funded film, to produce religious propaganda which claims that one particular religion’s tenets and customs somehow make that faith “closer to God.”

“The First Three to Five Seconds” opens with the Muslim call to prayer. The narrator proclaims, “In order to keep a strong connection with God, Islam prescribes that believers pray five times a day.” The narration continues, instructing law enforcement officers:

“If you visit a mosque, be aware that there are separate entrances to the prayer sections for females and males as an extension of modesty. To keep their minds on the worship of God, men and women pray in separate sections.”

Muslims might believe that praying five times a day strengthens their connection to God, they might believe that it is immodest for men and women to enter a mosque together, and they might believe that segregating men and women keeps their minds on the worship of God…but that’s opinion, not fact.
Some would argue that Islamic gender segregation is due to an intense, virulent, and pervasive anti-female bias within the faith – something negative, not positive. Yet “The First Three to Five Seconds” uses taxpayer money to promote a positive view of Muslim gender segregation. If a law enforcement agency wishes to instruct its officers in how Muslims pray, fine. Lay out the facts; leave the value judgments out.
Interestingly, the line about Muslims’ “strong connection to God,” while clearly spoken in the film, is absent in the DHS transcript.

Where “The First Three to Five Seconds” hits absolute rock bottom is in its instructions to law enforcement officers, should they have to visit a Muslim home during the course of an investigation. Startlingly, the film tells officers not to enter a Muslim home if there is an adult female occupant who is not in the presence of a Muslim male! The film provides a dramatization in which a male officer knocks on the door of a home. An adult female in a hijab answers meekly, informing the policeman that her husband is not home, so she cannot speak to the officer or allow him inside. The narrator says, “This might seem suspicious,” but, he reassures the viewers, it is indeed “inappropriate” to enter a Muslim house in a situation like that. The officer is shown turning around and leaving.

The narrator states that no officer should enter a Muslim home if they are the opposite sex of the person who is home alone, meaning that a female officer should not enter a home, in the course of a police investigation, if the sole occupant is a Muslim male.

This is nothing more than the U.S. government advocating gender discrimination, pure and simple. Sharia may demand the segregation of the sexes, but U.S. law forbids preventing someone from doing their job solely on account of their gender.

This is the Justice Department violating U.S. law. Think about it; the DOJ and the DHS are telling law enforcement officers that they may NOT carry out an investigation if doing so requires them to be in a house alone with a Muslim of the opposite sex. This is not only an insult to law enforcement…it’s a grotesque negation of core American (and Western) values.

On a personal note, I worked on a project for the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) back in 1996 (the DEOMI, just like the DOJ and DHS, uses “The First Three to Five Seconds” as a training tool). I was working on a research project about white supremacist hate groups, which the DEOMI had initiated in response to the racially-motivated killing of a black couple by two white supremacist GIs from Fort Bragg in December ‘95. I can only imagine the response from DEOMI brass had I suggested that a good way to deal with white supremacists is to instruct black law enforcement officers to never enter a white man’s home (because, after all, that way we can show the white supremacists that we respect their beliefs, and therefore they’ll become better citizens)!

Obviously, had I ever made such an idiotic suggestion, I would have immediately been bounced out on my rear-end (quite justifiably). Yet now, look what we’re doing. We’re telling law enforcement officers to not do their jobs in the name of appeasing Muslim gender discrimination. 

Another disturbing thing about the instructions given in the film is that women are treated like children. It’s incredibly demeaning. When the Muslim woman meekly tells the officer to go away because her “man” isn’t there, and he complies, it’s no different than if a child had opened the door. Just as children need adult supervision, Muslim women, apparently, need “male supervision.” If their “man” isn’t home, law enforcement must abandon the investigation until the woman can be properly “overseen” (in fact, in most cases, police officers are allowed, in the course of an investigation, to speak to a child without an adult being present. So these DOJ and DHS instructions actually treat Muslim women worse than children).
It’s appalling.

It should be noted that “The First Three to Five Seconds” was produced during the Bush Administration. That’s an important point, lest anyone believe that the current desire to kowtow to Islam was born with the Obama presidency. It was not. There have been people in our government, working in various agencies, who have, for years, wanted to appease the worst and most un-American elements in the Muslim community. That mindset existed before Obama was elected president, and vigilance against it must remain, even should Obama be defeated.

Three brief endnotes: The production company hired by the DOJ to produce “The First Three to Five Seconds” was Art Palette Productions, which also produces videos for the SEIU.

In the closing credits, one of the organizations thanked for its assistance in the making of the film is the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, the Hamas-connected mosque at which current al-Qaeda commander Anwar al-Awlaki served as Imam.

The main consultant on the film was Professor Jack Shaheen, a tireless activist in the cause of suppressing honest discussion about Arab and Muslim terror. Shaheen is the man who shamelessly proclaimed, following the Fort Hood shooting rampage by Nidal Hasan, that Hasan’s “faith and ethnic background had absolutely nothing to do” with his crimes. I have written more about Prof. Shaheen here.

“The First Three to Five Seconds” can be viewed in full below. Or, to view it on the DHS website, click here. On the DHS site, the film is split into two parts. The first part slams the U.S. for “negative stereotypes” of Muslims in the media. It also covers issues involving the Sikh community. All of the material covered in this article is in part two.

After the viewing, the DHS will present you with a questionnaire, to find out if you have properly absorbed the message of the film. You’ll then be asked to submit the completed form to the DHS. As your tax money paid for the film, by all means, feel free to let them know what you thought of it (but be mindful that the Obama Administration is fond of collecting “enemy” emails).


http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/1904

American Spring: Time to Stop Funding Terror Around the World

 

Job stimulus for terrorists, a housing crisis for Israel, moral relativism, oh my!

Posted by Daniel Horowitz

Barack Obama has many sinister friends who are egregiously subsidized by taxpayers, but at least they aren’t terrorists.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for his foreign patrons.  At a time when Congress is searching for any morsel to cut from our domestic budget, Obama wants to expand foreign aid..to terrorists and terror filled nations.  His push for expanded foreign aid comes as part of a broader endorsement of the “Arab Spring” uprisings in his latest foreign policy speech.   Bin Laden is also endorsing them from the grave.  Republicans need to call for an American Spring and categorically oppose all aid to enemy nations and entities in the 2012 budget.

Over the past few months, Obama has helped blow up the Middle East by supporting radical Muslim uprisings in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen.  Simultaneously, he has hypocritically remained silent on Bashar Assad’s violent repression in Syria until this week when he announced vapid sanctions on the Syrian dictator.  He is still refusing to recall his ambassador from Damascus that he sent in 2009 as a gesture to Assad.  He didn’t even call for tough measures against Syria’s puppet master; Iran, while claiming to support the Iranian protesters, despite his indifference when it really mattered in 2009.

However, upon further cogitation, Obama’s actions are actually quite consistent.  In both Egypt and Syria, Obama has strengthened the hand of terrorist organizations, placing Israel in great peril.

His support of Mubabrak’s demise in Egypt, has led to a popular groundswell for war against Israel fomented by the Muslim Brotherhood.  His continued support for Hamas and Fatah in Israel (with the proviso that they denounce “violence”, of course) has emboldened the Palestinian terrorists and jeopardized the besieged state from within.  Finally, his calculated tepid response to Syria’s aggression, despite his tough rhetoric, and refusal to break diplomatic relations, has emboldened arch terrorist Assad to incite a breach of the Israeli border.  State Department officials told the New York Times that Obama is worried about undermining the Syrian murderer because he views him as an indispensable partner in final negotiations for an Israeli peace deal, a.k.a. forcing Israel to hand over the Golan Heights.  Hence, Obama views Assad as to big to fail.

Obama has successfully imperiled Israel on all fronts, while using American money and diplomacy to undermine the prestige of both nations.  As the ever prescient Caroline Glick succinctly opined last week, “Unlike his predecessors, Obama’s interest in the Palestinians is not opportunistic. He is a true believer.”


Now, in anticipation of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, Obama plans to ask for more aid for Egypt, Libya, and the Palestinians, even as he turns the screws to Israel by demanding their retreat from their heartland and live within the Auschwitz borders.  Additionally, in his speech today, Obama opened the door for the division of Jerusalem and the right of return for millions of Arabs to the remaining morsels of Israel’s diminished state.   He wants to spawn job creation in the Middle East even as he kills jobs at home.  Instead, Republicans should return the favor by cutting off all foreign aid to enemy countries.

In FY 2010, we spent $39.4 billion on foreign assistance, the highest amount since 1985.  Obama is requesting $40.12 billion for FY 2012.   Here is a list of the top ten recipients of foreign aid:



Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced a resolution (H.Res. 173) to prohibit the consideration of any bill that appropriates foreign aid for more than one country at a time.  This will allow Congress to strike out the terrorist supporting nations from appropriations bills without falling into an administration trap of opposing aid to allies.  Here are the terror supporting nations and entities that should be the first to be cut:

Palestinians and UNRWA
There is no such thing as a Palestinian, and the term only became popularized by the PLO in the ’90s.  We give them roughly $500 million annually and up to $1 billion on occasion (FY 2009).  Additionally, we contributed $267 million in FY 2009 to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the organization that harbors Palestinian terrorists under the guise of humanitarian aid.  We are the largest bilateral donor to UNRWA.  If the Obama administration officials were left to their own devices, they would authorize hundreds of millions more in aid to the Palestinians.

Even for those who are too naive and uninformed to understand that the PLO-Fatah are a bunch of terrorists, must certainly agree that their unity government with Hamas is a deal breaker.  A creation of a 22nd Arab state and 2nd Palestinian state (the first being Jordan) is absolutely inimical to our interests.  They will make the Taliban look like girl scouts and they will serve as the most effective proxy for Iran.  Obama’s puerile platitudes stating that Hamas must renounce terror are as fatuous as a declaration that Obama must renounce stimulus spending.  At present, any aid to the PLO is morally indefensible.

Egypt
Egypt receives about $1.5 billion in foreign aid per year.  Additionally, Obama is asking Congress to forgive $1 billion more in debt and grant them another $1 billion loan.  Before Obama helped overthrow Mubarak, Egypt provided stability in the region, helped fight Islamofascists, secured the chaotic border with Gaza, and committed to the treaty with Israel.  As such, there was some justification for that aid.

Obama has obviated any justification for aid by paving the road for the Muslim Brotherhood to ascend to power.  Thousands of Egyptians have been rioting in the streets calling for the end of the treaty with Israel, while the border with Gaza has been breached, allowing terrorists and weapons to flow across freely.

 Moreover, domestically, Muslim gangs have been massacring the Coptic Christians and repressing women. Not one penny of aid for Egypt!

Pakistan
Paukeestaun has received upward of $13 billion in taxpayer dollars over the past decade.  Obama is requesting over $3 billion for this year, a slightly higher sum than Israel’s aid.  Pakistan is an absolute crack pot nation and perhaps the most Islamist concentrated nation in the world.

In theory, there is some merit to expending surreptitious help to the Pakistani government so they can maintain stability against their whacked out constituents, and ensure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands.  Also, there is clearly a lot of double-take and triple-take that is taking place behind the diplomatic scenes that we are not seeing.  At this point, however, there are too many open questions about the Pakistanis that demand resolution before we give them another penny of taxpayer money.  Moreover, Pakistan’s newfound relation with China is extremely disconcerting.

Congressmen Ted Poe and Vern Buchanan (R-FL) are introducing legislation to prohibit foreign aid to Pakistan until they can demonstrate that they had no knowledge of Osama’s whereabouts.

Lebanon and UNIFIL

For FY 2011, Obama asked for $246.3 million in total aid to Lebanon.  In addition, Obama asked for $211 million for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon who helped Hezbollah during their war with Israel in 2006.  Our aid to Lebanon has increased six-fold since the supposed Syrian pullout in 2006.  However, Hezbollah has ostensibly taken over the government, and by extension; Syria, and by further extension; Iran.  This is a no-brainer.

Libya

Obama is asking for $25 million for the Al-Qaeda backed rebels in Libya.  This comes just a few months after he requested $1.7 million from Congress to train Qaddafi’s military!  His policy towards Libya is as incoherent and schizophrenic as could be.  We should stay out and let both sides bleed.

Did Obama’s Muslim charm offensive even help?



Unfortunately, even after sending billions of dollars to these terrorist cesspool nations, America’s favorability ratings are still dismal in every one of these countries except Lebanon.  According to a Pew Research poll, 42% of Palestinians hold a favorable view of Hamas and 61% view Hezbollah favorably.  You just can’t buy love in the Middle East.

Ideological distinctions in foreign policy are often ambiguous and vague.  However, Obama, with his dyslexic foreign policy of supporting enemies and undermining friends, has provided Republicans with a historic opportunity to distinguish themselves.  The President has wide latitude over foreign operations, but Congress holds the purse strings.  It’s time for Republicans to categorically reject the idiocy of giving taxpayer dollars to those who pray for our demise.  It’s time for our own American Spring.


http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/05/19/american-spring-time-to-stop-funding-terror-around-the-world/

Cirebon: Muslim extremists disrupt Christian services as police looks on

INDONESIA

by Mathias Hariyadi

Christians celebrate traditional post-Easter services. Human rights activist slams police inaction against “hostile” acts. He criticises the government for protecting religious freedom in words only. The city of Cirebon loses its “peaceful” image, as it becomes a centre of fundamentalism.

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Islamic extremist groups disrupted two post-Easter services in Cirebon, a city on the border of West and Central Java, as police failed to stop the violence, this according to  Hendardi, chairman of the Setara Institute, an NGO fighting for human rights and religious freedom in Indonesia. The activist slammed police for its “powerlessness” vis-à-vis “hostile” acts perpetrated by radical movements, which interrupted religious services.

Obama’s Israel 1967 “Borders”: What Jordanian/”Palestinians” Did to Pre-1967 Jewish & Christian Graves, Churches

 

By Debbie Schlussel

Earlier today, I discussed the Palestinian/Jordanian Muslim desecration of Jewish and Christian graves when they had control of the land that Barack Hussein Obama wants Israel to retreat from.

Here’s what his cherished “pre-1967 borders” looked like when the Jordanians/”Palestinians” controlled and destroyed the place. These photos, from the pamphlet, “Desecration,” show how Israel found various Jewish and Christian graves and relics of churches and synagogues desecrated and otherwise deliberately damaged and destroyed by the Muslims. There is page after page, and I’m only posting a few examples, below. We must never return to those “pre-1967″ lines. Never.

Muslims Made Jewish Gravestones into Toilets . . .


Rabbi Abraham Nigrin of Jerusalem Discovers Muslims Made His Mother’s Tombstone into a Sidewalk . . .

Muslim Caretaker of Mount of Olives Cemetery, Sadar Khalil, Built His House Out of Jewish Gravestones . . .

The steps to a Jordanian officer’s house . . .

Muslims Destroyed Churches and Made Part of Them Into Buildings & Walls . . .




http://www.debbieschlussel.com/37449/what-jordanianpalestinians-did-to-pre-1967-jewish-christian-graves/

Video: David Horowitz Speaks at UCLA

 

Kitman TV 20 May 2011

Last Wednesday, evening the Freedom Center’s David Horowitz gave a much anticipated and ferociously opposed presentation before a crowd of more than 300 people at Moore Hall at the University of California at Los Angeles
.



The event was hosted by the Bruin Republicans, self-described as "the only officially right-of-center organization on the UCLA campus” – which is a good, albeit disheartening, indicator of the very issue Horowitz has been addressing on hundreds of campuses across this country, and which was the evening’s topic: the fact that our institutions of supposedly higher learning are utterly dominated by intolerant progressive academics who are ill-serving and mentally straight-jacketing their students.

Horowitz’s speech was as blunt as the title of his presentation – "Intellectual Terrorism: The Left’s War on Free Speech.” Pacing back and forth at the front of the hall, he was revved up right out of the gate and became even more impassioned as he went on. He began the wide-ranging, forty-minute speech with a condemnation of academics who indoctrinate rather than teach ("The students who suffer most are those of you who are on the left, because your assumptions are never challenged.”) Among other topics, he went on to decry campus anti-Semitism and to identify Islam as the greatest oppressor of women and gays in the world today. He delivered a myth-busting history of "Palestine” and a concise explanation of his opposition to slavery reparations a hundred years after the fact. And he attacked the Muslim Student Association, ubiquitous on major college campuses, as a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas and the sponsor of Israel Apartheid weeks across the country.

 

Posted May 20th, 2011 by pk

 

 

http://europenews.dk/en/node/43461

ACLU helping Florida's released felons regain their rights

 

By Justin George, Times Staff Writer

---

Joyce Hamilton Henry, center, director of the ACLU Central Florida office, introduces the program’s partners on Tuesday.
	[MELISSA LYTTLE | Times]

TAMPA — William Dennis will tell you there's no such thing as an "ex-felon" in Florida.

If you've been convicted and punished for a felony, he said, the sentence doesn't stop once you're off probation or parole. The barriers to regain your voting and civil rights go on and on.

"You haven't gone through your sentence if you have to go through more process," he said. "If a person doesn't get their rights automatically restored, then they shouldn't get them automatically taken from them."
Dennis, 57, an east Tampa man who had his own rights restored through an executive order from the governor in 2006, expressed his disgust with the process Tuesday to the American Civil Liberties Union, which came to Tampa to help released felons.

Joined by the offices of the Hills­borough County public defender and supervisor of elections, as well as local lawyers and advocacy groups, the ACLU kicked off a "Hillsborough Votes" program at the C. Blythe Andrews Jr. Library in College Hill.

The program will host workshops, between noon and 3 p.m. every fourth Tuesday at the library, to help released felons navigate the complicated application process to get their rights restored.

The effort comes after Gov. Rick Scott and the Cabinet toughened the clemency policy in March, requiring many released felons to wait five years before they can seek restoration of rights. The policy allows non-violent offenders to regain their rights without a hearing after being crime-free for five years after being released. For certain classes of violent offenders that require clemency hearings, the waiting period is seven years.

It's not just voting rights affected but the right to run for office, serve on a jury and work in several professions that require licenses. The ACLU said civil rights restoration is linked to as much as 40 percent of job requirements in Florida.

"I don't know how many people come into my office and they feel marginalized," said LaTarsha Brown, a lawyer who works with released felons in Progress Village. "They feel there is no hope."

About 5.3 million nationally and more than 1.2 million in Florida cannot vote because of felony convictions, said Joyce Hamilton Henry, director of the ACLU Central Florida office. More than 950,000 of those in Florida have completed the terms of their incarceration or supervision but have not regained their rights.

Justin George can be reached at jgeorge@sptimes.com or (813) 226-3368.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/aclu-helping-floridas-released-felons-regain-their-rights/1166253

Spectrum Today Interviews the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

 

By FinalCall.com News | Last updated: May 19, 2011

[Editor's note: The following article contains excerpts from the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's April 1, 2011 interview on WPFW-Pacifica Radio with Spectrum Today's Askia Muhammad, along with regular panelist Wilmer Leon, host of XM Satellite Radio's On With Leon. Brother Askia Muhammad is also a senior correspondent for The Final Call newspaper.]

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Askia Muhammad

Spectrum Today host Askia Muhammad (ST): Welcome to the airwaves of WPFW and to Spectrum Today, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan (HMLF): Thank you, my dear brother. And I'm honored to be a part of your show.

ST: We're honored to have you. In 1995, Minister Farrakhan convened the largest gathering of Black men in U.S. history when more than two million, mostly Black men, answered his call and came to Washington Monday, a working day, October 16, 1995, assembling on The Mall for the Million Man March. There was not one single arrest in Washington that day despite official fears which prompted Congress and the Federal government to shut down that day.

Following the Million Man March, Minister Farrakhan embarked on a World Friendship Tour where he cemented his relationships with many of the governments of Africa and the Muslim world; as well as with the towering world-revolutionary figures at that time: Nelson Mandela of South Africa; Fidel Castro of Cuba; Hafez Al-Assad of Syria; Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organization; and of course, Muammar Gadhafi of Libya. Today, Arafat and Assad are no longer with us. Mandela and Castro are still alive, but have both retired from public life. Only Gadhafi remains in power, and that is tenuous. His power has been challenged by an armed rebellion aided by Western military superpowers.

Colonel Gadhafi is a longtime friend of the Nation of Islam. In 1973 he loaned Mr. Muhammad, Minister Farrakhan's mentor, $3 million to purchase what was then a Greek Orthodox Church on Chicago's Southside. The interest-free loan was paid back by Mr. Muhammad and his followers in its entirety. Today that building is Mosque Maryam, the headquarters of the Nation of Islam. Minister Farrakhan has made several visits and trips to Libya, including one where he helped turn the valve, opening a massive project to irrigate the Libyan Desert that was called “The Man-Made River.”

Meanwhile, however, Colonel Gadhafi has seen some of his most trusted military, as well as civilian, officials defect from his government; making charges that the Libyan leader is a “despot,” who has ordered brutal campaigns of murder and repression of his own population.

Minister Farrakhan, you have referred recently [in your March 31, 2011 Press Conference] to Colonel Gadhafi as a “friend,” and a “brother.” Can you share with us any information that might enlighten us beyond the “everybody hates Gadhafi” message that is all we hear in this country? And have you spoken personally with your friend and brother, Colonel Gadhafi?

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan

HMLF: Thank you Brother Askia. No, I have not spoken with Brother Gadhafi for a number of years. And you know, the thing that has disturbed me is that in 1985, Ronald Reagan began to refer to Muammar Gadhafi as “The Mad Dog of the Middle East.” And when you start referring to a human being as a “mad dog,” as much beloved as dogs are, when they become “mad” the only thing that solves that is some form of death for that dog.

That kind of language is back in the public, and so referring to him as a “mad man,” as a “lunatic,” as “a man who kills his own people” is creating an atmosphere in the minds of those in America, who do not know Gadhafi, who do not know Libya, and who do not know the wickedness of the policies of our own government. And it sets the tone for murder, once again.

I would say to you, Brother Askia, if you visit Libya: If he's a “mad man,” then the people in Libya would reflect his madness. What is the crime rate in Libya? What is the rate of rape and robbery, murder, in Libya? Nothing compared to the madness that is seen on the streets of America every day. He's a “mad man”? But if you can go and find madness in the intelligent discourse of any that would sit and talk with him, he's a revolutionary thinker, a brilliant man. And I know him as a friend.

And in spite of the tidal wave of negative publicity coming against him, I would be less than a brother, less than a man, if I would not stand in the face of that tidal wave and say, “Wait a minute! There are other things you should consider about this brother.”

ST: Is it possible that even notwithstanding the current conflict that Colonel Gadhafi has been in power too long? And perhaps might have served himself and his country better by having groomed others to take on the mantle of leadership?

HMLF: If you study Muammar Gadhafi, he started as a protégé of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Gamal Abdel Nasser was a Muslim, but a Socialist; and therefore as a Socialist, he ignited the dislike of The Muslim Brotherhood. So when you have those who are purely religious, dealing with a governmental leader who is a Muslim, but is leaning towards Socialism, you have a dynamic in your country that you're going to now have to repress those who are coming against you and your government.

Colonel Muammar Gadhafi Photo: MGN Online 'And if they kill Brother Gadhafi, I submit to you that American interests in Africa will come under severe strain. That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader in the recent history of Africa's coming to political independence. It is Muammar Gadhafi who took the OAU from the Organization of African Unity; and I was there present with him when he projected onto the OAU the ideas of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Gamal Abdel Nasser of a ‘United States of Africa.' So the first step in that process was the African Union—I was present at the launching of the Union! '

I've watched Muammar Gadhafi over the last 40 years transform from a “Muslim, Socialist-leaning” leader into a Muslim who now backs away from some of the Socialist ideas that he originally had; [and] was leaning more and more and more toward understanding, transmitting, the Qur'an, and being one who would be a reformer in the world of Islam. And so that would ignite again, in the Eastern region, the Wahhabis, people who are Salafis, against him because they would see him as “a man who has gone off The Path of God,” while he would see himself as a “reformer.”

And when you say he's been in power “too long”: You know, I was with him many years ago when he stepped back as the revolutionary leader. Once he established the popular committees, he became the “Brother Leader” and “Guide of The Revolution,” but the day-to-day work was assigned to the popular committees. His idea was another type, or form, of democracy, where the people themselves became the government. And I was with him when he sat with other revolutionary presidents in Africa, and he said to them, “If you are a revolutionary, you have to stay to guide the Revolution until the idea that produced the Revolution is cemented in the hearts and minds of the people.” This “democracy” that has been imposed on Africa, where you only have “two terms and step out,” that means that if you start something, you cannot be in power long enough to see it through.

Moses was a revolutionary prophet, if you will. He was leading at 120 years. It's not the length of years that you lead, it's the quality of the service that you give in the years that you lead. And I submit to you: What upset me was that our president and the secretary of state could say to a man who took his country from ignominy in 1969, and built a nation over 42 years, and these arrogant leaders of ours would tell a man like that: “You've outlived your usefulness. Step down and get out!”

Dr. Wilmer Leon

On With Leon host Dr. Wilmer Leon (WL): [During his March 28, 2011 address at National Defense University in Washington, D.C.], President Obama referred to Colonel Gadhafi as a “tyrannical dictator,” but interestingly, Pres. Obama months before was embracing Colonel Gadhafi; [Col. Gadhafi] was welcomed in France. In fact, up until a couple of weeks [prior], the United States was going to sell him $44 million of armored personnel carriers.

What do you think has brought about this almost immediate 180-degree turnaround in the relationship between the West and Libya? And then secondly, what message do you think this sends going forward to other leaders who are engaged in relations with the United States?

HMLF: Well, it seems to me, my dear brother, that this 180-degree turn was almost all of a sudden. The Western nations that were cultivating friendship, and cultivating Muammar Gadhafi, were inside his country doing business. Not any of them were threatened; the streets in Libya were peaceful. Now, all of a sudden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Canada—all of them turned on Muammar Gadhafi. So what I found in our research was that two years ago, Gadhafi was thinking about nationalizing the oil in order to get a greater profit from the oil companies that were doing business in his country. He started re-negotiating contracts with all of these companies that were doing business in Libya; and gained an extra $5.4 billion for the Libyan people.

Now something happened when they saw a crack in the man's strength of leadership, which started on the 15th of February in the Eastern region. And all of a sudden, all of these that were “friendly” with him, turned on him. Brother Gadhafi came in “out of the cold” under George W. Bush, where he gave up all his weapons of mass destruction; he gave up scud missiles. And then, he sat down with the West and was making himself a man, hopefully, that the West could accept.

No, I think they discovered something that all of them had to attack him, because when they joined forces against him, and thought he was going to be through; and our president said he has “lost the legitimacy” to rule in Libya, and he should step down, and get out—at that point they thought that Gadhafi was gone. But though he was not prepared for war, he summoned the strength of his loyal followers and began a march, and all of the cities that were taken by the rebels, one-by-one he took them back. So the United Nations, and our president and the White House, had to act quickly; act in such a foolish way that it disturbed the peace of his own government.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said we had to do this “on the fly.” Why “on the fly”? Because if Gadhafi was going to take Tobruk, and solidify that whole country again under his leadership … the fact that he had been betrayed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom he financed that man to become president; he was betrayed by Cameron, by Italy's Silvio Berlusconi! Well, then, if the man now wins his country back: Revenge. And Brother Gadhafi also said, “No more oil to Europe”—and Europe is the biggest buyer of the sweet crude of Libya! So he had to get him out, and get him out quick, so that they would have access to the sweetest crude in the world, which is what Europe needs to survive an energy crisis.

So, for their own success and future, they felt they had to take him out, and take him out fast; and that is why he couldn't follow through, like he should have. When UN Resolution 1973 ordered a “No-Fly Zone”—which is an act of war, committing troops and ships to a theatre of operation—it was the duty of every signer of the United Nations Charter to go back to their respective countries and go through their constitutional mandate.

The constitutional mandate of America, of course, has been violated, because they didn't have time. Our president did not even go before the Congress; he may have called a few of them. Believe me, this foolish action has made Brother Obama and the White House and the Administration look terrible in the eyes of wiser politicians in the government. In fact, I think it was the former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who said it was an “amateurish operation.”

WL: If President Obama is taking this action in response to Colonel Gadhafi's wanting to nationalize oil, this takes me back to 1952 with Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, and how the CIA removed him for the same reasons, so it seems as though this is history repeating itself. And this ties into your saying in 1991 before George Herbert Walker Bush went into the Gulf War, that that was going to be the beginning of a number of precipitant events. Are we seeing, now, those events that you predicted back in 1991?

HMLF: Well, my dear brother, I really believe that what our administration has done has hurt America greatly. In the rush to destroy one man, America did not think of the range of influence of that one man in Africa and in the Middle East—despite the fact that there are some African leaders who did not trust his leadership; and there are some Arab leaders who really do not like Muammar Gadhafi. Yet, America, after a UN Security Council Resolution, thought that they had to have Arab cover for their wicked intention against Gadhafi, so they prevailed on Amr Moussa of the Arab League; and some of the members of the Arab League. And from what I understand, there are 22 members of the Arab League, but only eight of them met and voted on this—not even enough for a quorum! And Amr Moussa was convinced that there may be a humanitarian crisis, so he voted.

Barack Obama has come before the American people echoing this, that “it would have been a humanitarian crisis.” One existed in Liberia, but America did not intervene! There are thousands of refugees fleeing Liberia under a civil war. Now, there seems to be a civil war brewing in Côte d'Ivoire, and France is not intervening! There's a humanitarian crisis developing there! This is using noble sentiments to hide wicked motivations! And so, America is losing.

And if they kill Brother Gadhafi, I submit to you that American interests in Africa will come under severe strain. That man has invested in Africa more than any other leader in the recent history of Africa's coming to political independence. It is Muammar Gadhafi who took the OAU from the “Organization of African Unity”; and I was there present with him when he projected onto the OAU the ideas of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Gamal Abdel Nasser of a “United States of Africa.” So the first step in that process was the African Union—I was present at the launching of the Union!

And from the day that that Union was launched, Europe was upset! They set up NEPAD, and they were setting up among the North African nations a Mediterranean-kind of coalition between South Europe and North Africa. Again, to fracture Africa, because with a Unified Africa, the West would not easily have access to the strong mineral resources of Africa which America needs to be a world power in the 21st Century. They made a tremendous blunder.

ST: Minister Farrakhan, I must ask you about another really controversial topic. The Nation of Islam Research Group has published a new volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (Volume 2). Not surprisingly, the Anti-Defamation League has denounced it as “anti-Semitic.”

Among Blacks there has been the predictable “knee-jerk” reaction against you as well. But there are some thoughtful Black intellectuals who have posed these questions which I would like you to address: “Why would you pick a fight with a group that is viewed as having been an ally of Blacks in modern times in the Civil Rights Movement?” And more importantly they ask: “As well-researched and documented as the book may be, what does this book, as well as the quarrel with the American Jewish Community, do to advance the struggle for Black liberation?”

HMLF: I think we have made a grave mistake. We have been deceived into thinking that the Jews have been our allies in our recent Civil Rights struggle.

“Allies” for what purpose? When the NAACP was founded by Joel Spingarn, several Jews, and Ralph Bunche and a few other Blacks, I think W.E.B. DuBois, as well, it was never to be anything that would be economic development to Black people. The theme of the Civil Rights Movement, according to our research, was “non-economic liberalism.” So even though we got the right to vote, and we have all of these mayors, a few governors and sheriffs and city council persons, and whatnot, what is the condition of Black people under this so-called political advancement?

We've had 40 years in the Congress with some of the most brilliant Black men and women in the Black Caucus—but what is the advantage to the “little man” in the street? We have a Black president for the first time, but what is the meaning of that to the economic development, jobs and justice for Black people in the street? You have been deceived, Black America!

Yes, he poses as your “friend”: He's with you as an agent! He's with you as a manager! He's with you as an investor! He's with you as a guide in economic development! But he has never asked you to do what he has done! He networks with other rich, influential Jews; and he buys, he invests! He's in trade and commerce! When have our Black millionaires and billionaires even come together to discuss the plight of Black people economically; and then used that influence to create jobs, and trade and commerce when a whole world is outside waiting for us to emerge? No! You've been deceived! And as Malcolm says, “You've been hooked! You've been bamboozled!” A real friend would guide you to the way that they were guided to become rich, powerful and influential!

ST: The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. We are so grateful that you have taken time to be with us on this program, on our “News View” of Spectrum Today.

HMLF: Thank you, Brother Askia, for the honor and privilege of being on your show. I thank your guest who was on this show, and thank your wonderful listening audience. I hope, Brother Askia, we can do this again, and soon. God bless you

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Minister_Louis_Farrakhan_9/article_7852.shtml

No "Hamas Exception" for Human Rights: A Reply to the American Jewish Committee

 

Posted: 05/19/11 06:07 PM ET

 

Following my post about my plans to participate in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in opposition to the blockade of Gaza, "Why We Must Sail to Gaza," David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, responded by challenging me to answer his concerns about Hamas and Israeli security.
Of course, I welcome the opportunity to respond to David's concerns, and I thank David for giving me the opportunity to do so. Moving the focus of attention from the arena of violence to the arena of engagement and dialogue -- that's a key component of what nonviolent resistance is all about.

The overall thrust of David's piece appears to be that Hamas is a monster, and therefore whatever the Israeli government does -- including the blockade of Gaza -- which is claimed to be "in defense against Hamas," is justified.

The logic of the argument that the blockade of Gaza is automatically justified by the threat of violence to Israel from Hamas should be familiar to Americans. It's essentially the same logic that the Bush-Cheney Administration used in justifying its decisions to torture detainees -- ignore the Geneva Conventions and the right of habeas corpus, and invade Iraq after 9/11: your concerns about human rights and international law are very pretty. But now we are facing a terrible enemy, so your pretty concerns about human rights and international law are no longer relevant.

If the argument was wrong when the Bush-Cheney Administration made it, then the argument is wrong when made by the American Jewish Committee. The fact that one faces an adversary with weapons, even an adversary that has attacked civilians with weapons, does not give carte blanche for violations of human rights. If it did, the concept of "human rights" would have no meaning, because the very idea of "rights" implies something that is not contingent; in particular, something that is not contingent on what other people do.

As the American Declaration of Independence put it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A key word here being "unalienable": these are rights that flow from being human, and are not contingent.
I take it as "self-evident" that these words apply to Palestinian civilians in Gaza. The 1.6 million Palestinian residents of Gaza did not forfeit their human rights when Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections; nor did the 1.6 million Palestinian residents of Gaza forfeit their human rights when Hamas took control of Gaza. They did not forfeit their human rights, because they could not forfeit their human rights: their human rights are "unalienable," and are not contingent on whether Hamas wins a legislative election; neither are they contingent on whether Gaza is ruled by Hamas.

Of course, if it is self-evident that these words apply to Palestinians, then it is self-evident that these words apply to Israelis. To affirm in an American political context that these words apply to Israelis is to bring coals to Newcastle, but I have no problem asserting that two plus two equals four, if someone is mistakenly under the impression that I believe something different.

In particular, the residents of Sderot have the right not to have rockets from Gaza fall on them; and more generally, Israelis have the right not to be attacked from Gaza. And therefore, it is obviously legitimate for the Israeli government to take just, legal and necessary measures to protect Israelis from rocket fire or other attacks from Gaza. But it is not legitimate for the Israeli government to take measures that are unjust or violate international law, simply because Israeli government officials claim that they are necessary. If we had to accept unquestioningly the say-so of Israeli government officials that any measure that they take in the name of "security" is just, legal, and necessary, then on what basis would we question such assertions from US officials, or Bahraini officials, or the officials of any other government?

Measures taken by the Israeli government which are clearly and directly linked to blocking attacks on Israel from Gaza or to blocking the transmission of weapons to Gaza are not a focus of international controversy.

In March, the Israeli military deployed a new antirocket missile defense system. There was no major international outcry against this deployment. Also in March, the Israeli government interdicted a ship going from Turkey to Egypt that the Israeli government said contained weapons bound for Gaza, while saying it had no evidence of Turkish or Egyptian involvement in the shipment. There was no major international outcry against this action.

The record suggests that Israeli government actions which appear to be clearly and directly linked to preventing attacks from Gaza into Israel are not the occasion of protest. Rather, it is Israeli government actions. which directly target civilians in Gaza which are the subject of (not yet enough!) protest.

For example, the death of two-year-old leukemia patient Nasma Abu Lasheen, denied access to medical care by the Israeli authorities -- was protested by physicians for Human Rights - Israel. The death of 20-year-old liver disease patient Anas Saleh, denied medical care by the Israeli blockade -- was also protested by Physicians for Human Rights - Israel.

It's actions like these that are at issue. It is obvious that preventing Palestinian civilians from receiving medical care has nothing to do with stopping rockets.
David wrote:

Israel has made clear that it has only one reason for enforcing a blockade -- to prevent weapons-smuggling by a ruling group that publicly calls for Israel's destruction.

But the public record shows otherwise.
In June 2010, McClatchy reported, under the headline "Israeli document: Gaza blockade isn't about security,":

As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas, which rules the Palestinian territory. [...] However, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare. [...] Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. [...] The Israeli government took an additional step Wednesday and said the economic warfare is intended to achieve a political goal. A government spokesman, who couldn't be named as a matter of policy, told McClatchy that authorities will continue to ease the blockade but "could not lift the embargo altogether as long as Hamas remains in control" of Gaza.

In his response to me, despite asserting that the blockade is all about weapons, David appears to embrace the "punish the population" rationale of the blockade revealed in this Israeli government document, when he writes:

Don't you infantilize Gaza by refusing to hold Hamas and those who voted for it responsible for what's happening? [my emphasis]

The implication of what David writes is: the blockade is justified punishment for the Palestinian residents of Gaza, because they voted for Hamas. [Of course, not all residents of Gaza voted for Hamas -- some of them voted for Fatah or someone else, some of them did not vote at all, and among those who did not vote at all, some did not do so because they were indeed infants, or like two-year-old Nasma Abu Lasheen, had not been born yet in 2006; but these considerations do not appear to concern David.]
This is the crux of the disagreement, it appears to me, between David and me. David sees the blockade of 1.6 million residents of Gaza -- whose consequences, as previously noted, include the deaths of infants -- as justified punishment for the electoral victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections.

I do not see the blockade of 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza as justified punishment for the outcome of the 2006 legislative elections. Rather, I see it as the Israel human rights NGO Gisha sees it: collective punishment of a civilian population, forbidden by international law.

And therefore, it seems obvious to me that as an elementary issue of justice, every aspect of the blockade must be removed that is not clearly and directly related to arms shipments.
Indeed, in 2010, President Obama called for "focusing narrowly on arms shipments":

[President Obama] also called for an easing of Israel's blockade. "It seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then, in a piecemeal way, allowing things into Gaza," [Obama] told reporters.

Which brings us back to the Gaza freedom flotilla. Obviously, we are not bringing weapons to Gaza. Is anyone claiming that we are? Therefore, according to view advocated by President Obama in 2010, the Israeli government should let us pass to Gaza unmolested, since the Israeli government should "focus narrowly on arms shipments."

This is not, at present, the Israeli government policy. Last year, the Irish boat Rachel Corrie was stopped by Israeli authorities from going to Gaza. To my knowledge, no one from the Israeli government ever claimed that they had any reason to believe that the Rachel Corrie contained weapons. As the Guardian reported at the time:

The former U.N. humanitarian coordinator in Iraq, Denis Halliday, said from the ship that trade unions and government officials had inspected its cargo. "So we are 100 percent confident that there is nothing that is offensive or dangerous," he told Israel's Channel 2 TV.

The issue with the blockade is not the Israeli right of self-defense against armed attack. This right is not in serious international dispute. The issue in dispute is the deliberate punishment of civilians, and denial of their freedom. If the policy in 2010 had changed to that advocated by President Obama, "focusing narrowly on arms shipments," there would be no dispute worth noticing today regarding the blockade.

But the fundamental policy did not change. And that is why our freedom flotilla must sail; and why we are urging Secretary of State Clinton to use her influence with the Israeli government to ensure our safe passage.
And although David and I may still disagree about the blockade, I hope he will use whatever influence he has with Israeli government officials to urge the Israeli government not to use violence against the flotilla.

 

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman