The Amboy Times

Thought Control on the American Campus

Read the background of this video at Hot Air.

Ahmadinejad Condemns Israel on Holocaust Remembrance Day

Go to Atlas and read about Yom Hashoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. The world remembers what Ahmadinejad would love to have us forget.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused Israel of being the 'most cruel and racist regime,' sparking a walkout by angry Western diplomats at a U.N. racism conference.

In a rambling speech, Ahmadinejad today pointed the finger at the United States, Europe and Israel and said they were destabilising the entire world.

Some European diplomats immediately walked out of the room when Ahmadinejad said Israel was created on the 'pretext of Jewish suffering' from World War II.

(...)

Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Holocaust ever happened, and had repeatedly called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'.

CAIR Caught Selling Radical Islamist Material in Public Park

A must see video from STACLU.

ACT! For America, Jacksonville and Orlando Chapters, caught the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Orlando Chapteron tape,selling radical Islamist propaganda at their Community Service/Family Picnic two weeks ago at the Central Florida Fairgrounds. Notice how they deny, deny, deny and try to throw the American camera crew off this public space.

The FBI has publicly stated that CAIR along with 80% of Saudi-funded mosques in the USA and Europe support Sayyid Qutb’s “CONVERT TO ISLAM OR BE ELMINATED” Doctrine. Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Iran and Syria are the enforcement branch of this doctrine, which CAIR promotes and sells at ‘family gatherings’ on American public property.

Act For America www.actforamerica.org

UK: Muslim Cleric Attacks Easter

Anjem Choudary, the same man who said that the thwarted car bombings in London and the terror attack against Scotland's busiest airport were "completely justified" and likely the beginning of many more attacks in Britain. The same Anjem Choudary who said that no non-Muslim is innocent. Yet for Choudary, there are no charges of hate crimes as he speaks sedition against his own countrymen and attacks the most popular faith in the UK on it's holiest day.

EASTER is evil, proclaimed Muslim preacher of hate Anjem Choudary last night as he plumbed new depths by delivering his vile attack on the holiest Christian festival of the year.

The message was posted on Choudary’s website Islam4UK, which is a group inspired by exiled cleric Omar Bakri that wants the “flag of Allah” to fly over Downing Street. An article on the site claimed that Easter was merely a “pagan festival” and “nothing to do with Jesus”.

And Choudary has nothing to do with reason. Try telling a pagan that Easter is their festival and has nothing to do with Christianity.

Firebrand cleric Choudary, who led the insults against a parade of British soldiers in Luton last month, denied writing the article, but when asked if he believed Easter was evil, he said yesterday: “I think that anything that’s non-Islamic is evil, I do believe that, yes. To attribute a son to God is anathema to Islam and I do believe that it’s an insult to God.”

When it was suggested that Christians might be offended, he said: “It’s not insulting to disagree with people’s beliefs. I’m not saying that Christians are evil.” He said Christians should “accept the final message of Mohammed and come back to the true monotheistic faith”.

He added: “Christianity, like all religions that are not Islamic, is misguided. Anything outside Islam is not good and you have good and you have evil, don’t you?

“Jesus was a messenger of Allah and he will return one day and show the deviations and misconceptions of Christianity. Easter is not in fact part of Christianity in the first place – it has been invented, it’s a pagan festival.”

His rant came as he backed a decision by Muslim-led Tower Hamlets Council in east London to allow extremist Anwar al-Awlaki, who has links to Al Qaeda, to broadcast a series of video messages last night to a conference at the Brady arts centre, Whitechapel, which is publicly owned.

CAIR: Defending Muslim Student “rights”?

Another Anti-CAIR blogburst.

When Americans send their children to school, it is assumed that the school will reasonably protect the student from harm; this includes college. What if this harm is inflicted by an agency of the federal government; an agency that has as part of its mission the protection of individual rights? What if that agency were the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?

LeHighvalleylive.com reports that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is claiming that local colleges are not protecting the rights of predominantly Somali Muslim college students. CAIR claims that it has received “numerous reports” by Muslim students that they are being “interrogated” by FBI agents. The students are being questioned as part of an on-going investigation into the whereabouts of several male Somali students whom have gone missing and are suspected of leaving the US to fight in Somalia’s long-running civil war.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-1/12393293616770.xml&storylist=national&thispage=1

In an article titled, “Pressure by FBI puts Somalis in bind” CAIR’s Minnesota chapter civil rights director Taneeza Islam claims “Students' legal rights need to be upheld and they aren't currently being afforded the only true legal protection they have when talking to the law enforcement-an attorney."

Islam’s concern is confirmed by this example of the FBI’s brutal interrogation methods involving a Muslim student: “In December, one of her friends who works for the University of Minnesota police approached her, saying the FBI would like to talk about her organization. The agent, she said, was polite and made it clear she could refuse to talk. "He wanted to know how we got funded and what activities we do," she said of the 20-minute interview. He also wanted to know "how some of the missing boys were involved in the organization," she said, adding she never felt pressured.”

So, the FBI agent explained she didn’t have to talk and the student stated the agent was polite. Where is the coercion? What “rights” did the FBI agent not explain?

Considering CAIR’s reputation when it comes to providing legal advice; buyer beware. In addition to the numerous proven allegations that CAIR is directly tied to Islamic terrorism and individual Islamic terrorists, CAIR has also been accused of providing shoddy legal advice to the very North American Muslim population it claims to represent and protect.

http://www.saneworks.us/uploads/news/applications/27.pdf

What does it say about CAIR when they apparently set off to deliberately commit fraud against American Muslims?

So why would the Somali Muslim students turn to CAIR for legal advice? The simple answer, from the article, is that they didn’t. Nowhere in the article does CAIR make the claim that CAIR supplied any legal advice to any of the students. Why? Would it be outside the realm of possibility that CAIR completely fabricated that claim that “numerous” students filed complaints with them?

We also learn from the article that apparently none of the students interviewed for the article had anything bad to say about the FBI, except CAIR. None of the students stated that they were abused, denied rights, or forced to answer any questions. None were taken into custody.

For instance, the opening line from the article: “When the FBI approached the young women at the University of Minnesota, they said they didn't mind talking.” Does this sound like abuse, or a case where Muslim Somali students are responding to legitimate FBI concerns?

And:

From the article, “But the women, both second-year students who don't want their names used because they fear for their safety, said the investigation into whether missing Somali men from Minnesota have been recruited by terrorists to fight in their homeland has left many students caught between wanting to help investigators find the truth and facing scorn from some in their community.”

Where is the abuse? Actually, from the statements of the Muslim women, it sounds as if they have more to fear from their own Muslim community than they do from the FBI. Why doesn’t CAIR step up and demand that local law enforcement provide protection to those who want to cooperate in the investigation? Once again, CAIR selectively focus’s “outrage” against not only the college, FBI, but against Muslim students who see nothing wrong with providing information that may help locate fellow missing students.

Just what is CAIR’s game? CAIR recently announced that it is severing ties with the FBI because the FBI, rightly, cut off contact with the terrorist supporting “civil rights” group.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/985/fbi-cuts-off-cair-over-hamas-questions

The truth of CAIR’s disdain for the FBI is summed up by Islam’s statement regarding the FBI cut off of contact with CAIR; from the article: “Islam added the FBI’s decision to discontinue its outreach efforts through CAIR “is a huge loss for them”.” However, can anyone remember when CAIR has ever provided genuine, actionable information to the FBI or any other law enforcement agency that resulted in the prevention of a radical Islamic action?

It took the FBI over ten years to end its association with CAIR; an association that contributed absolutely nothing to the FBI’s understanding of peaceful Islam and CAIR calls it a “huge loss for them”. This would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

We can take heart that it appears that none of the students approached CAIR for assistance or took any of CAIR’s “legal” advice. Apparently, the Somali Muslim students simply aren’t aware that the FBI is as bad as CAIR claims them to be. What is left unanswered by CAIR is, “if the FBI is so bad regarding Muslim civil rights, why does CAIR complain about ties being severed?”

This article was an excellent example of CAIR’s waning influence and inability to attract attention to yet another non-event involving American Muslims having their rights “violated”.

It didn’t happen, CAIR knows it, and the students did not support even one of CAIR’s claims.

Perhaps the Somali Muslim students understand the threat of radical Islam and want to do what they can to assist their adopted country in the battle against radical Islam. Maybe they understand, as others do not, exactly how bad radical Islam in practice really is and want no part of it in the USA?

Either way, it is a great win for the FBI and a smack in the face to CAIR’s attempts to butt in where they aren’t wanted or needed.

Cpt Phillips Rescued

I was seriously worried about this for a couple of reasons. The first being it was a test of Obama's willingness to stand up to terrorists. He issued the approval for the use of force and that is exactly what was needed to resolve the situation. A sign of weakness would have tipped off extremists worldwide that America was ripe for the plucking and our leader would be hesitant at best.

Secondly, the combination of Obama's silence and the elongated negotiation led me to believe that the pirates would get off with a big fat payoff, thus enabling future piracy.

Thankfully, neither of those concerns have to fruition over Maersk Alabama. Instead, the piracy trade off the coast of Somalia has taken a major hit and the Navy Seals are heroes. Check out Michelle Malkin's tribute to the Seals.

Navy snipers on the fantail of a destroyer cut down three Somali pirates in a lifeboat and rescued an American sea captain in a surprise nighttime assault in choppy seas Easter Sunday, ending a five-day standoff between a team of rogue gunmen and the world's most powerful military.

It was a stunning ending to an Indian Ocean odyssey that began when 53-year-old freighter Capt. Richard Phillips was taken hostage Wednesday by pirates who tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama. The Vermont native was held on a tiny lifeboat that began drifting precariously toward Somalia's anarchic, gun-plagued shores.

The operation, personally approved by President Barack Obama, quashed fears the saga could drag on for months and marked a victory for the U.S., which for days seemed powerless to resolve the crisis despite massing helicopter-equipped warships at the scene.

Negotiations with the three pirates were growing heated, Vice Adm. Bill Gortney said.

One of them pointed an AK-47 at the back of Phillips, who was tied up and in "imminent danger" of being killed when the commander of the nearby USS Bainbridge made the split-second decision to order his men to shoot, Gortney said. Navy snipers took aim at the pirates' heads and shoulders, he said. The lifeboat was about 25-30 yards away and was being towed by the Bainbridge at the time, he said.

A fourth pirate had surrendered earlier in the day and could face life in a U.S. prison.

Of course the pirates are upset that thier trade has been disrupted and are making threats.

Angry pirates vowed retaliation for the deaths, raising fears for the safety of some 230 foreign sailors still held hostage in more than a dozen ships anchored off the coast of lawless Somalia.

"From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill them (the hostages)," Jamac Habeb, a 30-year-old pirate, told the Associated Press from one of Somalia's piracy hubs, Eyl. "(U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

Does that mean they liked us before? Anyway, before all these pirates get too feisty they might want to consider the potential circumstances.

April 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. military is considering attacks on pirate bases on land and aid for the Somali people to help stem ship hijackings off Africa’s east coast, defense officials said.

You might want to start digging your bomb shelters now Blackbeard.

Also blogging, Woman Honor Thyself.

Happy Easter

I'm taking the day off from politics. Go to my Easter post from last year for spiritual reflection.

Pirates... Hostages... who cares?

Not Obama.

An American skipper held hostage by pirates tried to swim to freedom Friday but was recaptured seconds later when the bandits opened fire within view of a U.S. destroyer.

Four Somali pirates, who are demanding a ransom, were ready to kill Capt. Richard Phillips if they are attacked, according to a Somali in contact with the captors.

The high seas drama turned more complex and potentially deadly in its third day as both pirates and American forces rushed reinforcements to the scene several hundred miles off the coast of Somalia. The crisis stemmed from a thwarted attempt to take over the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama freighter and is testing the new Obama administration.

The pirates summoned reinforcements, calling in four commandeered ships with hostages from a variety of nations including the Philippines, Russia and Germany, according to the Somali in touch with the pirates.

Booooring! let's talk about glimmers of HOPE®!

Obama was asked to comment on the situation several times by reporters at a White House event on refinancing for homeowners. Obama, however, stuck closely to the script and replied that he wanted to remain focused on housing.

Former presidents have gone to war over Muslim piracy. In fact, it's happened twice. Now we just bribe them and bow to their royals. That's CHANGE® that pirates can believe in. 

CSM proposes a solution.

Critics say US should attack Somali pirates' land bases.

Is it time to replace bluewater policing with tactics of Jefferson, who defeated the Barbary pirates on land?

(...)

the US needs to target the pirates' bases in Somalia, where they have had free reign to establish camps in various port cities of the failed state. In a commentary for CNN, Tom Wilkerson of the United States Naval Institute, a nonprofit professional association, also advocates targeting the pirates' home bases, which he says is a lesson "we seem unable to learn from our own history."

In 1804 President Thomas Jefferson said "Enough" to paying 20 percent of the US national budget as tribute (jizya) to Barbary pirates. His response was clear and successful – build a strong naval task force, equip it with a sizeable contingent of Marines, and send it to attack and defeat the pirates in their lair. The sailors and Marines sent on that mission did just that – and in the process wrote a stirring page in our nation's early history.

The problem today is that we have refused to take the Jefferson model. We've confined our anti-piracy efforts to the open seas and left the pirates' home bases on land as a sanctuary. Thus, the pirates continue to operate with relative freedom and stealth. We and our allies only respond, never seizing the initiative.

The Jefferson model is a better answer: Take on the pirates where they are, rather than guessing where they will be. In short, attack them at their home bases. 

We've gone about 200 years without a significant pirate problem since then, maybe Jefferson was onto something.

Update: Hillary is no (giggle) help, tee hee!

Jihad Watch reminds us that this is another form of jihad.

Somali water-jihadis demand 2 million for U.S. captain

Add that to the 2.5 million dollars Somalis are demanding for the Canadian woman they raped -- and impregnated -- and you can see that Somalia's jihad-al-mal, or "money-jihad," is going rather well.

Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War

I saw this comment from the author of Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War at Jihad Watch.

Is Islam radical or not?

This is from my forthcoming book, scheduled for release in a week:

"61 percent of the Koran either talks ills of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation, but only 2.6 percent of it talks about the overall good of humanity."

These statistics tell us that at the fundamental level Islam is radical and the overwhelming nature of the above statistics implies that the extent of radicalism in Islam is beyond interpretation.

His name is Moorthy S. Muthuswamy and his book has earned high praise from Robert Spencer,

"Here is a thorough and provocative discussion of the threat of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism in all its dimensions. Moorthy Muthuswamy deserves our gratitude for presenting a solidly argued exposition of what must be done in order to fight, and win, this conflict on ideological and political grounds, defending human rights and religious freedom from the threat posed to them by the jihadists. We can only hope that our political leaders and those of all the nations that are threatened by the jihad will heed his wise counsel before it is too late."

Geert Wilders,

"In his book Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War Moorthy Muthuswamy gives an excellent analysis of the threat the Islamic ideology poses to the West....With this book, Muthuswamy not only identifies and analyzes the problem civilized democracies face with Islam, but he also aims to give possible ways to deal with it as well. This book is a must-read for everyone and an eye-opener for those who are not yet aware of the threat Islam poses to our Western civilization."

and Andrew Bostom.

“Muthuswamy's lucid analysis identifies the axis of global jihadism - Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. His succinct discussion further elaborates a practical geopolitical strategy to thwart their odious political Islamic agenda. This thoughtful and frank book should be read by all concerned with preservation of free democratic societies threatened by a resurgent onslaught of totalitarian jihad.”

Here's a synopsis.

Al Qaeda and its sympathizers are often viewed as isolated fanatics outside of the mainstream Muslim population—outlaws not only in the West but also in respectable Muslim nations. This book argues just the opposite: that in fact terrorism is the logical outgrowth of an international Islamic political agenda that is endorsed and funded by Islam’s major players—Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Author Moorthy S. Muthuswamy labels these nations the “Axis of Jihad”. For decades, he says, they have been devoted to extending their spheres of influence in the name of religion.
  
Utilizing a recent groundbreaking statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines and an analysis based upon the outlook of Muslims, he discusses the possibility that Islam is less a religion and more an ideology of conquest.

Muthuswamy urges US policymakers to rethink the War on Terror along the lines of the successfully waged Cold War against communism. The nuclear physicist-author makes the following main point:

Like the Cold War, this war is more a contest of ideas than armed conflict. Rather than placing the emphasis on military might and costly wars abroad, the West should invest the bulk of its effort in a science-based ideological war, one that is directed at discrediting the simplistic, conquest-oriented theological roots of Islamist indoctrination and jihadist politics.

Muthuswamy also emphasizes the importance of a largely non-Muslim India in the War on Terror, in view of its location and size. The India-born author gives a fascinating description of modern Islamic conquest in South Asia. His insights into the Islamist siege and subversion of Indian democracy should be revealing for the citizens of western democracies.

The author asserts that the West needs India in dealing with the conundrum that is Pakistan, as they both share language, culture, and more with each other.

This fresh perspective on the ongoing threat from Islamist terrorism offers much to ponder about the future course of US foreign policy initiatives.

It looks very promising.

OBOWma Denial

Who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes? Hot Air compares Obama's greeting to Queen Elizabeth to the bow to Saudi King Abdullah.

Ben Smith-The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Let's review.

The Washington Times called the alleged bow a  "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate" and said it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty. The Weekly Standard, meanwhile, noted that American protocol apparently rules out bowing, or at least it reportedly did on the occasion of a Clinton "near-bow" to the emperor of Japan.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

"Obama wished to demonstrate his respect and appreciation of the personality of King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, who has made one of the most important calls in the modern era, namely the call for inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue to defuse the hatred, conflict and wars," wrote the columnist, Muhammah Diyab.

The video shows Obama dipping toward the king as G-20 leaders greet one another at the ExCel Centre in London.

It seems odd that a denial would be issued a near week after the incident occured. It's even more bizzare that the explanation is just a flat denial in face of video and cameras. What arrogance. The media ia already in Obama's hip pocket, so why bother with a denial?