New beginning - same old Religion of Peace. In the year since Obama's pledge for a "new beginning" with the Islamic world, Muslims in America have, 1) Plotted to set off a car bomb in Illinois, 2) Plotted to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, 3) Attempted to detonate an airplane over Detroit, 4) Murdered an army recruiter in Arkansas, 5) Planted a car bomb in Times Square, and 6) Massacred thirteen people in Texas.
It's been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).
Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month's Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: "This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now."
ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood's umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America "to adopt Islam as a complete way of life" — i.e., to further the Brotherhood's strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood's rally-cry remains, to this day, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will "conquer America" and "conquer Europe."
The Dems are going to paint themselves into a Socialized medicine corner. Denying that the elections mean anything and ramrodding heath care through regardless. If it passes, Obama is going to look like he opposses the will of the people. If it doesn't pass, Obama looks like a failure who goes against the will of the people. Either way could lead to a big win in 2010.
The White House said the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) had issued a call for proposals for the fund, which will provide financing of between 25 and 150 million dollars for selected projects and funds.
The Global Technology and Innovation Fund will "catalyze and facilitate private sector investments" throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa, the White House said in a statement.
Eligible projects would advance economic opportunity and create jobs in areas like technology, education, telecoms, media, business services and clean technology, the White House said.
OPIC said sample projects could help foster the development of new computer technology or telecommunications businesses, or widen access to broadband Internet services....
Was it an oil deal? Convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi flew home from a Scottish prison on Thursday, freed by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds because doctors say Megrahi's cancer will kill him within three months. But was that the real reason? Could Britain have traded Megrahi in return for lucrative deals with the energy-rich North African nation?
British officials strongly deny any such arrangement with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. But on Friday, Libya watchers and oil analysts said they believed that the decision to free the only person convicted in the 1988 Pan Am Airlines bombing was connected to British investment interests. "It [Megrahi's release] was a matter of when, not if," says Molly Tarhuni, manager of the international security program at the London-based think tank Chatham House. "It's a very strong possibility" that a deal was struck, she says. "There are benefits to Britain having done it. This was the last in a long chain of deals."
Another demonstration of the urgent need for energy independence -- as much as possible, as soon as possible. Imagine the moral compromises and foreign policy blunders that would not be up for discussion without the economic blackmail made possible by the current global demand for oil and gas.
Moreover, citizens of the US and other Western nations have to let our leaders know that our lives are in no uncertain terms to be part of any deal with terrorists. Our safety is not a bargaining chip. We have to let our outrage be known to the powers that be or we are certain face even greater dangers only to have them forgiven...no, rewarded! By those who have sworn to protect us.
GREENOCK, Scotland (CNN) -- The man convicted of murdering 270 people by blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, two decades ago received a boisterous welcome when he landed in his native Libya on Thursday.
Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, suffering from terminal prostate cancer, was freed from prison in Scotland, with Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill citing compassionate grounds for the release and saying al Megrahi was "going home to die."
Bert Ammerman, whose brother died in the bombing, called al Megrahi's release "ludicrous."
"First of all, he got his compassionate release when he got life imprisonment and not capital punishment, which Scotland doesn't have," Ammerman told CNN. He should have remained in prison, then after his death, his body could have been returned to Libya, he said....
Al-Megrahi's release disgusted many victims' relatives.
Here's what some of the other family members said,
"You get that lump in your throat and you feel like you're going to throw up," said Norma Maslowski, of Haddonfield, New Jersey, whose 30-year-old daughter, Diane, died in the attack.
"This isn't about compassionate release. This is part of give-Gadhafi-what-he-wants-so-we-can-have-the-oil," said Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, New Jersey. Her 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, was killed.
"Some hurts can never heal, some scars can never fade," MacAskill said. "Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive ... However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power."
"I don't understand how the Scots can show compassion," said Kara Weipz, of Mount Laurel, New Jersey. Her 20-year-old brother Richard Monetti was on board the doomed flight. "I don't show compassion for someone who showed no remorse."
The Scottish authorities showed no compassion for the victims of the Lockerbie victims, allowing al-Megrahi to return home to a hero's welcome.
Here we go with the cartoons again. The "Beeb" says they haven't reached a decision yet, but if the interview is blocked, you can bet it has nothing to do with "editorial content" and everything to do with appeasement.
Kurt Westergaard claims the corporation's decision not to air a
recent interview with him came because they are petrified of upsetting
Westergaard was one of the 12 cartoonists commissioned by the
Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005 to produce caricatures of the
Islamic tradition says no image of him should be produced or shown.
Kurt Westergaard said he was disappointed 'on behalf of freedom of speech' if the BBC did not show his interview
Muslims were particularly incensed by Westergaard's cartoon, which
portrayed Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and was seen as extending
the caricature of Muslims as terrorists. The images sparked protests
and outrage across the globe.
Mr Westergaard, 73, gave his first-ever English interview to BBC journalist Malcolm Brabant four weeks ago.
had been expected to go out on BBC World, the BBC News channel, across
radio services and on its website. But the corporation has kept the
report under wraps amid claims it is frightened that it will 'inflame'
Muslims around the world.
Mr Westergaard told the Daily Mail last night: 'I am
disappointed on behalf of the freedom of speech. Every time you are
afraid I think you make a step backwards. That is depressing me.'
He compared the BBC's behaviour with the way countries tried
to appease Hitler before the Second World War and added: 'If you have
an appeasement policy towards the radical Muslims then you are on a
very wrong way and you have to start marching backwards.'
A BBC spokesman said last night: 'No decision has been made
yet. As and when one is, it will be based, as always, on editorial
If this is a bow, it’s more than Elizabeth got
when The One met her yesterday. Maybe if she started beheading people
for not practicing the state religion, she’d have received a little
more deference. Exit quotation from a 1994 edition
of the NYT, contemplating the prospect of Clinton bowing to Japan’s
emperor: “Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians.
Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what
else were 1776 and all that about?”
JUDGES should interpret the Constitution according to other nations'
legal "norms." Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts. The
United States constitutes an "axis of disobedience" along with North
Korea and Saddam-era Iraq.
Those are the views of the man on track to become one of the US government's top lawyers: Harold Koh.
President Obama has nominated Koh -- until last week the dean of
Yale Law School -- to be the State Department's legal adviser. In that
job, Koh would forge a wide range of international agreements on issues
from trade to arms control, and help represent our country in such
places as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
It's a job where you want a strong defender of America's
sovereignty. But that's not Koh. He's a fan of "transnational legal
process," arguing that the distinctions between US and international
law should vanish.
The primacy of international legal "norms" applies even to treaties
we reject. For example, Koh believes that the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child -- a problematic document that we haven't ratified
-- should dictate the age at which individual US states can execute
criminals. Got that? On issues ranging from affirmative action to the
interrogation of terrorists, what the rest of the world says, goes.
Including, apparently, the world of radical imams. A New York
lawyer, Steven Stein, says that, in addressing the Yale Club of
Greenwich in 2007, Koh claimed that "in an appropriate case, he didn't see any reason why sharia law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States."
A spokeswoman for Koh said she couldn't confirm the incident,
responding: "I had heard that some guy . . . had asked a question about
sharia law, and that Dean Koh had said something about that while there
are obvious differences among the many different legal systems, they
also share some common legal concepts."
Score one for America's enemies and hostile international bureaucrats, zero for American democracy.
Koh has called America's focus on the War on Terror "obsessive." In
2004, he listed countries that flagrantly disregard international law
-- "most prominently, North Korea, Iraq, and our own country, the United States of America," which he branded "the axis of disobedience.[...]
Even though he's up for a State Department job, Koh is a key test
case in the "judicial wars." If he makes it through (which he will if
he gets even a single GOP vote) the message to the Obama team will be:
You can pick 'em as radical as you like. Full article.
Koh is against capital punishment and in favor of gay marriage, but he thinks that sharia can used in the United States? This idiot doesn't even make any sense.
It turns out that on March 21, 2007, Carol Iannone, on Phi Beta Cons blog,
published a letter from Stein to Dean Koh about his Yale Club remarks.
Stein wrote, in part, "In your discussion of 'global law' I recall at
least one favorable reference to 'Sharia', among other foreign laws
that could, in an appropriate instance (according to you) govern a
controversy in a federal or state court in the US."
Limbaugh goes on to comment: "Whether or not Koh ever responded to
Stein's letter, Stein's representations of Koh's remarks are certainly
consistent with Koh's writings that I reviewed."