Category Archives: Islam

American Warfighters Deserve Same Consideration as Taliban

Posted on by
1

After being captured on the unmarked battlefields of Afghanistan and Pakistan, members of the Taliban have been granted release after merely pledging not to support or fight for the Taliban anymore.  Why are U.S. warfighters not being granted similar forms of clemency by their own government?

Clockwise from upper left: Michael’s family; Michael; Michael as a youngster; and Michael and his girlfriend, Shannon.

Before addressing that question, it’s worth familiarizing yourself with the Islamic concept of Takeyya.  According to an undated article in Islam Review*, the concept allows Muslims who find themselves under the threat of force to act contrary to their faith and to “utter insincere oaths.”

Fourteen months ago, The New York Times ran an article about attempts to reintegrate members of the Taliban – including many responsible for having killed and/or crippled American soldiers — into society as productive citizens.  The prisoners needed only to pledge — think “oath” — that they would not go back to fighting with the Taliban.  There were no guarantees, of course — just promises — and no apparent concerns about whether or not they were employing Takeyya.  Do you think any of the Taliban who uttered pledges did so simply to facilitate their own release?  Of course, they did!

Now, to answer the question of why U.S. warfighters deserve breaks at least as good as the ones received by their former battlefield enemies, I highlight the case of Army Ranger 1LT Michael Behenna.

Michael’s Platoon

While escorting Ali Mansur, a known Al-Qaeda operative, back to his hometown near Baghdad, Lieutenant Behenna admittedly disobeyed an order and decided to interrogate Mansur.  Why?  There were several reasons:

First, Lieutenant Behenna had good reason to suspect Mansur had been involved in an IED attack two weeks earlier that killed two men — Sgt. Adam Kohlhaas, 26, and Spec. Steven Christofferson, 20 — assigned to the lieutenant’s Delta Company 5th Platoon; and

Second, Lieutenant Behenna had learned that four different Army intelligence officers had interrogated Mansur but had never asked him about the IED attack, a previous threatening phone call made to the lieutenant, a confirmed attempted February attack or his trips to Syria.  Instead, they had only asked him about his possession of illegal weapons and his current employment.

Apparently, carrying the name of one of the largest Sunni families in Iraq had made the Al-Qaeda operative untouchable and prompted U.S. officials to release him.

Now, put yourself in the Lieutenant’s position.

Can you fault him for wanting to learn the entire truth about Mansur’s activities that likely resulted in the deaths of two U.S. soldiers?  I cannot.

How do you explain the lieutenant’s decision to strip Mansur naked and kill him at close range in a culvert?  Without going into all of the details of what took place prior to the shooting, I direct those who think Lieutenant Behenna deserves the punishment he received for killing Mansur to an article I published in February 2010.

Notably, the article includes the text of the sworn affidavit, dated April 21, 2009, in which Dr. Herb MacDonell — a government witness who was never allowed to testify during the lieutenant’s trial — explains how knowledge he obtained while waiting to testify in the case could have changed dramatically its outcome.  For good measure, I share the text of that affidavit again below:

I was retained by the government to testify as an expert witness in bloodstain analysis.  On 16 December 2008 I received a FedEx package from Captain Megan Poirier.  It contained ten envelopes of photographs and reports as well as a video of the scene.  Included was a report by Barbara Liveri, and the autopsy report done by an Iraqi doctor.  Prior to trial, I told the government that using only the photographs at the scene and the nature of the surfaces where the bloodstains were located made it difficult to reach any definitive conclusions.  I had been contacted before trial by Jack Zimmerman, one of the lawyers for First Lieutenant Behenna and told him the same thing.  I was set to travel to Fort Campbell on Wednesday, February 25, 2009, to return on Friday, February 27, 2009.  I was called and asked to come a day earlier, which I did.  I sat in on the testimony of Dr. Paul Radelat and Mr. Tom Bevel.  They testified on Wednesday.

At a recess on Wednesday, I was in the prosecutor’s office in room 13 in the courthouse.  While talking with Dr. Berg about the bullet wounds Ali Mansur received, Dr. Berg gave me information I previously did not have.  Dr. Berg told me that the wound trajectories for both the chest wound and the head wound were horizontal and essentially parallel.

After thinking about this new information, I did a demonstration to show the only logical explanation which was consistent with the autopsy findings, the bloodstains, the final resting position of the body, and the time between shots.  I had Sergeant MacCauley stand directly in front of me, and facing me.  I asked him to raise his right arm a little and then I poked my right index finger in to the right side of his chest under his arm and said, “Bang!  You have just been shot, so drop down.”  The sergeant dropped to his knees and as his head passed in front of my finger, I said, “Bang!  You have been shot again.”  I remarked that this was consistent with the physical evidence.  All three prosecutors, Captains Poirier, Roberts, and Elbert were present when I gave this demonstration and informed them of my opinion.

On Thursday morning during one of the breaks I examined the 9mm bullet and saw it had struck a hard object while traveling backwards.  This is consistent with the bullet tumbling as it exited on of Ali Mansur’s wounds.  The uniformity of the extruded lead into a disk-like configuration shows it was traveling in a horizontal trajectory if the surface it struck was a flat, very coarse, vertical surface.  Logically, that could have been the culvert’s concrete wall.

On Thursday afternoon, the day after this demonstration, I listened to Lt. Behenna testify.  I had seen no written statement made by him.  This was the first time I learned what he said had happened.  After Lt. Behenna described the shooting, I turned to Dr. Berg and told him, “That is exactly what I told you guys yesterday.”  There was a recess about 5:00 pm and Lt. Behenna was still on the witness stand.  I was told by Captain Poirier that I would not be needed, and a flight was arranged for me for that evening.  I told Captains Poirier and Roberts that I could stay another day if necessary. They told me my testimony would not be needed and I could leave to get my flight.

When I went back to room 13 to get my hat, coat, and briefcase the captains on the prosecution team were already in that room.  As I gathered my things I reminded them that although the scenario I had presented to them the day before was unlikely, it still was the only theory I could develop that was consistent with the physical evidence.  It was also exactly the way Lt. Behenna had described the events.  Their reaction was noticeably cold.  I went back into the courtroom and went over to Jack Zimmerman.  As I was putting on my coat I remarked that I was sorry I was leaving because I would have made a good witness for him.  He asked why, and I told him I was a government expert, and could not discuss it with him until after the trial.  He asked me not to leave but I did.  I did not believe it would have been proper for me to have told Attorney Zimmerman any more than I did.  I was not “eager to communicate” with him or I would have told him my concern at that time on Thursday.

I expected that the prosecutors would tell Mr. Zimmerman what I had told them.  When I was released without being called as a defense witness, and had returned to Corning, New York, I was concerned.  I consulted two friends, a Supreme Court judge and a lawyer, and decided to check with Captain Poirier to ensure she had passed on the opinion I had given the prosecutors Thursday afternoon when I was getting my hat, coat, and briefcase.

From reading the judge’s ruling, I believe the misunderstanding may have resulted from the way I interpreted the questions asked during my telephone testimony on Saturday, February 28, 2009.

When I testified that I told Dr. Berg, “That is exactly what I told you guys yesterday,” and did not remember telling my reaction to any other person, I meant right there at that moment in the courtroom.  There was no one else but Dr. Berg sitting nearby who had witnessed my demonstration the day before.  The prosecutors were at counsel table then.

However, at the next recess, when I went to get my hat, coat, and briefcase, I specifically told the three prosecutors in their office in room 13 the same thing I told Dr. Berg.  As I testified on February 28, 2009, “And as I was leaving I told the prosecuting group, I said, “That was exactly what I told you.’”

I do not feel that it is fair to put the opinion I related to Dr. Berg and Captains Poirier, Roberts, and Elbert on Thursday in quotation marks.  Until Wednesday afternoon I had not been told the wound trajectories for both shots were horizontal and parallel.  I had not been provided the bullet to examine.  The scientific process required me to consider the physical and medical evidence in reaching my final conclusion.  That is why I wanted to see the bullet on Thursday.  When I heard Lt. Behenna describe what happened, I did not say other witnesses were lying, or that my conclusion was based on my opinion of the Lieutenant’s credibility.  My expert opinion was based on the fact that the Lieutenant’s description as to how the shooting occurred fit the physical evidence.

I have consulted and testified in many trials, and I know what exculpatory evidence is.  I firmly believe the jury should have heard my testimony.

After reading everything above, can you really fault Lieutenant Behenna for his actions?  I can’t.

Do his actions deserve 15 years in prison?  I think not.

Unfortunately, members of the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces voted, 3-2, in favor of upholding his conviction.  So what’s next?

Americans who disagree with the CAAF decision should implore the presidential candidate who wins the privilege of serving as our next Commander-In-Chief should make it his top priority to grant clemency to Lieutenant Behenna.  I’m willing to be Lieutenant Behenna will pledge never to kill Ali Mansur again.

For more details about Lieutenant Behenna’s case, read Carrie Fatigante’s nine-part series that I published in December 2009.  To read about the more recent developments (newest to oldest), click here.

*I know the article was published at least three years ago, because I cited it in a piece published June 4, 2009.

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Shall We Treat Women Like Broken Dinner Plates?

Posted on by
2

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

On Nov. 2, 2010, the people of Oklahoma were asked to decide a very important question.  They were asked to decide whether or not the state’s courts should be directed to rely solely on federal and state law, or whether other bodies of law… international law, laws of other nations, or Sharia law… could also be used.  State Question 755, amending Article 7, Section 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution, declared that, “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures.  Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

When all the votes were counted, 695,650 Oklahomans (70.08 percent) voted to live under existing federal and state law, while 296,944 voters (29.92 percent)… liberal Democrats, Muslims, deceased persons, and a few trouble-makers who sneaked across the border from Texas and Arkansas… voted to live under whatever legal code happened to be the “flavor of the day.”

Just two days later, on Nov. 4, local Muslims filed suit in federal court, seeking to block implementation of the measure.  The suit was filed by Muneer Awad (of the Oklahoma Awads), executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, who expressed the view that the people of Oklahoma had no right to decide the parameters of the constitution under which they live and that the amendment, approved by 70.08 percent of the Oklahoma electorate, was… unconstitutional.  Awad argued that the amendment tramples the “free exercise” rights of a disfavored minority faith (it does not), restricts the ability of he and his fellow Muslims to execute valid wills (it does not), and prohibits equal access to the judicial system (it does not).

The lawsuit further asserted that the Oklahoma amendment “undercuts a central concern of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, sending an unmistakable message that Muslims are religious and political outsiders.”  If Muslims are religious and political outsiders, as Awad suggests, there must be a reason.  Let’s look at the record.

On Nov. 15, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called on all Muslim countries to protect Christians living among them.  He also called upon Christians and Muslims to show mutual respect toward each other.  Since that date, the Pope has issued numerous appeals for reciprocity, calling upon Muslims to respect the right of Christians to worship freely throughout the Muslim world, just as Muslims enjoy religious freedom in majority Christian nations.  So what impact has the Pope had on slowing the progress of Islamic jihad?

In a report published on Nov. 26, 2010, Khaled Abu Toameh described recent incidents of genocide against Middle East Christians.  The report tells us that, “Christians in Arab countries are no longer being persecuted; they are now being slaughtered and driven out of their homes and lands.”

On Christmas Day, 2011, a radical Islamist group calling itself Boko Haram… which translates to “Western education is a sin”… bombed a Christian church in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, killing 43 and injuring many more.  The Jewish World Review reports that a Boko Haram leader, Abdul Qaqa, gave Christians in northern Nigeria three days to pack up and leave the country.

In 2010, 52 Catholics were slaughtered at a church in Baghdad.  The Chaldean archbishop of Kirkuk is quoted as saying that 57 Christian churches in Iraq have been attacked since 2003.  More than 900 Christians have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded.  In April 2011, 1,000 Christians were slaughtered by Muslim troops in Ivory Coast.  And in October 2011, in Egypt, 24 Coptic Christians were killed and more than 200 were wounded by radical Islamists.

These are but a few examples of the atrocities suffered by Christians in the Muslim world.  And while they represent an indescribable horror for those directly affected, they may also represent a long overdue and much needed wake-up call for the non-Muslim world if they help us to finally see Islam for what it is… and what it is not.  Hopefully, acts of genocide against Christians in Muslim nations will finally serve to convince westerners that Islam and Christianity cannot coexist, side-by-side, unless Christians yield to the demands of radical Islam.

Those who worry that restrictions on Sharia Law… such as Oklahoma SQ 755… may conflict with 1st Amendment rights, must understand that the 1st Amendment prohibits the “establishment of a religion.”  Islam is not a “religion” as we in the West understand the meaning of the term and it cannot be viewed as such.  It is far more than that; it is a social, political, legal, military, and economic system with a spiritual component.

As such, it is governed by and may come into conflict with Articles I, II, III, and IV of the U.S. Constitution, and at least 14 of the 27 amendments.  In fact, as an invading force that attempts to impose its 7th century values on an enlightened 21st century world, in any way possible, violent or non-violent, there is very little in Islam that would not conflict with the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.  Without its religious component, which Muslims conveniently hide behind when claiming 1st Amendment protections, Islam would be just another hate group, a foreign political insurgency that must be defeated, no matter what the cost.

We in the United States have developed social, political, and economic institutions that are the envy of the entire world, and Islam is the last place we would look for guidance in perfecting our Western civilization.  No help is wanted, or needed, thank you very much.

Like most Europeans of the post-World War II era, many Americans have succumbed to the fiction that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that worldwide jihad is merely a pipedream of the radical few.  However, the truth lies elsewhere.  As one Muslim caller to a radio talk show put it, “The liberal (peace-loving) Muslims are on the bus… but the crazies are driving the bus.”  Only when so-called “moderate” Muslims show a bit of courage by unmasking the radicals in their midst will any sort of accommodation be possible.  Until then, Muslims will increasingly be seen as a “disfavored minority faith,” as Mr. Awad refers to them.

In Islamic countries, Christians and Jews are prohibited from practicing their religion freely and openly.  Fair enough.  So I’ll pledge to accept their petty little demands on the same day that Christians, Jews, and everyone else are allowed complete religious freedom in all of the nations of the Islamic world, but not before.  The litmus test for Islam as a “religion of peace” will be the day when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and all other non-Muslims are free to visit Mecca; and when churches, temples, and synagogues can be built throughout the Muslim world.  Until then, Islam must be viewed, not as the world’s largest religious denomination, but as a primitive alien culture that has not evolved appreciably beyond its seventh-century roots.

Complete reciprocity is the standard that must be met… nothing more, nothing less.

On Nov. 30, 2010, Federal District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange handed down a decision in the Oklahoma SQ 755 case, barring the Oklahoma State Election Board from certifying the results of the election until she could prepare a final ruling.

Because the people of Oklahoma have made “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Awad suit is totally without merit.  To the contrary, the amendment approved on November 2 served only to reinforce the 1st Amendment in that, like it or not, it prohibits the “establishment of religion” for a small minority of Oklahoma citizens.  As might be expected, Judge Miles-LaGrange got it exactly backwards.  (Appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton in 1994, Judge Miles-LaGrange provides just one more horrible example of why we cannot trust Democrat presidents to appoint capable and competent judges to the federal bench.)

Finally, on Jan. 11, 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver agreed with Judge Miles-LaGrange, upholding her injunction against the implementation of Oklahoma SQ 755.  The case now goes back to federal court in Oklahoma City for a decision on the question of constitutionality.

Depending on the outcome of the trial in Oklahoma City, and the anticipated appeal to the 10th Circuit, the people of Oklahoma may have to play the game a bit longer by appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But if by some chance a majority of justices would find some merit in the lower court decisions, striking down State Question 755, then it will become necessary for Oklahoma to stand on its 10th Amendment rights by engaging in nullification.  Governor Fallin and Attorney General Pruitt will have to inform the federal courts that the people of Oklahoma are sovereign and that they have spoken.  State Question 755 will become part of the Oklahoma constitution and it will be enforced, the opinion of the federal courts notwithstanding.

In a recent interview, a Muslim in Bahrain admitted to having shot his sister in the head four times because she had been forcibly raped.  Although she was the victim of a brutal assault, her violation had brought shame upon her family.  As the brother explained, in Islam, a woman who has been violated is much like a broken dinner plate that must be thrown away; she is no longer of any use and it’s best to discard her so that she can bring no further shame to the family.

It’s time that Mr. Awad and all of his Muslim friends understood that, in Oklahoma, all human lives are valued equally, regardless of gender, and that our women are not like “dinner plates.”  And if he and his CAIR associates don’t like the way we do things; if they refuse to recognize that Sharia law is incompatible with Oklahoma values, then we have a few suggestions for them… and we’ll give them more than three days to pack up and leave; we’ll give them at least a week.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

SHAMELESS PLUG:  Be sure to check out Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Flight 93 Memorial Still Resembles Victory Mosque As 10th Anniversary of 9-11 Attacks Draws Near

Posted on by
3

60%SizeMeccaOrientationGraphicOn Oct. 6, 2007, I wrote and published my first post about the controversial memorial to be constructed at the site where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into the Western Pennsylvania countryside Sept. 11, 2001.

On Feb. 26, 2009, I shared news of Beverly Burnett’s heartfelt letter in which she called for a full, transparent review of the Flight 93 Memorial Project ostensibly being built to honor people who died in the crash, including her adult son, Tom Burnett Jr.

The above posts were but two of nearly a dozen postsI published on the subject.

Today, I share yet another one, courtesy of Alec Rawls and others who are working with Beverly Burnett and her husband, Tom Burnett Sr., to keep this matter in the spotlight as the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 tragedies nears.

* * *

We all know who broke the circle of peace on 9/11.

It was 19 Islamic terrorists. That makes the broken-circle memorial to Flight 93 a memorial to the terrorists, who are depicted not only as smashing our circle of peace, but as leaving a giant Islamic crescent-and-star flag in its place:

Photobucket

They call it a broken circle now, but the unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace: a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, pointing to Mecca.

The damned thing is actually an al-Qaeda victory mosque, with the Mecca-oriented crescent as its mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built.

That is the short version of an advertisement that started running in western Pennsylvania newspapers last week. Alec Rawls sends along this update on the effort to stop the crescent mosque.

10th anniversary ad campaign now underway

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently solicited Tom Burnett Sr.’s response to some new design images for the Flight 93 memorial. When he said that the so-called redesign leaves all of the terrorist memorializing features intact, editors instructed reporter Kari Andren to leave his remarks out. They preferred un-interrupted praise from the same few family members who always speak up for the broken-circle design.

The people of Pennsylvania deserve to see what their information gate-keepers don’t want them to know, so Mr. Burnett and his backers decided to begin their 10th anniversary ad campaign a few weeks early. The first full-page color ad just ran in the Somerset Daily American and will appear in two other local papers next week.

For a PDF of the ad copy, click here or on the thumbnail below, or scroll down for the same content formatted for browsing. If anyone wants to help fund additional advertising, a very generous soul has offered to match all donations up to a total of $5,000.

Broken circle ad 1, large thumbnail

More explicit than a giant Islamic crescent-and-star flag?  As the ad-headline notes, the Circle of Embrace “redesign” only accentuates the circle-breaking crescent-creating theme of the original Crescent of Embrace. Mr. Burnett’s full remarks explain:

The only visible change is the addition of an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. The unbroken part of the circle, what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11, is just the original Crescent of Embrace: a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca.

People also need to know that a Mecca-direction indicator is the central feature around which every mosque is built. It is called a “mihrab,” and the classic mihrab is crescent shaped.

So the terrorists broke our circle of peace on 9/11, and all that remains standing is the central feature of a mosque. The inclusion of a broken-off part of the circle only accentuates this terrorist-memorializing symbolism. It bastardizes what my son, Tom, and the other heroes of Flight 93 accomplished. The crescent/broken-circle design is a desecration of sacred ground.

Tom Burnett Sr., Northfield, Minn.

Park Service Calls the Circle ‘Broken’

A proper newspaper would ask the National Park Service if the extra arc of trees really does represent a broken-off part of the circle. Still, people can easily verify this crucial fact for themselves. It is right on the park service’s own website. Their “questions about the design” page asks “Is this circle ‘broken’ at all?” Their answer is yes:

… the circle is symbolically “broken” or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site.

The locations of these two breaks in the “circle of embrace” are spelled out:

…first, where the flight path of the plane went overhead (which is the location of the planned memorial overlook and visitor center), and second, where the plane crashed at the Sacred Ground (depicted by a ceremonial gate and pathway into the Sacred Ground).

These are the two ends of the extra arc of trees, which starts near the original upper crescent tip and continues down to the crash site. So Mr. Burnett is right. Both ends of the new arc of trees are explicitly broken off. The unbroken part of the circle—what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11—is just the original Islamic-shaped Crescent of Embrace that the park service promised to change.

To illustrate, the ad includes a side-bar of graphics, showing just what is changed and what is not changed in the memorial. This is slightly complicated by the fact that the park service pretended that they were going to make one very big cosmetic change that they are not actually making, but a few pictures easily tell the tale.

The National Park Service pretended the outside of the crescent would be filled in with a forest of trees

A publicity shot of the original Crescent of Embrace design shows what appears to be a bare-naked Islamic crescent-and-star flag planted atop the crash site:

Crescent of Embrace publicity shot

When this blatant Islamic symbolism caused an uproar, architect Paul Murdoch re-worked his mock-up to show a forest of additional trees surrounding the outside of the original crescent:

Circle/Bowl of Embrace publicity shot

Only the inner arc of the crescent remains visible, making the new Circle of Embrace name seem reasonable. But none of these surrounding trees made it into the actual Circle of Embrace design drawings. (The “Stage 1″ drawings, encompassing the area seen in these images, were released in 2009.)

The park service may eventually let the bare field grow in with trees, but this is not a change in the design. The only actual change is the extra arc of trees, seen below in orange. It explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle:

What Circle of Embrace will actually look like

What the Circle of Embrace actually looks like. The original giant crescent still sits naked on an open field and the flight path still “breaks the circle” at the upper crescent tip.

Remove the explicitly broken off part of the circle (in orange), and what symbolically remains standing in the wake of 9/11 is the same giant Mecca-oriented crescent the Park Service promised to change. It constitutes a classic “mihrab,” the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built, and will form the centerpiece for the world’s largest mosque.

Who broke the circle of peace on 9/11?

When the “Crescent of Embrace” was unveiled as the winning design, architect Paul Murdoch explained the crescent name and the crescent shape by saying that the circle was broken on 9/11, leaving only a part of the circle still standing: the giant crescent. The fact that this circle-breaking crescent-creating theme remains completely intact in the broken-circle design demands the question of WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle of peace on 9/11.

The final section of the ad points out that there can only be one answer. We all know who broke the peace on 9/11. Thus the memorial can only be depicting the actions of the terrorists, who are seen not only as smashing our circle of peace, but as replacing it with their own crescent and star flag.

With the media censoring all criticism, people who don’t like all this blatant Islamic symbolism need a way to signal each other directly, so the ad finishes with a handy-dandy flyer that readers can post on windows, walls, bulletin boards, etc:

Who broke the circle, click for PDF

If you want to put a few up yourself, click the image above for a printable PDF, complete with URLs for our petition to stop the memorial and for more information. And here is an ad-copy version that anyone can run in their own local paper (the free weeklies can be pretty reasonable).

As Flight 93 showed, just because the hijacker has control of the cockpit doesn’t mean he can’t still be stopped.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Herman Cain Catches Heat Over Mosque Comments

Posted on by
3

When I saw Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain come under fire over the weekend for comments he made about the construction of mosques in the United States, I couldn’t help but chuckle.  Why?  Because, in my not-too-distant past, I worked with churches nationwide as an audio-video design and installation consultant. From my office at Norman, Okla.-based Fowler, Inc.  I traveled the country and was involved in the construction process from project design and blueprints to final construction.

For almost five years during the late 1990s, I worked with hundreds of Christian leaders across the country whose churches were engaged in new construction projects.  I witnessed firsthand how, in many parts of the United States, it required a minimum of several months of cutting through bureaucratic red tape for church bodies to gain approval of new construction or renovation projects from their respective local government planning and zoning commissions.  Sometimes, it took years as members of those government bodies seemed to work overtime in putting up roadblocks.

Six years have passed since I left Norman, but my contacts in the industry tell me little has changed.  Though I have no way of knowing whether or not the delays stem from anti-Christian bias, I suspect some do.  But do you read about the delays caused by local government bureaucrats?  Rarely.

On the flip side of the coin, however, it becomes headline news across the country for citizens in a U.S. town or city to oppose construction of a mosque — or for a presidential candidate like Cain to hold such a position.

An Atlanta radio talk show host and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Cain generated a lot of buzz Sunday when he used Murfreesboro, Tenn., as an example.  In short, he told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that protests and legal challenges to a planned mosque in that city are an example of local residents pushing back.  Painted as most controversial, however, was his contention that his view doesn’t amount to religious discrimination, because Muslims are trying to inject Shariah law into the U.S.

Cain’s comments fall in line with the thinking that allowing Shariah Law in this country is akin to committing national suicide.

When all is said and done, however, the controversy above leads to two logical conclusions:  As Americans, we must promote the spread of Christian family values in order to stem the spread of Islamic beliefs and Sharia Law.  In addition, we must get involved in politics at every level of government — down to and including the planning and zoning commissions — in order to prevent the possibility of anti-Christian bias via government bodies.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Have you experienced delays in your church construction project that you suspect stem from anti-Christian bias?  If so, please share your experience in the comments section below.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

‘Strange Bedfellows’ Barely Describes Situation

Posted on by
Reply

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

In a recent post, “The Weiner Affair: Liberals, Lies and Lewdness,” I wrote briefly about the improbable marriage of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, a Jew, and Huma Mahmood Abedin, daughter of a prominent Muslim family.
However, as I wrote, I was haunted by a number of intriguing questions, all of which deserve further investigation.

First, I could not come to grips with the notion of how a young college student, newly arrived from Saudi Arabia and with no apparent political connections, could in a very short time find her way into an internship at the Clinton White House. As one who has been through the White House personnel wringer on three occasions, I’m sure I will be excused for wondering how she could have managed such a feat… or who arranged it for her.

To review, Huma Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Mich., in 1976 but was raised in Saudi Arabia from age two until she returned to attend George Washington University in about 1993 or 1994. Her deceased father was an Islamic scholar and her mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, PhD, a native of Pakistan and a prominent member of the female wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, currently serves as an associate professor of sociology and a vice dean at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Upon arriving at the White House, Ms. Abedin was assigned to the Office of the First Lady and has been a trusted aide to Hillary Clinton ever since. According to a report in Forbes magazine, Abedin has advanced from traveling chief of staff, to deputy chief of staff, to her current senior aide position in the Clinton State Department.  Abedin is never far from the Secretary of State and is often referred to as Hillary’s “shadow” and her “secret weapon.”  In Washington, D.C., circles, she is seen as a powerful figure, not only within the Clinton entourage, but among movers and shakers in the Democratic Party… quite an accomplishment for a young woman who arrived from Saudi Arabia with no apparent political connections.

Secondly, Abedin’s marriage to Weiner raises an even more interesting question. Since it is considered sacrilege in Islam for a Muslim family to condone the marriage of a daughter to a Jew, why was her marriage to Weiner not denounced by her family, especially when such a marriage would likely be considered null and void under Sharia law?  It is a marriage that, in the absence of “mitigating” circumstances, might have caused her to be the subject of an “honor killing” to restore the family name.  In Saudi Arabia, and in other Muslim countries, she might have been stoned to death for committing the worst crime a Muslim woman could possibly commit… marrying a Jew.

So if there are mitigating circumstances, what are they?  Was Huma Abedin granted a legal dispensation under the Sharia practice of al-Takeyya so that she could marry Weiner? Under the concept of Taqiyya a practicing Muslim is allowed to deny his/her faith, or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, so long as that denial or those acts inure to the ultimate benefit of Islam.  If that is the underlying justification for the Weiner-Abedin union, then we must ask what was the ultimate payoff for radical Islam?

According to a report in Pajamas Media, information confirmed by Arab sources, Abedin’s brother, Hassan, is listed as a fellow and partner with a number of Muslim Brotherhood members who serve on the board of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) in England.  Pajamas Media reports that Hassan Abedin has been a key figure in furthering the Islamic agenda and has worked with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on a program of “spreading Islam to the West.”

HRH Prince Alwaleed first came to our attention in October 2001, following the attack on the New York World Trade Center, when the prince offered a $10 million contribution to a disaster relief fund, suggesting that the United States “must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack,” and must “re-examine its policies in the Middle East.”  The donation was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

But what is even more interesting is a New York cable channel interview (above) with former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton. In that interview, Sutton recalled a 1988 request from a friend and former business associate, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, described as “an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an outspoken enemy of Israel, and mentor to Black Panther Party leaders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.”

In the interview, Sutton recalled that al-Mansour was raising money for Barack Obama’s Harvard Law School education and asked that he use his influence to have Obama accepted at Harvard.  Some Obama supporters have suggested that Sutton was mistaken in suggesting a tie between al-Mansour and Obama, but an outright denial from Sutton has not been forthcoming.

According to a report by Discover The Networks, “Al-Mansour is an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally. In recent years he has accused the U.S. of plotting a ‘genocide’ designed ‘to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value, or benefit to the American society.’  He has told fellow blacks that ‘whatever you do to (white people), they deserve it; God wants you to do it and that’s when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don’t worry because God wants you to do it.’”

So, aside from being a major white-hater and mentor to domestic terrorists… and assuming that Percy Sutton was correct in asserting that al-Mansour raised money for Obama’s law school education… exactly who is Khalid al-Mansour?  He is the principal financial advisor to one of the world’s wealthiest men… yes, there’s that name again… Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

It is widely reported that, in 2002, Prince Alwaleed donated $27 million to a Palestinian relief fund following an Israeli attack on a West Bank refugee camp. The Israeli attack was in reprisal for a Palestinian suicide bombing in which 29 Israelis were killed.  The telethon was ordered by Saudi King Fahd to help relatives of Palestinian “martyrs.”  And although King Fahd insisted that none of the money would benefit families of suicide bombers, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council is quoted as saying that some money did go to the families of suicide bombers.

So are we to believe that a man who would give billions of dollars to his charities, including $10 million for disaster relief in New York and $27 million to support Palestinian terrorism, could not afford $100,000, or less, to further the educational ambitions of a young black American with a Muslim name and Muslim background who shared his animus toward Israel?

As we contemplate this strange, even frightening, group of people, maybe Obama was just lucky enough to have a benefactor that many of us would have envied… a rich guy who spills more than $100,000 before breakfast each day and who just wanted to see him get a college education.

And maybe the White House Personnel Office just happened to stumble across an eager young Muslim university student and, in the interest of greater international understanding, decided to give her an inside look at how our government operates.

And maybe this young woman proved to be such an asset that the First Lady of the United States decided to keep her on through her White House years and into her years as Secretary of State, where she is privy to some of our most closely-guarded national secrets.

All of these things are possible… but not likely.  More than likely, Barack Obama, the Abedins, Anthony Weiner, the Clintons, Khalid al-Mansour, and Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a mixture of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, are all in one way or another joined at the hip. Like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dorhn, they are all members of Barack Obama’s extended political “family,” all willing to see Israel “tossed under the bus.”

Who knows what terrible mischief Islamic plotters had in mind when they sent a daughter of Islam… one whose mother and brother are members of the Muslim Brotherhood… to share her bed with a politically powerful Jew?  Is Anthony Weiner a JINO… a Jew In Name Only… who is grudgingly accepted as a “useful idiot” by the jihadists of the Islamic world because they saw that his love of leftist ideology and political power was far greater than his love for Israel?

In his Feb. 8, 2011 Jihad Watch article for Human Events, Robert Spencer asks why Obama isn’t working to limit the scope and influence of the Islamic Brotherhood. He suggests that it may be “because he doesn’t really have a problem with the Brotherhood, despite its hostility to America…  Starting in the earliest days of his administration, he showed an intense desire to establish friendly ties with Brotherhood-linked organizations – despite the Brotherhood’s stated goal of ‘eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.’”

Given that Obama’s every political and economic move has been designed to destroy our American economy and our unique Western culture, it is clear that he and the Brotherhood share the same goal. Could it be that radical Islam sees Abedin’s closeness to Hillary Clinton, and hence, her access to our most closely-guarded secrets, as being far more important than her marriage to a politically powerful Jew?  I don’t know.  I’m just asking.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Movie Recommendation: ‘Of Gods and Men’

Posted on by
Reply

By Foster Friess, Guest Blogger

If you’re a moviegoer, I’m told Of Gods and Men is a Must See!…

Holding fast to faith in the face of terror, Of Gods and Men is a masterful tale of courage and fidelity.

There’s a recent French film now available in theaters in the United States that powerfully displays the struggles of Muslims and Christians working to live peacefully in a society threatened by Islamic radicals.  Of Gods and Men is genuine drama, showing human beings wrestling with whether to flee in the face of terrorism or to hold fast and sacrifice themselves for others.

The film tells the true story of eight French monks in a small Algerian village who were mysteriously kidnapped and murdered in 1996. The local Muslims had been fond of these Christian brothers, who distributed not only food and medicine but also fatherly advice and care. But both Islamic terrorists and the military saw the brothers as a threat to their ideology of hate.

The dialogue is in French, with English subtitles, but it is easy to follow and even a little humorous, despite the grave situation. The most profound moment is without words:  Set to Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, the scene masterfully reveals the interior struggles of the monks as they contemplate the fate they are about to face. They strive mightily to maintain their Christian joy and courage despite the great threat looming before them. It’s a powerful few minutes.

In fact, Joe Morgenstern, the Wall Street Journal‘s film critic, called that scene “sublime” and said the film is “one of the most beautiful movies I know.” He adds:

… the issue becomes one of survival versus faith, and the questions deepen as the danger grows. At what point may the shepherd leave the flock? Of what avail is unsung martyrdom? These are not rhetorical questions for the frightened monks; they must make fateful decisions.

Of Gods and Men runs 2 hours.

Find theaters here.

Watch the trailer here.

God Bless,

Foster (:>)*****

Foster Friess promotes private-sector solutions to benefit society and curb an increasingly intrusive government. Through the Express Rider network of like-minded influence-leaders, FosterFriess.com provides a conduit to educate and empower citizens on issues transforming America.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Dick Durbin Hunting for Muslim Votes

Posted on by
Reply

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

The Democratic Party is the oldest of the two major U.S. political parties.  It was first organized in the early 1790s by anti-federalists, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, as the Democratic-Republican Party.  Unlike the Democratic Party of today, it was distinguishable by its support for states’ rights and strict adherence to constitutional principles.

The modern Democratic Party was born in February 1825 following the disputed presidential election of 1824. In that election, between John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts; Henry Clay of Kentucky; William H. Crawford of Georgia; and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, Jackson won a plurality of both the national popular vote and the electoral vote.  However, since he had failed to win a clear majority of the electoral votes, the 12th Amendment dictated that the names of the top three candidates… Adams, Crawford, and Jackson… be sent to the House of Representatives, presided over by none other than Speaker Henry Clay, for the final selection.

Clay threw his support to Adams, who became the sixth president of the United States; Jackson resigned from the Senate and launched a campaign for the party’s 1828 nomination; and Clay relinquished the Speaker’s gavel to become Secretary of State in the Adams Administration.  The Jackson faction of the party, referring to the highly-suspicious Adams-Clay alliance as a “corrupt bargain,” split off from the party and established the Democratic Party.  It was out of that “corrupt bargain” that the DNA of the modern Democratic Party was formed.

In the years between 1825 and 1860, as abolitionist sentiment gained more and more support, the Democratic Party, north and south, became the party of slavery, championing such pro-slavery laws as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Fugitive Slave Law.  Then, after opposing Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Democrats opposed ratification of the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery; the 14th Amendment, granting citizenship to the freed slaves; and the 15th Amendment, which gave voting rights to the freed slaves.

Following the Civil War, in states where they held essentially one-party control, Democrats enacted Black Codes and an endless variety of Jim Crow laws.  In 1866, as a means of ensuring the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were fully enforced, Democrats created a paramilitary auxiliary, the Ku Klux Klan.

In the remaining years of the 19th century, Democrats established an unbroken record of opposition to civil rights legislation. They opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the First Reconstruction Act of 1867, the Enforcement Act of 1870, the Force Act of 1871, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.  Then, after regaining control of Congress and the White House in the 1890s, Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894, repealing much of the civil rights legislation enacted by Republicans in the decades since the Civil War.

Later, in the mid-20th century, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and the Equal Employment Act of 1972 became law only with strong Republican support.  All of those bills received strong opposition from Democrats in one-party states, mostly in the South.

During the 1930s, Democrats began to build a coalition of special interest groups.  With the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, giving workers the right to organize unions and to engage in collective bargaining with employers, Democrats saw an opportunity to capture a stable and reliable voting bloc.  If they could convince working men and women that they were the sole protectors of their unique government-created “right” to hold hostage the private property of the owners of business, they would be the beneficiaries of many millions of dollars during each campaign season and tens of millions of votes on Election Day.  Since that day, Democrats have been the dutiful servants of the labor bosses.  Whatever labor has wanted, labor got… no matter how ethically or economically ill-advised the demand.

 

Rosa Parks

Then came Brown v. Board of Education, Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, Orville Faubus and the Little Rock Central High School, Bull Connor and Lester Maddox, and suddenly everything changed. African-Americans were suddenly knocking at the door, demanding access to the American Dream, and they had every right to do so.  But they had a decision to make.  Would they be consumed by the irresistible narcotic of the welfare state, or would they recognize that the only true economic progress in America is not class progress, but individual progress, and opt for the sure rewards of education, opportunity, and hard work?

We all know what happened.  African-Americans turned their backs on the Republican Party, the party that was born out of opposition to slavery, the party whose members had shed their blood and their treasure to free their forbears from the bonds of slavery. Instead, their leaders opted for the “free lunch” promised by Democrats and they filed, en masse, into the Democratic Party where, to this day, they faithfully and blindly pull the Democrat lever on Election Day.

In more recent times, Democrats can be seen courting not only the votes of Hispanic citizens, but the votes of illegal immigrants, as well. While illegal aliens stream across our porous borders by the millions, bringing tons of drugs along with them, Democrats refuse to enforce immigration laws and offer the illegals generous taxpayer-funded education, medical, and welfare benefits.

In 1962, Rachel Carson published her book, “Silent Spring,” which attacked the use of chemical pesticides.  Her book led to a ban on DDT and other pesticides and a grassroots environmental movement was born.  Yet, in spite of the fact that scientific studies show conclusively that DDT is not a carcinogen, the EPA lists DDT as a ‘probable human carcinogen’… but only if ingested in large quantities.  Nevertheless, it was yet another opportunity for Democrats to make political capital out of a bogus public issue based on questionable science and embraced by a large and dedicated following… many of them wealthy, well-educated, and blindly idealistic.

It is of no apparent concern to Democrats that, since DDT was banned by a Democratic Congress in 1972, more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria.  The World Health Organization reported that, in the year 2000 alone, malaria infected more than 300 million people, killing some 2,000,000… mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.  Most fatalities today are children, who die at the rate of two per minute or 3,000 per day.  Yet, so long as Democrats have their campaign coffers filled by radical environmentalists they will continue to do their bidding… no questions asked.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano talks with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

In subsequent years, Democrats have embraced the agendas of numerous other special interests, all having just one thing in common: they all want something from government.  These include trial lawyers, radical feminists, abortion rights advocates, public school teachers, public employees, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people.  But now it appears that Democrats are looking to add yet another loyal voting bloc to their coalition.  They’ve sent Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), their second-ranking Senate leader, on a hunting expedition to capture the American Muslim vote… both radicals and moderates.

In the wake of hearings held by U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, into charges that homegrown Muslims are being radicalized by ideologues in mosques all across the country, Senate Democrats held an “anti-King hearing,” on Tuesday, March 29, chaired by none other than Dick Durbin, himself.  It was an apparent attempt to show that the guys who took down the World Trade Center, the guys who flew a plane into the Pentagon, the guy who slaughtered 13 and wounded 29 at Fort Hood, and dozens more, were just a bunch of misunderstood eccentrics.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, a photograph has circulated in the mainstream media showing a smiling Dick Durbin at an early March gathering of Muslim clerics at the Bridgeview Mosque Foundation in Chicago. As described by Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, of the eight men photographed with Durbin, six are allied with Hamas, the Palestinian terror group; five are unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial; and four of the eight have made statements calling for the killing of Jews.

Should they be successful, it will be interesting to visualize future Democratic conventions. Just picture the thugs of the AFL-CIO, ACORN, and SEIU conducting seminars for teachers and Code Pink pacifists on how to beat up little old ladies at Tea Party rallies. Picture the blacks and the Hispanics beating the tar out of each other because blacks are tired of hearing Mexicans say that blacks are too lazy and too spoiled to do stoop-labor.  But most interesting of all, picture what happens when a bunch of radical jihadists get a little high from sniffing the smoke in one of the Democrats’ smoke-filled rooms and wander into a ballroom where gays, lesbians and transvestites are enjoying a no-holds-barred meet-and-greet.  Where the jihadists come from, men are beheaded and women are stoned to death for that sort of thing, but in Democratic circles it will just be viewed as business as usual.

If Democrats are so determined to make themselves bullet-proof, politically, one wonders why they haven’t embraced the political agenda of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Could it be that pedophiles just don’t bring enough money or enough votes to the table?  Happy hunting, Dick!  Better you than us.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!