Author Not Surprised to Hear Retired General Say Muslim Brotherhood Inside Pentagon

When I heard retired Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin telling an interviewer in the video below that he knows our government — including the Pentagon! — has been infiltrated at the highest levels by members of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, I wasn’t the least bit surprised. Why? I’ll explain after you watch the video below.

I wasn’t surprised, because I spent four years conducting an exhaustive investigation of the credibility assessment tools relied upon by federal government agencies and members of the contractor community as they screen individuals for employment, conduct background investigations and interrogate individuals suspected of criminal, terrorist and/or treasonous activities.

Along the way, I uncovered three separate memos — one of which was issued by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., who now serves as Director of National Intelligence — via which senior Department of Defense officials informed all DoD personnel that the century-old polygraph was the only credibility assessment technology authorized for their use.

I also revealed the existence of a “turf war” that’s been raging silently for more than 40 years between polygraph loyalists unwilling to embrace a newer, more-reliable technology that’s already been embraced by more than 1,900 local and state law enforcement agencies nationwide.

General Boykin’s claims begin to make sense when one takes into consideration how well the polygraph has performed in several key areas:

• Despite what International Security Assistance Force officials once posted and later removed from the ISAF Facebook page, the portable polygraph deployed to Afghanistan certainly hasn’t improved the vetting process used to screen Afghan recruits or prevented record numbers of “Green-on-Blue” Attacks during the past five years.

• Periodic polygraph exams should have helped prevent the unauthorized disclosure of millions of classified and/or sensitive documents by people like Edward Snowden. Instead, he was able to pass the very polygraph exams that were supposed to have caught him.

• During the early days of the so-called “Global War on Terror,” officials at Guantanamo Bay found themselves unable to count on support from polygraph loyalists when it came time to interrogate detainees. And when they turned to a non-polygraph technology and began to realize extraordinary results, DoD officials removed the non-polygraph tool from their arsenal!

The general’s claim also makes sense when one considers that a Freedom of Information Act request, via which I seek to obtain copies of unclassified documents related to DoD contracts for purchases of polygraph equipment, is about to turn 20 months old.

Click image above to order.

Click image above to order.

It’s worth noting that I’m not the only one who believes what I share on this topic in my second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a retired U.S. Army general who once served as deputy commander of U.S. Army Pacific, endorsed the book, wrote, “Bob McCarty has uncovered a high-tech ‘turf war’ pitting those who want the best for our troops against others who seem to be focused on their own self-interests. Sadly, it seems the wrong people are winning this war. I highly recommend THE CLAPPER MEMO.”

Capt. Larry W. Bailey, a retired U.S. Navy officer who once served as commander of the U.S. Navy SEALs training program, characterized what I expose in the book as “clearly an unconscionable cover-up of a capability of the U.S. military and intelligence community to vet incoming Afghan (or any other) military personnel.”

David P. Schippers, the man who served as Congressman Henry Hyde‘s chief investigative counsel during the Clinton Impeachment Hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives, described the book as “perhaps the most thorough investigative reporting I have encountered in years. I direct the attention of the so-called major media to it. This is how it’s done!”

Gold Star family members have praised the book, too.

MaryLiz Grossetto, the aunt of LCpl. Greg Buckley Jr., a 21-year-old Marine who died in Afghanistan in August 2012 as the result of a “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attack, read the book. Afterward, she offered this review: “Read this book & you will see how our government has for many, many years deprived our military of the best possible tool for vetting & weeding out the enemy.”

Billy and Karen Vaughn shared their observations about the book almost two years after their son, U.S. Navy SEAL Aaron Carson Vaughn, lost his life along with 29 other Americans when their helicopter, call sign “Extortion 17,” was shot down in Afghanistan Aug. 6, 2011. In their endorsement, they wrote, “THE CLAPPER MEMO by Bob McCarty gives the reader an in-depth look into the dirty little secrets of politics and greed triumphing over safety and security for our fighting men and women as well as the average American citizen.”

I hope you’ll take the opportunity to read the book, too!

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Army Leadership Failures Continue to Destroy Lives

The folks at The New York Times appear to have pulled punches in today’s edition by refusing to identify the Army leadership failure that allowed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to remain in uniform for so long.

Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan

Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan

Instead of using the headline, Fort Hood Gunman E-Mailed Supervisors Over Concerns, to draw attention to an article by reporter Manny Fernandez, a different set of words (i.e., Blood of Fort Hood Victims on Army Leaders’ Hands) would have been more accurate.

Though Times readers will likely never learn why editors of the Old Gray Bitch didn’t use the blood-on-hands headline, two facts remain clear: Had Army leaders responded appropriately in response to the words and actions of Major Hasan prior to his deadly attack on fellow Soldiers at Fort Hood, the Army psychiatrist and radical Muslim would, at a minimum, have been discharged from the Army before waging the attack, and many people would still be alive today.

Michael Behenna and girlfriend Shannon Wahl.

Michael Behenna and girlfriend Shannon Wahl.

This easy-to-identify failure of Army leadership stands as one in a long line of failures I’ve witnessed in recent years. Another case, however, became the subject of more than 70 articles I wrote during the past five years. It’s a case in which Army leadership failures cloud the court-martial conviction of Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael C. Behenna.

For purposes of highlighting the case, I point to the excerpt below from an article published Jan. 15, 2013:

Since July 19, 2012, I’ve tried unsuccessfully to obtain a copy of the 15-6 report from Freedom of Information Act officials at the Army Criminal Investigation Command Crime Records Center at Quantico, Va., at the Army’s primary FOIA office at Fort Belvoir, Va., and at Fort Campbell, Ky., home to the Army’s 101st Airborne Infantry Division, parent command of the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment to which Lieutenant Behenna’s 18-member Delta Company, 5th Platoon belonged.

After realizing no success with any of the agencies listed above, I contacted an official at the Crime Records Center and asked her to review the estimated 874 pages of the Report of Investigation that her agency was willing to provide me and see if the 15-6 report was among the documents included. She told me it was not and suggested I contact FOIA officials at Army Central Command (USARCENT), located at Shaw Air Force Base, S.C.

Snapshot of letter received from Col. Rodney Lightfoot.

Snapshot of letter received from Col. Rodney Lightfoot.

On Dec. 10, 2012, I forwarded a FOIA request to USARCENT, seeking the 15-6. Yesterday, 35 days later, I received a reply from Col. Rodney L. Lightfoot, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff at Third Army/United States Army Central Command. He wrote:

This letter is the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated December 10, 2012. Your request was for a copy of the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation report that was prepared following a shooting incident that took place May 16, 2008 in Iraq. The shooting incident involved Army 1LT Michael C. Behenna and the person who was killed, an Iraqi citizen by the name of Ali Mansur.

In response to your FOIA request, our agency conducted an extensive search for records. No records were found in search of the information being requested. No fees have been assessed for this action.

Apparently, I am supposed to believe the Army did not keep a copy of an investigation report prepared as the basis for a murder trial, conviction and lengthy prison sentence.  Yeah, right.

What is the real reason behind the fact that I didn’t receive a copy of the 15-6 report? There are several likely answers to this question.

For starters, I would have been able to uncover more details about the investigation that catapulted the Edmond, Okla., native into facing a court-martial, being found guilty of unpremeditated murder and being sentenced to 25 years — later reduced to 15 — behind bars at Fort Leavenworth. Most importantly, however, I suspect those details would have made Army leaders look bad. Very bad.

Worse still, those details might have exposed the fact that Army leaders — perhaps on orders from a higher authority (i.e., President Barack Obama)? — promised Iraqi government officials they would ensure Lieutenant Behenna was held responsible for the death of Mansur, a known al-Qaeda operative and member of a prominent Iraqi family. In other words, they would put on a “show trial.”

While I could share more examples of failed Army leadership, the two above should suffice for now. If, however, you’re a glutton for punishment, I offer two suggestions:

My series, War on Men in the Military, tackles the subject of sexual assault prosecutions inside the U.S. military and highlights a number of cases similar to the one I wrote about in my first nonfiction book, Three Days in August; and

My second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, connects the dots between three memos — including one issued by James R. Clapper Jr., now the nation’s top intelligence official — and hundreds of American casualties resulting from “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) attacks waged by so-called Afghan “allies” wearing the uniforms of their nation’s military, police and security forces.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Lieutenant Behenna’s appeal made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being rejected June 3.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August and THE CLAPPER MEMO. To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

‘Show-Me Jihad’ Murder Suspect Committed to Mental Institution

Apparently, 23 months wasn’t long enough for court-appointed mental health professionals to determine whether or not Mohamed H. Dawod (a.k.a., the “Show-Me Jihad” murder suspect) was in his “right mind” when he allegedly shot and killed a fellow traveler at a Springfield, Mo., bus station less than 48 hours before the 10th anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mohamed H. Dawod

Mohamed H. Dawod

Yesterday morning, a hearing — something you knew was happening only if you read about it at BobMcCarty.com — was held in Judge Dan Conklin‘s 31st Judicial District courtroom in the southwest Missouri city.

Notably, the hearing took place four months after Dawod, a 25-year-old resident of Glendale, Ariz., at the time of the shooting, pleaded “not guilty” due to insanity to charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the shooting death of Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio.  Total strangers before the shooting, according to all reports, both men had been passengers on a Greyhound bus that was en route from Amarillo, Texas, to St. Louis and had stopped in Springfield.

According to a report n the Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader this morning, Dawod has been committed in an attempt to deal with his mental health issues, and his case will likely be reconsidered by Judge Conklin in six months.  One possible outcome of future court hearings is that Dawod could be committed to a mental institution permanently.

As I noted in an update to my Aug. 13 piece, online information about the case has been removed from CaseNet, apparently because of the mental health-centered decision at yesterday’s hearing.

CaseNet Dawod Screen shot 2013-08-14 at 5.18SILVER LINING:  As long as Dawod is in a mental institution, Missourians can rest assured he won’t soon walk free like another Missouri Muslim murder suspect did recently following a visit to Warrensburg, Mo., by President Barack Obama.

To read more details about the Springfield bus station murder, click here.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

‘Show-Me Jihad’ Murder Suspect Faces Hearing Wednesday A.M.

Nearly two years after he allegedly shot and killed a stranger at a Greyhound bus station in Springfield, Mo., Mohamed H. Dawod (a.k.a., the “Show-Me Jihad” murder suspect) is set to make another appearance before 31st Judicial District Court Judge Dan Conklin Wednesday at 9 a.m. Central.

Mohamed H. Dawod

Mohamed H. Dawod

Unreported by any traditional news media as of this posting, the hearing comes almost four months after Dawod, a 25-year-old resident of Glendale, Ariz., at the time of the shooting, pleaded “not guilty” due to insanity to charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the shooting death of Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio.

Since entering that plea, according to docket entries, Dawod has undergone at least one court-ordered mental examination.  Now, the question is, “Will the judge buy it?”

In a piece 13 months ago, I listed several factors that should raise doubts:

FIRST, the suspect and his victim, a fellow passenger on a bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, did not to know each other, according to witnesses –  including the victim’s traveling buddy and other passengers who were preparing to board the bus for the last leg of the journey to St. Louis;

SECOND, according to at least one witness, Dawod shouted something in the air — perhaps, “Alluh Akbar,” the cry that’s been heard coming from the mouths of so many Islamic extremists moments before they suffer from so-called “sudden jihad syndrome” — before shooting his victim;

THIRD, the shooting took place barely 48 hours before the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States; and

FOURTH, local police officials were quick to say the shooting appeared to be random, according to a report in the Springfield News-Leader.

Stay tuned to see how this hearing and the rest of the Dawod case turns out.  To read more about the case, click here.

UPDATE 8/15/2013 at 6:36 p.m. Central:  ‘Show-Me Jihad’ Murder Suspect Committed to Mental Institution

UPDATE 8/14/2013 at 5:33 p.m. Central:  Shortly after 5 p.m. today, I visited the CaseNet website for an update on today’s Dawod hearing in Springfield.  Unfortunately, the same search criteria I have always used to search for case information yielded the following result:  Your query returned no matches to be viewed at this site. Please try another search or contact the court directly.  Makes me wonder if another Missouri Muslim murder suspect might soon walk free as one did in Warrensburg, Mo., earlier this month.

CaseNet Dawod Screen shot 2013-08-14 at 5.18

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

American Warfighters Deserve Same Consideration as Taliban

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 (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Shall We Treat Women Like Broken Dinner Plates?

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

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!