Lying Lunatic Left and Radical Islam Attacks American People — Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals and The Traitor and Terrorist Totalitarian Threats — Videos

Posted on December 15, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, British History, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Energy, European History, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Middle East, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Trump Triumphing with American People — Trump Democrats, Trump Republicans, Trump Independents — President Trump? — Too Soon To Call — Videos

Posted on November 21, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Demographics, Documentary, Economics, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Radio, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Resources, Security, Shite, Speech, Spying, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxation, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Torture, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Mark Steyn — America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It — Videos

Posted on May 27, 2015. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Non-Fiction | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

america-alone

The End of the World as We Know It, with Mark Steyn

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama On War, Peace and Drones To Kill Radical Islamic Jihad Terrorists — National Defense University Speech, May 23, 2013 — Videos

Posted on May 23, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Drones, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, IRS, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

President_Obama_speech_23_May 2013

obama-drones

reaper_drone

‘There is no justification to Gitmo’: Barack Obama’s speech on counter-terrorism

President Barack Obama has given a speech – justifying and outlining changes to the national defence policies of the United States. The address is seen as an opening up of America’s security policies. Obama has discussed the legality of drone strikes and the future of the Guantanamo prison.

Document: Text of Obama speech on counterterrorism, May 23, 2013

President Barack Obama’s speech on the fight against terrorism at the National Defense University, as provided by the White House:

It’s an honor to return to the National Defense University. Here, at Fort McNair, Americans have served in uniform since 1791– standing guard in the early days of the Republic, and contemplating the future of warfare here in the 21st century.

For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of change. Matters of war and peace are no different. Americans are deeply ambivalent about war, but having fought for our independence, we know that a price must be paid for freedom. From the Civil War, to our struggle against fascism, and through the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War, battlefields have changed, and technology has evolved. But our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war, and every war has come to an end.

With the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a new dawn of democracy took hold abroad, and a decade of peace and prosperity arrived at home. For a moment, it seemed the 21st century would be a tranquil time. Then, on September 11th, 2001, we were shaken out of complacency. Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. This was a different kind of war. No armies came to our hores, and our military was not the principal target. Instead, a group of terrorists came to kill as many civilians as they could.

And so our nation went to war. We have now been at war for well over a decade. I won’t review the full history. What’s clear is that we quickly drove al-Qaida out of Afghanistan, but then shifted our focus and began a new war in Iraq. This carried grave consequences for our fight against al-Qaida, our standing in the world, and — to this day — our interests in a vital region.

Meanwhile, we strengthened our defenses — hardening targets, tightening transportation security, and giving law enforcement new tools to prevent terror. Most of these changes were sound. Some caused inconvenience. But some, like expanded surveillance, raised difficult questions about the balance we strike between our interests in security and our values of privacy. And in some cases, I believe we compromised our basic values — by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.

After I took office, we stepped up the war against al-Qaida, but also sought to change its course. We relentlessly targeted al-Qaida’s leadership. We ended the war in Iraq, and brought nearly 150,000 troops home. We pursued a new strategy in Afghanistan, and increased our training of Afghan forces. We unequivocally banned torture, affirmed our commitment to civilian courts, worked to align our policies with the rule of law, and expanded our consultations with Congress.

Today, Osama bin Laden is dead, and so are most of his top lieutenants. There have been no large-scale attacks on the United States, and our homeland is more secure. Fewer of our troops are in harm’s way, and over the next 19 months they will continue to come home. Our alliances are strong, and so is our standing in the world. In sum, we are safer because of our efforts.

Now make no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11. With a decade of experience to draw from, now is the time to ask ourselves hard questions — about the nature of today’s threats, and how we should confront them.

These questions matter to every American. For over the last decade, our nation has spent well over a trillion dollars on war, exploding our deficits and constraining our ability to nation build here at home. Our service-members and their families have sacrificed far more on our behalf. Nearly 7,000 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many more have left a part of themselves on the battlefield, or brought the shadows of battle back home. From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation — and world — that we leave to our children.

So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do — what we must do — is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.

Today, the core of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11. Instead, what we’ve seen is the emergence of various al-Qaida affiliates. From Yemen to Iraq, from Somalia to North Africa, the threat today is more diffuse, with al-Qaida’s affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula — AQAP — the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.

Unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria. Here, too, there are differences from 9/11. In some cases, we confront state-sponsored networks like Hezbollah that engage in acts of terror to achieve political goals. Others are simply collections of local militias or extremists interested in seizing territory. While we are vigilant for signs that these groups may pose a transnational threat, most are focused on operating in the countries and regions where they are based. That means we will face more localized threats like those we saw in Benghazi, or at the BP oil facility in Algeria, in which local operatives — in loose affiliation with regional networks — launch periodic attacks against Western diplomats, companies, and other soft targets, or resort to kidnapping and other criminal enterprises to fund their operations.

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City — America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Lethal yet less capable al-Qaida affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. In the 1980s, we lost Americans to terrorism at our Embassy in Beirut; at our Marine Barracks in Lebanon; on a cruise ship at sea; at a disco in Berlin; and on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. In the 1990s, we lost Americans to terrorism at the World Trade Center; at our military facilities in Saudi Arabia; and at our Embassy in Kenya. These attacks were all deadly, and we learned that left unchecked, these threats can grow. But if dealt with smartly and proportionally, these threats need not rise to the level that we saw on the eve of 9/11.

Moreover, we must recognize that these threats don’t arise in a vacuum. Most, though not all, of the terrorism we face is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause. Of course, this ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam; and this ideology is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, who are the most frequent victims of terrorist acts.

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al-Qaida and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home. Our combat mission will come to an end. And we will work with the Afghan government to train security forces, and sustain a counter-terrorism force which ensures that al-Qaida can never again establish a safe-haven to launch attacks against us or our allies.

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ — but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. Thousands of Pakistani soldiers have lost their lives fighting extremists. In Yemen, we are supporting security forces that have reclaimed territory from AQAP. In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al-Qaida in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future.

Much of our best counter-terrorism cooperation results in the gathering and sharing of intelligence; the arrest and prosecution of terrorists. That’s how a Somali terrorist apprehended off the coast of Yemen is now in prison in New York. That’s how we worked with European allies to disrupt plots from Denmark to Germany to the United Kingdom. That’s how intelligence collected with Saudi Arabia helped us stop a cargo plane from being blown up over the Atlantic.

But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al-Qaida and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds. They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places — such as parts of Somalia and Yemen — the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces — but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan — and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory — was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al-Qaida and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions — about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al-Qaida operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al-Qaida commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war — a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power — or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists — insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

In the Afghan war theater, we must support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. That means we will continue to take strikes against high value al-Qaida targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. However, by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we have made against core al-Qaida will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al-Qaida and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists — our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose — our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals — we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes — at home and abroad — understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties — not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places — like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu — where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

So yes, the conflict with al-Qaida, like all armed conflict, invites tragedy. But by narrowly targeting our action against those who want to kill us, and not the people they hide among, we are choosing the course of action least likely to result in the loss of innocent life. Indeed, our efforts must also be measured against the history of putting American troops in distant lands among hostile populations. In Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of civilians died in a war where the boundaries of battle were blurred. In Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the courage and discipline of our troops, thousands of civilians have been killed. So neither conventional military action, nor waiting for attacks to occur, offers moral safe-harbor. Neither does a sole reliance on law enforcement in territories that have no functioning police or security services — and indeed, have no functioning law.

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the president, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that — not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone, or a shotgun — without due process. Nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America — and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot — his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

That’s who Anwar Awlaki was — he was continuously trying to kill people. He helped oversee the 2010 plot to detonate explosive devices on two U.S. bound cargo planes. He was involved in planning to blow up an airliner in 2009. When Farouk Abdulmutallab — the Christmas Day bomber — went to Yemen in 2009, Awlaki hosted him, approved his suicide operation, and helped him tape a martyrdom video to be shown after the attack. His last instructions were to blow up the airplane when it was over American soil. I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn’t. And as President, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took out Awlaki.

Of course, the targeting of any Americans raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes — which is why my Administration submitted information about Awlaki to the Department of Justice months before Awlaki was killed, and briefed the Congress before this strike as well. But the high threshold that we have set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are American citizens. This threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human life. Alongside the decision to put our men and women in uniform in harm’s way, the decision to use force against individuals or groups — even against a sworn enemy of the United States — is the hardest thing I do as president. But these decisions must be made, given my responsibility to protect the American people.

Going forward, I have asked my administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority. Another idea that’s been suggested — the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch — avoids those problems, but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy into national-security decision-making, without inspiring additional public confidence in the process. Despite these challenges, I look forward to actively engaging Congress to explore these — and other — options for increased oversight.

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war — through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments — will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. As we’ve learned this past decade, this is a vast and complex undertaking. We must be humble in our expectation that we can quickly resolve deep rooted problems like poverty and sectarian hatred. Moreover, no two countries are alike, and some will undergo chaotic change before things get better. But our security and values demand that we make the effort.

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya — because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements — because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship — because American leadership has always been elevated by our ability to connect with peoples’ hopes, and not simply their fears.

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures — even though it amounts to less than one percent of the federal budget. But foreign assistance cannot be viewed as charity. It is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. Moreover, foreign assistance is a tiny fraction of what we spend fighting wars that our assistance might ultimately prevent. For what we spent in a month in Iraq at the height of the war, we could be training security forces in Libya, maintaining peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors, feeding the hungry in Yemen, building schools in Pakistan, and creating reservoirs of goodwill that marginalize extremists.

America cannot carry out this work if we do not have diplomats serving in dangerous places. Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

But even after we take these steps, some irreducible risks to our diplomats will remain. This is the price of being the world’s most powerful nation, particularly as a wave of change washes over the Arab World. And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

As I said earlier, this threat is not new. But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, two years ago my administration did a comprehensive review, and engaged with law enforcement. The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence. And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family. Indeed, the success of American Muslims, and our determination to guard against any encroachments on their civil liberties, is the ultimate rebuke to those who say we are at war with Islam.

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that — even after Boston — we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. And that means finally having a strong Privacy and Civil Liberties Board to review those issues where our counter-terrorism efforts and our values may come into tension.

The Justice Department’s investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.

All these issues remind us that the choices we make about war can impact — in sometimes unintended ways — the openness and freedom on which our way of life depends. And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al-Qaida is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al-Qaida will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. During the past decade, the vast majority of those detained by our military were captured on the battlefield. In Iraq, we turned over thousands of prisoners as we ended the war. In Afghanistan, we have transitioned detention facilities to the Afghans, as part of the process of restoring Afghan sovereignty. So we bring law of war detention to an end, and we are committed to prosecuting terrorists whenever we can.

The glaring exception to this time-tested approach is the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The original premise for opening GTMO — that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention — was found unconstitutional five years ago. In the meantime, GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law. Our allies won’t cooperate with us if they think a terrorist will end up at GTMO. During a time of budget cuts, we spend $150 million each year to imprison 166 people — almost $1 million per prisoner. And the Department of Defense estimates that we must spend another $200 million to keep GTMO open at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home.

As president, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. These restrictions make no sense. After all, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were transferred from GTMO with Congress’s support. When I ran for president the first time, John McCain supported closing GTMO. No person has ever escaped from one of our super-max or military prisons in the United States. Our courts have convicted hundreds of people for terrorism-related offenses, including some who are more dangerous than most GTMO detainees. Given my administration’s relentless pursuit of al-Qaida’s leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened.

Today, I once again call on Congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from GTMO. I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. I am appointing a new, senior envoy at the State Department and Defense Department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainees to third countries. I am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to Yemen, so we can review them on a case by case basis. To the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainees who have been cleared to go to other countries. Where appropriate, we will bring terrorists to justice in our courts and military justice system. And we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee.

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted — for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. But once we commit to a process of closing GTMO, I am confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.

I know the politics are hard. But history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism, and those of us who fail to end it. Imagine a future — 10 years from now, or 20 years from now — when the United States of America is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not a part of our country. Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike. Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children?

Our sense of justice is stronger than that. We have prosecuted scores of terrorists in our courts. That includes Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an airplane over Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who put a car bomb in Times Square. It is in a court of law that we will try Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of bombing the Boston Marathon. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, is as we speak serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison here, in the United States. In sentencing Reid, Judge William Young told him, “the way we treat you.is the measure of our own liberties.” He went on to point to the American flag that flew in the courtroom — “That flag,” he said, “will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag still stands for freedom.”

America, we have faced down dangers far greater than al-Qaida. By staying true to the values of our founding, and by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. In just these last few years as president, I have watched the American people bounce back from painful recession, mass shootings, and natural disasters like the recent tornados that devastated Oklahoma. These events were heartbreaking; they shook our communities to the core. But because of the resilience of the American people, these events could not come close to breaking us.

I think of Lauren Manning, the 9/11 survivor who had severe burns over 80 percent of her body, who said, “That’s my reality. I put a Band-Aid on it, literally, and I move on.”

I think of the New Yorkers who filled Times Square the day after an attempted car bomb as if nothing had happened.

I think of the proud Pakistani parents who, after their daughter was invited to the White House, wrote to us, “we have raised an American Muslim daughter to dream big and never give up because it does pay off.”

I think of the wounded warriors rebuilding their lives, and helping other vets to find jobs.

I think of the runner planning to do the 2014 Boston Marathon, who said, “Next year, you are going to have more people than ever. Determination is not something to be messed with.”

That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with.

Now, we need a strategy — and a politics — that reflects this resilient spirit. Our victory against terrorism won’t be measured in a surrender ceremony on a battleship, or a statue being pulled to the ground. Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street. The quiet determination; that strength of character and bond of fellowship; that refutation of fear — that is both our sword and our shield. And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history — the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

Obama reframes counterterrorism policy with new rules on drones

By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

In a major address Thursday President Barack Obama sought to reframe the nation’s counterterrorism strategy, saying, “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy demands.”

He said in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington, “America is at a crossroads. We must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.”

In an attempt to define a new post-Sept. 11 era, Obama outlined new guidelines for the use of drones to kill terrorists overseas and pledged a renewed effort to close the military detention center in Guantanamo Bay.  In the speech, Obama argued that, “In the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States.” He warned that “unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight.”

With efforts under way in Congress to redefine the 2001 authorization to use military force (AUMF) against al Qaida, Obama said he would work with Congress “in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.”

Toward the end of Obama’s address as he discussed the Guantanamo detainees, he was repeatedly interrupted by heckling from Medea Benjamin, founder of the antiwar Code Pink, whose members have frequently been arrested for disrupting hearings on Capitol Hill – but Obama patiently said that Benjamin’s concerns are “something to be passionate about.”

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that ‘No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.’ Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror,” he declared.

As part of his redefinition of counterterrorism, the president announced several initiatives:

  • Setting narrower parameters for the use of remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, to kill terrorists overseas and to limit collateral casualties;
  • Renewing efforts to persuade Congress to agree to close the Guantanamo detention site in Cuba where 110 terrorist suspects are being held;
  • Appointing a new envoy at the State Department and an official at the Defense Department who will attempt to negotiate transfers of Guantanamo detainees to other countries.
  • Lifting the moratorium he imposed in 2010 on transferring some detainees at Guantanamo to Yemen. Obama imposed that moratorium after it was revealed that Detroit “underwear bomber” Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab was trained in Yemen.

Obama argued that when compared to the Sept. 11, 2001 attackers, “the threat today is more diffuse, with Al Qaeda’s affiliates in the

Arabian Peninsula – AQAP – the most active in plotting against our homeland. While none of AQAP’s efforts approach the scale of 9/11 they have continued to plot acts of terror, like the attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009.”

So he said, “As we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”

He said that the current threat is often from “deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – (who) can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon.”

In discussing his drone strategy he indicated his remorse over the innocent people who had been killed: “it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

There remains considerable doubt about Obama’s ability to persuade a majority in Congress to change the current law on releasing detainees held there.

The defense spending bill which Obama signed into law last year prohibits any transfers to the United States of any detainee at Guantanamo who was held there on or before Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama became president.

And the law sets a very high legal bar for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to transfer a detainee to his country of origin, or to any other foreign country.

Hagel would need to certify to Congress that the detainee will not be transferred to a country that is a designated state sponsor of terrorism. The country must have agreed to take steps to ensure that the detainee cannot take action to threaten the United States, U.S. citizens, or its allies in the future.

The law allows Hagel to use waivers in some cases to transfer detainees.

Speaking a day before Obama’s speech, Ben Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-founder of the Lawfare blog which covers detainee news, said, “I don’t see any significant change in congressional sentiment right now” on closing the Guantanamo site.

“He’s got a lot of domestic pressure from his base to be seen to be doing something and he’s also got a hunger strike there (at Guantanamo) — and I think there’s a lot of genuine sentiment in the administration that they want to do something (about Guantanamo) so they’re committed to another push and trying again – but the question of what they actually could get done is a difficult question. There’s very limited latitude.”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Obama’s Kill List–Drones–Remotely Piloted Aircraft–RPAs–Killing Machines–We Don’t Torture Terrorists–We Kill Americans, Civilians and Children in Undeclared Wars–Obama is Judge, Jury, and Executioner–Hope, Change, and Murder, Inc.–The Mass Murderer In The White House–Videos

NSA–Now Spying on Americans: Big Brother Government Spying On Americans–Progressives Minding Your Business Without Warrants–Remotely Piloted Aircraft a.k.a.Drones–Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)–Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISA)–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Shariah Law’s Threat To The United States and American People–Videos

Posted on April 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-04/01/11-C

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

The Middle East with Daniel Pipes

 

Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”

 

Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

 

First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?

 

Mark Steyn: Freedom in the Time of Shariah

 

Truth of Sharia Compliant Finance: Funding Islamic Agenda?

 

Shariah Finance

 

2 Shariah Islamic Law in America and Europe: What the West Needs To Know

 

3 Shariah Finance: Securities Fraud?

 

Dick Morris: Shariah in America (And How We’re Funding It)

 

Crucial Step Towards Sharia Law? UN Anti Blasphemy Resolution

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Discovery Of 70 Ancient Metal Books, The Book of Revelation and The Twelth Iman Mahdi–Videos

New World Orders–Crony Capitalism, Communism, Caliphate and The 12th Iman and Nuclear Weapons–Videos

Joel C. Rosenberg–The Twelfth Iman–Videos

Soros’ and Obama’s Government Intervention Middle East Foreign Policy–Videos

Soros’s International Crisis Group Generating Chaos?–Videos

The Truth And Consequences About Undeclared Wars–Real Strange Bedfellows–Obama Allies U.S. with Libyan Rebels Including Islamic Jihadists, Moslem Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda!–Give Peace A Chance–AC-130 Gunship–A-10 Warthogs– Videos

Obama Moves Right–Neocons Move Left–Meet Me In Libya To Lynch Muammar Gaddafi–Obama Wags The Dog–Videos

America Goes To War, Obama Goes On Vacation–America’s Unconstitional and Undeclared Preventive War For Libya’s Oil and Natural Gas For France, Great Britain and Italy–United (Nations) We Stand Or Fall With The Warfare and Welfare Economy and State!–Videos

F-15 Fighter Crashes Near Benghazi, Libya–Pilots Ejected and Rescued–Video

One Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos

Pattern Recognition and Connecting The Dots On The Muslim Brotherhood–Videos

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Chairman Peter T. King Homeland Security Committee’s Hearing On “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.”

Posted on March 11, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Unions, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

FOX Business: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and CAIR on the KIng Hearings

 

Hearing on Radical Islam and the FBI

 

Michael Savage March 10 2011 hr 3 segment 1

 

Hearing on Radicalization of U.S. Muslims Draws Praise, Ire

 

Chairman King on Fox News on upcoming hearing on radicalization in the American Muslim community

 

Chairman King opening statement at Committee on Homeland Security hearing on radicalization

 

Rep. Bilirakis Questions Role of Internet, New Media in Rise of Radical Extremism

 

 

News Conference following hearing on radicalization (part 1 of 2)

 

News Conference following hearing on radicalization (part2 of 2)

 

Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”

 

The Islamization Of America !!!

 

Geert Wilders Warning to America Part 1 of 2

 

Geert Wilders Warning to America Part 1 of 2

 

Deporting Millions Of Muslims May Be Necessary – Geert Wilders

 

Background Articles and Videos

Frank Gaffney: Jihad By Other Means

FEAR: Terror Threat At Highest Said Big Sis As Patriot Act Up For Renew; Barry Wants 3yr Renewal

Chairman King Questions Napolitano and Leiter During Hearing on Homeland Security Threats

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Is WordPress Censoring My Post Entitled: An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Will Release Explosive Information of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,The Promoter of The Ground Zero Mosque, Where He Supports Extreme Radical Religious Fanatics Including Moslem Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabi Islam!

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Pattern Recognition and Connecting The Dots On The Muslim Brotherhood–Videos

Posted on February 7, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Computers, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“The Nazis have an ally in every town or village where there is a man eager to get rid of a Jewish competitor. The secret weapon of Hitler is the anti-Jewish inclinations of many millions of shopkeepers and grocers, of doctors and lawyers, professors and writers.”

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

 

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Threat Of Islam In The West

 

 

David Horowitz: Terror Verdict Reveals Obama Administration’s Bias

 

David Horowitz (4/14)

 

David Horowitz: Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood & ‘Rules for Revolution’

 

David Horowitz Chilling Exchange With Muslim Student

 

Glenn Beck-02/07/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-02/07/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-02/07/11-C

 

Iraq, Nukes, Polio & Islam All Topics In US-Egypt Talk

 

Muslim Brotherhood – Egypt

 

Islamic Resistance – Egypt

 

 

“In spite of the anticapitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.”

“Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 1/6

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 2/6

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 3/6

 

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 4/6

 

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 5/6

 

 

David Horowitz At UCSD – Complete Lecture – Part 6/6

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Robert Spencer vs Dinesh D’Souza–Is Religious Extremism or Secular Extremism The Problem?–Videos

Posted on October 1, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, government, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Robert Spencer vs Dinesh D’Souza (1/3)

Robert Spencer vs Dinesh D’Souza (2/3)

Robert Spencer vs Dinesh D’Souza (3/3)

Background Articles and Videos

The Mind of Mr. D’Souza
Nonsense.

By Victor Davis Hansen

“…Dinesh D’Souza now weighs in against his numerous conservative critics in a series entitled “The Closing of the Conservative Mind.” The result is again suicidal, for his latest apology only confirms the nonsensical arguments found in The Enemy at Home.

1. D’Souza writes: “One might expect the Right to be open to a candid evaluation of what’s going wrong and how it might be fixed.” 

In fact, that is what the surge, the appointment of Gen. Petraeus, and changes at the Pentagon are all about. Such adjustments are all preferable to D’Souza’s remedy of demonizing, in the middle of a war, millions of Americans at home in order to win approval from conservative Muslims abroad who supposedly, with justification, hate the popular culture of the United States to the point of partially supporting those who wish to destroy this country.

At National Review alone, wide-ranging disagreements arise over the war, from support for the current democratization of the Middle East to the “more rubble, less trouble” school of thought to the “win now, or get out” chorus. D’Souza knows that at the Hoover Institution there are at least four or five different positions voiced regarding Iraq and the larger war.

True, it is the singular achievement of D’Souza that his bizarre writ has for a moment earned universal condemnation from those who can agree on little else. But that rare consensus represents not a “closing of the conservative mind” so much as it reflects the moral vileness of much of what D’Souza writes. And pathetically, the more frequently conservative magazines, media, and institutions offer D’Souza a megaphone, the more apt he is to play the wounded fawn.

2. D’Souza writes: “And yet these pundits on the Right are doing their best to cover up the Left’s role in 9/11.”

What does this conspiratorial charge of “cover up” mean exactly? That many of us continue to believe that al Qaeda terrorists blew up innocent Americans for a variety of perceived grievances rather than an understandable Muslim unhappiness with Britney Spears and Brokeback Mountain? But Al Qaeda did not attack New York and Washington because those on the Left, such as Bill Moyers, Robert Reich, or Sharon Stone (to quote from D’Souza’s own list of the guilty), encouraged or allowed the terrorists to commit mayhem.

No, they struck from two broader causes, apparent for much of the 1980s and 1990s. First, there was a bipartisan appeasement that meant both Republican and Democratic administrations did not reply forcibly to a series of terrorist attacks, from the 1983 Marine barracks murdering in Lebanon to the 2000 ramming of the USS Cole. That forbearance sent a message to bin Laden that there would likely be few, if any, real consequences, should he escalate his attacks. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220326/mind-mr-dsouza/victor-davis-hanson

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Dinesh D’Souza–The Enemy At Home–Videos

Dinesh D’Souza–The Roots of Obama’s Rage–Videos

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Shariah, the Threat–The Team B II Report–Videos

Posted on September 17, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

“…This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as “shariah.” It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government.

The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier “exercise in competitive analysis” which came to be known as the “Team B” Report. That 1976 document challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as “détente” that such estimates ostensibly justified.

As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today’s totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as “violent extremism,” and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions. …”

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml

Center Launches ‘Team B II’ Report on the Shariah Threat

Fox News attended the Center for Security Policy’s unveiling of the new Team B II Report: Shariah the Threat to America. More on this to follow. For the full report, see http://www.shariahthethreat.org

 

Andy McCarthy: Shariah, the Threat (Introducing the Team B II Report)

 

David Yerushalmi: Is Shariah the Same as Jewish Law?

 

 

This report needs to be required reading by those who cherish their liberty for Shariah like Communism before it is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and its people.

The report will be a wake up call for most Americans who know nothing or very little about Shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda for America.

First read the report.

Then share your concerns with other Americans.

The threat of Sharia is real.

What needs to be done is the implementation of the report’s recommendations.

This will require a national debate about the threat posed by Shariah.

 

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

 

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

Unfortunately, I do not see this happening under the Presidency of Barack Obama. The Federal government is presently engaged in Muslim community outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. These front organizations actively promote a stealth jihad for the establishment of Islam as the nation’s religion,  Shariah as the law of the land and a theocracy lead by a caliphate.

The Center for Security Policy’s  177 page report entitled Shariah The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitve Analysis Report of Team ‘B’ II concluded with eight recommendations on pages 142-143 quoted in full below:

• U.S. policy-makers, financiers, businessmen, judges, journalists, community
leaders and the public at large must be equipped with an accurate understanding
of the nature of shariah and the necessity of keeping America shariah-free. At a
minimum, this will entail resisting – rather than acquiescing to – the concerted
efforts now being made to allow that alien and barbaric legal code to become established
in this country as an alternate, parallel system to the Constitution and
the laws enacted pursuant to it. Arguably, this is already in effect for those who
have taken an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, because the requirement
is subsumed in that oath.
• U.S. government agencies and organizations should cease their outreach to
Muslim communities through Muslim Brotherhood fronts whose mission is to
destroy our country from within as such practices are both reckless and counterproductive.
Indeed, these activities serve to legitimate, protect and expand
the influence of our enemies. They conduce to no successful legal outcome that
cannot be better advanced via aggressive prosecution of terrorists, terrorfunders
and other lawbreakers. It also discourages patriotic Muslims from providing
actual assistance to the U.S. government lest they be marked for ostracism
or worse by the Brothers and other shariah-adherent members of their
communities.
• In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, extend bans currently in effect
that bar members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from holding positions
of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the
United States to those who espouse or support shariah. Instead, every effort
should be made to identify and empower Muslims who are willing publicly to
denounce shariah.
• Practices that promote shariah – notably, shariah-compliant finance and the establishment
or promotion in public spaces or with public funds of facilities and
activities that give preferential treatment to shariah’s adherents – are incompatible
with the Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines and must be proscribed.
• Sedition is prohibited by law in the United States. To the extent that imams and
mosques are being used to advocate shariah in America, they are promoting seditious
activity and should be warned that they will not be immune from prosecution.
• Textbooks used in both secular educational systems and Islamic schools must
not promote shariah, its tenets, or the notion that America must submit to its
dictates.
• Compounds and communities that seek to segregate themselves on the basis of
shariah law, apply it alongside or in lieu of the law of the land or otherwise establish
themselves as “no-go” zones for law enforcement and other authorities must
be thwarted in such efforts. In this connection, assertion of claims to territory
around mosques should be proscribed.
• Immigration of those who adhere to shariah must be precluded, as was previously
done with adherents to the seditious ideology of communism. 

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml

Threat Of Islam In The West

Is Shariah Constitutional?

Wake up, America

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (1 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (2 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (3 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (4 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (5 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (6 of 6)

 

                             Background Articles and Videos

Town Hall Debate: Setting Up the Debate

Town Hall Debate: Should Americans Fear Islam?

Islam: What the West Needs To Know 1

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 2

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 3

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 4

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 5

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 6

 

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 7

 

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 8

 

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 9

 

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 10

 

What the West needs to know pt 11 The last part

 

bill whittle PJTV Obama censors threat

 

 

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets (PJTV)

 

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2: From Influence to Insurrection (PJTV)

Andrew C. McCarthy III

“…Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

Center for Security Policy

“…The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a Washington, D.C. think tank that focuses on national security issues. The Center was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, Jr., a Reagan-era Defense Department official and former aide to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The CSP advocates neoconservative and Wilsonian policies based on a philosophy of “Peace through Strength”. CSP states that this belief emerges from their claim that “international peace is most likely achieved, and America most secure, when our nation is strong and engaged with our key allies in ensuring freedom and democracy throughout the world.”

CSP is a non-profit organization and describes itself as non-partisan. CSP specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that it believes are vital to American security and then seeking to ensure that such issues are the subject of both focused examination and effective action.

Projects

The CSP’s operations are organized into project areas that correspond to what it sees as the principal national security challenges facing the United States. Each project is designed to inform policymakers and the public about what the CSP sees as near and long range threats, devise appropriate actions, and then promote those ideas within the government, Capitol Hill, newspapers, radio, the internet, and television.

The following is a partial list of the CSP’s projects:

  • Divest Terror – The primary objective of Divest Terror is to force governments to choose between their sponsorship of terrorism and critical partnerships with publicly traded firms. To achieve this goal, it aims at encouraging companies to divest from those regimes designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.
  • The Strategic Defense and Deterrence Project – Through this project, the Center advocates the creation of a national missile defense system, the modernization of America’s nuclear capabilities, and the abrogation of U.S. participation in arms control treaties.
  • The War of Ideas Project – The War of Ideas project has the goal of educating policymakers about the political and ideological realms of international relations. It seeks to equip decision makers with the understanding they need to use the tools of influence of and persuasion to confront and defeat foreign ideological adversaries.
  • Menges Hemispheric Security Project – The Hemispheric Security project focuses on threats to the Western Hemisphere.
  • The Islamist Project – The Islamist Project is aimed at publicising what CSP sees as the growing influence of radical Islam within the United States, and highlighting the voices of moderate, non-violent Muslims.
  • The Security and Democracy in Asia Project – This project is a reflection of the Center’s belief that Asia has the potential to be an area of substantial geostrategic conflict in the 21st Century.

Methods

The Center does most of its advocacy work behind the scenes. However, its fellows routinely appear in the media for radio and TV interviews, and all publish widely in newspapers, journals, and other online news outlets.

CSP’s official publications fall into a number of different categories:

  • Decision Briefs – These policy papers reflect the Center’s official position on a wide range of policy issues. After publication, they are distributed to national leaders and the media for immediate action.
  • Security Forums – These publications are part of the Center’s effort to ensure that important, timely articles on national security issues are given the proper attention and consideration. They reflect the views of the author, and not the Center for Security Policy
  • CSP Occasional Papers – This series of papers is intended to function as timely and incisive original research. Preference is given to topics relevant to the national security of the United States and broadly congruent with CSP’s research agenda and its motto “peace through strength.” Occasional Papers are published with a minimum of editing and do not reflect the views of the Center for Security Policy.

Funding

CSP is a 501(c)(3) organization. It gets funding from private individuals and an assortment of philanthropic foundations.[1] …”

“…Prominent members

  • Richard Perle – Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board
  • Douglas J. Feith – Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
  • James G. Roche – Former Secretary of the United States Air Force
  • Frank Gaffney – Project for the New American Century
  • Jack Dyer Crouch, II – current Deputy National Security Advisor
  • Monica Crowley – talk radio host
  • Laura Ingraham – talk radio host[3] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy

Frank Gaffney, Coalition to Stop Shariah

 

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

 

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

 

‘Team B’ Gaining Traction: Time For An Independent Study of Jihad & Shariah

 

Frank Gaffney with Glenn Beck: Shariah & Stealth Jihad

 

Dick Morris: Shariah in America (And How We’re Funding It)

 

Shariah’s Brotherhood

 

Book TV: Nonie Darwish “Cruel and Usual Punishment”

Frank Gaffney: Jihad with Money

 

Shariah Financing-Wall Street-selling our souls for $$$

 

#2 Shariah Islamic Law in America and Europe: What the West Needs To Know

 

#3 Shariah Finance: Securities Fraud?

 

Gingrich: I’m deeply worried

 

No mosque at Ground Zero

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Understanding Jihad–Videos

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech–Videos

Posted on September 7, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (1 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (2 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Robert Spencer

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Q&A (1 of 3)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Q&A (2 of 3)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Q&A (3 of 3)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

The Ground Zero Mosque and The Stealth Jidah: Political Correctness, Censorship and Hate Speech By The Associated Press, President Obama, and CAIR–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Political Correctness, The Ground Zero Mosque and Stealth Jidah–Videos

Posted on September 4, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Strategy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

“God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for God our supreme objective.”

~Muslim Brotherhood motto

“It is man’s capacity for justice that makes democracy possible, but it is his tendenecy to injustice that makes it necessary.”

~Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the children of Darkness, page 17.

“Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.”

~Maring Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail


The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets (PJTV)

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2: From Influence to Insurrection (PJTV)

Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

No Mosque at Ground Zero

Kill the Ground Zero Mosque TV Ad

If you ever worked on a newspaper staff, the Associated Press Stylebook is considered “the journalist’s bible” by editors, reporters and commentators. The Associated Press 2010 Stylebook and Briefing on Media, 45 ed. “provides fundamental guidelines on spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage, with special sections on social media, reporting business and sports.”

Recently I wrote an article where both the headline and the story used the phrase “ground zero mosque” to describe the proposed 13 story mosque and community center to be built less than six hundred feet from the World Trade Center site in New York City. Both were edited out of the story.

Tom Kent, Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production for the Associated Press sent out a memo on not using the phrase “ground zero mosque” when referring to the proposed Islamic community center and mosque to be built near the World Trade Center site:

“…Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:

1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away. …”

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html

Apparently the “ground zero mosque” shorthand description must be offending some so-called “moderate Muslims”. The problem is that many of the “moderate Muslims” are actually stealth jihadists who have the same agenda as the militant jihadists of September 11, 2001.

On September 1, 2010 the Council on American-Islam Relations launched a  National PSA Campaign with several public service announcements (PSAs) that are available for viewing on YouTube and running on television stations. The PSAs have first responders to the al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers attack of September 11, 2001 that are Muslims recounting what happened that day. The PSAs are posted by CAIR on YouTube (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (30-Second) and (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)).

CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (60-Second)

CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)

A third CAIR PSA, ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’, has “interfaith leaders” of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths stating in part “if we do not have our rights,” “at the heart of American freedom”, “ you do not your rights.” All three PSA are very effective because most American are tolerant of people practicing their religious faith and oppose the establishment by the government of  any one religion as being superior to other religions.

CAIR ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’ PSA, Interfaith (30-Second)

Who exactly is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)? The CAIRtv channel on YouTube says they are “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group with 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.”

Steven Emerson, a widely recognized independent investigative expert on Islamic terrorism describes in detail the background of CAIR in his book, American Jihad, The Terrorists Living Among Us, and concludes with this revealing passage on pages 202 and 203:

“Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the FBI and former assistant director of the FBI, says: “CAIR has defended individuals involved in terrorist violence, including Hamas leader Musa abu Marzook….The modus operandi has been to falsely tar as ‘anti-Muslim’ the U.S. government, counter-terrorist officials, writers, journalists and others who have investigated or exposed the threat of Middle-East based terrorism…Unfortunately, CAIR is but one of the new generation of new groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of ‘civil right’ or ‘academic’ status but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism.”

“Seif Ashmawy, former publisher of Voice of Peace, wrote: “It is a known fact that both AMC [American Muslim Council] and CAIR have defended, apologized for and rationalized the actions of extremist groups and leaders such as convicted World Trade Center conspirator Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, Egyptian extremists, Hassan al-Turabi, the Sudanese National Islamic Front, and extremist parliamentarians from the Jordian Islamic Action Front and others who called for the overthrow of the Egyptian government….As a proud American Muslim…I bow to no one on my defense of Muslim civil rights, but CAIR..champion[s] extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”…”

Robert Spencer who was criticized by CAIR at their press conference said in his book the Stealth Jihad on page 102:

“CAIR has clearly emerged as the leading advocacy group for Muslims in the United States. When government officials and journalists need a Muslim perspective, they are likely to turn to CAIR, which they assume is a prime example of a moderate, patriotic American Muslim organization”

This assumption is not true as Steven Emerson points out in his book American Jihad on pages 201 and 202:

“…After September 11, 2001, and up until the U.S. Government froze the assets of the Holy Land foundation in December, CAIR’s Web site included a feature, “What you can do for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks,” with a link to the Web site of HLF(“Donate through the Holy Land Foundation”). …”

Robert Spencer concluded on page 105 of his Stealth Jihad book that:

“…Perhaps the biggest blow to CAIR’s moderate facade came on June 4, 2007, when the Justice Department named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case. Identifying CAIR as a present and past member of “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations,” Federal prosecutors stated that CAIR was a participant in a criminal conspiracy on behalf of the jihad terror group Hamas which allegedly received funding from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD”), a now defunct charity that was supported by CAIR….”

CAIRs Tie to Terrorism

When such inconvenient facts are brought up by investigative reporters and journalists, they are quickly labeled as “Islamophobes”. Robert Spencer describes in detail CAIR tactics in Chapter Three, Silencing The Critics, of his book, Stealth Jihad, on pages 51 and 52:

“…Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim-American Society (MAS) have learned from the past mistakes of many U.S.-based Islamic leaders that aggressive public pronouncements and threats uttered against Islam’s perceived enemies bring unwelcome attention and undermine their pretensions of being mainstream civil rights organizations. So they have adopted a different strategy to silence critics of jihadism and Islamic supremacism: they label them as “bigots”, “hatemongers”, and “Islamophobe.”

“In the U.S., playing the race card can in some ways be even more effective than death threats. If a U.S.-based Islamic group announced a death fatwa against an American writer, that organization would be denounced in the media as “extremist” and possibly trigger a police investigation. But if the group cries “racism” against the same writer, liberal as well as conservative media figures hop to shun and denounce the accused “racist,” for bigotry and racism are the cardinal sins of the U.S. public square.”

An excellent example of CAIR ’s tactics of attempting to silence and smear its critics can be found on the CAIRtv channel on YouTube. The video clip, Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign, is the press conference preceding the preview of the CAIR PSA campaign at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on September 1, 2010.  Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, stated in part:

“The controversy over Park 51 in lower Manhattan is a fabricated controversy. It is designed to pit Americans against each other and divide our society. Although a local but vocal minority has launched this campaign against Muslims. This group is mainly headed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They know very well the American Muslim community is part of the society. But they harbor anti-Muslim feelings and they want to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the society by exploiting 9/11 and legitimate fears that some Americans have. They turn this fear into fear mongering; and free speech became hate speech. It led to hate crimes and as you have seen nation-wide, we have seen Muslims are being attacked just because they are Muslim. Places of worship have been vandalized including future construction sites like the Islamic center in Tennessee. …”

Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign

Robert Spencer in Chapter Five, THE FACE OF ISLAMIC MODERATION? CAIR, MPAC AND OTHER “MODERATE” MUSLIM GROUPS  of his book Stealth Jihad, describes in detail the history and associations of CAIR and Nihad Awad and their stealth jihad on page 102.

“…Though pursing a radical agenda, these organizations realized that extremists pronouncements and activities would be counter-productive, resulting in negative media attention and even criminal investigations. So they’ve adopted a new modus operandi—the stealth jihad. Instead of publicly proclaiming the inevitable arrival of sharia in the United States, they attempt to Islamize the United States quietly, through a long-term strategy aimed at undermining national security, forcing ever greater accommodation of Islamic practices, and minimizing any criticism whatsoever of Islam or of virtually any Muslim individual. …”

Robert Spencer on CAIR’s ‘Stealth Jihad’

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (1/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (2/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (3/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (4/4)

Radical jihadists, both militant (violent) and stealth (non-violent), want to accomplish the following in the United States:

  • Replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law.
  • Replace our democratic representative republic with an Islamic state or theocracy.
  • Replace our President with a religious leader or caliphate.
  • Establish Islam as the country’s religion that is superior to and dominates all other religions of the United States and where infidels or non-believers in Islam such as Christians and Jews would pay a tax, the jizya, with “willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29). 

Sharia Law and Islamic Democracy – Daniel Pipes

Time For A New ‘Team B’ to Understand Jihad

The militant and stealth jihadists differ mainly over the methods used to accomplish their goals.   

In Steven Emerson’s and the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s book, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US on page 346 the roots of both militant and stealth jihad can be found in the Muslim Brotherhood.      

Richard Clark is the former National Coordinator for Security and Infrastructure Protection under Presidents Clinton and Bush. In testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking in October 2003 he stated:    

“… While the overseas operations of Islamist terrorist organizations are generally segregated and distinct, the opposite holds in the United States. The issue of terrorist financing in the United States is a fundamental example of the shared infrastructure levered by HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, all of which enjoy a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders. The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood–all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.” 

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 was Hasan Al-Banna, an Egyptain school teacher and Islamist political reformer. Hasan Al-Banna unconstrained vision of Islam is revealing in its breadth and scope:

“Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all spheres of life. It is a country and homeland or a government and a nation. It is conduct and power or mercy and justice. It is a culture and a law or knowledge and jurisprudence. It is material and wealth or gain and prosperity. It is Jihad and a call or army and a cause. And finally, it is true belief and correct worship.”

The Message of the Teachings, Hasan Al-Banna http://www.almoltaqa.ps/english/showthread.php?t=16037

Today the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most influential Islamic international political organization.  

In Robert Spencer’s book the Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs on page 16 the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States are explained by Mohamed Akram of the Muslim Brotherhood:      

“[ Muslim Brotherhood]…must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”   

 The Associated Press apparently is one of those unwitting hands of the stealth jihadists. The question that should be answered by the Associated Press is did any individual or organization either directly or indirectly bring pressure on AP to ban the use of ground zero mosque in their stories. If so, who communicated with them on the subject? What exactly was said?     

Why should these questions need to be answered?      

The AP memo continued with the following “guidance”:

“…2. here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:    

Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it. …”      

The Associated Press apparently wants to get the Obama party line or spin out to all its AP subscribers. The vast majority of Americans agree with Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator and physician, as to what President Obama should have done, namely appealed to Muslims not to build the ground zero mosque.

Krauthammer: Obama Should Have Appealed to Muslims Not to Build Ground Zero Mosque

In a August 31, 2010 Quinnipiac University poll of 1,497 New York residents surveyed, 71% said the mosque should be voluntarily relocated and 71% want Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of New York State to investigate the finances of the group funding the ground zero mosque. A poll of likely voters by Rasmussen Reports found similar opposition to the ground zero mosque:

“…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story. 

The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.

Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.”

The Associated Press’ memo never addressed the question as to where exactly is ground zero. Immediately after September 11, 2001 a much larger area than just the World Trade Center site was referred to as ground zero. Ground zero included everything below Chambers Street in New York City, which is five blocks north of Vesey Street, the northern border of the World Trade Center site. The ground zero mosque site on Park Place is just two blocks north of Vesey Street. 

Far more important and potentially more damaging to the safety and security of the American people and the United States is the banning of such “religious” terms as Islamic extremism, jihad, Islam and Sharia from the National Security Strategy Document by President Obama’s advisors that was reported by the Associated Press on April 7, 2010 in a story entitled, “Obama bans terms Jihad, Islam.”

bill whittle PJTV Obama censors threat

This is dangerous because by banning such words or phrases you are refusing to call ideas or actions by their proper name, names that even our avowed Islamic extremist enemies use in describing their intentions, plans and actions.  This goes beyond political correctness into political censorship and reminds one of George Orwell’s novel 1984. What individuals and organizations have been pressuring the President and his advisors to ban these terms from National Security documents?   Are these organizations stealth jihadists with links to the Muslim Brotherhood or other jihadist’s organizations?

If you doubt political correctness and censorship cannot kill people, remember Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded30 more at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 while  shouting the Muslim expression “Allahu Akbar.”  Political correctness in the Army discouraged many officers from reporting and making a formal complaint about Major Hasan’s repeated statements about his hating America, its non-Muslim majority and the military. If the Major had been a white supremacist  he would have been discharged by Army, but a Muslim supremacist was given a pass and 13 people died. Political correctness and censorship kills.

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (1 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (2 of 2)

Steve Emerson: Was Major Hasan A Ticking Timebomb? (11.9.09)

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: USA Sick with Political Correctness (11.9.09)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Jihad warning signs ignored by politically correct military – Fort Hood

Remember September 11, 2010 by reflecting upon the words in The 9/11 Commission Report, page 13:

“…We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility towards us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite and equal rights for woman. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon. …”

The goals and agenda of the militant and stealth jihadists are the same; they only differ as to tactics. The ground zero mosque should never be built for it is an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on 9/11 and only encourages the militant and stealth jihadists.

The American people can remember the people who died on September 11, 2001 by reading The 9/11 Commission Report (available online at http://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf ) and Robert Spencer’s book The Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs or watch his “Stealth Jihad and Islamization of the West” videos on YouTube. However, be prepared to be called an Islamophobe by the stealth jihadists among us.

“This is the American moment in world history, the one for which we shall forever be judged. Just as in politics the responsibility of the fate of freedom in the world has devolved upon our regime, so the fate of philosophy in the world has devolved upon our universities, and the two are related as they have never been before. The gravity of our given task is great, and it is very much in doubt how the future will judge our stewardship.”

~Alan Bloom, The Closong of the American Mind, page 382.

Background Articles and Videos

The Middle East with Daniel Pipes

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (1 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (2 of 2)

Muslim Brotherhood ‘Conspiracy’ to Subvert America

CAIR Revealed

Hot Air Video: The speech that CAIR didn’t want you to hear

Jihad Watch: The “Islam is Peace” Campaign

Charles Krauthammer Exposes Obama Hypocrisy on No Rush to Judgment

Should Mosque, Islamic Center Be Built Near Ground Zero?

The Next Moves of Radical Islam – Robert Spencer

Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

Newt Gingrich: Freedom Will Prevail

Mosque Debate Part 1

Mosque Debate Part 2

Mosque Debate Part 3

Mosque Debate Part 4

Muslim Brotherhood in America – Orlando Mosque Finances Hamas Fundraiser

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

“…The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide and in Canada.[1]

Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR presents what it views as an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public, and seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism. Annual banquets, through which CAIR raises the majority of its funds, are attended by American politicians, statesmen, interfaith leaders, activists and media personalities.[1]

The organization was dealt a significant blow to its reputation in the United States after it was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case.[2] The FBI no longer works with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.[3][4][5] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations

Muslim Mafia

“…Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry. According to the Charlotte Observer, it “portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.”[1]

The book prompted endorsements from a number of conservative writers and requests by several conservative members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR’s possible terrorist links and undue influence. It also prompted denouncements from CAIR, media outlets and other members of Congress. The manner in which its source documents were obtained led CAIR to sue one of the authors. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEb-USpe6jM&feature=related

 

Reinhold Niebuhr

“…Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (pronounced /ˈraɪnhoʊld ˈniːbʊər/; June 21, 1892 – June 1, 1971) was an American theologian and commentator on public affairs. Niebuhr was the archetypal American intellectual of the Cold War era. Starting as a leftist minister in the 1920s indebted to theological liberalism, he shifted to the new Neo-Orthodox theology in the 1930s, explaining how the sin of pride created evil in the world. He attacked utopianism as useless for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944):

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

His realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker and lucid author, he was the most influential minister of the 1940s and 1950s in public affairs. Niebuhr battled with the religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with the religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of “true religion.” He was a leader of liberal intellectuals and supported many liberal causes,

His long-term impact involves relating the Christian faith to “realism” in foreign affairs, rather than idealism, and his contribution to modern “just war” thinking. Niebuhr’s perspective had a great impact on many liberals, who came to support a “realist” foreign policy.[1] His influence has been acknowledged by such recent leaders of American foreign policy as Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John McCain[2]. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr

Allan Bloom

“..Allan David Bloom (September 14, 1930 – October 7, 1992) was an American philosopher, classicist, and academic. He studied under David Grene, Leo Strauss, Richard McKeon and Alexandre Kojève. He subsequently taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Yale University, École Normale Supérieure of Paris, and the University of Chicago. Bloom championed the idea of ‘Great Books’ education. Bloom became famous for his criticism of contemporary American higher education, with his views being expressed in his bestselling 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.[1] Although Bloom was characterized as a conservative in the popular media, Bloom explicitly stated that this was a misunderstanding, and made it clear that he was not to be affiliated with any conservative movements.[2] Saul Bellow, Bloom’s friend and teaching partner at the University of Chicago, wrote a novel based on his colleague entitled Ravelstein. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“Ground Zero Mosque” Is Now Politically Incorrect–The Associated Press Style Guide and Memo

Posted on August 30, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Education, Foreign Policy, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

No Mosque at Ground Zero

No mosque at Ground Zero

“God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for God our supreme objective.”

~Muslim Brotherhood  (Ikhwan ul Muslimoon) or Society of the Muslim Brothers motto written by its founder, Hassan al-Banna in 1928.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/355.pdf

If you ever worked on a newspaper staff, the Associated Press Style Guide is considered ” the journalist’s  bible” by editors, reporters and  commentators. The AP Style Guide “provides fundamental guidelines on spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage, with special sections on social media, reporting business and sports.”  Recently I wrote an article where both the headline and the story used the phrase ” ground zero mosque”  to describe the proposed 13 story mosque and community center to be built less than three block from the World Trade Center site in New York City. The article included both a map and a description of how far the proposed Islamic community center and mosque was from the World Trade Center site.

Tom Kent, Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production for the Associated Press sent out a memo on not using the phrase “ground zero mosque” when referring to the proposed Islamic community center and mosque to be built near the World Trade Center site:

“…Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:  1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away. …”

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html …”

Apparently the “ground zero mosque” shorthand description must be offending some so-called “moderate Muslims”. The problem is that many of the “moderate Muslims” are actually stealth jihadists who have the same agenda as the militant jihadists of September 11, 2001.  Radical jihadists, both militant and stealth, want to replace American law and the United States Constitution by  sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with an Islamic state or Caliphate with a religious leader at its head. They differ mainly as to the methods used to accomplish their goals.

In Steven Emerson’s and the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s book, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US, the roots of both militant and stealth jihad can be found in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Richard Clark is former National Coordinator for Security and Infrastructure Protection under Presidents Clinton and Bush. In testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking in October 2003 he stated:

“[I]t is now widely known that every major Islamist terrorist organization, from HAMAS to Islamic Jihad to Al Qaeda, has leveraged the financial resources and institutions of the United States to build their capabilities. We face a highly developed enemy in our mission to stop terrorist financing. While the overseas operations of Islamist terrorist organizations are generally segregated and distinct, the opposite holds in the United States. The issue of terrorist financing in the United States is a fundamental example of the shared infrastructure levered by HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, all of which enjoy a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders. The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood–all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

~Jidha Incorporated:  A Guide to Militant Islam in the US, page 346.

In Robert Spencer’s book the Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs on page 16 the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States are explained by Mohamed Akram of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“[ Muslim Brotherhood]…must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”

The Associated Press apparently is one of those unwitting hands of the stealth jihadists.

The question that should be posed to the Associated Press is did any individual or organization either directly or indirectly bring pressure on AP to ban the use of ground zero mosque in their stories. If so, who communicated with them on the subject? What  exactly was said?

Why should these questions be posed?

Point 2 of the AP memo stated:

“2. Here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:

Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it. …”

Looks like the Associated Press wants to get the progressive party line out to all its AP subscribers in case they were not following the story very closely and did not have the politically correct spin.

Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans agree with Charles Krauthammer as to what President Obama should have done, namely appealed to Muslims not to build the ground zero mosque as seen on this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaO5SiFmIcU&p=CB362BFCF091C33B&playnext=1&index=17

Krauthammer: Obama Should Have Appealed to Muslims Not to Build Ground Zero Mosque

The AP memo never addressed the question as  to where exactly is ground zero.  Immediately after September 11, 2001 a much larger area than just the World Trade Center site was referred to as ground zero. Ground zero included everything below Chambers Street, which is five blocks north of Vesey Street, the northern border of the World Trade Center site and would include the proposed ground zero mosque site on Park Place just two blocks north of Vesey Street. This fact is conveniently overlooked and not even mentioned in the AP memo.

AP Memo: Don’t Call it Ground Zero Mosque

While I am all in favor of consistent style and appreciate the Associated Press’ style guide, substance not style and political correctness should be of primary concern of any news story and commentary.  In fairness to the Associated Press, publications can and do ignore AP styles for the simply reason it is a style guide not a government edict, mandate or regulation.

Far more important and potentially more damaging to the security of the United States is the banning of the terms Islamic extremism and jihad from National Security Strategy and related documents by President Obama’s advisors that was reported by the Associated Press in April 2010.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-bans-terms-islam-and-jihad-from-u-s-security-document-1.909

This is political correctness run amok and appears to cross the line into political censorship by the Obama Administration.

This is dangerous because you are refusing to call things by their real name that even our avowed  enemies use in describing their intentions, plans and actions.

Was political censorship of words such as Islamic extremist, jihad, Sharia, and Islam at the specific orders of President Obama?

If not, who ordered these and others words be expunged from National Security documents?

What individuals and organizations have been pressuring the President and his advisors to ban these terms from National Security documents?

Are these organizations stealth jihadists with links to the Muslim Brotherhood, other stealth jihadist’s or even militant jihadist’s organizations?

The American people want to know the truth as to what exactly is going on here?

Time for a long overdue press conference and some clarity and transparency, Mr. President.

Obama Bans “Islam”

Obama Bans Jihad and Islamic Extremism Terrorism Terms

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (1 of 6)

The Third Jihad: US Homegrown Terror Threat

As we approach September 11, 2010, we should reflect upon the words in The 9/11 Commission Report, page 13:

“…We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility towards us and our values is limitless. Its purpose it to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite and equal rights for woman. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon. …”

The goals and agenda of the militant and stealth jihadists are the same, they only differ as to tactics.

The ground zero mosque should never be built for it is an affront to the families and friends of those who died on 9/11.

The American people and their political and military leaders cannot and should not ignore or evade the jihadist among us.

To do so shows weakness and  only invites further militant and stealth jihadist attacks on our country, institutions and people.

“All Muslims must make jihad –Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored or evaded.”

~Hassan al-Banna, Founder Muslim Brotherhood


Background Articles and Videos

Mosque Built at Ground Zero…

AP Standards Center issues staff advisory on covering New York City mosque”…

AP Standards Center issues staff advisory on covering New York City mosque

Associated Press Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production Tom Kent sent the following note to the staff about covering the New York City mosque story and then discussed the guidance and reaction in a Facebook entry headlined “Behind the News: Describing the proposed NYC mosque.”

Aug. 19, 2010

Colleagues,

Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:

1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.

WE WILL CHANGE OUR SLUG ON THIS STORY LATER TODAY from “BC-Ground Zero Mosque” to “BC-NYC Mosque.”

In short headlines, some ways to refer to the project include:

_ mosque 2 blocks from WTC site
_ Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site
_ mosque near ground zero
_ mosque near WTC site

We can refer to the project as a mosque, or as a proposed Islamic center that includes a mosque.

It may be useful in some stories to note that Muslim prayer services have been held since 2009 in the building that the new project will replace. The proposal is to create a new, larger Islamic community center that would include a mosque, a swimming pool, gym, auditorium and other facilities.

2. Here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:

Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it.

For additional background, you’ll find below a Fact Check on the project that moved yesterday.

Tom

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html

2010 AP Stylebook

“the journalist’s bible”

http://www.apstylebook.com/

Obama bans terms `Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security document

Document under President Bush cited ‘militant Islamic radicalism’ as greatest conflict of 21st century.

By The Associated Press

“…President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century. …”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-bans-terms-islam-and-jihad-from-u-s-security-document-1.909

Media Masks Mosque: AP Bans “Ground Zero Mosque”

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/media-masks-mosque-ap-bans-ground-zero-mosque.html

“…The Society of the Muslim Brothers, often simply الإخوان Al-Ikhwān, The Brotherhood or MB) is a Sunni transnational movement and the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[1] The world’s oldest and largest Islamic political group,[1] it was founded in 1928, in Egypt by the schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna.

The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and state”.[2] Since its inception in 1928 the movement has officially opposed violent means to achieve its goals,[3][4] with some exceptions such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or to overthrow secular Ba’athist rule in Syria (see Hama massacre). This position has been questioned, particularly by the Egyptian government, which accused the group of a campaign of killings in Egypt after World War II.[5]

The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, and members have been arrested for their participation in it.[6] As a means of circumventing the ban, supporters run for office as independents.[7] The Egyptian government in one case responded by obstructing voters,[8] despite Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s promise to have a “free and fair election.”[9]

Outside of Egypt, the group’s political activity has been described as evolving away from modernism and reformism towards a more traditional, “rightist conservative” stance.  For example, the Muslim Brotherhood party in Kuwait opposes suffrage for women.[10] The Brotherhood condemned terrorism and the 9/11 attacks,[11][12] but whether or not it has ties to terrorism is a matter of dispute.[13] Its position on violence has also caused disputes within the movement, with advocates of violence at times breaking away to form groups such as the Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (The Islamic Group) and Al Takfir Wal Hijra (Excommunication and Migration).[14]

Among the Brotherhood’s more influential members was Sayyid Qutb. Qutb was the author of one of Islamism’s most important books, Milestones, which called for the restoration of Islam by re-establishing the Sharia and by using “physical power and Jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system,”[15] which he believed to include the entire Muslim world.[16] While studying at university, Osama bin Laden claimed to have been influenced by the religious and political ideas of several professors with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood including both Sayyid Qutb and his brother Muhammad Qutb. However, once Al Qaeda was fully organized, they denounced the Muslim Brotherhood’s reform through nonviolence and accused them of “betraying the cause of Islam and abandoning their ‘jihad’ in favour of forming political parties and supporting modern state institutions”.[17][18]

The Brotherhood is financed by contributions from its members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement. Some of these contributions are from members who live in oil-rich countries.[19] …”

Beliefs

In the group’s belief, the Quran and Sunna constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The MB goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam’s manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.[20] It preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the laws of Islam. The Brotherhood strongly opposes Western colonialism, and helped overthrow the pro-western monarchies in Egypt and other Muslim nations during the early 20th century.

On the issue of women and gender the Muslim Brotherhood interprets Islam very traditionally. Its founder called for “a campaign against ostentation in dress and loose behavior,” “segregation of male and female students,” a separate curriculum for girls, and “the prohibition of dancing and other such pastimes…”[21] The MB is a movement, not a political party, but members have created political parties in several countries, such as the Islamic Action Front in Jordan and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. These parties are staffed by Brotherhood members but kept independent from the MB to some degree

http://en.wikipedia.org

The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network By: FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, May 08, 2008

“…As revealed in documents seized by the FBI and entered as evidence in a Texas court, the Muslim Students Association is a legacy project of the Muslim Brotherhood.[1] The Brotherhood is an organization formed by a Hitler-admiring Muslim named Hasan al-Bannain Egypt in 1928.[2] It was designed to function as the spearpoint of the Islamo-fascist movement and its crusade against the West.

The Brotherhood spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas.[3] Its doctrines make up the core of the terrorist jihad conducted by organizations such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and the government of Iran.[4] Its agendas have been clear since its creation: infiltration, subversion and global terror with world conquest as the goal.

…To establish one Islamic state of united Islamic countries, one nation under one leadership whose mission will be to reinforce adherence to the law of Allah…and the strengthening of the Islamic presence in the world arena….The goal…is the establishment of a world Islamic state.[5]

The first target was the “near enemy” – the Arab states that al-Banna and his followers felt had betrayed Islam. The United States – the “far enemy” – would not become a specific focus of the Brotherhood until many years later.

The organization’s aspirations for world dominion seemed like a fantasy until the Iranian revolution of 1979. But that event showed the jihadists that they could conquer and govern a state and use it as a base for Islamic revolution elsewhere. There was no doubt who the enemy was. The Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeni coined the phrase “Great Satan” and “Little Satan” to demonize the United States and Israel and mark them for destruction. …”

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30339

Afghan Jihad – Afghanistan

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Posted on August 26, 2010. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , |

First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?

Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”

Background Articles and Videos

Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Posted on August 23, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Security, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Synopsis

Does America face a jihadist threat that’s even bigger than terrorism?

While our homeland security efforts are focused on preventing terrorist attacks, another jihadist threat is growing right here in America-in plain sight.

In Stealth Jihad, Islam expert and New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer blows the whistle on a long-term plot by Islamic jihadists to undermine the United States. This effort aims not to bring America to its knees through attacks with guns or bombs, but to subvert the country from within-by gradually Islamizing America. The ultimate goal, the stealth jihadists themselves declare, is nothing less than the adoption of Islamic law in the United States.

Describing the disturbing ease with which stealth jihadists have already become ensconced in the American political and media landscapes, Spencer exposes the full modus operandi of the movement as revealed in a stunning document unveiled in a recent terrorism funding trial. In this unsettling book, he explains:

* Which Islamic fundamentalist organization is behind the stealth jihad
* How stealth jihadists have reinvented themselves as mainstream civil rights activists-despite their many past declarations of Islamic supremacism
* How stealth jihadists played a key role in formulating U.S. government guidelines for the War on Terror
* How insistence on “accommodating” Islamic cultural and religious practices in America is part of a calculated strategy to achieve a dangerous larger agenda
* The effort by stealth jihadists to whitewash the teaching of Islam in schools
* What can be done to defeat the stealth jihad and preserve America’s liberty

America, Spencerdemonstrates, is all but oblivious to a new kind of threat presented by a loosely organized movement whose activists are well funded, highly motivated, and relentless in pursuit of their agenda. This book is a wake-up call for a country so focused on foreign threats that it has left itself vulnerable to a growing danger much closer to home. 

“…Synopsis

Does America face a jihadist threat that’s even bigger than terrorism?

While our homeland security efforts are focused on preventing terrorist attacks, another jihadist threat is growing right here in America-in plain sight.

In Stealth Jihad, Islam expert and New York Times bestselling author Robert Spencer blows the whistle on a long-term plot by Islamic jihadists to undermine the United States. This effort aims not to bring America to its knees through attacks with guns or bombs, but to subvert the country from within-by gradually Islamizing America. The ultimate goal, the stealth jihadists themselves declare, is nothing less than the adoption of Islamic law in the United States.

Describing the disturbing ease with which stealth jihadists have already become ensconced in the American political and media landscapes, Spencer exposes the full modus operandi of the movement as revealed in a stunning document unveiled in a recent terrorism funding trial. In this unsettling book, he explains:

* Which Islamic fundamentalist organization is behind the stealth jihad
* How stealth jihadists have reinvented themselves as mainstream civil rights activists-despite their many past declarations of Islamic supremacism
* How stealth jihadists played a key role in formulating U.S. government guidelines for the War on Terror
* How insistence on “accommodating” Islamic cultural and religious practices in America is part of a calculated strategy to achieve a dangerous larger agenda
* The effort by stealth jihadists to whitewash the teaching of Islam in schools
* What can be done to defeat the stealth jihad and preserve America’s liberty

America, Spencerdemonstrates, is all but oblivious to a new kind of threat presented by a loosely organized movement whose activists are well funded, highly motivated, and relentless in pursuit of their agenda. This book is a wake-up call for a country so focused on foreign threats that it has left itself vulnerable to a growing danger much closer to home. …”

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Stealth-Jihad/Robert-Spencer/e/9781596985568/?pt=BK&stage=bookproduct&pwb=1&

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)

]

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)

Background Articles and Videos

Robert Spencer

“…Robert Bruce Spencer (born 1962) is an American blogger and author of articles and books relating to Islam and Islamic terrorism. He has published nine books, including two New York Times bestsellers, and is a regular contributor to David Horowitz’s FrontPage magazine. He is the creator of Jihad Watch, a blog which aims to bring public attention to what it describes as “the concerted effort by Islamic jihadists… to destroy [non-Muslim] societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world”.[1][2]

Views

Spencer holds the view that “traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements,” and that “its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.” He calls for Muslims to follow an interpretation of Islam that rejects violence and supremacism.[3]. Although he believes Islam has violent elements in its traditional teachings, he rejects the idea that all Muslims must necessarily be violent people as a misunderstanding of his position. Calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources I quote, not from me. Cries of “hatred” and “bigotry” are effectively used by Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat.”[4]

Spencer has expressed strong criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations as well as numerous other Muslim advocacy groups, in particular relating to their alleged close ties with jihadist organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood[5] and their employment of several Muslims who were [6] convicted on charges relating to terrorism.[7]

Spencer says that among moderate Muslims “there are some who are genuinely trying to frame a theory and practice of Islam that will allow for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals,”[8] but he also argues that many so-called reformers are not interested in genuine reform, instead aiming to deflect scrutiny of Islam. Spencer feels that anyone pursuing his called-for reforms will face a difficult task, because “the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do.”[9]

His work has been subject to criticism, for its “entrenched hostility” against Islam.[10] His work has been treated dismissively by mainstream scholars, for its alleged mismanagement of basic facts and political activism,[10] while it has been condemned as hate speech by Arab-American and civil rights groups.[11][12] Spencer responds that criticism of him as Islamophobic is

only a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism. My work is dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts… I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people. That’s Islamophobic? Then is the fault in the phobe, or in the Islam?[13]

In March 2010, Spencer endorsed the English Defence League (EDL) and claims that “The EDL is standing up to violent thugs from both the Left and the increasingly assertive Islamic communities in Britain, and they deserve the support of all free people.”[14]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)

 

Jihad Watch

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Why Jihad Watch

“…Because non-Muslims in the West, as well as in India, China, Russia, and the world over, are facing a concerted effort by Islamic jihadists, the motives and goals of whom are largely ignored by the Western media, to destroy their societies and bring them forcibly into the Islamic world — and to commit violence to that end even while their overall goal remains out of reach. That effort goes under the general rubric of jihad.

Jihad (Arabic for “struggle”) is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict.

JIHAD IS A CENTRAL DUTY of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But in Islamic history and doctrine violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an — most notably, one known in Islamic theology as the “Verse of the Sword”: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Sura 9:5). Establishing “regular worship” and paying the “poor-due” (zakat) means essentially that they will become Muslim, as these are two of the central responsibilities of every Muslim. Sahih Bukhari, which Muslims regard as the most trustworthy of all the many collections of traditions of Muhammad, records this statement of the Prophet: “Allah assigns for a person who participates in (holy battles) in Allah’s Cause and nothing causes him to do so except belief in Allah and in His Messengers, that he will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr).” …”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/why-jihad-watch.html

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

An Affront and Threat To The American People–Ground Zero Mosque and Community Center

Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Will Release Explosive Information of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,The Promoter of The Ground Zero Mosque, Where He Supports Extreme Radical Religious Fanatics Including Moslem Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabi Islam!

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Posted on August 20, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Transportation, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

UPDATED AND EXPANDED


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:911_-_FEMA_-_WTC_impacts_%28graphic%29.png

Fitna (English) Part 1/2 (Full 16min version)

Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

 A “Real” Commencement Speech

“O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).”

~Quran, 9:123

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

~Winston Churchill

American Airlines flight number 11  left gate B32  and took off from Boston’s Logan International airport at 7:59 a.m  bound for Los Angeles.

At about 8:46:40 local time, all 92 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi  terrorist hijackers  aboard American Airlines Flight 11  were killed as it crashed into the North Tower (Tower 1) of the World Trade Center.

Then at 9:03 a.m. United Airlines Flight 175 bound from Boston’s Logan International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport crashes into the South Tower (Tower 2)  killing 65 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi  terrorist hijackers.

Shortly thereafter at 9:35 a.m. American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon killing all 64 passengers and crew including five Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi  terrorist hijackers aboard as well as 125 in the Pentagon.

The only aircraft that did not reach its intended target, the United States Capital building in Washington D.C., was United Airlines Flight 93 bound from Newark International Airport to San Francisco International Airport.

Four Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi  terrorists hijacked the plane about forty minutes into the flight. However, several passengers tried to take back the aircraft from the terrorists.

All 44 passengers and crew including the 4 Al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi  terrorists died at about 10:03 a.m.when the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

Several hundred people choose to jump to their deaths from both towers to escape from the intense fire and choking smoke in both buildings captured in the “Falling Man” photo and recounted  in the 9/11 The Falling Man documentary on YouTube and “The Falling Man” online article in Esquire Magazine:

Credit: The Falling Man, a photograph by Richard Drew for the Associated Press.

9/11 The Falling Man

The Falling Man

By Tom Junod

“…They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building’s fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors — the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. …”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz0xXdfVMZa

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN

People watching the burning towers from surrounding streets were horrified at what they were witnessing as hundreds from all sides of the two towers jumped to their certain deaths to escape the flames and smoke.

After burning for fifty-six minutes  the South Tower of the World Trade Center fell at 9:58.

Thirty minutes later the North Tower fell.

Less than two hours from the time the two jet passenger airliners crashed into World Trade Center towers, both buildings had collapsed.

Killed  that day were nearly three thousand people  from over 70 countries that were in and around the buildings that were destroyed or damaged including  over three hundred New York City fireman and policemen who responded to the explosions and fires in the buildings.

Al-Qaeda’s Islamic Wahhabi  jihad or struggle by the sword arrived with a vengeance in the United States on September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda is a radical  network of militants who call for a global jihad or armed  struggle with those not of the Islamic faith, including Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.

Most Al-Qaeda jihadists are from the Sunni branch of Islam and from the fundamentalist Wahhabi sect established in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda wants to establish a new Islamic Caliphate or leader for the Muslim community or Ummah under Sharia or Islamic law.  However, Muslims differ as to the interpretation of Sharia or Islamic law.

The two main branches of Islam are Sunni and Shia. The largest branch of Islam is Sunni who  comprise between 87% to 90% of all Muslems worldwide according to the Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The smaller Shia branch of Islam comprises between 10% and 13% of the all Muslims worldwide and who are are primarily located in Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and India.  Arabs are primarily Sunni and Iranians or Persians are primarily Shia. There are both Sunni and Shia jihadists who use suicide bombers to attack infidels or those of another religious faith mainly Christians, Jews and Hindus.

However, neither Arabs nor Iranians are the largest populations of Muslims. The countries with the largest Muslim populations include Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. In 2010 the world’s population is  nearly 7 billion of which nearly 1.6 billion are Muslims  or over 22% of the world’s population. There are over 50 countries with a Muslim majority and 57 countries  comprising the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) .

 The United States with a population of 310 million has a relatively small Muslim population of about 3 million or roughly 1% of the total population of the United States in 2010. The Al-qaeda attackers came primarily from Saudi Arabia with a Muslim population of about 25 million or less than 2% of the world’s Muslim population.

The nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists were religious  fanatics of the  Sunni Islam Wahhabi sect, including fifteen Saudi nationals. The Al-Qaeda jihadists had hijacked four commercial airline passenger jets in a coordinated attack on the American people and the United States of America.

The death toll from the Islamic Wahhabi jihad attack on America on September 11, 2001 was 2,995 including the nineteen al-Qaeda terrorist hijackers. There were more deaths on September 11, 2001, than the 2350 deaths, mostly members of the United States  Navy and Army, from the surprise Imperial Japanese Navy attack on the United States Navy Pacific fleet docked at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Nearly nine years later a so-called “moderate” Muslem cleric, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, wants to build a thirteen story Islamic community center and mosque less than three blocks from ground zero, the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers.

The planned site for the Islamic community center and mosque is  45-51 Park Place, called Park 51, is two and half block north and 560 feet from the northern boundary of the World Trade Center site at Vesey street.

Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

Few Americans dispute the property owners’  right to construct such a building provided all city, state and Federal laws are complied with including local zoning laws and receipt of the necessary building permits.

Few Americans dispute the rights of all Americans to practice their religious faith.

Few Americans oppose the exercise of free speech.

The vast majority of Americans, however, consider the proposed community center and mosque to be an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.

Just because you can do something, does not mean you should.

In fact the Islamic religion considers such an action to be mischief-making or a fitna, a deliberate provocation against the infidels, those not of the Islamic faith including Christians and Jews.

The site of the World Trade Center and the immediate surrounding area is considered hallowed ground for it is the final resting place or cemetery for many of those who died on September 11, 2001 and whose remains were never found.

The American people demand that this Islamic community center and mosque be moved to another location in New York City.

Otherwise, those behind the building of such an insulting affront to the American people will only receive the rightful indignation and shunning they justly deserve and will soon be exposed for who and what they are–stealth jihadists.

Extreme jidahists can be Sunni or Shia and  overt militarist jihadists like those of  September 11, 2010 or covert  stealth jihadists that want to replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law and our representative republic with a theocracy.

Stealth jihadists speak of toleration when speaking to infidels or non-believers in Islam

When the jihadists speak to their fellow Muslims, they speak of Islamic global supremacy and return of the Caliphate under Sharia or Islamic law.

Religious toleration has it limits even in the United States. Toleration should be a two-way street. Toleration does not extend to evil. Toleration is not a suicide pact. Yet  Saudi Arabia has zero toleration or an absolute ban for any church, temple or synagogue being built in Saudi Arabia  and bans all non-believers in Islam from the city of  Mecca.

Sharia is a direct and immediate threat to liberty of the American people. The jihadists seek to replace American law and the United States Constitution with Sharia or Islamic law.

Sharia or Islamic law should be banned from the United States and those immigrants advocating it should be deported to their country of origin.

Saudi Arabia funds Islamic community centers and mosques throughout the United States where both militarist and stealth jihadists are cultivated and supported. The majority of terrorist attacks in the last decade have come from extreme Islamic jihadists, from both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam and with support and encouragement of  local mosques and their  Imam.

Authors, journalists, politicians and television and talk  radio show hosts such as Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Andrew C. McCarthy, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and  Michael Savage are among those who expose the threat posed by the militarist and stealth jihadists. However, those commenting upon the threat posed by the jihadists are quickly labeled by the jihadists, their supporters and mainstream media as engaging in hate speech and accused of being racists and Islamophobes, having prejudice or bias against those of the Islam faith or Moslems. This is especially true when the Quran and actual speeches and words of the jihadists are quoted or made available for viewing on the Internet at such sites as YouTube.

The American people will remember September 11, 2001 and never forget the fallen. The American people will honor their memories by stopping the ground zero mosque and the militant and stealth jihadists of the sword whether they be Sunni or Shia. The American people will defend their country and their liberty.

Imam Rauf Exposed, Elimination of Israel, Terrorist Supporting, N’ Word

Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

“…At fifteen seconds after 9:41 a.m., on September 11, 2001, a photographer named Richard Drew took a picture of a man falling through the sky — falling through time as well as through space. The picture went all around the world, and then disappeared, as if we willed it away. One of the most famous photographs in human history became an unmarked grave, and the man buried inside its frame — the Falling Man — became the Unknown Soldier in a war whose end we have not yet seen. …”

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN#ixzz0xXepMmJc

Background Articles and Videos

Bitter Debate at Ground Zero

Dueling Protests over Ground Zero Mosque

Leader of Ground Zero Mosque Refuses To Disclose Source Of Funding

Ground Zero Mosque 9/11 Liars for Islam, Muhammad said you can lie: Taqiyya

Radical Islam: Saudi Wahhabism responsible for worldwide terror

Robert Spencer on Hannity exposes Imam Rauf on Ground Zero Mosque

Robert Spencer Jihad Watch

Jihad on Campus – Saudis’ Multi-Million Dollar PR Agenda]

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (1 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (2 of 6)

]

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (3 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (4 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (5 of 6)

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad (6 of 6)

Andy McCarthy Discusses The Ground Zero Mosque

Andy McCarthy – The Grand Jihad (5.24.10)

Law & Jihad with Andrew McCarthy

Andy McCarthy: “What We Call Terrorism, They Don’t”

First Friday – Andrew C. McCarthy – America’s War on Terror…or is It?

Michael Savage Gets Pissed Off About Jihadists and Terrorism

annity 05/04/2010 w/ Mark Levin

September 11 Attacks

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.[1][2] The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. The hijackers crashed a third airliner into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[4] In addition, there is at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center’s collapse.[5]

The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism. It invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. The United States also enacted the USA PATRIOT Act. Many other countries also strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Some American stock exchanges stayed closed for the rest of the week following the attack and posted enormous losses upon reopening, especially in the airline and insurance industries. The destruction of billions of dollars worth of office space caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan.

The damage to the Pentagon was cleared and repaired within a year, and the Pentagon Memorial was built adjacent to the building. The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. 1 World Trade Center is currently under construction at the site and, at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2013, it will become one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers were originally expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site. Ground was broken for the Flight 93 National Memorial on November 8, 2009, and the first phase of construction is expected to be ready for the 10th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2011.[6] …”

American Airlines Flight 11

American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport. It was hijacked by five al-Qaedan terrorists and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer. Mohamed Atta, a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls. Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 local time; the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers, plus an unconfirmed number of people in the buildings impact zone. Many people in the streets witnessed the collision, and the Naudet brothers captured the impact on video, as did Pavel Hlava. Mark Burnback and Wolfgang Staehle had a webcam set up that captured the impact through a series of photographs. Before the hijacking was confirmed, news agencies began to report on the incident and speculated that the crash had been an accident. The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims (see section Aftermath below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

American Airlines Flight 77

“…American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks. It was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. The flight from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic extremists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.

The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37am EDT. All 64 people on board the aircraft, including the hijackers, and 125 in the building were killed. Dozens of people witnessed the crash and news sources began reporting on the incident within minutes. The impact severely damaged an area of the Pentagon and ignited a large fire. A portion of the Pentagon collapsed and firefighters spent days trying to fully extinguish the blaze. The damaged sections of the Pentagon were rebuilt in 2002, with occupants moving back into the completed areas on August 15, 2002.

The 184 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims, arranged according to the year of birth, ranging from 1930 (age 71) to 1998 (age 3). Flight 77’s   cuts directly through the park. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

United Airlines Flight 175

“… United Airlines Flight 175 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts to Los Angeles International Airport, in California. On the morning of September 11, 2001, the flight was hijacked by five al-Qaeda-associated Islamist terrorists, and flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11 attacks. Approximately thirty minutes into the flight, the hijackers forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijacker and trained pilot Marwan al-Shehhi to take over the controls. The aircraft’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft deviated from the assigned flight path for four minutes, before air traffic controllers noticed at 08:51. They made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the cockpit. Several passengers and crew aboard made phone calls from the plane and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The Boeing 767 operating as Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center at 09:03, killing all 65 people aboard, including the hijackers. The Flight 175 hijacking was coordinated with that of American Airlines Flight 11, which had struck the top of the North Tower eighteen minutes earlier. The crash of Flight 175 into the South Tower was the only impact seen live on television around the world as it happened. It was upon the loss of Flight 175 that the world realized that the crashes of both aircraft at the World Trade Center were in fact deliberate. The impact and subsequent fire caused the South Tower to collapse, 56 minutes later, resulting in hundreds of additional casualties. During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified remains from Flight 175 victims (see chapter Aftermath, below), but many other body fragments could not be identified. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

United Airlines Flight 93

“…United Airlines Flight 93 was a United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport in Newark, NJ to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, CA that was hijacked on September 11, 2001. Approximately 40 minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots and took control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result of this knowledge, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the aircraft.

The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including the four hijackers. Many witnessed the impact from the ground and news agencies began reporting on the event within an hour. The plane fragmented upon impact, leaving a crater, and some debris was blown miles from the crash site. The remains of everyone on board the aircraft were later identified. Subsequent analysis of the flight recorders revealed how the actions taken by the passengers prevented the aircraft from reaching the hijackers’ intended target, thought to be either the White House or the United States Capitol. A permanent memorial is planned for construction on the crash site, with dedication scheduled for 2011, though it has been the subject of criticism.

Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 (the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175), United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its intended target. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

 

Al-Qaeda

“…Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ al-KYE-də or /ælˈkeɪdə/ al-KAY-də; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, “the base”), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa’ida, is a militant Islamist group founded sometime between August 1988[6] and late 1989.[7] It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army[8] and a fundamentalist Sunni movement calling for global Jihad. It is considered a terrorist organization.

Al-Qaeda has attacked civilian and military targets in various countries, most notably the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001. The U.S. government responded by launching the War on Terror.

Characteristic techniques include suicide attacks and simultaneous bombings of different targets.[9] Activities ascribed to it may involve members of the movement, who have taken a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden, or the much more numerous “al-Qaeda-linked” individuals who have undergone training in one of its camps in Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan, but not taken any pledge.[10]

Al-Qaeda ideologues envision a complete break from the foreign influences in Muslim countries, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate. Reported beliefs include that a Christian-Jewish alliance is conspiring to destroy Islam,[11] which is largely embodied in the U.S.-Israel alliance, and that the killing of bystanders and civilians is religiously justified in jihad. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

Jihad

“…Jihad (pronounced /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning “struggle.” Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)“.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.

A wide range of opinions exist about the exact meaning of jihad. Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war.[4] The differences of opinion are the result of different interpretation of the two most important sources in Islam, the Qur’an and the ahadith (singular: hadith). For example, the prominent orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that, in the Qur’an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.[5] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that “one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct”.[6]

In western societies the term jihad is often translated as “holy war”.[7] Muslim authors tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word.[8] In technical literature, the term “holy war” is often used to describe jihad.[9] However, scholars of Islamic studies often stress that both words are not synonymous.[10]

…”

“…Sunni view of Jihad

Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one’s soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).

Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the “greater jihad”, Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadith, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur’an and other writings.[31][32]

In contrast, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that “internal Jihad” is important[33] but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider “Jihad of the heart/soul” to be more important than “Jihad by the sword”.[34] Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but “is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.”[35]

Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[36]

  • Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
  • Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one’s tongue.
  • Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
  • Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.[37]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

The Saudi 911 hijackers were Wahhabi

“…Most Americans continue to be puzzled by the Saudis. 15 or the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudia Arabian. Not Taliban. Not Libyan. Not Palestinian. Why? They don’t like our military presence in the country, our culture, our policies, in general they just don’t like us and want us dead. What’s more they’re increasingly unhappy with the ruling Al Saud Family, who a decade ago cut a deal with us for military protection. The Key to understanding the vicious attack on America is in understanding “Wahhabism.”

Wahhabi Clerics control education in Saudi Arabia. They teach that all who do not believe exactly as they do are “enemies.” They also teach holy war against enemies (Die fighting a jihad and you die a martyr with special rewards afterlife.)

The Saudi hijackers were Wahhabi. When they crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon they believed they were doing a holy act and ensuring martyrdom. This twisted thinking is a perversion of Islam. The Wahhabis use their wealth to export their twisted message. They target the poor and illiterate with the promise of an education, only to teach religious INTOLERANCE, the oppression of women and terrorist warfare.

The Al Saud Family is worried about civil war. It has been Osama Bin Ladens main objective has ben to terrorize the U.S. out of Saudia Arabia and then incite the Saudi people to help him seize the kingdom and it’s vast oil reserves.

The Al Saud Family regularly pays off the Wahhabi Clerics and Islamic charities simply to avoid civil war. A lot of the money has been funnelled to Osama Bin Laden and the Al Queda network.

If Islamic terrorists were to seize control of Saudia Arabia and its 260 billion barrels of crude oil reserves, they would be ten times more powerful than Iran or Iraq.

While Kuwait is the only Arab Democracy in the Middle East, the Islamic Fundamentalist Party is the fastest growing party there. The Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Islamic extremism is rapidly growing. …”

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/saudi-wahabbi-religion.html

List of countries by Muslim population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

Mapping the Global Muslim Population

A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population

ANALYSIS October 7, 2009

Executve Summary

“..A comprehensive demographic study of more than 200 countries finds that there are 1.57 billion Muslims of all ages living in the world today, representing 23% of an estimated 2009 world population of 6.8 billion.

While Muslims are found on all five inhabited continents, more than 60% of the global Muslim population is in Asia and about 20% is in the Middle East and North Africa. However, the Middle East-North Africa region has the highest percentage of Muslim-majority countries. Indeed, more than half of the 20 countries and territories1 in that region have populations that are approximately 95% Muslim or greater.

More than 300 million Muslims, or one-fifth of the world’s Muslim population, live in countries where Islam is not the majority religion. These minority Muslim populations are often quite large. India, for example, has the third-largest population of Muslims worldwide. China has more Muslims than Syria, while Russia is home to more Muslims than Jordan and Libya combined.

Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.

These are some of the key findings of Mapping the Global Muslim Population: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Muslim Population, a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The report offers the most up-to-date and fully sourced estimates of the size and distribution of the worldwide Muslim population, including sectarian identity.

Previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion.2 But these commonly quoted estimates often have appeared without citations to specific sources or explanations of how the figures were generated.

The Pew Forum report is based on the best available data for 232 countries and territories. Pew Forum researchers, in consultation with nearly 50 demographers and social scientists at universities and research centers around the world, acquired and analyzed about 1,500 sources, including census reports, demographic studies and general population surveys, to arrive at these figures – the largest project of its kind to date. (See Methodology for more detail.)

The Pew Forum’s estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world’s Muslim population.3 Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate. …”

http://pewforum.org/Mapping-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx

How Many Muslims in the United States?

by Daniel Pipes
April 22, 2003

updated Nov 22, 2009

“…Islam is widely touted as “the fastest growing religion in the United States,” so how does one explain that The World Almanac and Book of Facts has these figures for Muslims in the United States:

  • 1997 edition (p. 644) says 5.1 million
  • 2003 edition (p. 635) says 2.8 million

No, the population did not actually decrease; to understand this reduction in the estimate, see my October 2001 analysis, “How Many U.S. Muslims?” In it, I report on two recent surveys, by the American Religious Identification Survey 2001 and Tom Smith of the University of Chicago, which found the number of U.S. Muslims to be under two million. So, it appears that the almanac’s editors stopped accepting the overblown Islamist estimates as accurate and instead relied on scholarly and reliable work. A good round estimate is that Muslims make up just under 1 percent of the U.S. population. (April 22, 2003) …”

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/04/how-many-muslims-in-the-united-states

Organisation of the Islamic Conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_the_Islamic_Conference

 

THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM

“…Islam
Islam (a word that literally means “surrender to the will of God”) arose in Arabia with what Muslims believe are a series of revelations to the Prophet Mohammed from the one and only God, the God of Abraham and of Jesus. These revelations, conveyed by the angel Gabriel, are recorded in the Qur’an. Muslims believe that these revelations, given to the greatest and last of a chain of prophets stretching from Abraham through Jesus, complete God’s message to humanity. The Hadith, which recount Mohammed’s sayings and deeds as recorded by his contemporaries, are another fundamental source. A third key element is the Sharia, the code of law derived from the Qur’an and the Hadith.

Islam is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shia. Soon after the Prophet’s death, the question of choosing a new leader, or caliph, for the Muslim community, or Ummah, arose. Initially, his successors could be drawn from the Prophet’s contemporaries, but with time, this was no longer possible. Those who became the Shia held that any leader of the Ummah must be a direct descendant of the Prophet; those who became the Sunni argued that lineal descent was not required if the candidate met other standards of faith and knowledge. After bloody struggles, the Sunni became (and remain) the majority sect. (The Shia are dominant in Iran.) The Caliphate-the institutionalized leadership of the Ummah-thus was a Sunni institution that continued until 1924, first under Arab and eventually under Ottoman Turkish control.

Many Muslims look back at the century after the revelations to the Prophet Mohammed as a golden age. Its memory is strongest among the Arabs. What happened then-the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and even into Europe within less than a century-seemed, and seems, miraculous.6 Nostalgia for Islam’s past glory remains a powerful force.

Islam is both a faith and a code of conduct for all aspects of life. For many Muslims, a good government would be one guided by the moral principles of their faith. This does not necessarily translate into a desire for clerical rule and the abolition of a secular state. It does mean that some Muslims tend to be uncomfortable with distinctions between religion and state, though Muslim rulers throughout history have readily separated the two.

To extremists, however, such divisions, as well as the existence of parliaments and legislation, only prove these rulers to be false Muslims usurping God’s authority over all aspects of life. Periodically, the Islamic world has seen surges of what, for want of a better term, is often labeled “fundamentalism.”7 Denouncing waywardness among the faithful, some clerics have appealed for a return to observance of the literal teachings of the Qur’an and Hadith. One scholar from the fourteenth century from whom Bin Ladin selectively quotes, Ibn Taimiyyah, condemned both corrupt rulers and the clerics who failed to criticize them. He urged Muslims to read the Qur’an and the Hadith for themselves, not to depend solely on learned interpreters like himself but to hold one another to account for the quality of their observance.8

The extreme Islamist version of history blames the decline from Islam’s golden age on the rulers and people who turned away from the true path of their religion, thereby leaving Islam vulnerable to encroaching foreign powers eager to steal their land, wealth, and even their souls.

Bin Ladin’s Worldview
Despite his claims to universal leadership, Bin Ladin offers an extreme view of Islamic history designed to appeal mainly to Arabs and Sunnis. He draws on fundamentalists who blame the eventual destruction of the Caliphate on leaders who abandoned the pure path of religious devotion.9 He repeatedly calls on his followers to embrace martyrdom since “the walls of oppression and humiliation cannot be demolished except in a rain of bullets.”10 For those yearning for a lost sense of order in an older, more tranquil world, he offers his “Caliphate” as an imagined alternative to today’s uncertainty. For others, he offers simplistic conspiracies to explain their world.

Bin Ladin also relies heavily on the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood11 executed in 1966 on charges of attempting to overthrow the government, Qutb mixed Islamic scholarship with a very superficial acquaintance with Western history and thought. Sent by the Egyptian government to study in the United States in the late 1940s, Qutb returned with an enormous loathing of Western society and history. He dismissed Western achievements as entirely material, arguing that Western society possesses “nothing that will satisfy its own conscience and justify its existence.”12

Three basic themes emerge from Qutb’s writings. First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jahiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jahiliyya. Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jahiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jahiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam. Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan.All Muslims-as he defined them-therefore must take up arms in this fight.Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.13

Bin Ladin shares Qutb’s stark view, permitting him and his followers to rationalize even unprovoked mass murder as righteous defense of an embattled faith. Many Americans have wondered, “Why do ‘they’ hate us?” Some also ask, “What can we do to stop these attacks?”

Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands. America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as “your agents.” Bin Ladin has stated flatly, “Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you.”14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America’s support for their countries’ repressive rulers.

Bin Ladin’s grievance with the United States may have started in reaction to specific U.S. policies but it quickly became far deeper. To the second question, what America could do, al Qaeda’s answer was that America should abandon the Middle East, convert to Islam, and end the immorality and godlessness of its society and culture: “It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind.” If the United States did not comply, it would be at war with the Islamic nation, a nation that al Qaeda’s leaders said “desires death more than you desire life.”15  …”

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

Mosque of Mischief, Mundus Volt Decipi

“…We keep hearing that the only issue at hand is whether building the Ground Zero Mosque is legal or not. We keep hearing that opposing this mosque is un-American and makes us just like the enemy. In short, those who oppose a mosque are bigots.

This is, of course, a tactic employed by the left to narrow the debate, a tactic used to deny the very existence of Jihad. It’s also a way of smearing those who want to know more about the ideology of Imam Rauf and to find out if this mosque is terror-financed.

Questions: If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is revealed as an Islamist supremacist and the financing as dirty money, would it make a difference to those who support the building of the mosque?

If it makes no difference that Rauf is an Islamist who wants America to become Sharia compliant, then you are enabling Salafist Islam, an ideology that is, at the core, dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization.

If it does make a difference then we should exercise due diligence and investigate Rauf and the already murky financing behind the mosque? …”

http://www.seraphicpress.com/archives/2010/08/mosque_of_misch.php

Sharia

“…Sharia (شريعة Šarīʿa; [ʃaˈriːʕa], “way” or “path”) is the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences among themselves as to exactly what it entails.[1] Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well.

Muslims believe all Sharia is derived from two primary sources, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur’an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh, or “jurisprudence,” interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources, by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur’an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with ‘aql, or “reason”. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia. While the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader or political leader. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting.

Introduction (or reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain’s Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15].

…”

 

Pearl Harbor

“…Pearl Harbor, or Pu’uloa, is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval base. It is also the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941, brought the United States into World War II. …”

“…Aircraft and midget submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy began an attack on the U.S. The Americans had deciphered Japan’s code earlier and knew about a planned attack before it actually occurred. However, due to difficulty in deciphering intercepted messages, the Americans failed to discover Japan’s target location before the attack occurred.[6] Under the command of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the attack was devastating in loss of life and damage to the U.S. fleet. At 06:05 on December 7, the six Japanese carriers launched a first wave of 183 planes composed mainly of dive bombers, horizontal bombers and fighters.[7] The Japanese hit American ships and military installations at 07:51. The first wave attacked military airfields of Ford Island. At 08:30, a second wave of 170 Japanese planes, mostly torpedo bombers, attacked the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. The battleship Arizona was hit with an armor piercing bomb which penetrated the forward ammunition compartment, blowing the ship apart and sinking it within seconds. Overall, nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. Three of the 21 would be irreparable. The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona. The first shots fired were from the destroyer Ward on a midget submarine that surfaced outside of Pearl Harbor; Ward sank the midget sub at approximately 06:55, about an hour before the assault on Pearl Harbor. Japan would lose 29 out of the 350 planes they attacked with. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor

Pearl Harbor

“…In Pearl Harbor were 96 vessels, the bulk of the United States Pacific Fleet. Eight battleships of the Fleet were there, but the aircraft carriers were all at sea. The Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC) was Admiral Husband E. Kimmel. Army forces in Hawaii, including the 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, were under the command of Lt. Gen. Walter C. Short, Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department. On the several airfields were a total of about 390 Navy and Army planes of all types, of which less than 300 were available for combat or observation purposes.

The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor and on the airfields of Oahu began at 0755 on December 7, 1941 and ended shortly before 1000. Quickly recovering from the initial shock of surprise, the Americans fought back vigorously with antiaircraft fire. Devastation of the airfields was so quick and thorough that only a few American planes were able to participate in the counterattack. The Japanese were successful in accomplishing their principal mission, which was to cripple the Pacific Fleet. They sunk three battleships, caused another to capsize, and severely damaged the other four.

All together the Japanese sank or severely damaged 18 ships, including the 8 battleships, three light cruisers, and three destroyers. On the airfields the Japanese destroyed 161 American planes (Army 74, Navy 87) and seriously damaged 102 (Army 71, Navy 31).

The Navy and Marine Corps suffered a total of 2,896 casualties of which 2,117 were deaths (Navy 2,008, Marines 109) and 779 wounded (Navy 710, Marines 69). The Army (as of midnight, 10 December) lost 228 killed or died of wounds, 113 seriously wounded and 346 slightly wounded. In addition, at least 57 civilians were killed and nearly as many seriously injured.

The Japanese lost 29 planes over Oahu, one large submarine (on 10 December), and all five of the midget submarines. Their personnel losses (according to Japanese sources) were 55 airmen, nine crewmen on the midget submarines, and an unknown number on the large submarines. The Japanese carrier task force sailed away undetected and unscathed.

On December 8, 1941, within less than an hour after a stirring, six-minute address by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress voted, with only one member dissenting, that a state of war existed between the United States and Japan, and empowered the President to wage war with all the resources of the country.

Four days after Pearl Harbor, December 11, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. Congress, this time without a dissenting vote, immediately recognized the existence of a state of war with Germany and Italy, and also rescinded an article of the Selective Service Act prohibiting the use of American armed forces beyond the Western Hemisphere. …”

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

Wahhabi

“…Wahhabi (Arabic: Al-Wahhābīyya‎ الوهابية) or Wahhabism is a conservative Sunni Islamic sect based on the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar from what is today known as Saudi Arabia, who advocated to purge Islam of what he considered innovations in Islam. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.[1] It is often referred to as a “sect”[1] or “branch”[2] of Islam, though both its supporters and its opponents[3] reject such designations. It has developed considerable influence in the Muslim world through the funding of mosques, schools and other means from Persian Gulf oil wealth.[4]

The primary doctrine of Wahhabi is Tawhid, or the uniqueness and unity of God.[5] Ibn Abdul Wahhab was influenced by the writings of Ibn Taymiyya and questioned medieval interpretations of Islam, claiming to rely on the Qur’an and the Hadith.[5] He preached against a “perceived moral decline and political weakness” in the Arabian Peninsula and condemned idolatry, the popular cult of saints, and shrine and tomb visitation.[5]

The term “Wahhabi” (Wahhābīya) was first used by opponents of ibn Abdul Wahhab.[2] It is considered derogatory by the people it is used to describe, who prefer to be called “unitarians” (Muwahiddun).[6]

The terms “Wahhabi”, “Salafi” (and also sometimes Ahle Hadith) are often used interchangeably, but Wahhabi has also been called “a particular orientation within Salafism”, [2] an orientation some consider ultra-conservative. [7][8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

DAY OF INFAMY 2001

Ground Zero mosque modeled after notorious 9/11 mosque?

Founder of hijackers’ D.C. worship center partners with N.Y. imam pushing shariah

“…The New York imam behind the Ground Zero mosque has struck a partnership with the founder of the so-called 9/11 mosque in the Washington suburbs that gave aid and comfort to some of the 9/11 hijackers, WND has learned.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf counts the lead trustee of the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center among partners in his Cordoba Initiative, which features a 13-story mosque and a “cultural center” for his project to bring shariah, or Islamic law, to America.

Families of 9/11 victims oppose construction of the proposed site so close to Ground Zero.

Jamal Barzinji, one of the founders of the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, also founded Dar al-Hijrah in Falls Church, Va., which is run by the pro-jihad Brotherhood. The mosque has been tied to numerous terrorism plots, including the 9/11 attacks.

The dots are finally being connected! Find out what Islam has planned for you: Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

In December 2008, the Brotherhood’s U.S. think tank — the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT – hosted Rauf. During their meeting, IIIT’s leadership, including Barzinji, “pledged cooperation and support” for Rauf’s project, according to this screenshot of the description of the event from IIIT’s scrubbed Web archives.

Rauf’s partner Barzinji is a founder and director of IIIT, which is under active federal investigation for funneling funds to Palestinian terrorists. Its Herndon, Va., offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11.

The U.S. government has accused Barzinji of being “closely associated” with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations. He has not been charged with a crime, however. …”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=194617

SAUDI ARABIA’S EXPORT OF RADICAL ISLAM

by Adrian Morgan

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/fox_imm.htm

Ground Zero mosque debate swirls in world capitals

The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.

“…Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.

“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that “the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!”

Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”

As the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” has turned into a political debating ground, it’s also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:

Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the “hallowed ground” of Ground Zero.

Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.

As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred. …”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson, Executive Director of The Investigative Project on Terrorism Will Release Explosive Information of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf,The Promoter of The Ground Zero Mosque, Where He Supports Extreme Radical Religious Fanatics Including Moslem Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabi Islam!

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...