UCLA's Response to May 17 Disruption. - On May 17, Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted an Israeli event at UCLA. Subsequently, UCLA received many letters of complaint, including one that ...
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
WHY YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT STOP ISLAM
(Photo: You-know-who and the CAIR gang, right after 9-11-01*)
"governments won't do the things you want them to do until there are enough people like you forcing them to do it openly."
Posted by: rudekid
THERE ARE TOO FEW IDEALISTS ON OUR SIDE
IN GOVERNMENT, MOST ARE IN IT FOR THE MONEY, AND THE CREATURE COMFORTS IT WILL BUY.
. . . men who have power through riches, intrigue, or office will administer the State at will, and ultimately to their private advantage.
--Admiral H. G. Rickover, U. S. Navy
"Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life"
The United States of today has nobody to save it from the consequences of appeasing the Moslems.
The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed is a prerequisite for maintaining US superpower status and for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam. Will the ideals of democracy prove too weak to overcome cupidity?
[Does] the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses?
We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us.
U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers," putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington's self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)
To win this war, [Bush] needs to clean out the Augean stables at his intelligence services and put as many as possible of the Arab-American agents and potential agents for the enemy under lock and key. Some new blood at the State Department not contaminated by longstanding yet outworn policies that can still provide a share of Moslem oil wealth for some multinational corporations but no longer help the US economy and have begun to endanger America’s security would also help. And then - when he is ready – the Moslem terrorists and the states aiding them must be hit, simultaneously or one after the other, but so hard that their confidence in their ability to destroy or seriously harm the United States and its allies is utterly broken.
Don’t confuse kindness with stupidity. We as westerners try to get along. Now we have allowed an alien culture to infiltrate our world. They don’t want to live in it they want to destroy it. So what does that make these islamopoligists in the west? Traitorous rats who would not even stand up for our women and children. They aren’t selling me out, no one could do that, I’m not sellable. Can we really call these leaders Men? I don’t think so, at least not the image of Men that I have. Never include me and millions of others in that group, my ancestors fought against tyranny and won, mark my words we will do it again.
Posted by: tgusa [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 03:01 PM
tgusa, your entire post hit home. While islamists are the real enemy they would not do squat had it not been for the sellout traitors in office. Can one imagine increasing students visa to saudi wahhabbis after 9/11? Yet that is exactly what dubya did. To borrow your phrase: Traitorous Rat!
Posted by: Alert [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 04:21 PM
*Photo of Bush and Moslems:
Dangerous Group? President Bush met with Muslim-American representatives on Sept. 17, 2001. Second from right is Nihad Awad of CAIR, which Sen. Boxer lately decided may not be a savory group.
Boxer rescinds award
Yes, first with Jihad news most of the time!
But check out this link:
Sept 17, 2001 -- isn't that six days after Sept 11?
Isn't that bush meeting according to the caption, Nihad Awad of CAIR second from the right, in a mosque/cultural center?
I'm not sure if I am overly cynical, but why do I not get the impression that bush is mourning the loss of 3000 people in New York -- if the time frame is correct??
Posted by: witness [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2006 08:25 AM
Fritz Kuhn's Bund and William Pelley's Silver Shirts were quite bold in their pro-Nazi and antisemitic activities. The Bund held a famous rally right in the middle of New York City, in Madison Square Garden, as late as 1940. But after December 7, 1941 the Bund was disbanded, its members harried, some arrested, and all lapsed into silence. And so did the members of the other groups tracked by John Roy Carlson in "Under Cover."
The equivalent of December 7, 1941 in this war-wihtout-end that began earlier, but was not marked by one spectacular attack, the Jihad that had fallen over the past two centuries into desuetude only because of Muslim weakness, and was revived when three things occured to make Muslims believe that they could now go for broke, and achieve superiority over their permanent, because non-Muslim, enemies.
These three things were:
1) the past, present, and continuing OPEC oil revenues, which since 1973 have amounted to ten trillion dollars
2) the tens of millions of Muslims permitted by heedless elites everywhere to enter and settle and and make themselves at home in Infidel countries, all over the Bilad al-kufr, behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lines
3) the exploitation by Muslims of Western advances in technology, such as audiocassettes (so useful to Khomeini in 1978-79, videocassettes, satellite television (Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and others), and the Internet, on which all those Muslim websites preach the faith, inveigle the Spiritual Searchers, and offer videos of decapitation of Infidels that apparently are such a useful recruiting tool for the cause of Jihad.
During the Cold War those who were regarded as agents of the Soviet Union were tracked. Some were arrested. Some lost their jobs. Some were punished for membership in the Communist Party, by the government or, informally, by fellow citizens unwilling to tolerate such an allegiance.
Why does CAIR behave so boldly as to attempt to thwart, completely without fear, and at every step, the most modest measures of self-defense? Why does it think it can get away with the kinds of things it does?
Because it can. And will until enough people, including those from quarters CAIR least expects, have learned enough to be implacable in their mistrust and their relentless hostility to CAIR and everything for which it stands, and in a thousand ways, that go beyond what trivial measures are taken by the government, make life as difficult as they can for CAIR and for all its supporters. Just as they would have, in 1941, for supporters of Fritz Kuhn's Bund.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2007 07:21 PM
Fitzgerald: Infidels can have an effect
Fritz Kuhn's Bund and William Pelley's Silver Shirts were quite bold in their pro-Nazi and antisemitic activities. The Bund held a famous rally right in the middle of New York City, in Madison Square Garden, as late as 1940. But after December 7, 1941, the Bund was disbanded. Its members were harried, some were arrested, and all lapsed into silence. And so did the members of the other groups tracked by John Roy Carlson in Under Cover.
There are three things that amount to the equivalent of December 7, 1941 in this war-without-end in which we are now engaged. This war began earlier, but was not marked by one spectacular attack. The Jihad had fallen over the past two centuries into desuetude only because of Muslim weakness, and has now been revived when three things occurred to make Muslims believe that they could now go for broke and achieve superiority over their permanent, because non-Muslim, enemies.
These three things were:
1) the past, present, and continuing OPEC oil revenues, which since 1973 have amounted to ten trillion dollars.
2) the tens of millions of Muslims permitted by heedless elites everywhere to enter and settle and make themselves at home in Infidel countries, all over the Bilad al-kufr, behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lines.
3) the exploitation by Muslims of Western advances in technology, such as audiocassettes (so useful to Khomeini in 1978-79), videocassettes, satellite television (Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and others), and the Internet, on which all those Muslim websites preach the faith, inveigle the Spiritual Searchers, and offer videos of decapitation of Infidels that apparently are such a useful recruiting tool for the cause of Jihad.
During the Cold War, those who were regarded as agents of the Soviet Union were tracked. Some were arrested. Some lost their jobs. Some were punished for membership in the Communist Party, by the government or, informally, by fellow citizens unwilling to tolerate such an allegiance.
Why does CAIR behave so boldly as to attempt to thwart, completely without fear, and at every step, the most modest measures of self-defense? Why does it think it can get away with the kinds of things it does?
Because it can. And it will, until enough people, including those from quarters CAIR least expects, have learned enough to be implacable in their mistrust and their relentless hostility to CAIR and everything for which it stands, and in a thousand fully lawful ways, that go beyond what trivial measures are taken by the government, begin to make life as difficult as they can for CAIR and for all its supporters. Just as they would have, in 1941, for supporters of Fritz Kuhn's Bund.
One of the founders of CAIR and its former Board chairman, one Omar Ahmad, is a self-described "Palestinian." He has been quoted, famously, as saying that Islam is in the U.S. to become dominant, and the Qur’an the only law of the land. He now denies saying it, but the original reporter stands by her reportage. One wishes to add that Omar Ahmad, in addition to his tireless work on behalf of Islam and its promotion until it assumes what he regards as its rightful place in America and the world, meanwhile makes his living as CEO of a company called Silicon Expert Technologies.
That company can be searched for online; among the companies that have a "partnership" with "Silicon Expert Technologies" is Azerity. One would like to think that computer engineers, and computer executives at other companies, in choosing whether or not to "partner" or have other dealings with Omar Ahmad, would first fully inform themselves of what CAIR does, and what Omar Ahmad does and says and thinks. They could perhaps factor that information into their mental equation, and even, one would like to think, into their business decisions. One would hope, as well, that those alive in 1938 would not have bought Voigtlander cameras, or in 1953 bought Baltic amber from official Soviet outlets, such as Vneshtorg, which would use that valyuta or hard currency for purposes inimical to the health of liberal democracies.
Everyone is free to consider the wellbeing and safety of our own Infidel ways and institutions and their continued existence, in making decisions as to what partners one wishes to have, and what companies one wishes to hire to provide goods and services. And others, in turn, can make their commercial decisions as to whether or not to have dealings with that second company as well.
Or not, as the case may be.
Perhaps Infidels, in their own small way, can have an effect on the businesses which those who run CAIR, or contribute to CAIR, or support CAIR in any way, may rely on for their livelihood.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for that famous gander.
Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:16 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
Fitzgerald: Saudi Arabia ridimensionato
Why has the American government not read Saudi Arabia the riot act? Why haven't the hate-filled pamphlets collected at mosques around the country that were built and are now maintained by Saudi money brought together by Rice or Bush and put out on a table at the White House? And then the Arab ambassadors could all be invited over to see this "Special Exhibit," an exhibit to which representatives of all the major networks and the major newspapers here and abroad will be invited and urged to cover?
And then why does Bush or someone else not have a little private meeting with the enraged Saudi Ambassador, to tell him that there is much more in that sort of "Special Exhibit" -- which could of course tour the country -- if he doesn't stop funding the mosques and madrasas in this country, and stop allowing Saudi money to pay for Muslim missionaries in the prisons, to prey on the psychically as well as economically marginal.
If the American government had a mind to do it, it could bring the Saudi government around in no time.
But it doesn't, because so many former government officials and those who listen to them are directly or indirectly on the Saudi or other Muslim dole. Who pays Eugene Bird, and pays for the ads of the "Council for the National Interest" that is virtually identical in its views to the Saudi government? Who pays for "consultancy" by Raymond Close, or James Akins? Who pays for that magazine about the Middle East, full of Arab propaganda, that another ex-diplomat, Andrew Kilgore, runs? Who pays or has paid fees to Brent Scowcroft? To George McGovern? What Presidential libraries have been battening on Saudi and other Arab money? Who has received those million-dollar lecture fees in Kuwait, or from that Arab-funded lectureship at the Fletcher School (hint: Bush, Clinton)? Who has been getting what?
Ask yourself why since 1973 there has been not a move toward decreasing, through the simple device of taxes, demand for oil and gasoline? Why for thirty years did American energy policy consist of trusting "our staunch ally Saudi Arabia" to keep prices low, when it never happened, and never could have happened? Why was no one aware until the last year or two of what, inevitably, OPEC oil revenues would fund? Why was Prince Bandar the only foreigner allowed in on the plans for invading Iraq? Why today do we worry about what the Sunni Arabs want, and believe that we have a duty to remain in Iraq to protect those Sunnis (i.e., keep the "catastrophe of civil war" from happening)?
And that is just the beginning of the list of questions that need to be asked.
Meanwhile, as long as the Saudi "royal" family (self-anointed monarchs since they defeated the Jabal Shammar in 1920, or soon thereafter) exists, and appropriates most of the nation's wealth, there will be those who will as Muslims find their resentment and outraged channeled into Islam as the total explanation of everything. And terrorism will continue in Saudi Arabia until the end of time. Let it. The only business the Infidel world should have with Saudi Arabia is to attempt to have as little business with Saudi Arabia.
For the moment great sums of money flow in, and they will continue to flow in. But this does not mean that every effort cannot be made to diminish that flow of money (instead of aiming at a ludicrously irrelevant "energy independence" for the United States, which is both unachievable and would have no effect on Saudi Arabia or other Muslim oil states, for oil not sold to America will simply be sold to others, unless collective demand goes down).
Saudi Arabia needs to be "ridimensionato" -- that is to say, cut down to size. "Money can buy everything - except civilization." It is a barbarous place; its government is barbarous, its economy barbarous, the mental state of its inhabitants barbarous. A very few, who have spent a long time in the West, can appear to have acquired the habits of thought of Western man. And a very few of those may actually manage to do so. But no one should be fooled by the oleaginous new ambassador, Al-Jubeir.
Posted by Hugh at January 6, 2007 01:03 PM
Print this entry Email this entry Digg this del.icio.us
"This world is an unsafe place for Americans--and the U.S. government remains unready to defend its people."
"how our government must be changed if we are to fight the war on terror to victory--not just stalemate"
Wiretap mosques, Romney suggests
Pushes gathering of intelligence
WASHINGTON -- Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.
In remarks that caused alarm among civil libertarians and advocates for immigrants rights, Romney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that the United States needs to radically rethink how it guards itself against terrorism.
''How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states?" he said, referring to foreign students who attend universities in Massachusetts. ''Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?"
''How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror," Romney continued. ''Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"
* * *
But that activity is deeply troubling to civil rights groups. Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrants and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, called the methods Romney suggested misguided and ineffective. Tracking people based on their ethnicity, he said, will only sow resentment among immigrant communities and prevent their cooperation with authorities.
''Blanket eavesdropping and blanket profiling only erodes the safety and security of our country," Noorani said. ''People who really know what national security is and what intelligence is realize that we need to build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities."
Elyes Yaich, president of the Islamic Society of Northeastern University, said that foreign students, especially those from Islamic countries, already face unfair scrutiny coming to the United States and that subjecting them to specialized monitoring would further invade their right to privacy.Continued...
read the whole thing at
© 2007 The New York Times Company
Don’t Apologize, Governor Romney!
Monitoring radical mosques is exactly what we should be doing.
The loss of trust in the Muslims has forced the Westerners to adopt, in their own countries, such measures as they feel are necessary to preempt their wrath. This they have begun doing after realizing that an agitated Muslim can become more ferocious than a hungry hyena of Serengeti.
Do you want to lose your life and the life of your children and grandchildren to the swords of Islam? If you don't, then please act now and face the Muslims with a firm determination. And also be aware of those who are coming to your country on one pretext or another. In these two actions, lies the safety of your life and of your future.
When President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington several days after September 11, 2001, to signal that he would not tolerate a backlash against Muslims, he invited CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, to join him at the podium. Two months later, when Secretary of State Colin Powell hosted a Ramadan dinner, he, too, called upon CAIR as representative of Islam in America. More broadly, when the State Department seeks out Muslims to welcome foreign dignitaries, journalists, and academics, it calls upon CAIR. The organization has represented American Muslims before Congress. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency hosted CAIR's "Sensitivity and Diversity Workshop" in an effort to harmonize space research with Muslim sensibilities.
Law-enforcement agencies in Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, New York, Arizona, California, Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky have attended CAIR's sensitivity-training sessions. The organization boasts such tight relations with law enforcement that it claims to have even been invited to monitor police raids. In July 2004, as agents from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Homeland Security descended on the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, a Saudi-created school in Merrifield, Virginia, a local paper reported that the FBI had informed CAIR's legal director, Arsalan Iftikhar, that morning that the raid was going to take place.
CAIR is also a media darling. It claims to log five thousand annual mentions on newspapers, television, and radio, including some of the most prestigious media in the United States. The press dutifully quotes CAIR's statistics, publishes its theological views, reports its opinions, rehashes its press releases, invites its staff on television, and generally dignifies its existence as a routine part of the American and Canadian political scenes.
CAIR regularly participates in seminars on Islamic cultural issues for corporations and has been invited to speak at many of America's leading universities, including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia. American high schools have invited CAIR to promote its agenda, as have educationally-minded senior citizens.
. . . it seems beyond dispute that Grover Norquist has formed alliances with prominent Islamic radicals who have ties to the Saudis and to Libya and to Palestine Islamic Jihad, and who are now under indictment by U.S. authorities. Equally troubling is that the arrests of these individuals and their exposure as agents of terrorism have not resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover’s part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends.
As Frank Gaffney’s article recounts, Grover’s own Islamic Institute was initially financed by one of the most notorious of these operatives, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah who told the Annual Convention of the Islamic Association of Palestine in 1996, “If we are outside this country we can say ‘Oh, Allah destroy America.’ But once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” Grover appointed Alamoudi’s deputy, Khaled Saffuri to head his own organization. Together they gained access to the White House for Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and others with similar agendas who used their cachet to spread Islamist influence to the American military and the prison system and the universities and the political arena with untold consequences for the nation.
[Grover Norquist is a buddy of Karl Rove--and Karl Rove is the brain--at least of the Bush political campiagns--at best for many other Bush administrations actions. lw]
. . . let’s connect the dots between long-time buddies Norquist and Rove . . .
[Karl] Rove and [Grover] Norquist discussed "the need for Republicans to embrace Muslim Americans,
Rove's Muslim project began in early 1997 during a meeting with the energetic Republican insider Grover Norquist.
To a significant degree, George W. Bush owes his election to Norquist, whose early support was crucial in lining up the right behind the Texas governor's campaign. And if Bush, born in the Ivy League haunts of the Eastern Establishment but raised in the conservative oilfields of West Texas, has managed to forge a governing coalition that includes both Big Business and the far right, Norquist's skillful ability to hold that coalition together is a big reason why.
Yes, that would be Grover Norquist, friend of Karl Rove
. . . according to Jake Tapper in Salon, President Bush was scheduled to meet with Muslim and Arab leaders at 3 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001--to update them on the progress the Administration had made in eliminating Clinton Administration anti-terrorism policies that had a disparate impact on Muslims!
Indeed, Florida college professor Sami Al-Arian claims, “At 3:30 [on 9-11] the president would have announced the end of secret evidence.”[Sept. 11 hurt aliens’ rights, By Grace Agostin, University of South Florida Oracle, September 09, 2002] Al-Arian, whose brother-in-law Mazen al-Najjar had been locked up based on evidence supplied by a government informant inside a terrorist gang, campaigned for Bush in 2000 and had his picture taken with the candidate.
To a significant degree, George W. Bush owes his election to Norquist
Grover Norquist’s activities in behalf of the Islamist Fifth Column.
The association between Grover Norquist[Carl Rove's associate] and Islamists appears to have started about five years ago, in 1998, when he became the founding chairman of an organization called the Islamic Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute.
The New York Times revealed on October 23, 2001, that, in that capacity, Khan Sr. had hosted Ayman al-Zawahiri, reportedly Osama bin Laden’s right-hand-man in the al-Qaeda organization – not once, but twice in the 1990s. In the course of his trips, the terrorist chief reportedly not only raised funds for al-Qaeda’s operations at Khan’s mosque but also purchased satellite communications equipment while in the United States.
The President had affably dubbed Abdullah [Sami al-Arian’s son] “Big Dude” after first meeting him and his family on the campaign trail in Florida in March 2000 [this is the leader that is the commander-inchief of our war against Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers?].
Norquist’s Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing Islamist connections with the Bush administration. The Islamic Institute provided the White House with a list of Muslim invitees, with the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. As the founder of the Islamic Institute, Grover Norquist tops the list.
. . . over the years, and particularly as the Bush Administration’s Muslim outreach effort ramped up in the aftermath of 9/11, Grover Norquist was able to gain extraordinarily high-level access for a number of troubling individuals and groups. An undated White House memo, evidently prepared by Suhail Khan in early 2001 and intended to coordinate Muslim and Arab-American public liaison events, shows that Norquist’s Islamic Institute was instrumental in establishing Islamist connections with the Bush administration. The Islamic Institute provided the White House with a list of Muslim invitees, with the name, date of birth and Social Security number of each. As the founder of the Islamic Institute, Grover Norquist tops the list.
NOT SO MODERATE MUSLIMS: Via the unvaluable Atrios, I read this transcript of an interview with John Loftus on the Olbermann show...
LOFTUS: Well, you know, it's a funny story. About a year-and-a-half ago, people in the intelligence community came and said-guys like Alamoudi and Sami al-Arian and other terrorists weren't being touched because they'd been ordered not to investigate the cases, not to prosecute them, because there were being funded by the Saudis and a political decision was being made at the highest levels, don't do anything that would embarrass the Saudi government. So, of course I immediately volunteered to do it and I filed a lawsuit, against al-Arian charging him with being a major terrorist for Islamic Jihad, most of his money came from Saudi charities in Virginia.
Now, Alamoudi's headquarters were in the same place, he was raided the same day, on March 20. An hour after I filed my lawsuit, the U.S. government finally got off its butt and they raided these offices. And, the stuff that they're taking out of there now is absolutely horrendous. Al-Arian has now, finally been indicted, an along with Alamoudi, today.
But, who was it that fixed the cases? How could these guys operate for more than a decade immune from prosecution? And, the answer is coming out in a very strange place. What Alamoudi and al-Arian have in common is a guy named Grover Norquist. Heâ€™s the super lobbyist. Newt Gingrich's guy, the one the NRA calls on, head of American taxpayers. He is the guy that was hired by Alamoudi to head up the Islamic institute and he's the registered agent for Alamoudi, personally, and for the Islamic Institute.
Grover Norquist's best friend is Karl Rove, the White House chief of staff, and apparently Norquist was able to fix things. He got extreme right wing Muslim people to be the gatekeepers in the White House. That's why moderate Americans couldn't speak out after 9/11. Moderate Muslims couldn't get into the White House because Norquist's friends were blocking their access.
OLBERMANN: How does this tie back into the thing that apparently pulled the stopper out of the drain, if you will-The developers at Guantanamo bay? How rotten is the system of the interpreters and the chaplains-the Muslim Chaplains that Alamoudi was involved in setting up?
LOFTUS: It's as rotten as it gets. Think of the Muslim chaplain's program that he set up as a spy service for al-Qaeda. The damage that's been done is extreme. It wasn't just sending home mom and dad messages from the prisoners. These guys, this network in Guantanamo, stole the CIA's briefing books. Everything that the CIA knew about al-Qaeda is now back in al-Qaeda hands. That's about as bad an intelligence setback as you can get.
OLBERMANN: John, how does this end up? How far will the investigation into this necessarily have to go to get to the bottom of it?
LOFTUS: There's a lot more to go. Norquist had a lot of other clients. There's a whole alphabet soup of Saudi agencies that funded terrorism in this country. They had an awful lot of protection. And, one of the things we may find about 9/11 is that people out in the field weren't allowed to connect the dots and questions will be asked whether guys like Grover Norquist were part of the problem?
Ignore all the other stuff as circumstantial and focus on the White House-Norquist-Alamoudi connection. Norquist makes sure that his Muslim friends, who say that they are moderate and representative of American Muslims, are the ones that get the photo-op with Bush and are close with the White House. I have heard this kind of talk about American-Muslim groups from the likes of National Review and Daniel Pipes so I always treated it as garbage. The recent arrest of Alamoudi has raised questions about the people who claim to represent our interests.
You can connect the dots and pull your conclusions, because I sure can't. It's circumstantial and suspect, but that doesn't mean it's not true. We shouldn't be afraid of asking questions, though.
Posted by Arash at 5:29 PM Permalink Comments
GROVER NORQUIST'S STRANGE ALLIANCE WITH RADICAL ISLAM.
The terror trail, according to many, even leads through the White House, which in the name of supporting Arab-American civil rights has been cultivating ties with groups, including those with Al-Arian's membership, that have supported Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Islamic Jihad.
Islamic Jihad is responsible for more than 100 deaths, including New Jersey's Alisa Flatow, and hundreds of injured Israelis.
Why hide in an Afghan cave when you can be tenured in Florida? The indictments say Islamic Jihad brought terrorists into the United States under the guise of academic conferences and meetings.
Steve Emerson, writing in The New York Post (Feb. 21), said Al-Arian was Islamic Jihad's "CEO." And Emerson told the Miami Herald (Feb. 24) that Al-Arian, 45, a Palestinian with Kuwaiti citizenship, found cover under the traditional American protections for academia, charities and religion, "the trifecta of Western vulnerability."
Another Norquist in the US Government
Courtesy of George W. Bush
Stumbled across this, as I was lurchin aound, trying to get my bearings, looking at what is happening in disbelief. Our president, the beloved symbol of the United States paving the way for moreIslamics?
Could it be? The world upside down?
Oh yeah, it's happening, folks. They got us buffaloed. At the very top, they're in.
And here it is:
Jan. 19, 2006 update: Of possibly related interest: President Bush two days ago announced his intent to nominate David Norquist, Grover's younger brother, to a top position at the Department of Homeland Security. Here is the White House announcement.
The President intends to nominate David L. Norquist, of Virginia, to be Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Norquist currently serves as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Budget and Appropriations Affairs). Prior to this, he served as Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), as well as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Financial Management). Earlier in his career, Mr. Norquist served on the professional staff of the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. Norquist received his bachelor's degree and master's degree from the University of Michigan. He went on to receive a second master's degree from Georgetown University.
As a UPI report on this news observes, "The elder Norquist has been a trenchant critic of some of the department's policies, such as its "No-Fly" list, which he sees as an infringement on personal privacy and liberty."
June 12, 2006 update: The Senate confirmed David Norquist as CFO of DHS.