Israel Commentary

Interview of an American Muslim, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser

Redacted from an in-depth interview by Joan Harting Barham

Joan Harting Barham(JHB): In a way, you are a man of many identities: you’re a proud, native-born American, a devout Muslim, a physician, the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), a husband and father. How do you prioritize all these roles?

Jasser: Until 9/11, I always felt my challenge was treating patients, helping people who come in feeling poorly or feeling that there is no hope and giving them some hope with regard to treatments. Early in my life, I was able to mix that dedication with service to country via the Health Professions Scholarship Program. What HPSP does is pay for medical students’ tuition in exchange for military service. So, four years of medical school translates to owing four years of service as a physician. I’d always wanted to serve in the military and it allowed me to combine those dreams.

JHB: Is there a question of reconciling any of these roles?

ZJ: It’s interesting, some Muslims have asked me: Zuhdi, are you Muslim first or American first? They challenge my patriotism by asking that. The problem, I think, in the Muslim community is that most Muslims still mix government with religion; there’s still a feeling that government should be God. I feel that religion ceases to be personal and becomes coercion when government gets involved in the relationship.

JHB: You founded the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) in 2003, two years after 9/11. What was the impetus for creating it?

ZJ: After 9/11, local media started interviewing the Muslim on the street, the Muslim at the Arizona State University, whoever they could get. I saw interviews with two imams running the Imam Council here in Phoenix, who basically blamed America for 9/11. They also condoned the bombing of the USS Cole, saying that America deserved that for our foreign policy. So, a group of us were sitting around a dinner table, complaining, and we said: That’s enough. We need to form an organization that truly, truly understands what this ideological conflict is all about. Especially Muslims who came to the U.S. for political reasons; the silent majority of Muslim Americans who escaped theocracy and secular dictatorship as my parents did when they came from Syria.

We met in the summer of ’02 and agreed to form an organization stating where the ideological separations are; that we are loyal to our citizenship oath – which is a secular constitution we believe in – and stating that we will defend the separation of religion and state. We had other points about gender equality and about the right of any Muslim to define and interpret the Koran – that it’s not just the domain of the imams or the so-called Islamic scholars.

Then we formed our Board of Directors and put together a foundation that would take years to fully establish because the mosques and Islamist organizations such as Muslim CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations], ISNA [Islamic Society of North America] and MPAC [the Muslim Public Affairs Council] were not being very receptive.

JHB: Your organization, as I understand it, is predicated on the notion that modern Western democracy and Islam are completely compatible. Can you explain?

ZJ: Yes, but we have to be clear on what we mean by democracy.

Democracy as it’s being pushed by the State Department, is defined as elections and the ballot box and that, without a constitution that defends minority rights, becomes the oppression by the majority over the minority. In Muslim countries, where Islamists currently are wielding a plurality – if not a majority – they end up oppressing the rights of other faiths, of secular Muslims, of anti-Islamist Muslims, of Jews, of Christians, of Bahá'í, of atheists, of anybody who doesn’t fit the Islamist mold.

JHB: You’ve spoken and written a great deal about America’s hunger since 9/11 for moderate Muslim voices. It’s arguable that hunger remains unsatisfied. How come?

ZJ: It’s not only arguable, it’s true; that hunger hasn’t been in any way satisfied. All I can say is that organizations like ours and others that are anti-Islamist have a long way to go.

JHB: Is the audience for the AIFD website primarily Muslim or non-Muslim? And what about its membership?

ZJ: The intended audience for the American Islamic Forum for Democracy is Muslims. But our message has been increasingly accepted by non-Muslims; right now we have about 20 times the number of non-Muslim associate members as active, dues-paying Muslim members.

JHB: What’s the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist?

ZJ: A Muslim, to me, is anybody who states that their faith is Islam and that the Koran is, in their belief, the revealed word of God. Basically, Islamists are those who want the constitution of a given government to be the Koran. And when you take a book from God and you make it the constitution, the only people who can write law are clerics. That’s the problem.

JHB: From your vantage point, what are the most important things average Americans can do to contribute to national, community and personal security?

ZJ: Ultimately what terrorists seek to do is utilize the fabric of a free and open society to instill fear in individuals. Militant Islamists want nothing more than to see America’s freedoms being eroded. They’d be elated if we instituted marshal law because that would mean we’d surrendered and lost the war. One of the things I talk to groups about is the need to inoculate ourselves against over-reaction, once another terrorist incident happens.

We’ve been so fortunate that something like 32 terrorist incidents have been prevented since 9/11. It’s only a matter of time until one of those gets through. Our Homeland Security is doing as fantastic job, but we’ve been lucky. In terms of individuals, there are the programs such as “See Something, Say Something,” that every citizen should do. We need to protect our schools – some have said that the next target may be school systems – we need to protect our civilian population and engage the public. Right now, the public is not really engaged.

And, as far as our AIFD foundation is concerned, people can help us deconstruct political Islam ideologically. We should be holding Islamic organizations accountable for their ideas, asking them to identify terrorist organizations by name, finding out where they stand on women’s rights. You can go to your neighborhood mosque and ask how they run their Board of Directors, whether women have any rights on them, how they handle inter-faith relations. People can listen to sermons at their local mosques to see if they’re fraught with domestic and foreign policy versus spiritual messages.

JHB: Would a non-Muslim be allowed to go into a mosque and listen to a sermon?
ZJ: Absolutely.

JHB: Would the sermon be in English?
MZJ: Actually many of them are given in two languages. We’ve also taken newspaper reporters to the mosque to look at the literature distributed there as well as to listen to the sermons.. You may find a gold mine of anti-Islamist ideas; you also might expose some of the Wahhabist mosques that are disseminating a lot of vile anti-Semitic, anti-American propaganda.

JHB: And finally, what would you most like to see our next President accomplish in terms of the Islamist threat?
ZJ: I would like to see our next President have the courage to identify this as war against militant Islamism and not a war against terror; to create a strategy, a national strategy to defeat political Islam and identify it as a political movement.

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. He is a practicing specialist in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona, where he lives with his wife and two children; a third child is due in May.

Joan Harting Barham is a writer and editor

Neglected Information: Israel and the Jews according to Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright

By Morton Klein, President Zionist Organization of America

You have heard about Jeremiah Wright, Barak Obama's pastor, and his anti-American, anti-white screeds and sermons. However, you have heard little or nothing about Rev. Wrights' outrageous, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish extremist diatribes. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has drawn attention to Chicago Trinity United Church's Pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright's record of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements that has been somewhat forgotten in the current attention focusing on his anti-white, anti-U.S. and other extreme statements.

Rev. Wright has called for divestment from Israel; said that Israel is a "dirty word.” His church magazine has published a manifesto from the Palestinian terror group Hamas and also honored with its 2007 Lifetime Achievement Award Nation of Islam black racist and outspoken anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan has said, "Judaism is a gutter religion," that "Hitler was a very great man" and that "white people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet."

Rev. Wright's record on Israel & Jews:

 "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic . . .. We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means . . .." (Quoted in Ronald Kessler, 'Obama and the Minister,' Wall Street Journal, March 14, ‘08

 "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now" ('A Message from our Pastor: This is Where I Come In,' The Trumpet (Trinity United Church of Christ publication), July 2005).

 "It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism. The Divestment issue will hit the floor during this month's General Synod. Divesting dollars from businesses and banks that do business with Israel is the new strategy being proposed to wake the world up concerning the racism of Zionism. That Divestment issue won't make the press either, however." ('A Message from our Pastor: This is Where I Come In,' The Trumpet (Trinity United Church of Christ publication), July 2005).

 "… last year's conference in Africa on racism, which the United States would not participate in because somebody dared to point out the racism which still supports both here and in Israel. I said that dirty word again. Every time you say Israel, Negroes get awfully quiet on you, 'because they're scared, don't be scared. You don't see the connection between 9/11/01 and the Israeli/Palestinian? Something wrong – want to buy my glasses?" (Fox News, viewable at 'Barack Obama's Mentor, Jeremiah Wright - Anti Israel Sermon,' You tube, March 24, 2008).

 "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant that the stuff we have done is now brought back into our front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost" (2003 sermon, quoted in Brian Ross & Rehab El-Buri, 'Obama's pastor: God damn America, U.S. to blame for 9/11,' abcnews.go.com, March 13, 2008).

 When Rev. Wright writes about the state of Israel, he puts 'state' in quotes, de-legitimizing Israel as a country. "Islam has as many manifestations as Christianity and Judaism, but most Americans are only fed a media diet on Islam as it relates to the "war on terror" and the Palestinian Muslim [sic] problem...” ('Pastors' Page: Look Again,' Trinity United Church of Christ Bulletin, July 8, 2007, p. 8).

 On black racist anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, upon whom Wright's Trinity Church magazine, the Trumpet, conferred its 2007 Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, Wright said: "His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest" (Quoted in Ronald Kessler, 'Obama and the Minister,' Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2008).
The Trumpet also referred to Farrakhan as a leader who "truly epitomized greatness" (Richard Cohen, 'Obama's Farrakhan Test,' Washington Post, January 15, 2008).

 Rev. Wright also published on his 'Pastor's Page' in his church's bulletin an opinion- piece from the Islamist terror organization, Hamas, which calls in its Charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). The Hamas piece, defended terrorism as a form of legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and compared the terror group's official charter to America's Declaration of Independence and referred to Israel as an "apartheid state" ('Pastor's Page: A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle,' Trinity United Church of Christ Bulletin, July 22, 2007, pp. 10-11).

 "When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell" (Mary Mitchell, 'Obama slights his own pastor, another error in wooing blacks,' Chicago Sun-Times, March 8, 2007).

 Ali Baghdadi, a Palestinian Arab writing on Wright's own page in the Trinity United Church bulletin, refers to Israel as an "apartheid state" whose inhabitants will "inevitably pack up and return to their native lands"; he also claims that "genocide and ethnic cleansing they [Palestinians] face every hour of the day." Later in the same piece, Baghdadi claims, "I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs" (Ali Baghdadi, 'Open Letter to Oprah on her visit to Palestine,' on the 'Pastors' Page,' Trinity United Church of Christ Bulletin, June 10, 2007, p. 8).

(But somehow, over a 20 year period of membership in Wright’s church, plus a close personal relationship, Senator Obama claims, in his dedicated run to be the next President of the United States, that he knew nothing of this long, tortuous history of lies and distortions against Israel and the Jewish people. If that seems a plausible explanation to you, please contact me immediately for possible purchase of very special bridge in Brooklyn) Jsk.

Mainstream U.S. Jewish Coalition Endorses Palestinian Statehood

(From my archives of “Not to be believed”) jsk

By Aaron Klein
The Jewish Press, March 7, 2008

Commentary below article – Jerome S. Kaufman

JERUSALEM - The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella group of major mainstream U.S. Jewish organizations, has for the first time endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state. The decision is generating an angry backlash, most of it directed against the Orthodox Union (OU) which abstained from voting against the resolution that calls for a “two state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The OU is one of the largest and most influential Orthodox Jewish organizations in America. Surveys have consistently shown that American Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly oppose a Palestinian state.

“It is an outrage that Jewish organizations would support a Palestinian state and it’s a shock the OU would abstain,” Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, told The Jewish Press. “When the Palestinian Authority refuses to arrest terrorists, engages in and glorifies murder against Jews, and puts out maps showing all of Israel is Palestine surrounded by rifles, it becomes clear any Palest man state will be a terrorist state which will greatly harm Israel,” Klein said.

At a vote, last week during its annual meeting in Atlanta the JCPA resolved, “the organized American Jewish community should affirm its support for two independent democratic and economically viable states - the Jewish state of Israel and a state of Palestine. They are to be living side-by-side in peace and security” The resolution recognized American Jewry’s “diverse views about current and future policies of the Israeli government towards settlements,’ and blamed the standstill in the peace process on Palest man intransigence

The JCPA is a coalition of 14 major national Jewish groups and 125 local Jewish community relations councils. Among the groups are such giants (?) as the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, National Council of B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry and Hillel, the largest Jewish university outreach group.

While the other groups all voted in favor of the resolution, the OU has drawn the brunt of public criticism for its abstention.’ According to a source at the organization, e-mails have been pouring in from outraged Orthodox Jews. In a widely circulated e-mail, Pesach Aceman, a Canadian immigrant to Israel and a diarist for the BBC website, lambasted the Orthodox group as a “terror supporting organization through your silence.”

Ted Belman, who runs the Israpundit blog, wrote, “To my mind this resolution is very detrimental as it makes it harder for alternates to be forwarded. By endorsing this resolution are the OU and the others saying they support a two state solution regardless if it necessitates the division of Jerusalem?’

In an official clarification, the OU released a statement saying that while it abstained from the final vote endorsing a Palestinian state, the group still managed to insert into the resolution’s text a statement explaining that Israel’s repeated offers to establish a Palestinian state “have been met, time after time, by violence, incitement and terror.” The organization also successfully vetoed a clause which would have stated that the American Jewish community views the establishment or expansion of Israeli communities in the West Bank as an “impediment to peace.”

Nadia Matar, director of Woman in Green, a nationalist activist group in Israel, wrote in a widely circulated e-mail that the OU’s clarifications are not enough. “So now,” wrote Matar, “after the OU’s clarification, we ask the one million dollar question: Why is the OU still part of the JCPA? Where is the OU’s outrage?’

Asked by The Jewish Press whether the OU supports a Palestinian state, the organization’s executive vice president, Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, answered “no.” Rabbi Weinreb said his group abstained from the vote rather than vote against the resolution “for procedural reasons.”

David Luchins, an OU officer who represented the organization during the vote, said abstaining “gives the OU more of a platform afterwards to explain to everyone why we abstained from the vote. If we would have just voted ‘no,’ that would have been the end of it.”

Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel, another major Orthodox group representing hundreds of synagogues, said his organization, which is not part of the JCPA, opposes a Palestinian state, as do most Orthodox Jews.

“What two state solution? We just need just to look out the window and see the Kassams and Grad rockets and bullets flying. We need to read the papers and listen to the radio. There is a war going on. Now is the time to discuss defense, to guarantee security to the citizens of Israel,” said Lerner.
“The only solution that we should be thinking of is security... and the ability to live like normal human beings — without the concern of being shot at,” Lemer said.
#

(The organization of mainstream Jewish organizations continues to direct its membership into its dream world of false projection, misinformation, ignorance and denial of the obvious facts on the ground. Every “peace” agreement agreed upon has been ignored by the Palestinian Arabs from the moment signed. The farce all began with the super photo-op for Arafat, Rabin, Peres and Clinton on the White House lawn in 1993. Every town, every bit of territory in that has been turned over to the Arabs has just become another base for terror from which to kill Israelis. The latest tragic disasters have been the withdrawal from the Lebanese Security Zone and just last year, Gaza. Yet, the Israeli leadership and the “giant” (by what definition?) American Jewish Organizations have learned absolutely nothing.)

Jerome S. Kaufman

Obama Jive Talk

By Michelle Malkin

Barack Obama looked pale and wan at what he called his "big press conference" about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon – numb, chastened. defeated. Who knew that the greatest threat to his presidential campaign would come from the preacher who married him, baptized him and prayed with him? Obama should've known - that's who. "Yes, we can"? Try: Yes, you should have.

For the last 24 hours, Obama's campaign grappled with how to handle the aftermath of Wright's whirlwind tour of hatred this weekend - from Dallas, where he decried his "public crucifixion;” To Detroit, where he entertained NAACP bigwigs with impersonations of white people, mockeries of classical music and "white" marching bands, and lectures on racial brain theories, to the National Press Club, where he preened, strutted and head-wagged his way through an hour of bitter black liberation theologizing.

At first, Obama downplayed Wright's public appearances. Now he tells us he had to wait 24 hours to denounce Wright's National Press Club speech because he "hadn't seen it." After all this time on the campaign trail, we're back to the Obama-as-a-clueless-naif narrative again.

When he finally did view the Washington speech, Obama explained, he was "shocked" and "outraged" and "saddened" because "the person I saw was not the person that I'd come to know over 20 years." Pure, unadulterated horse manure.
Anyone with eyes can see that Wright's performances are finely honed, time-tested acts. His "imperialist"-bashing, anti-American, anti-white shtick wasn't developed overnight or over the past few years.

He's been peddling AIDS conspiracies for decades. He's been grievance-mongering about slavery for decades. He's been flirting with the Nation of Islam, which provided security for his speeches, for decades. He's been a shouting left-wing radical for decades.

Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard - decades ago - in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere." Yet only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

A clergyman e-mailed after Obama's press conference: "It is inconceivable that Obama had no knowledge of Wright's views after 20 years as a member of that church. As a pastor: my heart-held, deepest beliefs and passions cannot be silenced. It is what I am. If I were given a microphone at the National Press Club, I would not speak on something that I had guardedly kept secret for most of my life. No, I would go to my main point, the center of my ministry, the core of my passion, to speak truth, as I know it to be.”

"How can Obama actually claim that this is news from his pastor? If it were his mailman, butcher or plumber - no problem, but his pastor - no way! It's not Wright who has changed his loony tune.

Just last year, Obama told the Chicago Tribune that Wright was his sounding board for truth: "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

Just this March, in his racial-reconciliation speech, Obama urged us not to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" and protested that he could "no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has tried to do both those things - and expects us to believe his weak, belated claim that "when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it."

The "audacity of hope" indeed.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s speech before the NAACP

By Jerome S. Kaufman
April 29, 2008

Evidently, much of the media and I were listening to different speeches at the NAACP convention in Detroit, by famous or infamous (depending upon your point of view) preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In either case, Wright left absolutely no doubt as to his great oratorical skills, nor of his obvious brilliance and knowledge of music, history, dance and any number of other topics. However, what about the content of the speech?

Reverend Wright pointed out repeatedly, the differences between ghetto black speech, black music, black dance, black churches, etc. etc, from that of whites. He advised whites that in these areas blacks are just different, not better or worse. Really! How many whites don’t understand that? Perhaps more important, evidently, Reverend Wright has not been privy to the fact that he cannot stereotype his own people. There are millions of blacks, who will resent being lumped together under these headings no matter what the circumstances or as innocuous as they may be.

Furthermore, does American white society have any real objection to so-called black music or black dance or black churches or black anything? To the contrary, whites have welcomed with open arms these contributions to American society. What was disastrous to me was the fact that Wright, in his great emphasis on these areas, was apparently ignoring and excusing under the title of “different” those areas of black culture that requires immediate improvement. What about this black English, these fatherless homes, this mistreatment of black women, the use of alcohol and addictive drugs, the glorification of sports, the failure to emphasize education? Are all these whitey’s fault?

Perhaps some of this misplaced pride is what is crippling African Americans from catching up with other ethnic groups in this country. In fact, Blacks are immediately falling behind many of our most recent immigrants. Maybe blacks should be paying more attention to the practical, no holds barred lectures of men like Bill Cosby rather than the brilliant, emotional orations of Reverend Jeremiah Wright?

There was one commentator, Geraldo Rivera, of all people, a pretty left wing guy, that seemed to hear the speech as I did. Rivera, immediately after the speech, commented that he did not believe the speech would do Barack Obama any good. Why? Maybe because Wright seems to continue to emphasize a form of black pride and Black Nationalism, not unlike that of Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam that advocates a racial definition (or redefinition) of black national identity, as opposed to American multiculturalism.

Unfortunately for Obama, it is to multiculturalism many of us attribute the great success of this country and our own individual successes. Overemphasis upon being “different” will not, in fact, garner many votes among the general population, no matter how innoucuous it may be.

Jerome S. Kaufman, Political Commentator

Islam, the religion of peace, in Brooklyn, NY

By Bob Smith

Don't snap a photo of the Masjid At-Taqwa Mosque in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn unless you want to be hauled away by a group of angry Muslims in Islamic attire to the basement of the facility where a group of twenty "security guards" in karate suits will interrogate you. This might sound preposterous. However, it happened on Saturday, April 24, at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Ali Kareem, the head of security for Siraj Wahaj's mosque, conducted the grilling. A small, muscular man with a wispy black beard that has been dyed red with henna, Kareem demanded to know the reason why a trio of kafirs had dared to photograph the building on a public street without securing his permission. He further insisted on securing our identities and obtaining our motives for such a violation of Islamic space. Being surrounded by a group of militant guards in a mosque basement from which there is no means of escape, is not a comforting place to be especially, for a Wall Street financier.

We tried to explain that we found the neighborhood with its halal meat vendors and food stores; Islamic dress shops, featuring the latest styles in burqas and hijabs; Muslim souvenir outlets, replete with bumper stickers stating "Don't Be
Caught Dead Without Islam"; and Middle Eastern restaurants offering a variety of goat dishes to be rather quaint and interesting. This explanation was not sufficient. Kareem was impatient and did not want a detailed explanation of the reason for our excursion (simple sight-seeing) or a graphic account of the sights we had seen and photographed. "I ask the questions here," he said, "and you provide the answers."

Realizing that we were in a bit of a pickle, my companion explained that we were interested in various religions and knew Siraj Wahaj, the imam of the mosque, was a prominent Muslim figure whom we would like to interview for a news outlet. This didn't work too well since we could not produce a business card from a wacko blog, let alone credentials from a national publication.

Finally, we blurted out that we were admirers of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Be Upon Him) and wanted to obtain information about conversion. We were even knowledgeable enough to blurt out "Salaam" and "Allah akbar." The last utterance seemed to be the "Open Sesame" that got us out of the basement and back to Bedford Street, where we managed to take a picture of the mosque before hailing a cab and making a getaway.

The experience was disconcerting. Surely, anyone who takes a picture of St. Patrick's Cathedral or the Riverside Church is not hauled off to a basement for questioning by a threatening figure in a karate uniform and a band of Ninjas.
What is taking place within Masjid At-Taqwa? And what about Siraj Wahaj, the celebrated imam of this mosque who claims to be a moderate?

Masjid At-Taqwa at 1226 Bedford Street was an abandoned clothing store, which Wahaj purchased at an auction in 1979 for $30,000 with cash from oil-rich Saudis. The interior is divided into spacious, windowless rooms that have been painted green and beige. At Friday afternoon prayers, the meeting room is crammed with hundreds of congregants. Some show up in do-rag stocking caps and Sean John sweatshirts; others wear finely embroidered, authentic-looking Muslim caps and flowing robes of crimson and gold. About half of the attendees are African-Americans. The others are immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa. Worshipers range from Brooklyn street bums to the local celebrities, such as former heavy-weight champion Mike Tyson.

The place has played host to a number of notorious exponents of radical Islam, including Clement Rodney Hampton-El (Dr. Rashid), a key player in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Mr. Hampton-El is presently cooling his heels in a federal slammer since he was found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Mr. Hampton-El, who was born and raised in Brooklyn, fought as a mujahadeen under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Upon his return, members of the mosque hailed Hampton-El as a hero. Imam Wahaj has said that young and old alike for spiritual advice as an “elder” in the community sought him out. Wahaj, in fact, appeared as a character witness for Hampton El when the former mujahadeen stood trial before Judge Michael Mukasey in New York's Federal District Court on charges of seditious conspiracy and attempted bombing. Hampton-El is currently serving thirty-five years in a supermax prison for America's most dangerous inmates.

Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman visited Masjid At-Taqwa on many occasions while serving as the imam of the nearby Masjid al-Fooqra at 554 Atlantic Avenue, several blocks from Masjid At-Taqwi. On the second floor of Rahman's mosque, al Qaeda had opened an office under the name of the al-Kifah Refugee Center. It became a favorite haunt for members of Wahaj's congregation. Rahman also spoke on occasion at Masjid At-Taqwa. In one speech, the fiery sheikh suggested that Muslims should rob banks to benefit Islam.

In 1995, Sheikh Rahman was hauled into court as the alleged architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and for planning to blow up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and buildings throughout Manhattan. At his side was his good friend Siraj Wahaj who provided testimony of the sheik's sterling character. In a Feb. 2, 1995, letter to defense lawyers in the landmarks-bombing case, then-U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White named about 170 people as "un-indicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators." Imam Wahaj was on the list.

Other infamous characters reportedly have made their way to the Bedford Street mosque, including Imam Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, whose son Adnan has been singled out by the Justice Department as "the next Muhammad Atta." Gulshair, it turns out, served a stint as imam at another radical Brooklyn mosque - - the now defunct Masjid Nur a-Islam, at 21 Church Street.

Another visitor, according to informed sources, was Sheikh Gilani, the founder of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, who served as the imam of yet another Brooklyn mosque - - the Yasin Masjid at 777 Saratoga Avenue. This infamous mosque is now a beauty salon. From 1980 to 1995, it served as a recruiting center for the jihad and for paramilitary Islamic compounds that remain in existence throughout the country.

Since the time of its inception, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has been responsible for more terror attacks on American soil (30 and counting) than all other terrorist groups combined. Members of ul-Fuqra, which maintains headquarters in Pakistan, have been convicted in US courts of such crimes as homicide, conspiracy to commit murder, firebombing, gun smuggling, grand theft, counterfeiting and workers' compensation fraud. Others remain leading suspects in criminal cases throughout the country, including ten unsolved assassinations and seventeen fire-bombings. Some of the better-known adherents of ul-Fuqra are Richard Reid, the shoe bomber and John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway sniper.

But, what of Wahaj? Is he an exponent of radical Islam - - a man who poses a threat to millions of Americans? He is a well-known and welcome figure in Washington DC. He was the first Muslim cleric to offer the invocation at the opening session of Congress. He has dined with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and serves on the boards of no less than five major Muslim organizations. He has received commendations from the Brooklyn police for eradicating crime from the Bedford-Stuyvesant area. In 2003, Siraj Wahaj Day was celebrated in Brooklyn in recognition of what one borough official called a "lifetime of outstanding and meaningful achievement." But, the proof of the real Wahaj is in the proverbial pudding.

In one of his sermons, Wahaj announced that the "real terrorists" are the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency. In another, he said, "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam." He proclaimed that a society governed by strict Islamic law, in which adulterers are stoned to death and apostates beheaded, would be vastly superior to American democracy.

To a Muslim audience in New Jersey, Wahaj advocated the idea of Muslims forming a coup to take control of the federal government. "If we are united and strong," he said, "we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. Take my word for it, if six to eight million Muslims united in America, the country will come to us."

His so-called "moderate" interpretation of the Qu'ran became clear by this remark: "If Allah says 100 strikes, 100 strikes it is. If Allah says cut off their hand, you cut off their hand. If Allah says stone them to death, through the Prophet Muhammad, then you stone them to death, because it's the obedience of Allah and his messenger -- nothing personal.”

Wahaj informed an audience of black women wearing Muslim head coverings in Orlando, Fla., that Islam condones a man's marrying up to four wives, and that this rule, when introduced in the seventh century, served as a restriction on arrangements involving even more wives per husband.

And, there are the national organizations to which Wahaj remains affiliated. He served as emir (president) of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which has been charged with funneling millions to terror groups, and as an advisory board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been labeled by author and counter-terrorism expert Steven Emerson as a "radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."

All this may be well and good, save for the fact that Wahaj and his mosque retains a small army not of brown-shirts but black-belts who now claim the right to collar ordinary citizens on the sidewalk and to haul them off for interrogation. You're only safe in Brooklyn at this writing if you say your prayers - - meaning, of course, the Basmalah, an Arabic noun used as the collective name of the whole of a recurring Islamic phrase that constitutes the first verse of virtually every "sura" (or chapter) of the Koran.

(Bob Smith holds a law degree from Wake Forest University. He serves in the securities division of a major Wall Street investment bank. The research for this article was conducted in preparation of his soon to be released book; Within the Belly of the Beast: Jihad in America. Questions and comments may be directed to mail@bossmith.org).

As to Barack Obama’s Chance of being elected ...

By Ken Blackwell

African-American columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern.

Moreover, it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is, Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet, Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But, let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.' Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons. He talked about meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust. He talked about North Korean Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. Free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet, Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over - Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God! “ but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. However, Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. Nevertheless, right now, everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors upon which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.

Why John McCain Is My Choice For President - Just in case you missed this ...

By Senator JOE LIEBERMAN

The Jewish Press, February 1, 2008

All across the nation the American people will be voting in a tightly contested election that will help determine who will be the next president. In this election, however, we are not just choosing our next president. We are also choosing our commander-in-chief — the person whose No. 1 job will be to defend our nation at a time of war. And, have no doubt: We are at war.

Although much of this war unfolds in the shadows, it remains deadly real. Every day, in fact, our terrorist enemies are working feverishly to strike at us and our allies around the world, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan and — if given the chance — right here at home in America.

From the moment the next president steps into the Oval Office, he or she will be confronted with life-and-death decisions that will make the difference between victory and defeat in this war. That is why I believe we need a president who is ready to be commander-in-chief from day one — a president who won’t need on-the-job training. That is why I have decided to cross party lines to endorse U.S. Sen. John McCain for president.

I know that it is unusual for someone who is not a Republican to support a GOP candidate for president. However, the dangers we face as a nation are too profound, and the challenges we face too real, for us to play partisan politics with the presidency. After all, the Islamist extremists we are fighting in this war do not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans. They want to kill all of us, irrespective of our political differences, because we are all Americans.

I have worked with Sen. McCain on just about every major national security issue over the past 20 years — from stopping the genocide in the Balkans, to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, to creating the 9/11 Commission and enacting its recommendations into law. I have seen Sen. McCain, time and again, rise above the negativism and pettiness of our politics to get things done for the country he loves so much.

Sen. McCain has quite literally dedicated his life in service to America. He has fought in uniform on the front lines against America’s enemies, and has been tested under fire like no other candidate in this race. It is more than his unrivaled experience that makes Sen. McCain so qualified to become president, however. It is character and leadership.

Throughout his career, John McCain has proven that we can trust him to do what is right for our country, not only when it is easy, but when it is hard and to do what is necessary, not only when it is popular, but when it means standing against the tide. When others were silent, John had the courage and the conviction to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq, and to call for more troops and a new strategy there. When others wavered, and were ready to flee the field of battle, John had the courage and the conviction to stand against public opinion and fight for the surge in Iraq — where at last today the forces of Islamist extremism are on the run, and we are winning.

This is the kind of leadership we, as a nation, desperately need in the years ahead It is the kind of leadership that you can expect when John McCain is in the White House. There are many fine people running for the presidency this year. But, when it comes to keeping America safe and solving our most important problems, I firmly believe that John McCain is the candidate who has the experience, the strength and the character to bring our country together and lead us forward.

We need a president who is a proven leader on national security matters and someone who can re-unite our country, restore faith in our government and rebuild confidence in America’s future. John McCain is just that person and I would urge you to vote for him when you go to the polls.

Joe Lieberman has been a U.S. senator from Connecticut since 1989.

Obama naiveté can’t be hidden - His stance on Iraq ultimately won’t play

By Michael Gerson
Washington Post April 13, 2008

It is a political error for a candidate to believe that voters who agree with him will always end up supporting him. There is little doubt that Americans generally feel that the initial use of military force in Iraq was a mistake. Recent, paradoxical polls show a dramatic increase in the number of people who believe that the war is now going well alongside a hardening majority who believe it should not have been begun at all. Barack Obama’s strongest argument on Iraq is increasingly about the past.

But, presidential elections tend to focus on the future. In spite of their past failures, whom do you trust more to conduct a flawed, messy war in the years ahead? Lincoln or McClellan? Nixon or McGovern? Bush or Kerry? McCain or Obama? At some point, most foreign policy debates, especially during a war, come down to a binary determination: Is a candidate strong or weak? Voters can disagree with a nominee on many things and still find him stronger than his opponent.

So far, Sen. Obama has not taken this challenge with sufficient seriousness. His Iraq approach comes down to three points. First, he has voted twice against funding U.S. troops in the field — a political necessity in the Democratic primaries, but a blunder with the broader electorate. No matter what subtleties Sen. Obama attempts to develop in his Iraq position, this will be seen as a symbol of impulsive radicalism, unbecoming in a commander in chief.

Second, Sen. Obama advocates a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops in order to pressure the Iraqi government to take its responsibilities more seriously. (In fact, according to Sen. Obama’s January 2007 Iraq plan, all combat troops would already be out of Iraq.) But it seems increasingly unfair to denigrate the efforts of Prime Minister Noun al-Maliki’s government, which has moved forward on 12 of 18 benchmarks set by Congress and has recently engaged Shiite militias in a fight the US has been demanding. In many cases, the Iraqis seem to lack capacity, not will — which is precisely Gen. David Petraeus’ argument for continued American engagement.

Third, Sen. Obama promises to personally negotiate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Iran’s destabilizing support and training of Shiite militias. What might seem a bold strategic maneuver from a Nixon or Kissinger smacks of dangerous naiveté from a fourth-year senator.

Sen. Obama — the most reflective of candidates — displays little self-knowledge when it comes to these political challenges. When questioned recently about his choice for vice president, he responded, “1 would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I am not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more command-in-chief-like... Ironically, this is an area — foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”

The question here is not self-confidence but public confidence. Moreover, Sen. Obama’s political judgment is exactly wrong. He will have enormous advantages on domestic policy in the coming campaign, on which he seems both more activist and interested than Sen. McCain. But Sen. McCain leads on measures such as “strong leader.” Sen. Obama needs to seem, and be, more commander-in-chief-like.

Sen. McCain has challenges of his own. The fortunes of his campaign remain tied to events in Iraq, as they have been from the beginning. But, the debate has moved far beyond a candidate’s initial support for the war. This has led to an odd inversion of the generational battle. Young Obama’s strongest arguments are focused on the failures of the past. The older man, by insisting on victory, is more responsible and realistic about the future.

Michael Gerson, a former speech writer for President Bush, is a columnist for The Washington Post.

Opposition leader, Bibi Netanyahu’s analysis of Olmert Government

By Amnon Meranda

YNET Published: 04.13.08, Israel News

Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday harshly criticized the Olmert government's policy in all fields.

Speaking at a Likud event in Tel Aviv held ahead of Passover, the party chairman said, "security is flawed, the policy is detached from reality, the economy is in a state of retreat, and education is collapsing."

According to Netanyahu, the Olmert government is rushing into handing
territories over to a non-existent Palestinian partner.

" The Likud faction is the best faction in the Knesset," the opposition leader told his party members. " I promise you that it will be the biggest faction in the Knesset in the next elections.

“ On the eve of the feast of freedom, we first hope for the return of our captives - Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser. On the eve of Passover, we tell Israel's citizens that the State of Israel can succeed," he said.

According to Netanyahu, Israel should and could restore its security and resume the economic growth, while raising the education level.

“ We will reduce taxes and resume growth. In the social field, we will help those who are weak. Today I am still against helping imposters, those who can work but want to live at your expense."

'Government engaged in political survival'

Netanyahu went on to say that the current situation in Israel was "the result of the leadership's weakness, or to be precise, the lack of leadership and the lack of foresight and planning.

"We have a government which escapes responsibility, and sometimes it seems that it is only cynically engaged in political survival. I believe that the State can be led differently, in a successful way. But this way compels us to look straight into reality and tell the people the truth."

The Likud chairman once again called on Shas ministers to leave the government. "For how long will you stay in this government? Until we return to the '67 lines; until the flag of Palestine is waved on the Temple Mount. I ask you to get out of this government, get out of there."

Addressing political mistakes made over the past few years, the opposition
chairman said, "(Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud) Barak
withdrew from Lebanon, strengthening Hizbullah. (Prime Minister Ehud) Olmert made a mistake with the disengagement, strengthening Hamas.

“ These two mistakes by Barak and Olmert have set up two radical Islam bases controlled by Iran. Some 8,000 missiles and rockets have been showered on the top of Israelis' heads from these two bases. In the north and in the south, our enemies are arming themselves with lethal Iranian weapons." 'Israel is buying “peace” in Abbas' supermarket'

Netanyahu noted, "The Likud is a party of peace. It has made peace and will make peace, but the greatest mistake in diplomacy is giving in to dreams and being detached from reality.

“ Our political rivals choose to picture a non-existent reality, invent a
non-existent partner. The Palestinians who might want peace can't bring it, and those who could bring it don't want it. So I ask Olmert and Barak: Who will be given the homeland territories which you are so glad to give away in such remarkable generosity? Do you have a real partner for peace on the other side?

" I read this week a commentator's column claiming that in closed forums
Olmert says that Abu Mazen (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas) can't even make a decision about adding a floor to his house. If this is what you believe, Mr. Olmert, how can let Abu Mazen build a state when he cannot even build a room?

“ We all know the truth - the IDF leaves, Hamas enters. This is exactly what will happen if Olmert continues to blindly advance the withdrawal agreement, which is today called 'the shelf agreement.' They found themselves a term, as if peace can be bought in Abu Mazen's supermarket.

“ In this supermarket, Israel pays everything in advance without receiving
anything in return. This is amateurism endangering the entire country, including the Tel Aviv Metropolitan area and Jerusalem," Netanyahu concluded.

--------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Obama seen through the wide open eyes and ears of a syndicated Black columnist

By Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. Moreover, it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet, Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why - because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But, let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.' Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about:

· Invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons
· Meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust;
· Meeting with Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people
· Emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s.
Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. In addition, free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet, Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over - Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck!

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying: 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

Nevertheless, right now, everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors upon which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.

Islamists attempt to intimidate against freedom of speech

From The Republican Jewish Coalition

The Islamists who seek the end of democracy and the implementation of Shari’a law world-wide have several weapons at their disposal. Terrorism is one. However, less violent means are available to them as well, specifically, using democracies’ legal systems to silence those who speak out against Islamist ideas, activities and supporters.

In 2006, Robert 0. Collins, a history professor and J. Millard Burr, a retired State Department employee, wrote Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World. The book examines Muslim charity organizations that have been used as vehicles for finding international terrorism. One of the people mentioned in the book, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, has been singled out by many researchers as being connected to terrorism finding.

Mahfouz threatened to sue the authors and publisher of Alms for Jihad in British court. The publisher, Cambridge University Press, surrendered unconditionally. Cambridge agreed to pay Mahfouz’s legal costs and damages (to be paid to a charity of his choice) and apologized publicly. In an Orwellian attempt to make the book disappear completely, they also announced that they would destroy all unsold copies and ask libraries around the world to remove it from their shelves.

Mahfouz has sued or threatened suits at least 36 times, according to one defendant, American author Rachel Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz brings these suits in Britain, where libel laws are far looser than in the U.S. None of Mahfouz’s cases have been tried on their merits. All have ended in summary judgments in his favor or have been settled out of court. Most of his Opponents, fearful of financial ruin, have not pushed back against his claims in open court.

Here in the U.S., suits and threats of suits have been used in attempts to suppress free speech about Islamic terrorism. The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) sued Andrew Whitehead for founding and maintaining an anti-CAIR web site, where he described CAIR as an Islamist group with ties to terrorist organizations That lawsuit was dismissed after CAIR refused to open their files to Whitehead’s discovery requests. CAIR also tried to sue then-U.S. Congressman Cass Ballenger for saying in an interview that CAIR was a “fundraising arm for Hezbollah.” A federal appeals court ruled against the organization.

Last April, former U.S. Treasury Department official Matthew Levitt was sued by a Muslim charity for suggesting in his book, Hamas - Politics, Charity and Terrorism the Service of Jihad, that the organization sent money to Hamas. In August, the group dropped its suit, freeing Dr. Levitt and the publishers, Yale University Press and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, from all claims.

Freedom of speech is also under attack in Canada. Author Mark Steyn stands accused before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions of being “flagrantly Islamo-phobic” because of passages from his book, America Alone, published by Maclean magazine. The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filed the complaints against him. In the Calgary Herald, Rebecca Walberg explained why this case is important: “The Canadian Human Rights Commission, though, has the power to embroil Steyn and Maclean's in paperwork, to force them to pay for legal representation in this process, and even the power to fine them and force them to agree to terms satisfactory to the CIC. The CIC’s real goal seems to be not justice or the pursuit of truth, but the abolition of public discourse that is critical of Islam.”

Another Canadian, Ezra Levant, has been called before the Alberta Human Rights Commission to defend his decision to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammad in his magazine, the Western Standard. Levant has publicly objected to the proceedings, arguing that the Human Rights Commission is infringing on his freedom of speech.

There are many fronts in the war against radical Islam. We have thankfully fought the violent side of that war away from our shores since 9/11. However, the legal battles being fought in courts and tribunals in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and other democracies are also of great importance.

Republican Jewish Coalition
50 F Street NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20001-1590

My Hero – The great syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas

From an article by Jason Maoz, Senior Editor Jerusalem Post International

April 4, 2008

As an Evangelical Christian, Cal Thomas — author, syndicated Senior Editor columnist, television talking head — brings to his work a deep religious commitment combined with a sophisticated media sensibility. His worldview is governed by biblical absolutes, among them the unshakable conviction that the Jews have a divine right to the Land of Israel. (That last point alone is enough to distinguish him from most Jewish pundits and, for that matter, most American Jews, whose unease with any public acknowledgment of God or religion can border on the pathological.)Jsk

Thomas, who started out as a copyboy for NBC News and years later served as a high-level spokesman for Jerry Farwell’s Moral Majority, began writing his column in 1984 for the Los Angeles Times syndicate. The column, carried today by Media Tribune Services, now appears in more than 540 newspapers, making Thomas the nation’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist.

He is blissfully unburdened by the need to appear even-handed or non-judgmental. On the Middle East that translates not only into an unbending support for Israel, but a healthy distrust of Israel’s enemies as well. Concerning Israel’s serial concessions to its enemies, Thomas has written, “It is particularly unpleasant when Jews are co-conspirators in their own destruction.”

His skepticism about the good intentions of Arab leaders makes for a glaring contrast with the cheap sentimentality so much in vogue among Jews in Israel and the U.S. Indeed, Thomas has little patience with the Pollyanna’s who tremble with delight each time a Palestinian spokesman puts on his best diplomatic airs for gullible Western reporters and statesmen.

To Thomas, such perorations amount to nothing but “a piece of theater designed to mask the true intention of Israel’s enemies: complete domination of all the land they continue to regard as Palestine. Such an objective remains in their language, in the sermons of their clergy, in their television news, in classroom instruction aimed at creating a new generation of Jew haters, and in their hearts.”

Nor does he harbor illusions about the defeatist mindset afflicting a significant number of Israelis. In a column some years ago, he described a conversation he had with an Israeli woman who expressed to him her “longing for peace.”
She went on to explain that she already had one son in the army and another one going soon, and she didn’t care whether Israel had to give upland in order to get peace. “We are so tired of war,” she declared.

Thomas asked her how much land she thought Israel would have to relinquish for peace — “Would the 1948 borders suffice?” When she emphatically stated that a move back to 1948 lines would be too much, Thomas asked her just how much land would be enough. She admitted she wasn’t sure. “Don’t you believe what your enemies say in their press and in their mosques and to their own people about wanting all the land and being satisfied with nothing less?” he asked. “Oh, I don’t believe any of that,” she replied.

That Israeli, wrote Thomas, “is the type of person the State Department Arabists and Israel’s other enemies are counting on to seal any ‘peace deal.’ What it will seal, of course, is Israel’s fate.” Israel, he has written, is automatically guaranteed the short end of the stick in any peace talks, which he likens to a cycle forever repeating itself:

(1) The Arabs make great peace overtures to get Israel and the West excited
(2) Israel and the Arabs negotiate an accord that promises certain concessions from the Arabs in exchange for land given to them by Israel
(3) Israel gives them land, but the Arabs do not reciprocate
(4) The peace process stalls
(5) Israel is blamed
(6) The West pressures Israel to get on with the process
(7) Efforts to “jump start” the process are made by Israel with input from the West
(8) nothing happens, the Israeli leader is ousted in elections and his successor promises to do better
(9) Go back to (1) and begin again...

(Of course, we are seeing exactly the same thing before our very eyes with GW Bush and C. Rice. In their last gasp at trying to burnish their image for posterity, they are placing Israel’s existence on the line oblivious to the fact that the US’s rear end is right there with Israel’s) Jsk

In a prescient column he wrote several years before the abandonment of Gaza and the onslaught of the Kassams, Thomas posed the rhetorical question of how Israeli leftists would respond when Israel inevitably came under attacks launched from territories relinquished to its adversaries. Easy, he said, “Their line will be that Israel did not compromise fast enough and so made her enemies angry.” (Could you vomit?) jsk

Please excuse me - An irrepressible moment of levity.

Softball in Heaven

Two 90-year-old women, Rose and Barb, had been friends all of their lives.

When it was clear that Rose was dying, Barb visited her every day.

One day Barb said, "Rose, we both loved playing women's softball all our lives, and we played all through High School. Please do me one favor: when you get to Heaven, somehow you must let me know if there's women's soft-ball there."

Rose looked up at Barb from her deathbed and said, "Barb, you've been my best friend for many years. If it's at all possible, I'll do this favor for you."

Shortly after that, Rose passed on.

At midnight a few nights later, Barb was awakened from a sound sleep by a blinding flash of white light and a voice calling out to her, "Barb, Barb."

“ Who is it?" asked Barb, sitting up suddenly. "Who is it?"

" Barb -- it's me, Rose."

" You're not Rose. Rose just died."

" I'm telling you, it's me, Rose," insisted the voice.

" Rose! Where are you?"

" In Heaven," replied Rose. "I have some really good news and a little
bad news."

" Tell me the good news first," said Barb.

" The good news," Rose said, "is that there's softball in Heaven. Better yet, all of our old buddies who died before us are here, too. Better than that, we're all young again. Better still, it's always springtime, and it never rains or snows. And best of all, we can play softball all we want, and we never get tired."

" That's fantastic," said Barb. "It's beyond my wildest dreams! So what's the bad news?"

" You're pitching Tuesday."

(Thank you to Paul Draznin, former softball player)