Category Archives: intelligence gathering

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Advertisements

War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think

Market forces are predicting a war in Iran, I suspect. Speculators would obviously bid up the price of oil if they think a major conflict will come soon. Philip Giraldi at the American Conservative:

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants.  The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action.  The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran.  The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups.  There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon.  The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups.  The perceived Iranian intransigence coupled with the Lebanese situation convinced the White House that some sort of unambiguous signal has to be sent to the Iranian leadership, presumably in the form of cruise missiles.  It is to be presumed that the attack will be as “pinpoint” and limited as possible, intended to target only al-Qods and avoid civilian casualties.  The decision to proceed with plans for an attack is not final.  The President will still have to give the order to launch after all preparations are made.

Theocracy on the 100-Year-Plan

By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, August 15, 2006

When President Bush said we’re at ‘war with Islamic fascists,’ he was referring to Osama bin Laden and his acolytes in London trying to blow U.S. airliners out of the Atlantic skies.

But America has its own ‘Islamic fascists’ right here at home. Once they amass the numbers, they secretly plan to nullify our Bill of Rights and religious freedoms and create their own Muslim state ruled by Islamic law. They’ve got a 100-year plan, but they’re already making inroads.

Astoundingly, some of them head the allegedly moderate Muslim groups who protested Bush’s use of the phrase ‘Islamic fascists.’

The Council on American-Islamic Relations whined that the term contributes to a rising level of hostility toward Islam. ‘The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as ‘Islamic fascists’ harms our nation’s image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world,’ the group said in a press release.

‘Our nation’? Please. CAIR really only cares about the interests of one nation — the nation of Islam — and its own leaders are on record stating their desire to replace our constitutional democracy with a fascist society (as we know it) represented by sharia law.

‘Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,’ CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad once told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Ca. ‘The Quran should be the highest authority in America.’

Lest anyone think he was misquoted, CAIR’s own spokesman, Dougie ‘Ibrahim’ Hooper, let it slip to the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he essentially wants the same thing: ‘I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.’

They aren’t alone:

* The former head of the American Muslim Council — supposedly the ‘most mainstream Muslim organization in America’ —  exhorted Muslims to turn t he U.S. into an Islamic nation ruled by Quranic law even if it takes ‘a hundred years,’ according to federal court records.

* Popular New York imam Siraj Wahhaj told his flock in a taped sermon available at his mosque: ‘In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.’

* Another so-called moderate cleric, Zaid Shakir, admitted in a recent interview with the New York Times: ‘I would like to see America become a Muslim country.’

These quislings aren’t part of the fringe. They represent the Muslim establishment in America. And they are on record wishing America would be ruled by Islamic law and not the Constitution.

Now they have the gall to publicly denounce Bush for associating Islam with everything they would let an emir establish in his place: rigid, one-party theocratic rule; forcible oppression of opposing views and beliefs; collectivism; mil itarism; sexism; chauvinism; and anti-Semitism.

The evidence is overwhelming. Everywhere it is codified and put into practice, sharia law results in brutal suppression of dissent, free will and individualism. Apostates face a death sentence in not only Pakistan, but even post-Taliban Afghanistan, the supposed model for ‘Islamic democracy’ in the Muslim world. Bibles are still confiscated and churches still banned in Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims working there must still use separate roads and facilities. One of the first decrees by new ‘reform-minded’ King Abdullah was banning photos of women and censoring any anti-Wahhabi stories in newspapers throughout the kingdom. If that’s not fascism, what is?

Across the Gulf is another religious police state — run by Shiites, but no less Muslim or hateful of Jews. Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and his goose-stepping army are big fans of Hitler, the fascist’s fascist. What a surprise.

Perhaps these regimes have swerved o ff the spiritual path and no longer really follow the tenets of their faith. Actually they follow them all too well. Sharia law is plucked directly from the Quran and sunna. That’s why we still see today barbarous 1,400-year-old Bedouin justice like beheadings, amputations and stonings. Sharia also sanctions polygamy, denies women basic rights and merges mosque and state. Make no mistake, all of this is scripturally supported.

And it’s essentially what even many of the supposedly ‘hip,’ ‘enlightened’ and ‘Westernized’ leaders in the American Muslim community want to bring to our shores, as Muhammad brought centuries ago to Medina. (The Muslim American Society even refers to this country as ‘The American Medina’ in its literature.)

Even after 9-11, they’ve won a number of concessions from cities with large Muslim communities. Mosques can now override noise ordinances and blare their calls to prayer five times a day, for example. And more Muslim kids can ditch public sc hool on Muslim holidays. They see 9-11 not as a setback for their cause but a chance to ‘educate’ Americans about Islam and gain wider acceptance and bigger footholds in our society. And they’re in no rush. Abdurahman Alamoudi, the godfather of their movement, counseled patience — an Islamic Republic of America, even if it takes 100 years.

Until that time, CAIR and other Muslim activists are steadily institutionalizing Islam at the local level, exploiting the very religious freedoms and tolerances they would ban. Here are some recent milestones:

* In North Seattle, Wash., a public pool agreed to set up a swim time for Muslim women in which men, even male lifeguards, are banned.

* In Hamtramck, Mich., officials amended a noise ordinance to let mosques broadcast calls to prayer over loudspeakers — despite complaints that the Arabic chants, repeated five times a day, are a nuisance.

* In Irvington, N.J., public schools agreed to close for Muslim holidays, joining schools in Paterson and Trenton, as well as ones in Dearborn, Mich., that have recognized Islamic holy days.

* In Fairfax, Va., public schools agreed to produce local TV announcements in Arabic and Farsi.

* In San Francisco, a federal appeals court gave its blessing to Muslim role-playing exercises in California public schools, even though the pro-Islamic lessons — written by Saudi-backed consultants — appear designed to promote the religion rather than simply teach its history.

* In Kansas City, airport officials agreed to install special wash basins in restrooms for Muslim taxi drivers who complained they couldn’t easily wash their feet before praying.

What if Muslim activists could realize their dream of overturning the entire U.S. system of government in favor of a religious police state for Allah? What then? Think Iran, think Saudi. And p icture the following:

* New York without Lady Liberty — the statue would be one of the first monuments destroyed. Even the Starbucks goddess would be scrubbed from the coffee chain’s logo, as was done in Saudi Arabia.

* Women covered from head to toe while in public, forbidden from baring their legs, arms, necks, hair and even ears except in the company of other women or their husbands or close male relatives.

* Legalized domestic violence, as per the Quran. (Husbands may beat their wives, but only after verbal warnings and a period of sexual denial fail to correct their disobedience.)

* Legalized polygyny — one man married to more than one wife — with up to four wives per man.

* Men divorcing their wives simply by orally declaring ‘I divorce you’ three times. (The split is then valid. The Quran doesn’t offer the same right to wives. Also, fathers would automat ically get custody of children.)

* Women barred from voting or driving.

* Two female witnesses required in court for every one male witness.

* Thieves with amputated right hands.

* Homosexuals put to death.

* Critics of Muhammad locked up (cartoonists included).

* Apostates executed.

* Liquor stores shut down. Beer and wine yanked from grocery store shelves, along with pork products and dog food (as dogs are barred from households under Islam). Napa out of business.

* Razed churches and synagogues. Bibles removed from all hotel rooms.

* Non-Muslims driving in separate lanes, using separate bathrooms.

* Playing cards and chips banned (since gambling is haram, forbidden, by Islam). Las Vegas bankrupt.

* ‘The Three Little Pigs’ burne d, along with Piglet dolls (as pigs are considered vile in Islam).

* Toilets facing away from Mecca (so as not to offend Allah).

* Mortgages, credit cards, savings accounts, life insurance and most retirement funds outlawed (because they’re based on interest, which also is forbidden by Islam). Wall Street shuttered.

* Industries dealing in alcohol, entertainment, pork products, conventional banking services and other so-called vices forbidden by the Quran also shut down. Economic depression.

* Birthday parties forbidden (because there is no evidence in the Quran that Muhammad celebrated his birthday, and devout Muslims strive to imitate their prophet’s life in every way).

* No more Thanksgiving (replaced by Ramadan) or Christmas (replaced by Eid).

* Museums and art galleries closed (as Islam bans human representation in art).

* Media critical of the emir of the White House censored.

* Arabic as the official language of America.

* ‘In Allah We Trust’ emblazoned on our currency.

Don’t laugh — especially you 49% who told Gallup you believe U.S. Muslims are loyal to the United States. Given high Muslim immigration and birth rates, their dream could one day be within reach. Some sharia laws are already recognized in parts of Canada and Europe. And America is no less a target of a global Islamic movement to pressure Western society into abiding by Islamic laws.

The movement is driven by the militant Muslim Brotherhood and bankrolled by Arab governments. In addition to Saudi funding, CAIR just last month got an endowment from the United Arab Emirates (which already owns the deed to CAIR’s D.C. headquarters) to help launch a new $50 million campaign to mainstream Islam in America.

Part of that campaign involves stocking U.S. librari es — first in neighborhoods, then college campuses — with pro-Islamic propaganda. It also involves pressuring corporate America to accommodate Muslim religious customs in the workplace, such as giving Muslim employees time off to attend Friday mosque and letting them wear head scarves and beards even when it violates long-standing dress codes and presents safety and security issues.

CAIR plays the race card. If board members don’t accept the group’s ‘offer,’ it cries bigotry. It’s cultural extortion, and no one should give in to it. Those who do only help the Islamic fascists achieve their subversive goal of turning America into a mullahcracy.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. He can be conacted at Sperry@SperryFiles.com.

Congress’ Comedians

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Defense: A top al-Qaida expert sees an election year terrorist attack, yet Congress keeps America vulnerable by letting FISA expire. Top Democrats have other priorities: “Time’s running out for the polar bear,” says one.


Read More: Global War On Terror


 

It could pass for stand-up comedy if the implications weren’t so grave. America is now in its seventh week lacking protection from terrorism because the Democratic Congress refuses to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Don’t worry, they’re not wasting time. Senate Democrats were busy this week pining about the fate of the Arctic’s polar bears.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee head Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., charged that “the Bush Administration is violating the law” because the Interior Department missed a deadline on whether to add polar bears to the endangered species list.

“These species do not have an indefinite time to be saved,” Boxer warned. “Time is running out for the polar bear, and time has run out for this decision.”

Maybe Boxer thinks polar bears would be more effective against al-Qaida operatives than a government being able to foil their plots ahead of time by listening in on terrorists’ communications without waiting for a warrant. Funnier still, the world polar bear population has actually doubled in recent decades to nearly 25,000.

If two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author Steve Coll, whose new book is “The Bin Ladens: An Arabian Family in the American Century,” is to be heeded, congressional Democrats might want to shelve the conservation issue and give more attention to conserving American lives from bin Laden’s schemes.

In remarks to Der Spiegel this week, the New Yorker writer noted that bin Laden, the self-admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, “sees himself as a master of global changes and their technologies. He believes, not quite incorrectly, that he has used the modern media more effectively than his American adversaries.”

And just as bin Laden issued a message shortly before the last presidential election in 2004, Coll believes “he wants to influence America this time, as well.” Coll, who now heads Washington’s New America Foundation think tank, warned: “There is a threat of the terrorist attack on American soil that al-Qaida has long warned of. Osama bin Laden is planning something for the U.S. election.”

Coll, a longtime foreign correspondent, believes bin Laden lives in Pakistan’s mountainous North Waziristan, near a city called Miram Shah. That town is controlled by the Haqqani clan, who gained fame as mujahedeen fighters against the USSR in the 1980s.

The fierce Pakistani army is afraid to go there. But maybe congressional Democrats could authorize parachuting in a few polar bears.

Geert Wilders’ FITNA

Telecoms Face Double Risk on FISA

Commentary

Quin Hillyer: Telecoms face double risk on FISA

WASHINGTON -Did the House Democratic leadership really sell out national security just to kowtow to rich plaintiffs’ lawyers who fill their campaign coffers?

Prompted by groundbreaking reporting by Townhall’s Amanda Carpenter and columns by Robert Novak and others, the notion that congressional liberals are letting torts trump anti-terrorism is firmly taking hold.

With good reason. Telecommunications companies clearly have much to fear in a major legal and moral catch-22 now that Congress has allowed a key intelligence surveillance law approved in the wake of 9/11 to expire.

The key sticking point in the proposed Protect America Act, which House Democratic leaders blocked last week, is a provision giving the telecoms immunity from lawsuits for helping the surveillance program without specific court orders.

The companies received written assurances from the Justice Department of the program’s legality, but now they face dozens of lawsuits seeking damages (for alleged invasion of privacy) that could run into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Carpenter’s report showed that, while only 29 of 100 senators voted against the bill, 24 of those 29 received campaign cash from one or more of the plaintiffs attorneys in suits already filed against the telecoms. In all, 66 of these lawyers have given some $1.5 million to Democrats. Republicans received just $4,250.

Without immunity, the companies are unlikely to participate in this program that experts of both parties consider vital to anti-terrorism efforts — and would thus hobble the program drastically.

After all, as The Wall Street Journal noted this week, without immunity, the telecoms face double legal jeopardy. If they lose money through the wiretap suits, they become vulnerable to a second round of suits — this time from shareholders for putting the companies at risk.

The diabolical trick is that the same attorneys could seek jackpots both ways. Consider Eric Isaacson, himself a donor of $32,860 in the past six years to Democrats, who has made a career with controversial firms known for just the sort of class-action shareholder suits that The Journal warned about. He worked for 15 years for Milberg Weiss, three of whose top partners have pleaded guilty to a vast criminal kickback scheme that operated while Isaacson was there. The firm and a fourth partner are also under indictment and face trial later this year.

Isaacson joined now-convicted former Milberg Weiss lawyer William Lerach — with whom he has co-authored an academic paper on securities lawsuits — when Lerach split from the firm to form Lerach Coughlin (now Coughlin Stoia), the lead plaintiffs’ firm in the wiretap case Hepting v. AT&T. Attorneys for the two firms have donated millions of dollars to Democratic committees and/or current House and Senate members, almost all Democrats.

Isaacson was not implicated in the Milberg Weiss kickback scheme. The point is he comes from exactly the sort of cutthroat milieu that makes telecoms balk (absent immunity) when asked for an emergency foreign-intelligence wiretap.

Just imagine how Coughlin Stoia could take information gleaned from “discovery” motions in the wiretap suit and use it to try to nail the phone company in a subsequent investors’ suit that is the firm’s stock in trade.

Remember the modus operandi of Milberg Weiss, tactics that Isaacson specializes in defending on appeal. As former partners described in their guilty pleas, the firm would troll for clients with stock in big corporations and then file suit almost any time the share-price dropped, without specific evidence of wrongdoing but based merely on what Lerach called his internal “X-ray vision.”

These tactics are advocated at conferences at posh resorts for judges and law professors sponsored by the Institute for Law and Economic Policy, for which Isaacson is a vice president and Lerach is the former director. They are bullying tactics, the moral equivalent of a shakedown.

Without immunity from such shakedowns, the companies surely would be forced to decline even the most urgent of future government requests. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has sworn under oath that the end result “reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

The real losers, then, will be the American people whose lives these lawsuits, and the Democratic House leaders, have put at risk.

Examiner