|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
Why Is CAIR Suing Anti-CAIR? The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc. filed suit against Andrew Whitehead, one of the founders of Anti-CAIR (or ACAIR), in the Virginia Beach Circuit Court on March 31, 2004. (The motion for judgment closely resembles an earlier "cease and desist" letter from CAIR to Whitehead.) The lawsuit alleges that CAIR is the victim of "libelous defamation" because of five Anti-CAIR statements in particular (the quotes that follow are exactly as presented in the motion): "Let there be no doubt that CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia law in America." CAIR is an "organization founded by Hamas supporters which seeks to overthrow Constitutional government in the United States and replace it with an Islamist theocracy using our own Constitution as protection." "ACAIR reminds our readers that CAIR was started by Hamas members and is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries." "Why oppose CAIR? CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists. CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights of Muslims. CAIR is here to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy along the lines of Iran. In addition, CAIR has managed, through the adroit manipulation of the popular media, to present itself as the ‘moderate' face of Islam in the United States. CAIR succeeded to the point that the majority of its members are not aware that CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations. In addition, CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorists supporting countries." "CAIR is a fundamentalist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the United States Constitution and the installation of an Islamic theocracy in America." These statements, CAIR claims, "are false, and were false when made." Further, Anti-CAIR made them "with knowledge of their falsity." The statements are libelous because "they impute the commission of a criminal offense." They allegedly caused injury to CAIR's "standing and reputation throughout the United States and elsewhere." In compensation, CAIR seeks $1 million in compensatory damages, $350,000 in punitive damages, plus its legal fees and interest as of April 16, 2004. Comments: (1) This case is of personal interest because CAIR has repeatedly attacked me and Anti-CAIR has often come to my defense. It is of wider interest because CAIR is a sizeable organization based in North America; for more information on it group, see my 2002 article, an extensive bibliography, and a lively discussion forum here. (2) I have cited Anti-CAIR before in my writings about the arrest on terrorism charges of a former CAIR employee, and I found its reporting accurate on this subject. (3) To the best of my knowledge, this is CAIR's first law suit against a critic. The closest to this until now was a personal law suit by an employee of CAIR, Hussam Ayloush, not by the organization itself. (As Anti-CAIR itself has reported, the suit was dismissed.) (4) CAIR, which is quick to announce its own activities to the world has been curiously silent about this law suit. Questions: I wonder why CAIR would bring a defamation suit. (1) It opens CAIR, usually a highly secretive organization, to the discovery process. For Andrew Whitehead to defend himself in court, in other words, he is entitled to ask for the production of documents relating to such matters as CAIR's founding, funding, mission, and goals, then to grill persons associated with CAIR. (2) CAIR presumably has no knowledge of Andrew Whitehead's financial resources; for all it knows, it is suing someone without means for about $1.5 million. (3) Anti-CAIR until now has been a well-kept secret. The website ranking service at alexa.com puts www.Anti-CAIR-net.org at 1.5 millionth most viewed. CAIR's website, in contrast, is at 150,000th. This libel lawsuit will likely help Anti-CAIR in terms of website visitors, subscribers to its e-mail service, news coverage, and funding. Did CAIR – a tactically clever organization – make an error here – perhaps Anti-CAIR's constant criticisms caused it to react emotionally? Or has it made a calculating move too subtle for outsiders to discern? Answers should be forthcoming in the months ahead __________ April 6, 2004 update: An article in today's Virginian-Pilot contains a few new pieces of information. When it comes to money, Andrew Whitehead, a retired Navy enlisted man and college student, says "I haven't got any." Apr. 30, 2004 update: Represented by the powerhouse law firm of Greenberg Traurig, Whitehead today filed his reply to the CAIR law suit and for good measure he countersued on grounds of an Anti-SLAPP suit, a common law civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation and harassment motivated by religious and ethnic animosity, and defamation and slander. Whitehead asks the court to dismiss CAIR's suit, then award him $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages, plus costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees. Whitehead's documentation about CAIR is impressive and worth a read. Again, CAIR's publicity machine has made no mention of this quite interesting news concerning itself. June 20, 2005 update: CAIR reduced the number of alleged libelous statements to just two (the first two quoted above) in its amended motion, dated today. July 28, 2005 update: Sharon Chadha and I discuss this reduction in charges in an article published today, "CAIR Founded by ‘Islamic Terrorists'?" Mar. 23, 2006 update: Whitehead reports on his website that his "CAIR lawsuit is over, and has been dismissed, as the parties have reached a mutually agreeable settlement." He adds that "The policies and procedures of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR) have not changed in any way as a result of the CAIR lawsuit settlement." http://www.anti-cair-net.org/ Let there be no doubt that the Council on American-Islamic Relations is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists, and that CAIR wishes nothing more than the implementation of Sharia Law in America. CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic Terrorists. CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist-supporting groups and nations. - Read Here - U.S. Senator Richard Durbin: "[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect" U.S. Senator Charles Schumer: "we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism, intimate links with Hamas" Statements From Sept. 2003 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, *U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer: "To praise [CAIR] because they haven't been indicted is like somebody saying, 'I'm not a crook'" Sen. Boxer discussing her decision to rescind award given to CAIR Official (see website for link) *U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster: "Time and again [CAIR] has shown itself to be nothing more than an apologist for groups bent on the destruction of Israel and Islamic domination over the West" Since its founding in 1994, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its employees have combined, conspired, and agreed with third parties, including, but not limited to, the Islamic Association for Palestine (“IAP”), the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”), the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”), and foreign nationals hostile to the interests of the United States, to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda, and to propagate radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and certain of its officers, directors, and employees, have acted in support of, and in furtherance of, this conspiracy. -- Points to Ponder -- Senior CAIR employee Randall Todd Royer, a/k/a “Ismail” Royer, pled guilty and was sentenced to twenty years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists centered in Northern Virginia. He admitted to aiding and abetting three persons CAIR's Director of Community Relations, Bassem Khafagi , was arrested by the United States due to his ties with a terror-financing front group. Khafagi pled guilty to charges of visa and bank fraud, and agreed to be deported to Egypt. Khafagi’s illegal actions occurred while he was employed by CAIR. On December 18, 2002, Ghassan Elashi, founding board member of CAIR-Texas, a founder of the Holy Land Foundation, and a brother-in-law of Musa Abu Marzook , was arrested by the United States and charged with, among other things, making false statements on export declarations, dealing in the property of a designated terrorist organization, conspiracy and money laundering. Ghassan Elashi committed his crimes while working at CAIR, and was found Guilty. CAIR Board Member Imam Siraj Wahaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the first World Trade Center bombing, has called for replacing the American government with an Islamic caliphate, and warned that America will crumble unless it accepts Islam. Rabih Haddad served as a CAIR Fundraiser. Haddad was co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation (“GRF”). GRF was designated by the US Treasury Department for financing the Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations and its assets were frozen by the US Government on December 14, 2001. Consistent with Hamas ideology, CAIR has served as a conduit for the distribution of materials and funds from foreign nationals to groups and institutions within the United States for the purpose of promoting radical Islam and Hamas ideology, and attacked Islamic clerics and scholars who reject radical Islam and the Hamas agenda. Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year. I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities. From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening. As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster. Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996. The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates. But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them. In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere. Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks. Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists. The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen. Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese. But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI. Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat. And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials. The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best. Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history. Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company. The Pope's Call to Commitment Against Radical Islam The leader of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, was in Washington and New York this past week. While Pope John Paul II, his predecessor, was known as a media figure, a sort of religious rock star, this Pope somehow touches people in a remarkable way. The crowds who turned out for the motorcades, the public Masses, the reception on the south lawn of the White House and so on exceeded expectations. In fact, Father Jonathan Morris, who does religious commentary for the Fox News channel from Rome, said the crowds on Wednesday through Sunday far exceed those which turned out for the late John Paul II. One nun said, “This Pope is perfect. He makes us feel proud to be Catholic again.” The Roman pontiff celebrated his 81st birthday while in Washington. Some church leaders worry that he will be a short-term Pope. Many of these same leaders assumed that he would just be an interim Pope who would take few new initiatives. That has not turned out to be the case. Among other major acts, Pope Benedict XVI has revived the traditional Mass, which has caused an uproar in some Catholic circles. The Pope also has spoken out against radical Islam, proclaiming that no God can compel man to kill in his name. Again, Pope John Paul II was reluctant to take on Islam, which the Pope contends is a distortion of the historical religion. His views have not silenced Muslim clerics. Yunis al-Astal, in a fiery sermon delivered on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV, claims that Islam will conquer Rome just as the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople. He predicted that Rome will become an advance post for Islamic conquests. He says these conquests would spread through Europe whereupon Islam will turn to the two Americas. He said Eastern Europe might be the most difficult to conquer. “Allah has chosen you for himself and for his religion,” al-Astal was reported by Fox News, “so you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security and consolidation of power, and even to conquests through da’wa and military conquests of the entire world.” Al-Astal, also as reported by Fox News, last June preached that it the duty of Palestinian women to martyr themselves by becoming homicide bombers. “The most exalted form of jihad is fighting for sake of Allah, which means sacrificing one’s soul by fighting the enemies head on, even if it leads to martyrdom.” He called Jews the brothers of apes and pigs “who should taste the bitterness of death.” So this Pope, who without success has tried to rekindle the spark of the Church in Western Europe, has turned to the United States as a religious ally. If radical Islam is serious, and there is every indication it is, then regardless of denominations it is essential that people of all faiths need to join with the holy father to confront those who kill in the name of God. As Pope Benedict said, “God is love,” and thus is not compatible with hate either toward Jews or Christians. Who prevails in this conflict will depend on who is more deeply committed. Indeed that was what the Pope’s mission to the United States was all about. Rising Euro-Muslim Tensions Perhaps the greatest secular gift to the world by Judeo-Christian civilization is its seminal concept of the individual, which it raises above the tribe or the collective. In Genesis, we are told that man is made in the image of God. Deuteronomy tells us that "each human by his own sin is to be judged" and "do not punish children for the sins of their fathers." And of course, the biblical life and teachings of Jesus reflect the deep importance of the individual. Thus was planted in the soil of the West our uniquely heightened respect for the individual. It is impossible to imagine Western civilization -- and particularly America -- without the existence in our culture of the instinctive respect for the individual to offset the more general human instinct to be subordinated in the tribe or the group. Conversely, there is no more dangerous incubus inserted into a Western nation than hostility or indifference to the inherent value and rights of the individual. But radicalized Islam places little value on the individual, while holding up for supreme value the interests of the group, particularly their view of the group called Islam. And it is this aggressive, assertive insistence by radicalized Muslims in the West to subordinate our inherent rights to their collective demands that slowly and more or less quietly is forcing Westerners to take sides in the radicals' demands. The resolution of this developing conflict -- if not managed by the elites in Western countries on behalf of indigenous Western rights -- inevitably will result in unnecessary violence. A recent example of such intimidation was reported in The Washington Times Monday: Muneer Fareed, head of the Islamic Society of North America, is "demanding" that Sen. John McCain stop using the word "Islamic" to describe terrorists who are radical Islamists. He insists that McCain (and all others) just call Islamic terrorists "criminals." "That is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Fareed said. McCain, being as tough as nails, has said he has no intention of submitting to Fareed's demand and will continue to use "Islamic" to describe Islamic terrorists. But it will be interesting to see what the two Democratic candidates for president choose to do about this demand. Meanwhile, in Canada, Mark Steyn awaits trial before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of committing hate speech by writing a book and a magazine article that warned against the dangers of Islam overwhelming Europe (No. 1 best-seller in Canada; New York Times best-seller in the United States). These charges were precipitated by demands for Steyn's prosecution by a band of students, who publicly marched to announce their demands. They claimed that as Muslims, they should have the chance to offer a rebuttal when people like Steyn talk about issues that relate directly to Muslims. "When people feel insulted, they should have recourse," Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, said. Amazingly, the culturally feeble, intimidated Canadian officials promptly filed the criminal charges. Similarly, a few months ago, the increasing British Muslim demands for Shariah law were answered in the positive by the archbishop of Canterbury. If the British government ever succumbs to that outrageous demand, not only will Muslim women lose their individual rights but also, pursuant to honor killing, principals could be murdered legally by their fathers, husbands or brothers. Already, non-Muslim British are being banned from public swimming pools during time reserved for Muslims. (No other group can reserve such times.) Forty years ago last weekend, British classicist and politician Enoch Powell warned that if immigrants bringing alien values and customs into Britain are allowed to continue their immigration, a sense of alarm and resentment would develop in the indigenous British population. He was ejected from British politics for giving that warning. But this week, the BBC published a poll taken precisely to measure public attitudes 40 years after Powell's famous warning (and after 40 years of the British ruling class ignoring the growing danger). Seventy percent think there is high tension between the races; 63 percent expect those tensions to result in violence between the races in Britain; and 60 percent think there are too many "immigrants" in Britain. In a similar poll taken for the Davos World Economic Forum, stunning numbers of Europeans fear a "threat" from Muslims with whom they "interact": 79 percent of Danes, 67 percent of Italians, 68 percent of Spaniards, 65 percent of Swedes and 59 percent of Belgians. In my book "The West's Last Chance," published in 2005, I warned that the European people would not be passive in the face of their culture being undercut. Unlike others who wrote on the subject, I did not think Europeans would fail to defend their nations and their cultures. I warned that broad European street violence could be avoided only if their governments took the threat seriously. These disturbing polls from BBC and Davos should constitute another undeniable warning to the gutless, defeatist European leaders. Take action to protect your people and their cherished Western values, or the people will take matters into their own hands. And for us in America, impending European unrest should be seen as a cautionary tale. What Muslims Really Think While on the debating circuit pounding atheists--a pastime I am really getting to enjoy--I have just started reading Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito's Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. It's one of the first books to put some real data behind a much-disputed question. For several years now liberal and conservative pundits have been pontificating about the Muslim world, usually without a shred of data. I was amused last year to cross swords with some of my fellow conservatives like Scott Johnson and Victor Davis Hanson. These ideologues seem of the opinion that the average Muslim is a crazed polygamist who is ready to blow himself up. No surprise: this is supposedly what Muslims all learn in the school where they read nothing but the Koran! Only pundits who have no exposure to Muslim countries, Muslim history and Muslim people can go on like this. For such gurus, Islam itself is the problem and nothing short of an Islamic Reformation headed by ex-Muslims like Hirsi Ali will show the Muslim world where it has gone wrong over the past five centuries. I admire Ali and sympathize with her hardships, but how likely is it that Muslims will follow a woman who the author of a book titled Infidel? In Christianity, the Reformation was led by a devout Martin Luther and not by skeptics and freethinkers like Hume or Voltaire. Practical difficulties aside, we often forget the simple fact that Islam has been around for 1300 years and Islamic terrorism has been around for a few decades. Yes, one can find isolated instances in Islamic history of fanatical groups like the Assassins, but these are hardly typical of the Islamic regimes that have ruled for centuries. The intelligent questions to ask are, “What is it about Islam today that has made it an incubator of radicalism and terrorism?” And second, “What do most Muslims really think about the West?” Fortunately there is an increasing body of reliable data on Muslim beliefs. One source is the World Values Survey, which has the benefit of tracking opinions over a period of decades. Another is the Gallup surveys which are now under the aegis of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, a group headed by Mogahed. Esposito is one of the most respected American authorities on Islam. I am only getting into their book, but here I offer my own hypothesis, and then I'm going to find out if their data vindicate it. The problem for Muslims is not Christianity or Judaism. In fact, Islam sees itself as incorporating both in much the same way that Christianity sees itself as incorporating Judaism. Moses and Christ are considered prophets in Islam. If you read the propaganda of the radical Muslims, they almost never condemn the West for being a Christian society. They typically describe the West as an atheist and immoral society. Bin Laden has called America “the leading power of the pagans and unbelievers.” The problem for most Muslims is Western liberalism. But here we must distinguish between two kinds of liberalism. There is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1. This liberalism is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, to practice one’s religion, political and religious toleration, and so on. Then there is the modern liberalism of the 1960s. Call this Liberalism 2. This liberalism is defined by such tenets as the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on. It is this second type of liberalism that seems to drive the social agenda of today's Democratic Party. For example, Hillary Clinton chaired a presidential task force during the 1990s that promoted prostitution as an international right for workers. Now we are in a better position to understand Islamic attitudes regarding the West. The vast majority of Muslims worldwide embrace Liberalism 1 while rejecting Liberalism 2. They are generally comfortable with classical liberalism while abhorring the tenets of modern liberalism. And by equating America with such things as blasphemy, pornography, prostitution and homosexuality, the radical Muslims appeal to ordinary Muslims to join their cause in a battle against the Great Satan. This is what I have argued in my recent book The Enemy at Home. The book is just out in paperback, with an Afterward responding to my critics on the right and the left. I always try and learn from my critics, and I’m also interested to see how my thesis stands up in light of Mogahed and Esposito's data. Of course today's liberals will chafe at the idea that their values are producing a powerful "blowback" from the House of Islam. That's why we need good empirical work like this book. Let us find out what Muslims really think, and then let us look at the propaganda of the radical Muslims to see how they rally traditional Muslims to their side. Who cares if liberals don't like to admit what is going on? People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity has just been released. His book The Enemy at Home will be published in paperback in February. Left Threatens Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Islamo Fascism Awareness Week is an effort to bring the truth into the suffocating ideological bias of our universities. It comes as no surprise that the radical left is organizing to stop our speakers. This is what happened last fall when they shut down my speech at Emory, threatened former Muslim Nonie Darwish at Berkeley, and disrupted several of our speakers. They want to kill this event because they knew know that awareness about Islamo Fascism means the end of their political monopoly on campus and the beginning of a student movement that honors and supports our country. Because of this threat, we are once again forced to pay for extra security to ensure our speakers’ safety. And today, I'm asking for your financial help today to offset this extra cost to the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Please follow this link today to make a donation of $35, $50, $100, $250, $500 or more. Our campus coordinators - brave young men and women willing to go up against the radical left to get the truth to their fellow students - are working night and day against incredible odds to make the Week a success. And unless, the radical, pro-jihad groups succeed in silencing us, by the end of the week over 40 speakers such as Nonie Darwish, Robert Spencer and Frank Gaffney will have appeared on campuses across the country- from UC Berkeley to Columbia; from Ohio State and Michigan. But the opposition is building, both in its intensity and its potential for violence. (I have been forced to provide bodyguards for all our speakers and the campus police have been on high alert at every school where they have appeared). The entire political left, from the Revolutionary Communist Party to the Young Democrats, is up in arms against us. The violent hardcore left is urged on in its rhetoric of violence with a wink and a nod by the "moderate" left. I write you now to ask you to support the brave students who have invited us to bring the oxygen of truth to their campuses. This must be a permanent campaign to help these young people continue the awareness campaign; to organize on more campuses; to make sure that the left does not silence what some are already calling one of the most important public information campaigns of our era. Every dollar you pledge will help us to keep building awareness about the Islamo fascists who hope to disarm our country and see it defeated in the War on Terror. This is our chance to strike back at them and to build a movement that will deny them an intellectual haven on America's college campuses. We must continue the battle against Islamo Fascism as it tries to weaken American from within, and we can't do it without your help. Please give whatever you can afford today. My sincere thanks, David Horowitz P.S. Our speakers are under even more threat than we anticipated. In addition to the funds we need to continue the campaign, we need your immediate financial help to hire additional security for the ongoing events of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. I will be hugely grateful for anything you can give. It is important the people threatening those who speak out against Islamo-Fascism are sent the message that we will not be stopped! Cicero on the Enemy Within Study questions US strategy against al-Qaida WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States can defeat al-Qaida if it relies less on force and more on policing and intelligence to root out the terror group's leaders, a new study contends. "Keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight," said the study by the federally funded Rand research center, an organization that counsels the Pentagon. Its report said that the use of military force by the United States or other countries should be reserved for quelling large, well-armed and well-organized insurgencies, and that American officials should stop using the term "war on terror" and replace it with "counterterrorism." "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism," said Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist. "The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al-Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy," Jones said. Nearly every ally, including Britain and Australia, has stopped using "war on terror" to describe strategy against the group headed by Osama bin Laden and considered responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 suicide attacks at the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon. Based on an analysis of 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, the report concluded that a transition to the political process is the most common way such groups end. But the process, found in 43 percent cases examined, is unlikely with al-Qaida, which has a broad, sweeping agenda, the report said. The second most common way that terrorist groups end, seen in about 40 percent of the cases, is through police and intelligence services apprehending or killing key leaders, Jones said. Police are particularly effective because their permanent presence in cities helps them gather information, he said. By contrast, the report said, military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases. Jones, in an interview, said, "Even where we found some success against al-Qaida, in Pakistan and Iraq, the military played a background or surrogate role. The bulk of the action was taken by intelligence, police and, in some cases, local forces." "We are not saying the military should not play a role," he said. "But unless you are talking about large insurgencies, military force should not be the tip of the spear." Among the report's conclusions: - Religious terrorist groups take longer to eliminate than other groups but none has achieved victory in the 38 years covered by the study. - Terrorist groups from upper-income countries are more likely to be left-wing or nationalist, and much less likely to be motivated by religion. - Large groups of more than 10,000 have been victorious more than 25 percent of the time, while victory is rare for groups with 1,000 or fewer members. The report described al-Qaida as a "strong and competent organization," both before and after 9-11. Its goals, the report said, are uniting Muslims to fight the United States and its allies, overthrowing regimes in the Middle East friendly to the West and establishing a pan-Islamic state, or caliphate. Bush Should Strip Sanctuary Cities Of Federal Funds Three good men are dead thanks largely to San Francisco's outrageous sanctuary-city policy, which forbids city authorities from notifying federal immigration authorities when they arrest illegal aliens for crimes they commit, and it's time for President Bush to crack down on all the cities in the United States that follow this absurd policy. On June 22, Anthony Bologna and his sons Michael and Matthew were shot to death by Edwin Ramos, 21, after a brief traffic incident when Anthony Bologna allegedly briefly blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Ramos, an alleged member of the vicious the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13, should never have been around to kill the three men, and wouldn't have been -- were not for the city's sanctuary-city policy. Ramos, an illegal immigrant, was found guilty of committing two felonies when he was 17 -- involving a gang-related assault of a Municipal Railway passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman -- yet was never surrendered by the city's juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation as required by federal law. Ramos was taken to juvenile hall on charges of assault and participating in a street gang, and was later convicted in juvenile court and put in a shelter. Under federal law, he should have been referred to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) but the Juvenile Probation Department's policy for dealing with offenders stipulated that "probation officers shall not discriminate in any fashion against minors based on their immigration status." On April 2, 2004, Ramos was released to the custody of his mother, despite the fact that he had already been flagged by federal authorities as an illegal immigrant. He was still considered a ward of the court and was on probation. Just four days later, records show, he committed another crime at 19th and Mission streets, two blocks from the site of the attack on the Muni passenger. He was released after city prosecutors declined to charge him in connection with an arrest in March on suspicion of weapons and gang violations. There is a dispute revolving around the question of whether ICE was ever notified of the Ramos arrest, but the fact remains that for the last 10 years the city's juvenile justice authorities have followed a policy of not turning over illegal-immigrant felons to the federal government, basing the practice on San Francisco's sanctuary-city status and state law barring local officials from surrendering them for deportation. After a storm of protest following the slayings of the Bologna family men, San Francisco's ultra-liberal Mayor Gavin Newsom belatedly rescinded that policy earlier this month following a report in the Chronicle that the city had flown a number of youths out of the country on its own, in possible violation of federal law, and then housed some in unlocked group homes from which they quickly escaped. His action came too late to save the lives of the Bologna men. Those are the facts in this shocking case. They illustrate the lethal effects this idiotic and dangerous sanctuary-city policy can have on the safety of innocent Americans. Sanctuary-city policies defy guidelines from the 9/11 Commission Report, which called on state and local authorities to help federal agencies crack down on illegal immigration. "There is a growing role for state and local law enforcement agencies [for the enforcement of immigration law]," the report stated. "They need more training and work with federal agencies so that they can cooperate more effectively with those federal authorities in identifying terrorist suspects." Instead, a host of cities across the United States classify themselves as havens for illegal aliens, despite the fact that such policies result in creating safe havens for illegal aliens who are criminals and potential terrorists. They allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting them to ICE. President Bush should issue an executive order denying any federal funds to those cities which either officially or unofficially provide sanctuaries enabling illegal aliens who commit crimes to escape deportation. They need to learn there is a price to be paid for exposing their citizens to criminal activities by aliens here illegally.
|
 |
 |
||
