Archive for the ‘Articles’ Category
What is Agenda 21?
The UN plan referenced by Newt Gingrich is a real threat to private property and US sovereignty.
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” – Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993)
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich stated during a recent campaign event that the United Nations was seeking to create an “extraconstitutional control” over the US with programs like Agenda 21. Gingrich’s remarks are featured in a YouTube video. But what is Agenda 21, and why has it taken nearly 20 years before this subject got national recognition?
Agenda 21 seeks to control populations through zoning and seizure of private property, strip national sovereignty, reduce the world population, even control our consumption of meat and air conditioning … all in the name of the environment. And who can be against the environment, right?
Many Americans cringe at the mention of “global government” or “conspiracy.” And often, conspiracy theories have little basis in fact. But we must recognize that it is a basic element of human nature to seek the acquisition of wealth and power, and that people throughout human history have conspired together to do so. Not all conspiracies are real, but they do exist. And Agenda 21 is a perfect example.
From the report produced by the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, which was a predecessor to Agenda 21: “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice…. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
Our Constitution explicitly protects… [Excerpt - read the full article at The US Report]
Our counterterrorism blind spot: Stopping American terrorists
The FBI is investigating whether a man from Minnesota was the suicide bomber behind an attack in Somalia. If so, it would be the third known Minnesota native to do so. I addressed the US’ terror export dilemma recently in the International Analyst Network (excerpt):
This week the Department of Justice announced that our intelligence community foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States. While our counterterrorism strategy is successful at preventing terrorist plots from foreign sources, it fails to stop the flow of American citizens committing terrorist attacks abroad.
Since 9/11 the United States has prevented or disrupted 39 known terrorist plots – 40 counting the foiled Iranian plot. We have also curtailed the transfer of material support to foreign terrorist groups.
But the flow of potential U.S. terrorists is much harder to monitor and regulate. Increased airport security, increased law enforcement, intelligence liaisons abroad, and heightened citizen awareness of suspicious behaviors have been unsuccessful at stopping U.S. citizens from engaging in terrorist acts abroad.
On Oct. 29, 2008, 26-year-old Shirwa Ahmed drove his Toyota Land Cruiser through the streets of Hargesa, Somalia. Arriving at his target, Ahmed detonated his suicide truck bomb, killing 29. The naturalized U.S. citizen from Minneapolis became America’s first known suicide bomber.
Ahmed’s attack is far from an isolated incident.
In Sept. 2009, another Somali-American detonated another suicide truck bomb in Somalia, killing 21 UN peacekeepers and civilians.
Abdullahi Ahmed became the third Somali-American suicide bomber when he killed two soldiers manning an African Union checkpoint in June…
Read the rest at the International Analyst Network
Quoted in Deutsche Welle
Being rather busy over the last few weeks, I neglected to post that I was quoted in the German daily Deutsche Welle regarding a possible reaction to the alleged Iranian assassination plot against a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil:
Despite the clamor in some quarters for an attack, some analysts believe that the most likely response will not involve military action given the current volatility of the Middle East region and the US administration’s policy of enagagement.
“War with Iran is highly unlikely with the current administration,” Chris Carter, a regional director with the US Counterterrorism Advisory Team, told Deutsche Welle. “Even if evidence leads all the way to the Quds Force’s commander, anything beyond sanctions would undermine the current administration’s doctrine of diplomatically engaging enemies like Iran.”
Does Obama’s jobs bill actually defy the Constitution?
The Eleventh Amendment
As discussed yesterday at The US Report, President Obama is peddling a jobs bill that contains elements that may actually be unconstitutional. But there appears to be more to the story.
The American Jobs Act states on page 133 (Section 176) that “A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution…”
This strips state sovereignty and increases dependence upon the Federal government. And if it were to pass, this legislation would open the door for trial lawyers to sue the states in Federal court. Just follow the money.
Here’s what the Eleventh Amendment says:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Basically, this amendment prevents the Federal government from hearing cases brought against a state by a citizen of another state or country. But Congress – and the states themselves if they so choose – can abrogate this Eleventh Amendment protection according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution (pg. 376):
Congress can, for example, require the states to waive their immunities as a condition for receipt of federal grants under the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1).
Why would the Federal government need to suspend the Constitution in order to save jobs? And when did the United States become so dependent on the government for jobs in the first place?
President Obama’s proposed abrogation of the Constitution may not actually violate the Constitution, since…
[Except - read more at The US Report]
In: Articles, Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, Constitution
Did Democrats risk your life to obtain power?
Firefighters know what it is like to risk their lives in order to accomplish something. As a fire chief, you risk the lives of your men in order to rescue the child who is trapped upstairs. The firefighters are willing to run into a burning building because they know how important that child’s life is. All parties involved accept this arrangement, especially the child.
This is not acceptable, however, when others may risk not only your life, but also that of your family in order to accomplish something that you do not find justifiable.
Liberals in government and media are so power hungry that they used our counter-terrorism strategies and tactics as an opportunity to destroy their political opponents.
During the George W. Bush years, liberals undermined our counter-terrorism strategy – during a war against terrorists – in order to weaken the administration. It would be one thing if they reversed Bush’s wartime strategy when the Obama administration took over in 2009. However, after fighting Bush nearly every step of the way, not much actually changed when they took control.
In fact, they actually doubled down on some of the very tactics that they castigated Bush for.
[Read the rest at The US Report]
In: Articles · Tagged with: 9/11, Democrats
Sacked: Another Muslim homeland security official with shady connections
On Monday, National Public Radio featured a story about a Muslim homeland security official who was fired after being featured as a terrorism suspect in an anti-terrorism seminar.
Omar Alomari, a 60-year-old Jordanian-American, served as a multicultural relations officer for the Ohio Department of Public Safety until the state fired him following a seminar for local law enforcement officers on political Islam and terrorism. Alomari was singled out as a suspect, and shortly after the presentation, he was fired.
The NPR article implies that Alomari lost his job due to the seminar, but it turns out that he actually was dismissed for not fully disclosing his employment history when filing his background check and then lying to investigators. Alomari left out his tenure as a college professor where he was fired due to an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student and also failed to disclose that he had previously worked for the Jordanian Minister of Labor.
The website The Jawa Report conducted an investigation into Alomari, which can be found here.
Apart from appearing as a witness for a 2010 Congress subcomittee hearing, Alomari is most notable work is two pamphlets on Islam he wrote as a member of Ohio Homeland Security.
In his guide to Islamic and Arabic culture, Alomari defined jihad as “The utmost effort one should exert to achieve excellence” and states that “Jihad does not mean holy war, as many people are led to believe.”
Zuhdi Jasser, fellow Muslim and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, calls Alomari’s pamphlets “classic Islamist propaganda” and says they are “full of factual inaccuracies.”
The other pamphlet, “Agents of Radicalization,” was actually destroyed before it could be distributed. Under “organizations we are working with,” Alomari listed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Alliance of North America, Muslim American Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Muslim Student Association.
All of these groups are connected to Islamic terrorism.
There are far too many inaccuracies in Alomari’s pamphlets to properly address within this article. But having seen his soft-soaped definition of jihad, it is worth correcting.
Dr. Andrew G. Bostom, the author of The Legacy of Jihad and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, defines jihad using the Koran rather than perpetuating a false narrative.
“Jahada, the root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran.” said Bostom in an interview with Liberty and Security Journal. “With four exceptions, all the other 36 usages in the Koran as understood by both the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam […] and ordinary Muslims – meant and mean, ‘he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like.’”
John Brennan, the top counterterrorism official in the nation, shares Omari’s ahistorical interpretation, saying jihad is “to purify oneself or one’s community.” This would be funny if Brennan wasn’t responsible our national security.
Many Americans saw firsthand what al Qaeda’s interpretation of jihad is, though, and theirs apparently stems from one of the 36 violent mentions in the Koran. In fact, with over 17,000 terrorist attacks committed by Islamic terrorists since 9/11, it appears that Alomari and Brennan’s interpretation isn’t widely accepted.
“It is common knowledge in our office that Omar is definitely not on our team,” a former co-worker of Alomari told The Jawa Report. “He hangs out with these same terror-linked groups and even brings them into meetings he arranges to give them legitimacy.”
“It is no secret to anyone who knows him that Omar Alomari IS a radical, but he is great at playing the “moderate” when he needs to be.”
Is Alomari a terrorist? It is impossible to tell without seeing the seminar organizers’ intelligence. But Americans must understand that terrorist groups like al Qaeda and political Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood actually share the same goals, such as subjugating the U.S. under sharia law. Whether this is accomplished via suicide bombers or by political advocacy makes little difference.
But neither al Qaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood would be successful without apologists like Alomari paving the way for Islamic supremacism.
In: Articles, National Security · Tagged with: Islam
South Carolina’s Anti-Foreign Law Bill: Constitutional and Necessary
New study determines Islamic sharia law is utilized in courtrooms across the country – in violation of constitutional rights.
The South Carolina state legislature is considering a bill that would bar foreign laws – such as Islamic sharia law – from conflicting with U.S. and state laws. Opponents of the legislation claimed that such a bill is unnecessary as sharia law would never be used in violation of American laws and argued that such a law would be unconstitutional. They are wrong on both counts.
In a previous article at The US Report, we exposed attempts to label the bill unconstitutional as obfuscation. After all, how can a bill that clearly states that it will protect “constitutionally guaranteed” rights be unconstitutional?
Senate Bill 444 reads (emphasis mine):
A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States.
It does not preclude Muslims from all sharia activities – such as praying – as the bill’s opponents want us to believe, it simply prevents sharia from overriding constitutionally-guaranteed rights when the legal systems conflict.
Now, a new study released by the Center for Security Policy, a non-partisan national security organization, finds that sharia law was in fact utilized in numerous states, including one relevant case in South Carolina. Research was limited to published trial and appellate court documents on the Google Scholar website, so there are undoubtedly many more cases involving sharia than those detailed in the study.
The bill’s opponents have repeatedly stated that sharia will never be applied when it conflicts with U.S. or state laws, but despite the limited availability of data, this study found over two dozen cases where judges decided cases based on sharia law – even when Islamic law conflicted with our laws.
In one case, a New Jersey judge refused to grant a restraining order after an Islamic man sexually and physically abused his wife, stating that this was permissible under Islam. The judge determined that his religious belief negated any criminal behavior.
A judge from Michigan enforced an Islamic summary divorce obtained by the husband, known as talaq, which violates the woman’s right to equal protection. The wife had no prior knowledge of the divorce, was not allowed a hearing, and did not have an attorney. Sharia law states that the wife is only entitled to property that was in her name, contrary to Michigan policy.
Many cases involve child custody in which judges will defer to foreign sharia courts, which side against women and non-Muslims, without considering the best interests of the child.
At the forefront of the anti-sharia bill’s opposition is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Investigative Project on Terrorism reported on Wednesday that the IRS removed CAIR and the CAIR Foundation from the list of tax-exempt organizations as the groups did not file their annual finance reports.
As of this writing, CAIR’s website still claims that donations are tax-deductible, despite losing their IRS status two weeks ago.
It also bears mentioning that CAIR remains an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2010 Holy Land Foundation terror financing trial, where Muslim organizations conspired to send millions of U.S. dollars to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Members of CAIR’s leadership had been under investigation until the Justice Department scuttled their pending terror financing prosecutions.
Now that we can see that not only is this bill constitutional, but also that sharia is in fact applied in courtrooms across the country, nothing should stand in the way of the bill’s passage.
In: Articles, Society · Tagged with: Shariah law
Anti-foreign law bill will protect all S.C. citizens
Bill DOES NOT violate rights of Muslims, though Jihadists would have us believe otherwise
The South Carolina Senate is currently debating legislation that would ban the enforcement of foreign and religious laws – including Islamic sharia law – but opponents claim the bill would violate the constitutional rights of Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In April, a Judiciary subcommittee conducted two hearings (on two separate days) on Senate Bill 444, which would prevent foreign and religious law from violating an individual’s constitutional rights. A third subcommittee hearing is in the offing.
S.C.’s bill does not mention sharia law, and appears to avoid religious infringement altogether, unless the religious law would violate the rights of another: “A court, arbitrator, … or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”
Howard Stravitz, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, testified at the South Carolina subcommittee hearing that the bill would violate Muslims’ freedom of religion. Stravitz did not respond to The US Report’s request for clarification.
“The backers of these discriminatory proposals realize if they put specific references to Sharia or Muslims, it won’t pass constitutional muster,” said Ibrahim Hooper, Director of Communications at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
When The US Report contacted Hooper to clarify which elements of S. 444 he considered unconstitutional, Hooper instead sent material related to Oklahoma’s attempt at banning sharia rather than South Carolina’s legislation. Senate Question 755 was approved by 70 percent of voters before being blocked by a federal judge.
It bears noting that CAIR recently made headlines when the Department of Justice scuttled pending terror-financing prosecutions against the organization and one of its co-founders. Both were listed as un-indicted co-conspirators in the trial against the Islamic charity group, Holy Land Foundation, which sent over $12 million in donations from the U.S. to the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas. CAIR is linked to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to establish sharia law not only in the U.S., but worldwide.
David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on Islamic law, called Oklahoma’s Senate Question 755 “poorly drafted” as sharia was left open for vague interpretation. Yerushalmi wrote that “There are patently constitutional ways to legislatively preclude sharia from raising its ugly head in our legal system and to do so in clearer, more legally precise ways than was achieved by Question 755.”
It appears that the stumbling block is to what degree each state defines foreign laws: a federal judge blocked Oklahoma’s ban when a plaintiff from CAIR contended that by blocking sharia in state courtrooms, Muslims’ were essentially denied their freedom of religion as the plaintiff defined sharia as a religious practice rather than an authoritative legal-political-military system.
Both Louisiana and Tennessee passed anti-foreign law bills in 2010 – albeit without specific reference to sharia – that have not been overturned.
The underlying problem is that many Muslims consider Islamic religious laws to be divine commandments which trump man-made laws such as the Constitution.
In 2007, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) issued a fatwa, or Islamic legal ruling stating that “Islamic law does not recognize [man-made law], either fully or in part.” While not all U.S. Muslims may agree with the supremacy of sharia, the fact remains that a Muslim legal organization within the United States commanding Muslims to follow sharia and not federal and state laws.
The AMJA has issued other rulings which call for the execution for apostasy and blasphemy, as well as condone marital rape, female genital mutilation, and the stoning of adulterers.
How could a law preventing an individual from violating the rights of another be unconstitutional? No one seems to have a substantive answer. Instead of answering the question, the bill’s opponents continue to put forth strawmen like “the bill would adversely impact international trade,” which it would not in any way shape or form.
Moreover, according to our sources, when questions by the opponents were fully and adequately answered by the bill’s proponents during the hearings, the answers were ignored and the same questions were repeated by the bill’s opponents later in the hearings.
Perhaps the focus should be shifted from legislation that aims to protect constitutional rights to the imported legal system that undermines constitutional rights.
In a sane world, advocating for the undermining of our Constitution would be called sedition.
[Originally published at The US Report]
In: Articles, Politics, Religion · Tagged with: Shariah law
Did the Justice Department commit a felony by dismissing Hamas financing trials?
Last year, the Department of Justice shut down numerous pending prosecutions against Muslim groups and individuals that were suspected of aiding foreign terrorist organizations. But by doing so, those responsible for the decision may have committed a felony.
In 2007, the federal government brought charges against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), formerly the largest Muslim charity group in the United States, and several of its leaders for engaging in a criminal conspiracy to support the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. The organization had sent over 12 million dollars to the terrorist group, and in 2008, a federal jury convicted HLF and the defendants on all 108 counts of financing terrorism.
However, HLF was not acting alone. “Although the indictment in this case charges the [HLF and defendants],” reads an opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, “it will be obvious that the defendants were not acting alone. As noted in the case summary, the defendants were operating in concert with a host of individuals and organizations dedicated to sustaining and furthering the Hamas movement. Several of the individuals who hold leading roles in the operation of Hamas are referenced by name in the indictment.”
The “host of individuals and organizations” the opinion refers to is a list of unindicted co-conspirators that is eleven pages long and contains hundreds of people and organizations associated with Hamas. Investigators had been building a case on the U.S. terrorism finance network for over ten years, and prosecutors planned on charging many of the organizations and individuals listed in the document. But last year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it would not prosecute any of the unindicted co-conspirators.
Patrick Poole writes at Pajamas Media that the prosecutions “were scuttled last year at the direction of top-level political appointees within the Department of Justice (DOJ) – and possibly even the White House.”
Poole’s DOJ source states that “There’s a mountain of evidence against all of these groups that was never introduced during the Holy Land trial and it is damning. We’ve got them on wiretaps. That’s exactly why many of these leaders and groups were named unindicted co-conspirators in the first round of prosecutions.”
Apparently there are political reasons behind the decision. Numerous co-conspirators, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations are “interfaith partners” with the Obama administration. Exposing them as conspiring with Islamic terrorists could have a disastrous effect on the administration and its Muslim engagement efforts.
Frank Gaffney goes so far as to say that the DOJ’s decision could in fact be an act of treason. “It is a felony offense,” Gaffney writes, “to know or have reason to know that seditious activity is underway and do nothing about it.”
Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381 of the U.S. Code defines treason as levying war against the United States or adhering “to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere.” Sending a terrorist organization falls under “giving them aid.”
Section 2382 of the U.S. Code states that anyone “having knowledge of the commission of any treason” and conceals or does not disclose said treason “is guilty of misprision of treason.” Simply put, if you know of a treasonous act and didn’t inform the authorities, you are guilty as well.
Although the United States is not at war with Hamas, the State Department has designated Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. One of the requirements for designation is that the organization’s terrorist activity “must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.” A terrorist organization that threatens U.S. national security clearly puts Hamas in the “enemy” ballpark, otherwise, we wouldn’t prosecute individuals for sending them money.
Legal definitions aside, how can a government agency whose mission statement purports to “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans” simply dismiss prosecutions of high crimes for political reasons?
In: Articles, Politics · Tagged with: Hamas, Holy Land Foundation trial, Justice Department
Foreign aid workers and Afghans murdered in riots, blame falls on U.S. pastor
General David Petraeus, the top commander of both U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, says that the recent Qur’an burning in Florida has inspired multiple deadly riots in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai called last month’s Qur’an burning by the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla. “a crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation,” and demanded that Pastor Terry Jones be brought to justice.
This incident demonstrates that in Afghanistan, we are fighting a war against an enemy who often has few ideological differences with the population we are trying to protect. The Taliban and the Afghan people both seek the establishment of Islamic sharia law, which explains President Karzai’s demands to bring Jones to justice. Under sharia law, burning a Qur’an is considered blasphemy – anything disadvantageous to Islam can be considered blasphemous – and may be punishable by death.
While the Qur’an burning has destabilized the security situation for our troops in Afghanistan, it only provided the catalyst for those whose sensitivities are on a hair-trigger anyways. The problem isn’t burning books – it’s the ideology that inspires people to take to the streets, injuring and killing innocent Afghans (including at least one child) and aid workers in retaliation for the burning of a book.
Americans should read books instead of burn them, but when something so simple can inspire riots and murders around the world, pyrophilic “outreach centers” aren’t the ones with the problem.
In: Articles, Geopolitics, Religion · Tagged with: Afghanistan, Islam
