For Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the rise of Islamic governments across the Mideast means a giant step towards his vision of a united Islamic super-state.
You will see the actual original video clips that are faked and staged to “show” that Palestine is being bullied by Israel. But you will see, the Palestinians are following after their Islamic, Qur’anic teaching, and following their shari’a law by lying to the world to make the world look down on Israel, but you will see that it hasn’t really happened the way the Palestinians try to portray it.
Editor: So, are you still a journalist or a novelist?
Tom Friend: Same thing out here….
Editor: Make something out of it. And if you can’t do that, sir, then make it up! — From the cinematic classic Masked and Anonymous
In reality, hate crimes against Muslims are infrequent:
And so in order to deflect attention away from jihad activity and try to portray Muslims as victims, so as to shame non-Muslims into not investigating or even being suspicious of further jihad activity, Islamic supremacist groups have resorted to making it up. Hamas-linked CAIRandother Muslims have not hesitated to fabricate “hate crimes.” CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.
And so if they can’t find enough real stories to fill out this new website, they can always call on a few novelists.
“Website aims to show post-9/11 discrimination against Muslims, Sikhs,” from CNN, September 5 (thanks to Ab):
(CNN) – Showcasing alleged hate crimes, physical threats and profiling, a diverse group of ethnic organizations has coalesced to bring attention to what they call discrimination against Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs and others in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The project, titled “Unheard Voices of 9/11,” officially launched online Friday with a call for people to share their experiences about being discriminated, targeted and demoralized because of their spiritual and cultural beliefs. […]
Some memories posted on http://unheardvoicesof911.org/ are from the days immediately after the attacks. Within six days of the attacks, the FBI reported that it initiated 40 hate crime investigations into alleged murders, attacks and arson directed at Americans who are Muslims, South Asians and Arabs. […]
Rabia Sajid described a man pulling up in a car in New York and yelling, “Go back to your country, otherwise I’m going to kill you.” She said the pastor of a church where she was being tutored, and later police, suggested the best thing to do was not wear her Muslim headscarf so she wouldn’t be targeted – something her parents likewise promoted, for her safety.
The New York resident, who is affiliated with the South Asian Youth Action group, said one of her biggest regrets is that she and others took that advice – not wearing clothing that was part of her Muslim heritage, for fear of being discriminated against.
“We didn’t face the problem, but we were running away from it by trying to change our identity and who we are,” Sajid said at an August hearing in New York City, portions of which are now on the “Unheard Voices” website. “We don’t know how to face the problem … I don’t know what we can do.”
There have been several high-profile cases of alleged hate crimes and cases in which Muslims and Sikhs faced opposition to projects due to their religion and heritage.
One that received significant international attention was Park 51, an Islamic community center proposed for two blocks from ground zero in Lower Manhattan. Many city residents opposed the effort, characterizing the location of the center – which would mostly house cultural, social and recreational programs, as well as a prayer space – as inappropriate given lingering feelings about Muslim militants’ role in the 9/11 attacks. […]
Whatever CNN says, opposing the Islamic supremacist victory mosque at Ground Zero is not a hate crime.
Anoop Prasad, a northern California resident who works for the Asian Law Caucus, said he’s known many people who have been visited in recent years by FBI agents, claiming that such treatment sows widespread distrust against authorities among Muslims and others.
“In my community, people are very afraid – that’s the reality,” he said.
You’d think non-Muslims would be afraid. There was Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Nidal Hasan, the successful Fort Hood jihad mass-murderer; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; or so many other jihad murderers and would-be murderers in America. Because of these Muslims and others like them, many non-Muslims are very afraid — that’s the reality.
NY POST She was a 3-year-old golden-haired beauty when she got the call to respond to her first disaster. Now, stiffer, slower and a bit gray, 13-year-old Bretagne is one of just a handful of World Trade Center rescue dogs still alive.
“We arrived on 9/12 and started working right away,” said Bretagne’s handler, Denise Corliss, a search-and-rescue volunteer with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Bretagne had spent more than a year learning how to find survivors in concrete rubble, but her Cypress, Texas, training site was nothing like Ground Zero.
She clambered up ladders to get on top of the huge debris piles, padded across broken glass and twisted steel beams, wiggled into small spaces and crawled into dark holes, all the while sniffing through mounds of pulverized concrete searching for clues that would lead her to survivors. Like all the rescue dogs, she worked without a leash or a collar.
The dogs also didn’t wear protective booties, despite the crushed glass everywhere — they needed their claws for traction. Every night, she was given a decontamination bath. Her eyes, ears and mouth were rinsed out, and her abraded paw pads gently cleaned.
“It was her first mission, but she worked it like a pro. She didn’t get cut up or fall or get hurt,” said Corliss. But Bretagne had a couple of near misses. One day, sniffing along an elevated steel beam, she lost her footing.
“It was real wet because the fires were still smoldering and the water spray was everywhere,” Corliss recalled. “She just kind of slipped, but she used her paws to pull herself back up and kept on going. That was the only time I was a little unsettled.”
Bretagne was also a magnet for distraught firefighters searching the site for fallen comrades.
“A lot of times, firefighters would come by and pet her, talk to her and tell her stories,” said Corliss. One firefighter bonded so closely with Bretagne that he recognized her years later at a 9/11 memorial.
The gregarious golden retriever has seen several national disasters since 9/11 — she responded to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, going into flooded areas to find those unable to evacuate. She’s retired now, but has a hard time accepting it, said Corliss.
When Corliss heads out with her new search dog, Aid’n, Bretagne always wants to go along. “I bring her to the training site sometimes and let her run a few drills — she’s still got it,” said the proud handler.
Like Bretagne, the majority of 100 or so FEMA dogs sent to Ground Zero stayed only about 10 days.
Thirty-three NYPD K-9 dogs took over recovery operations — sniffing the rubble for remains — for eight months. All of those dogs have since died. The last one, Charlie, a longtime K-9 unit member, passed in January, just a few months shy of his 13th birthday.
All told, about 300 dogs contributed to the rescue and long-term recovery effort at Ground Zero, said Roy Gross, a Suffolk County SPCA agent who ran the mobile hospital that cared for the animals.
“Besides the FEMA and NYPD dogs, you had therapy dogs, brought in to help the rescue searchers, and dozens of volunteers who showed up at the site with their dogs, too,” said Gross.
A decade later, the vast majority of all the 9/11 dogs are gone, according to the book “Dog Heroes of 9/11,” which tracks the canines who worked at Ground Zero and the Pentagon. Only about 14 of the original FEMA dogs are still alive — including Kaiser, 12, a German shepherd from Indianapolis, and Tuff, 12, from Ashland, Mo.
Kaiser was bused to Ground Zero with his handler, Tony Zintsmaster, and arrived late at night on 9/11. He was immediately assigned to the 12-hour night shift.
As he climbed down from the pile on the morning of his second day, he badly sliced his right front carpal pad, probably on a sharp piece of steel, said Zintsmaster.
“There was no vet there yet, this was early on the 13th, so we found a medical-team doctor who stitched him up. Later, some vets arrived, and we got him bandaged and wrapped, and he was back to work that night.”
The smoky, smoldering pile was especially difficult to navigate after dark, but Kaiser relished the challenge. In the daytime, the dog would de-stress with a visit to the free massage and acupuncture table set up for first responders by the School of Oriental Medicine. Kaiser particularly liked getting acupuncture, said Zintsmaster.
Off the pile, his ebullient personality was a soothing balm to grieving responders. Early one morning, afirefighter walked up to Kaiser, knelt down and hugged him for a long time, in silence. Then he stood up and walked away, said Zintsmaster. Another time, a group of four firefighters decided the hot and thirsty German shepherd needed a drink.
“So one firefighter cups his hands together and two others are trying to pour water into his hands so Kaiser can lap it up, and meanwhile, the other one’s saying that Kaiser’s dirty, so that firefighter starts cleaning and rubbing his back and his muzzle. Kaiser’s real social, so he loved the attention and it was OK — it was what [the firefighters] needed,” said Zintsmaster.
Kaiser, a “live-find” dog, never gave the alert to indicate he had located a survivor during his 10 days at Ground Zero. But several times, he expressed interest in a scent he’d picked up.
“His training was good. He didn’t alert, which meant whatever he smelled wasn’t alive, but he reacted enough so that I’d know to bring over a cadaver dog,” his trainer said. “It’s always hard when you don’t find survivors.”
The hardworking German shepherd, who will be 13 in October, just retired last year. He’s in good shape, but no longer has the endurance for fieldwork, Zintsmaster said.
Some of the 9/11 rescue dogs have been incredibly long-lived. Tara, from Ipswich, Mass., got to Ground Zero the night of the disaster and stayed eight days. She was one of the oldest survivors, until she died last year at age 16.
WASHINGTON — The FBI and Homeland Security have issued a nationwide warning about al-Qaida threats to small airplanes, just days before the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
There is no specific or credible terrorist threat for the 10-year anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, authorities said. But they have stepped up national security as a precaution.
Al-Qaida was considering ways to attack airplanes, as recently as earlier this year, according to a five-page law enforcement bulletin issued Friday.
The alert, issued ahead of the summer’s last busy travel weekend, said terrorists have considered renting private planes and loading them with explosives.
“Al-Qaida and its affiliates have maintained an interest in obtaining aviation training, particularly on small aircraft, and in recruiting Western individuals for training in Europe or the United States, although we do not have current, credible information or intelligence of an imminent attack being planned,” according to the bulletin, which The Associated Press obtained.
The bulletin also says al-Qaida would like to use sympathetic Westerners to get flight training, then get them to become flight instructors.
Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, described the bulletin as routine.
“We shared this information with our partners to highlight the need for continued awareness and vigilance,” he said.
Aviation security is much tighter than it was a decade ago, but al-Qaida remains keenly interested in launching attacks on airplanes, believing large attacks with high body counts are more likely to grab headlines.
Threats to small airplanes are nothing new. After the 2001 attacks, the government grounded thousands of crop dusters amid fears the planes could be used in an attack.
In 2002, U.S. officials said they uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a small plane into a U.S. warship in the Gulf. And in 2003, U.S. officials uncovered an al-Qaida plot to crash an explosives-laden small aircraft into the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan.
A Libyan father killed his three daughters, in an attempt to rid the family of the shame after pro-Gaddafi soldiers raped them. Soldiers raped the sisters aged 15, 17, and 18, in the town of Tomina.
SMH (H/T Alastair) When they returned home, their father slit their throats in what the rights group said was most likely an honour killing.
The Gaddafi regime used civilians as human shields and placed children on tanks to deter NATO air strikes, the organisation said. It also found evidence of a pattern of murders, rapes ”disappearances” and other war crimes during an investigation in the city of Misrata in June.
”Four eyewitnesses reported that troops forcibly detained 107 civilians and used them as human shields to guard military munitions from NATO attacks south of Misrata,” the report said. The group also said a witness reported that a primary school in the city had been turned into a detention site where Gaddafi troops” raped women and girls as young as 14 years old”.
Apparently doing a website like this will soon be a crime if our Muslim-in-Chief and the Organization of Islamic States get their way. And you deniers out there still don’t believe Obama is a Muslim? HAH!
National Review (H/T Annie) An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.
The Obama regime is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.
Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.
But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.
Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.
On July 15, a few days after the Norway massacre, Secretary of State Hijab Hillary Clinton co-chaired an OIC session in Istanbul on religious intolerance. It was there that she announced the initiative, inviting the OIC member-states’ foreign ministers and representatives to the inaugural meeting of the effort that the U.S. government would host this fall in Washington. She envisions it as the first in a series of meetings to decide how best to implement Resolution 16/18.
In making the announcement, Clinton was firm in asserting that the U.S. does not want to see speech restrictions: (CRAP) “The resolution calls upon states to ‘counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate . . . but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.’”(But who decides what incitement is?)
With the United States providing this new world stage for presenting grievances of “Islamophobia” against the West, the OIC rallied around the initiative as the propaganda windfall that it is. It promptly reasserted its demands for global blasphemy laws, once again sounding the call of its failed U.N. campaign for international laws against the so-called defamation of Islam. It has made plain its aim to use the upcoming conference to further pressure Western governments to regulate speech on behalf of Islam.
The OIC’s understanding of the upcoming meetings is that they will “aim at developing a legal basis for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s resolution which [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”(No, ONLY Islam)
In an August 17 op-ed on the initiative, OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was enthusiastic. He expressed concern that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant and anti-multiculturalism policies,” and that “their views are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression.” This parallels the old Soviet-bloc attack on the First Amendment as an official sanctioning of racism.
Citing a familiar litany of examples — “the publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings” — Ihsanoglu was emphatic that “no one has the right to insult another for their beliefs or to incite hatred and prejudice” and that “freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility.”
In a separate OIC news report, Ihsanoglu raised the stakes further. He warned against the “institutionalization of the phenomenon of Islamophobia through the involvement of the European extreme right in government institutions and political action.”
Amb. Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative on behalf of the OIC to the HRC, commented regarding the initiative that the OIC would not compromise on “anything against the Quran, anything against the Prophet and anything against the Muslim community in terms of discrimination.”
As for reciprocity — for example, reforming the Saudi national curriculum that continues to teach students to “kill” Jews, “fight” polytheists, view Christians as “enemies,” and spread Islam through “jihad” — there probably won’t be any.
This initiative is shaping up to be one-sided. As Akram said, “The Resolution 16/18 was driven more by the kind of discrimination in Europe and the West in general against Muslims.” He added: “I don’t think any country in the Muslim world is deliberately discriminating against minorities.” Ihsanoglu took a similar tack, writing that “the Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. (HAH!) It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, color, or faith.” In his op-ed, Ihsanoglu also declared that “the OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression.” (Everything about Islam is about limiting freedoms)
Having won the latest round in the ideological contest for individual rights and freedoms at the United Nations this past March, the Obama regime is now gratuitously establishing a new “transnational” forum to essentially re-litigate the matter with a body that is openly hostile to such freedoms.This forum’s agenda is to be structured so that freedom of expression will be put on trial and inevitably condemned by most forum participants as, itself, a human-rights violation. In raising OIC expectations that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes” will be dealt with under soon-to-be-drafted “implementation” procedures, the administration is riding a tiger.
In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” There are a number of problems with this statement: One is that it encourages the diplomatic folly that is this conference.
And that’s just the known funding for one pro-sharia group trying to silence Americans. It doesn’t include the billions given by Saudi’s and others to Hamas-linked CAIR, Harvard, Georgetown, Yale, and others.
However, CAP alone receives $25 million per annum, so in just two years it is in receipt of far more money than all of the “Islamophobic” groups it collectively names and condemns have made in a decade. As a 501 (3)(c) organization, CAP’s existence seems to be entirely connected to attempting to swing elections in the Democrat Party’s favor, which would appear to be a contravention of IRS guidelines.
…
The CAP report co-authored and promoted by Wajahat Ali in the Guardian is entitled “FEAR Inc., The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.”
CAP’s Wajahat Ali on Al Jazeera
Courtesy of Media Matters – another well-funded leftist, anti-American group – via Saudi-influenced Fox, we learn that the Center for American “Progress” may actually rake in $38 Million annually. That’s almost as much as their Islamophic dream team reportedly garnered, $42M, in more than a decade. Where does CAP’s progressive funding come from? Daniel Greenfield reminds us:
The Center for American Progress’ campaign for donor transparency, however, stops at its own doors. While its own budget is many times that of the organizations that its report targets — the CAP’s policy is to keep the identities of its own donors secret.
Holy Land Foundation, an unindicted criminal foundation started by the Muslim Brotherhood
NEW ORLEANS – A federal judge abused his discretion in admitting key evidence and testimony used to prove that zakat (charity) committees inside the West Bank funded by an American Muslim group were Hamas-controlled, defense attorneys argued Thursday before a three-judge appellate panel.
In November 2008, five former Holy Land Foundation (HLF) officials were convicted on 108 counts of illegally routing money to Hamas through those committees. HLF had been one of the nation’s largest Muslim charities.
In their briefs filed last October, the five defendants asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the convictions. Anonymous testimony by Israeli intelligence and military witnesses, and evidence seized from Palestinian Authority offices during an Israeli raid, are among the things the presiding judge allowed jurors to hear in error, the defendants argue in their appeals.
During Thursday’s hearing, defense attorney John D. Cline, who represents former HLF Chairman Ghassan Elashi, called the government’s case a “textbook on evidentiary error.”
One Israeli witness, identified only as “Avi,” was key to the government’s case. Avi linked together documents to show that the committees which HLF sent money to were funding Hamas.
“Avi was a critical, critical witness in this case,” Cline said. Avi linked together a volume of government documents and created an easy-to-understand narrative for the jury. “He wove that all together in a nice, neat package.”
The government’s refusal to identify Avi’s true identity hindered the defense attorneys’ ability to conduct a background investigation on the witness, Cline said. But Justice Department attorney Joseph Palmer said the Israeli witnesses’ lives could have been endangered if their identities had been disclosed in public. The defense was still able to place “Avi” in a proper context before the jury.
Avi’s cross examination “was rigorous and it was effective,” Palmer said. He pointed to a separate case upheld by the 4th Circuit, in which a police officer from El Salvador was allowed to testify as an expert on a gang called MS-13, without disclosing his identity.
Cline also criticized the court for allowing prosecutors to use Avi instead of another witness identified in a government document – retired Israeli military officer Jonathan Fighel – who could have covered the same subject as Avi.
“The government, with the district court’s blessing, made a tactical choice,” said Cline.
Cline and his colleagues also challenged the credibility of government exhibits found in the West Bank. But Appellate Judge Emilio M. Garza countered that those documents taken from Palestinian Authority (PA) offices “have a certain amount of credence.”
In his remarks during oral argument, Judge Garza noted that the documents were found at the PA headquarters in Ramallah, which was then controlled by Hamas rival Fatah. It was in Fatah’s interest to have accurate information on Hamas support. “Fatah found these documents important,” he said. “The possession of these documents [by the PA] is in and of itself important.”
Cline singled out one exhibit for its illegible signature. He also said that it had no date or letterhead, making its reliability unclear. Cline argued that under rules of evidence, the government had a “heavy burden” to show why the exhibit is reliable and relevant. Judge Carolyn Dineen King called that argument “powerful.”
The defense also took issue with the use of documents found in the homes of Hamas activists Ismail Elbarasse and Abdelhaleem Al-Ashqar. These documents are hearsay, argued defense attorneys, and date back to a time period before Hamas’ designation as a foreign terrorist organization.
One exhibit introduced during the trial was a handwritten document addressed to defendant Shukri Abu Baker, who was HLF’s chief executive. In rebuttal, Cline said that the document was simply addressed to “Shukri.”
“It could have said ‘Dear John,’ but that doesn’t mean it was written to me,” said Cline.
That evidence from the contested documents can be corroborated with other exhibits in the case, Palmer countered, such as the testimony of convicted Hamas supporter Mohamed Shorbagi, phone records showing the defendants’ personal relationships with Hamas leaders, and transcripts and documents from a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of the Palestine Committee, a U.S.-based Hamas support network.
Additionally, he argued, there is “circumstantial evidence” inside those Elbarasse and Ashqar documents themselves, such as organizational charts.
All five HLF defendants had counsel at trial. The HLF charity itself did not, however, but attorney Ranjana Natarajan filed an appeal on the charity’s behalf.
Prosecutors say that she is unable to represent the charity before the court and the appeal should be dismissed.
During the 2007 trial, Shukri Abu Baker’s attorneys dropped HLF as a client, leaving it unrepresented. That proceeding ended in a mistrial when jurors deadlocked on most counts. U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis, who presided over the 2008 trial, was never informed that HLF was not represented by any of the defense lawyers at the second trial.
You can listen to the arguments here. A decision from the appellate court is expected later this year.
This blog-site is not the official blog-site of ACT! for America,
Inc. This blog-site is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this blog-site, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents.
Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that operates this site and is named on this site, are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this site.
WindsorCOAct!forAmerica 