Sunday, April 24, 2011

Does ultimatum mean Iran will invade Saudi Arabia? Here comes the 12th Imam

In what could produce a Muslim vs. Muslim military confrontation in the powderkeg that is the Middle East, Shi'a Iran is considering handing Sunni Saudi Arabia an ultimatum over sending its troops to crack down on the Shi'a majority in nearby Bahrain – a development that would be tantamount to armed conflict between the two bastions of Islam.

Iranian officials even have gone so far as to suggest blocking the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to stop ships carrying military supplies to Bahrain from the Saudi kingdom which, along with the United Arab Emirates, sent troops there at the request of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.

Al-Khalifa had requested the troops to put down an increase in violence by Shi'a protesters, who make up some 70 percent of the Bahraini population. Both countries sent in some 1,000 troops each along with military equipment provided to them by the United States over time under military assistance programs.

The Bahraini regime and the Saudis blame Iran for instigating the violent demonstrations.

In what now could be a significant escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Mohsen Rezael, secretary of Iran's Expediency Council, called for an "ultimatum" to be given to the Saudis in an effort to get them to withdraw their forces from Bahrain.

In making his threat, Rezael said that Iran and Iraq should give deliver the warning.

"Iran and Iraq should give Saudi Arabia an ultimatum to withdraw its forces from Bahrain," Rezael said. "Otherwise, both countries can probe the Saudi-bound weapons in the Strait of Hormuz and prevent the dispatch of equipment for suppression of Bahrain's people to that country."

Just as Rezael has invoked Iraq in Iran's dispute with Saudi Arabia, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi is to pay a visit to Baghdad shortly with a high-ranking delegation of military and defense officials.

As a further warning to Saudi Arabia, Supreme Leader's Adviser for Military Affairs Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi said Riyadh's military intervention in Bahrain also could be a pretext to foreign invasion of Saudi Arabia should popular protests increase in the kingdom.

The Saudi regime is very concerned with increasing unrest in its Eastern province where the population primarily is Shi'a. There already have been a number of demonstrations there that were put down quickly by Saudi police forces.

That region also is where most of the kingdom's oil production takes place.

"The presence and attitude of Saudi Arabia in Bahrain sets an incorrect precedence for similar future events," Safavi warned, "and Saudi Arabia should consider this fact that one day the very same event may recur in Saudi Arabia itself and Saudi Arabia may come under invasion for the very same excuse."

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Islam is very peacefull.. oppression and slaughter of Christians by Muslim hordes in Nigeria , Indonesia , Philippines and Egypt

"Charred bodies line road to Nigeria town after riots sweep region after presidential vote," from the Associated Press hat tip Robert

Against the ongoing oppression and slaughter of Christians by Muslim hordes in Nigeria (and Indonesia and the Philippines and Egypt and.....)

Riots break out in north as Jonathan landslide looms (hat tip Armaros)

Riots erupted across the mainly Muslim north of Nigeria on Monday as President Goodluck Jonathan looked set for a landslide win in a weekend poll, which observers have described as the fairest in decades.

REUTERS - Violent protests erupted across Nigeria's largely Muslim north on Monday as youths angered at President Goodluck Jonathan's election victory torched churches and homes and set up burning barricades.
The vote count showed Jonathan, from the southern oil-producing Niger Delta, had beaten Muhammadu Buhari, a former military ruler from the north, in the first round.

Observers have called the poll the fairest in decades in Africa's most populous nation but Buhari's supporters accuse the ruling party of rigging. Results show how politically polarised the country is, with Buhari sweeping states in the Muslim north and Jonathan winning the largely Christian south.

Authorities in the northern state of Kaduna imposed a 24-hour curfew after protesters set fire to the residence of Vice President Namadi Sambo in the town of Zaria and forced their way into the central prison, releasing inmates.

The body of a small boy shot in the chest by a stray bullet was brought to a police station, a witness said.

"They have destroyed our cars and our houses. I had to run for my life and I am now in my neighbour's house," said Dora Ogbebor, a resident of Zaria whose origins are in the south.

Plumes of smoke rose into the air in parts of the state capital as protesters set fire to barricades of tyres. Security forces fired in the air and used teargas to disperse groups of youths shouting "We want Buhari, we want Buhari".

A spokesman for Buhari said he had not yet made any statement on the disturbances.

Your Dog Could Be Next... The ATF will be knocking at your door for Scooby Doo and your shot gun

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a Study on the Importability of Certain Shotguns, which proposes that “military shotguns, or shotguns with common military features that are unsuitable for traditional shotgun sports” be prohibited from importation. This would apply to all shotguns—not just semi-automatics. As in previous “working group” studies on rifles, the study fails to give proper credit to the widespread use of these guns in newer shooting sports, or to their adaptability to hunting.

The study underscores the need for Congress to change the firearm importation law. That law requires the Attorney General to approve the importation of any firearm “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.” This “sporting purposes” test was imposed by the Gun Control Act in 1968, a time when the right to self-defense with a firearm was not as widely respected by the courts as it is today.

Clearly, the main reason to change the law is that the Second Amendment—as the Supreme Court said in District of Columbia v. Heller—protects our right to keep and bear arms for defense, not for sports. In its 2008 Heller decision, the court observed that “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” and ruled that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” particularly within the home, where “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.” The court also dismissed the notion that the amendment doesn’t protect modern arms, saying “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.”

Another reason to change the law is to end the BATFE’s 22-year history of misinterpreting it. In 1989, the bureau banned the importation of semi-automatic rifles, claiming they were not used for “organized marksmanship competition.” (In fact, the banned guns were of the type most commonly used by competitors in the most popular marksmanship competitions in the United States—the National Matches, and the hundreds of local, state and regional competitions that precede the national events each year.) In 1998, BATFE expanded the ban, absurdly claiming that semi-automatic rifles’ “suitability for this activity [marksmanship competition] is limited.” At the time, a Clinton White House official said “we’re taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.”

Now, BATFE is bending the law one more time. As this issue develops, the NRA will be looking at every legislative and legal option to bring our firearms import laws back in line with the Constitution.

NRA members and other concerned gun owners can submit comments on the study until May 1, 2011. Comments may be submitted by e-mail to or by fax to (202)648-9601. Faxed comments may not exceed five pages. All comments must include name and mailing address.

Monday, April 18, 2011

It's over in Egypt, Jews are in the cross hair..Radial Islamist groups gaining stranglehold in Egypt

The rapid spread of Muslim political parties ahead of September's parliamentary elections has strengthened fears that Egyptian democracy will be dominated by radical Islamic movements.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamic movement and the founder of Hamas, has set up a network of political parties around the country that eclipse the following of the middle class activists that overthrew the regime. On the extreme fringe of the Brotherhood, Islamic groups linked to al-Qeada are organising from the mosques to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the dictatorship.

The military-led government already faces accusations that it is bowing to the surge in support for the Muslim movements, something that David Cameron warned of in February when he said Egyptian democracy would be strongly Islamic.

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, warned on Sunday that the direction of Egyptian politics was anti-Israeli. He told diplomats last week that Egyptian officials – including Nabil al-Arabi, the foreign minister – were pandering to political militants by branding Israel as the "enemy".

"I am very concerned over some of the voices we've been hearing from Egypt recently," Mr Netanyahu said. "I'm especially concerned over the current Egyptian foreign minster's statements."

An Egyptian court on Saturday disbanded the National Democratic Party, which won 80 per cent of seats in parliament in December's rigged election. Hosni Mubarak, the ousted president, and his protégés are under arrest and threatened by prison.

Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader, last week predicted the group's candidates would win 75 per cent of the seats it contested.

Fundamentalist factions have also emerged as parties. Gamaa al-Islamiya, an al-Qaeda linked group that promotes Salafist traditions has used its mosques as a political base for the first time since the 1970s.

A scare campaign that a No vote in last months referendum would eliminate Islamic law from the Egyptian constitution ensured a 77 per cent Yes result.

But the April 6th movement that spearheaded protests has no clear plan for party politics. Diplomats have warned the demonstrators are not well prepared for elections.

"The leadership of the protests was so focused on the street-by-street detail of the revolution, they have no clue what to do in a national election," said a US official involved in the demonstrations. "Now at dinner the protesters can tell me every Cairo street that was important in the revolution but not how they will take power in Egypt."

A clean-up campaign, including the laying of fresh grass on the roundabout, has transformed Tahrir Square, the focal point of protests. Last Friday was the first holiday since the outbreak of the uprising that was protest-free at the square. Only the daily gathering of hundreds to perform Islamic prayer ceremonies is a reminder of the protests that topped Mr Mubarak.

Mahsud Arishie, a teacher visiting the square, said Egypt would be a different country in the wake of the uprising. "Muslims have their own space now where there is no pressure from the government, only a direct connection to the Lord in the sky," he said as he made his way to the prayers. "That does not mean our country will be hostile to the West but it does mean we will do what we want."

Although the leading contenders for Egypts presidency are independents, many have begun wooing the Muslim blocs. Front-runner Amr Moussa, the Arab League president, has conceded that its inevitable that Islamic factions will be the bedrock of the political system.

As hardliners compete for street power, Egypt's Christians – who make up 10 per cent of the population – are emigrating in growing numbers.

Al-Masry al-Youm, an Egyptian newspaper, reported last week that the Canadian embassy had been swamped by visa requests from Coptic Christians.

Others are fighting back. Naquib Swiris, a Copt who is one of Egypt's richest men, has formed the Free Egyptians Party as a rallying point for a liberal democracy.
X Share & bookmark
Delicious Facebook Google Messenger Reddit Twitter
Digg Fark LinkedIn Google Buzz StumbleUpon Y! Buzz
What are these?

It's over In the EU.. France says “no” to documented migrants

One of the principles of the EU is that if a person has the right to live in one EU country, they can travel in any EU country without a visa or special permission. Countries still have some rights to limit people from other countries becoming permanent residents, but getting past the border is 90% of becoming an effective resident.

So Italy is just a few miles from Tunisia. Italy is being flooded by refugees from “free” Tunisia. Tunisia is a former French colony (from 1881 to the 1950s) so while Tunisians are 98% Arabic speaking Muslims, most also speak French.

So Italy has been organizing special trains for Tunisians wanting to go to France. France doesn’t want them in their country, but once Italy has accepted them as refugees, France has no choice in the matter.

You may remember it was France that rejected the EU Constitution – leaving the EU with a common currency and economic destiny, but with countries still having separate national identities.

Mr Phelps, if you accept this mission, this tape will self destruct in 10 seconds.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

He left on a hunting trip? Was he hunting her..? Why was she running?? Who was she running from.. Something is not right!

Oh the husband is right! Something is very wrong here, and she would have never left alone without help! He states he would never let her be seen without her head scarf,so now it's ok , because he is hoping someone will recognize his wife and call him ..Now lets think about that statement for a minute...He is already in the , she's running from Islam mode.. He assumes she already has taken it off ... Intersting.... I wonder where and when this picture with out the head dress was taken and by whom and for what???

Missing Georgia woman Wazineh Suleiman, the mother of five young children who disappeared nearly a week ago, is safe and has asked police to not tell her husband where she is hiding.

"The case of Wazineh Suleiman is closed. She is in a safe location. She is alive, she is well. She does not wish at this time to let anyone know where she is," Bartow County Sheriff Clark Millsap said at a press conference.

Sources told ABC News that Wazineh Suleiman is afraid of her husband and police have agreed to not tell the husband, Abed Suleiman, her location.

Millsap said that no criminal charges will be filed in the case.

The sheriff declined to answer questions, but said, "Anything that's going on in her residence is her business and her husband's business. Why she left is her business, not ours. Our main concern was to make sure she is safe,"

Wazineh Suleiman's husband, Abed, and her parents briefly appeared at the press conference, but left before it started. They merely said that she was safe.

Abed Suleiman later said as he returned home that he would talk to the press after he is reunited with his wife. The woman's mother said she had not yet spoken with her daughter.

Abed Suleiman had said that his wife left Friday night to rent a movie from Walmart and never returned. Surveillance video showed that Wazineh Suleiman never entered the Walmart. Abed Suleiman had just returned from a canceled hunting trip in Kentucky with his friend Jason Seritt when he found his wife had disappeared.

Before Wazineh Suleiman surfaced, her husband, Abed Suleiman, was questioned for three hours Wednesday night by police.

"I was a suspect ... and they wanted to totally rule me out. They kind of already did that. They just wanted to iron out all the wrinkles and they did that," Abed Suleiman told ABC Affiliate WSBTV as he left the sheriff's office Wednesday night.

Police received a phone call from a sheriff in another part of the state around midnight alerting them that Wazineh Suleiman was safe.

Wazineh Suleiman's friend contacted her husband to let him know that she was alive and safe, police said. The identity of that friend has not been revealed.

Abed Suleiman's hunting buddy, Jason Seritt, said that Wazineh Suleiman owes everyone an apology.

"She put us through all this hell and everybody pointing fingers and saying we did this and we did that," Seritt said.

He said that he never saw the couple argue in the three years he's known them.

"They seemed happy every time I was around them," Seritt said. "He's a real good guy. He'd give anybody the shirt off their back. He'd give her any and everything that she wanted."

Abed and Wazineh Suleiman exchanged heated text messages following her disappearance. In the text messages, Wazineh Suleiman cursed at her husband and threatened to throw the phone out the window, Abed Suleiman said. "There were two text messages where there was profanity used. We are very religious, very religious...Wazineh would never, ever, to me like that or text me like that. She never has and I was saying something is not right," Abed Suleiman said Wednesday.

There is no record of domestic violence between the couple.

Abed Suleiman told ABC News Wednesday that he treated his wife like a queen.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Mexican Gunmen Tap Bus Passengers In Mass Killing by The Associated Press

he buses crawled to a halt to obey roadblocks manned by armed men, who boarded like military or police doing an inspection. One by one, they tapped certain passengers, all men, mostly young, to get off: "You. You. You."

Relatives and travel companions watched in horror as the buses pulled away without them, Tamaulipas officials quoted surviving bus passengers as saying. Less than two weeks later, security forces following reports of abducted passengers in violent Tamaulipas state bordering Texas stumbled on a collection of pits holding a total of 59 bodies.

Federal security spokesman Alejandro Poire announced Thursday that a total of 14 suspects linked to the killing had been arrested between Friday and Wednesday. Those arrests apparently led authorities to the pits.

Poire said the suspects belonged to a "criminal cell," but did not specify which gang or cartel they may have belonged to. He said the government is now placing a special emphasis on dismembering "the most violent gangs," but did not specify who they were.

The grisly discovery this week came in virtually the same spot near the town of San Fernando where 72 migrants were murdered in August and on the same day several thousand people across Mexico took to the streets to say they were fed up with the violence. The United States' top drug enforcer said in Mexico a day earlier that the violence means authorities are winning.

By Thursday, investigators had identified a few victims of the latest massacre as Mexicans, not transnational migrants trying to reach the U.S. They did not say if they were connected to 12 official missing-person reports from the buses. Authorities interviewing witnesses calculated that from 65 to 82 people went missing, Tamaulipas state Interior Secretary Morelos Canseco said.

They were kidnapped on one of Mexico's most dangerous stretches of highway that runs along Mexico's Gulf coast to the border with Texas, an area where federal authorities launched a major offensive in November seeking to regain control of territory from two warring drug gangs, the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas.

Despite an estimated 1,000 soldiers in Tamaulipas, criminals have become so brazen they apparently kidnapped dozens of passengers in a stretch of open desert that locals say lay between two military checkpoints. The Mexican military would not comment on the location of roadblocks for security reasons.

Authorities speculate the men pulled off the buses fell victim to ever more brutal recruiting efforts to replenish cartel ranks. But one local politician, who didn't want to be identified for safety reasons, said there were rumors that the Gulf Cartel was sending buses of people to fight the Zetas, who control that stretch of road and who began boarding buses in search of their rivals.

The Zetas are blamed for the migrant killings last August as well as the death of U.S. Immigration and Customs Agent Jaime Zapata in neighboring San Luis Potosi state.

Whether they are innocents caught up in the violence, mirgrants or drug traffickers executed by rivals, there are many more missing in San Fernando, the politician said, adding, "if they keep looking they'll find more and more mass graves."

More than four years and tens of thousands of troops into Mexico's crackdown on drug trafficking, authorities say they have the cartels encircled. More than 34,600 people have died in drug violence. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele Leonhart told an international drug conference in Mexico's resort city of Cancun this week that the violence is an unfortunate symptom of success.

In addition to the migrant massacre, Tamaulipas has been the scene of all-out drug battles that have nearly emptied border towns and led to the creation of Mexico's first displacement camp for victims of drug violence. A gubernatorial candidate was assassinated last year and a U.S. missionary was murdered in January as her husband tried to evade an illegal road block on the same road where the passengers went missing.

Cartels such as the Zetas, started by elite military deserters, are turning more and more to common criminals for their assassins, Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna said at the drug conference this week.

Now their recruits may even include innocents who have never handled a gun. Survivors of the August massacre said the 72 illegal migrants from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador and Brazil were killed for refusing to work for the Zetas.

Tamaulipas state investigators and federal authorities found the pits at the site about 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of the border at Brownsville, Texas, to investigate reports that gunmen had begun stopping buses and pulling off passengers.

The first report came March 25 from a woman in the border city of Matamoros whose husband failed to arrive from San Luis Potosi, Canseco said. There were reports of at least two other buses stopped since then, he added.

State and federal investigators and soldiers conducted the raid, finding a series of eight burial pits had been found, one of which contained 43 bodies and the others 16 corpses.

Many of the victims found in the pits appeared to have died 10 to 15 days ago, dates that would roughly match the bus abductions, Canseco said.

The wave of drug-related killings drew thousands of protesters into the streets of Mexico's capital and several other cities Wednesday in marches against violence.

Many of the protesters said the government offensive has stirred up the violence.

The marches were spurred in part by the March 28 killing of Juan Francisco Sicilia, the son of Mexican poet Javier Sicilia, and six other people in Cuernavaca outside Mexico City.

As of Thursday, the elder Sicilia had taken up camp outside the governor's office in central Cuernavaca, saying he would give Gov. Marco Adame and President Felipe Calderon a week to produce those responsible for his son's death before calling for Adame's resignation and a national march to end an "absurd war."

"We are putting pressure on the government, because this can't go on," Sicilia said. "It seems that we are like animals that can be murdered with impunity."

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Obama’s Own Adviser: This Spending Is 'Cancer' That Will Destroy America

The threat of a government shutdown loomed Tuesday as a meeting involving President Barack Obama and congressional leaders fell apart without agreement and the two sides appeared to be further apart than ever.

The potential shutdown comes on the heels of a Treasury Department report showing the country is spending at an alarming rate, and Erskine Bowles, the co-chairman of Obama’s budget committee, describing the nation’s deficit as a “cancer” that could “destroy this country” if nothing is done.

After Tuesday’s meeting with Obama, House Speaker John Boehner declared that no deal had been reached. He also warned House Republicans “will not be put in a box” by being forced to accept a deal that they do not believe is right for the American people.

With Republicans up against their self-imposed, 72-hour advance notice requirement before they will vote on any legislation, the time for a compromise is running short. The current resolution to fund government operations ends Friday.

Erskine Bowles
Bowles recently told the Senate Budget Committee that he is “really concerned” the nation’s grave fiscal woes are being ignored. One sign of the growing deficit problem: The Treasury Department reported that, in March, the federal government spent eight times the amount of tax revenue it collected.

“This debt and these deficits that we are incurring on an annual basis are like a cancer and they are truly going to destroy this country from within unless we have the common sense to do something about it,” Bowles warned.

Sources say the latest impasse stems from Democrat’s demands that their cuts would be strictly temporary.

On Monday night, House Republicans introduced a third stopgap funding bill that would kick the funding can one more week down the road in return for another $12 billion in cuts. But the White House and Democrats indicated Tuesday that they have no interest in that proposal.

Analysts say President Obama’s meeting Tuesday with top Republicans appears partially designed to head off the growing impression that he has simply voted “present” as far as his leadership on resolving the budget impasse.

White House press spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday pushed back against what he called a “great misperception” that Obama has been passive in response to the budget crisis. He told reporters that Obama has been “engaged daily” on the issue with Vice President Joe Biden and budget director Jack Lew.

Federal agencies, meanwhile, are continuing their planning in case a shutdown occurs. Primarily, this involves distinguishing between employees who would be furloughed and those deemed essential to vital government operations.

That after OMB deputy director Jeffrey Zients encouraged agency chiefs to update their contingency plans should an interruption of federal operations occur.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Tuesday, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that “the most important thing” right now is avoiding a federal shutdown.

“I know it’s probably counterintuitive, but you don’t save money by shutting down the government because there are certain contractual obligations that have to be met regardless, Grassley tells Newsmax.

“But I can assure you that I think that saving the $100 billion, that has been the goal of the last election, and now the goal of Republicans in the Congress because that was a promise that was made, I think that we want the voters to know that we get the message from that election. And if there isn’t anything they remember that we said, we get it,” Grassley adds.

By some estimates, the last government shutdown in 1995 actually cost the federal government $1.5 billion. Visa and passport applications would go unprocessed, parks and monuments could close temporarily, and operations of less essential departments, such as the research functions in the Fish & Wildlife Department, would temporarily cease. No disruption is anticipated in Social Security mailings, however.

In the past 24 hours, it appears the two sides have moved further apart. On Monday evening, Boehner complained the administration is "just not serious" about reducing federal spending, and complained the White House proposals "are full of smoke and mirrors."

This stood in sharp contrast to the administration’s claims late last week that the two sides had agreed on $33 billion in cuts and were close to reaching a deal. Republican leaders have denied that report.

"I look forward to continuing these discussions, but for those discussions to be meaningful, it will require the White House and Senate Democrats to bring a serious proposal to carry out the people’s will of cutting spending," said Boehner on Monday.

And lest anyone think Boehner is bluffing, he ordered House Administration Committee Chairman Dan Lungren to provide instructions to all House members, specifying how the House will function in the event of a shutdown.

Republicans on Tuesday continued to complain that the Democratic-controlled Senate has yet to put forward its own proposals for how to trim federal spending to promote a deal on a continuing resolution to fund federal operations.

“We’re simply waiting for the Democrats,” Louisiana GOP Rep. John Fleming, a member of the tea party caucus, told MSNBC on Tuesday. “They’ve offered absolutely nothing in return, so the ball is in their court.”

While most Republicans join Grassley in urging that both sides find a way to avoid letting the funding lapse for normal government operations, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., continues to push his GOP colleagues to shut down the government if Democrats refuse to budge.

"There’s a lot of talk about . . . whether Republicans win or Democrats win and how it plays politically. I think the American people need to win one,” Pence said Tuesday on MSNBC's Morning Joe program.

"I’ve been out here in Washington for 10 years and I’ve seen this parlor game in Washington, D.C., again. It’s always, 'Don’t cut him, don’t cut me, cut the program behind the tree.'

"This is not 1995," Pence said."The American people know that we have to take a decisive step to change the fiscal direction of our national government. Republicans said we would find $100 billion in savings off the president’s budget in this year. That would take $61 billion in cuts.

"I think the American people need to win that fight,” he said. "House Republicans I think need to dig in and demand that $61 billion number, he said. "And I think we need to dig in now.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Obama’s Own Adviser: This Spending Is 'Cancer' That Will Destroy America
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

CAIR chief's designs to 'run' U.S. revealed 'Who better than Muslims,' Awad asks, to lead 'Christian-Judeo-Islamic' nation?

2011 WorldNetDaily

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad

The same national Muslim leader who's launched an "education campaign" to quell American fears over Shariah law once gave a full-throated speech to Muslims advocating an Islamic rise to power in America.

In a newly surfaced video of a 2000 speech to the Islamic Society of North America, Council on American-Islamic Relations Executive Director Nihad Awad told his Muslim audience: "Muslims in America are in the best position to show Islam and to show action and to show vision – not only for a Muslim school, how it should be run, but for an entire society, how it should be run. Who better can lead America than Muslims?"

The Justice Department named both ISNA and CAIR unindicted co-conspirators in a criminal scheme to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas suicide bombers and their families.

In the same speech, "Participating in Public Affairs: Strategies for the Year 2000," Awad encouraged Muslim-Americans to be more assertive with U.S. politicians.

"They should be a servant to our issues," he said. "We should be respected."

Get "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," autographed, from WND's Superstore.

Specifically, Awad advised that Muslim-Americans demand politicians include in their national speeches and party platforms that America is also an "Islamic society."

"This is no longer a Christian-Judeo society," Awad maintained. "It is a Christian-Judeo-and-Islamic society."

At the same time, Awad reminded Muslim-Americans that they are still, first and foremost, citizens of the global Islamic nation and should do everything in their power to help their Muslim brothers fighting in Kashmir against Indian Hindus and in the Palestinian territories against Israelis.

He suggested they demand U.S. leaders in Washington cut aid to both Israel and India.

"We belong to the ummah, and we are an extension of the Muslim world," he said. "We should talk about Kashmir, and we should talk about Palestine."

Islamic law in America

CAIR is suing the state of Oklahoma to block a state constitutional measure banning Shariah law, which was approved by more than 70 percent of Oklahoma voters.

In a press release released last November applauding a Clinton-appointed federal judge's decision to temporarily bar certification of the popular law, Awad announced CAIR was launching an "education campaign" to inform Oklahomans they have nothing to fear from Shariah law.

Awad said voters were confused by "misinformation about Islam" promulgated by "Islamophobes."

He added: "CAIR plans an education campaign in Oklahoma to offer state residents accurate and balanced information about Islamic beliefs and practices and about the American Muslim community."

Critics say CAIR's leaders are worried about the passage of state constitutional bans on Shariah law, because they have a secret agenda to institutionalize Shariah law in America.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper told a Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter in 1993, before CAIR was formed.

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad

CAIR's founding chairman, Omar Ahmad, moreover, has flatly argued Shariah law should replace the Constitution.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," he told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Calif., in 1998. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."

FBI Director Robert Mueller recently confirmed in congressional testimony that his agency has cut off ties to Washington-based CAIR, citing terror concerns with its national leaders – including Awad.

"We have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national leadership," Mueller testified.

Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land Foundation terror-finance case put Awad at a Philadelpia meeting of Hamas leaders that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity. Wiretaps also record them stating the need to deceive Americans about their true aims.

The secret meeting, held in the 1990s at a Courtyard by Marriott hotel, was called to order by CAIR founding Chairman Ahmad. Both he and Awad launched CAIR not long after the meeting.

Mueller confirmed the wiretap evidence during a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing.

The Justice Department also designated Ahmad as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial, the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history. A federal jury convicted Holy Land's leaders on all 108 counts.

Ahmad stepped down from CAIR's board of directors shortly after his federal designation.

Among other evidence collected by the FBI, the names of both Ahmad and Awad – who remains at CAIR's helm and regularly appears unopposed on Fox News – appear in a secret phone book alongside key Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk, whom the government says directed and coordinated Hamas terrorist attacks on civilians in Israel. Hamas has also murdered 17 Americans and has been listed as a U.S.-designated terror group since the 1990s.

During the Holy Land trial, U.S. prosecutors alleged that CAIR's ties to Hamas are "ongoing." In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, assistant FBI Director Richard Power suggested both Ahmad and Awad remain under federal scrutiny.

Really..FBI and Clinton Whitehouse had mole inside ABC news during Oklahoma city bombing,Waco,and Ruby ridge??

A once-classified FBI memo reveals that the bureau treated a senior ABC News journalist as a potential confidential informant in the 1990s, pumping the reporter to ascertain the source of a sensational but uncorroborated tip that the network had obtained during its early coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The journalist, whose name is not disclosed in the document labeled “secret,” not only cooperated but provided the identity of a confidential source, according to the FBI memo — a possible breach of journalistic ethics if he or she did not have the source’s permission.

The ABC employee was even assigned a number in the FBI’s informant database, indicating he or she was still being vetted for suitability as a snitch after providing “highly accurate and reliable information in the past” and then revealing information the network had obtained in the hours just after the 1995 terrorist attack by Timothy McVeigh.

The journalist “advised that a source within the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service advised that the Oklahoma City bombing was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who contracted seven (7) former Afghani Freedom Fighters out of Pakistan,” an April 17, 1996 FBI memo states, recounting the then-ABC journalist’s interview with FBI agents a year earlier on the evening of the April 19, 1995 bombing. (The Iraqi connection, of course, never materialized.)

The memo recounts multiple contacts between the FBI and the journalist over a one-year period in 1995-96 but does not name the network insider, instead using the informant number NY290000-SI-DT and a simple description as “a senior official employed by ABC News for over 15 years.”

ABC News told the Center for Public Integrity that it is not certain about the identity of the journalist involved in the 1995-96 episode, but does not believe he or she still works for the network. Spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said the FBI description of its interactions with the reporter raises serious concerns about intrusions on the First Amendment.

“If true, it would certainly be of grave concern to us that the FBI would have created an informant file based on information gleaned from a reporter,” Schneider said. “It certainly would be very troubling for the FBI to recruit a news employee as a confidential source.”

“It can create a perception of collusion between the government and the news organization. It would put journalists everywhere at risk if people believed that journalists are acting as government agents. And it could raise the specter of the government trying to spy on a news organization,” he added.

Former ABC investigative news producer Christopher Isham, now a vice president and Washington bureau chief for CBS News, issued a statement Tuesday evening denying he ever agreed to be treated as an informant after the blog Gawker speculated he was the journalist mentioned in the FBI memo.

“The suggestion that I was an informant for the FBI is outrageous and untrue,” Isham said in a statement released by CBS. “Like every investigative reporter, my job for 25 years has been to check out information and tips from sources. In the heat of the Oklahoma City bombing, it would not be unusual for me or any journalist to run information by a source within the FBI for confirmation or to notify authorities about a pending terrorist attack.

“This is consistent with the policies at every news organization. But at no time did I compromise a confidential source with the FBI or anyone else,” he said. “Mr. Cannistraro was not a confidential source, but rather a colleague - a paid consultant to ABC News who had already spoken to the FBI about information he had received.”

In a separate statement, CBS said the network was reviewing the memo and has its own strict rules for handling source material. But it added it considered the allegations in the memo “a matter between the FBI and ABC News.”

FBI officials declined to identify the reporter, but confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the bureau did in fact treat the reporter as a potential confidential source for a limited period of time as it tried to ascertain the validity of the information suggesting Iraqi involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing.

Bureau officials said it was possible that over the years other reporters and members of other sensitive professions have been treated in FBI files as potential informers — even if those people did not intend to act as bureau sources — but such contacts are governed by strict rules.

“There have been, and at the time of this memo there were, strict rules in place to govern the handling of reporters and people in other sensitive professions as sources of information,” Assistant FBI Director Michael Kortan said Monday. “There is no reason to think, regardless of what we gleaned from the memo, that those rules were not followed at the time of this memo.”

The memo was recently discovered by Utah lawyer Jesse Trentadue, who has spent years researching the Oklahoma City case trying to prove a connection between the terrorist bombing and the death of his brother in an Oklahoma prison in the summer of 1995.

The root of the memo lies in Trentadue’s relationship with Terry Nichols, one of the defendants convicted in the 1995 terror attack, who is serving life in prison. Trentadue recently found the document — unredacted and still marked secret — in a box of documents gathered by Nichols’ defense attorneys.

The memo suggests the ABC journalist reached out to a counterterrorism agent in New York City on his or her own the night of the bombing, in part because the information acquired suggested that “there were two other bombing incidents planned” soon at government offices in Houston and Los Angeles.

The journalist agreed to be interviewed by counterterrorism agents again the next day, the memo says, but refused to identify his or her source.

Nearly a year later, the network staffer was contacted by the FBI and agreed to divulge ABC’s source for the uncorroborated claim: a former CIA officer named Vincent Cannistraro, who was on contract to the network as a consultant, who, in turn, had gotten the information from a Saudi general.

During the 1996 re-interview, the ABC employee was questioned about the “source of questioned information” and “advised that the source was VINCENT CANNISTRARO, former Counter-Terrorism Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),” the memo stated.

The reporter further related that “when questioned regarding his source of this information, CANNISTRARO confirmed that it was a ‘General within the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service,’” the memo stated.

In an interview this week, Cannistraro said he was surprised that an ABC journalist had contacted the FBI and relayed the information, in part because it had not been corroborated and was just a rumor passing through Saudi circles.

Cannistraro said he provided the information himself to the FBI immediately after the bombing because of suggestions there might be imminent additional attacks possible, but hadn’t authorized ABC to release the information.

Cannistraro called the memo “interesting” and noted that when he worked for the CIA they had rules in place blocking the use of journalists as sources. He said being “outed” was “not a concern” because he had already shared the information with the bureau.

Journalism ethics experts said the memo’s description of the relationship between the FBI and the ABC reporter was troubling.

“Obviously any reporter who is simultaneously working for a media outlet and giving info to the government has a conflict of interest, says Jill Olmsted, who teaches journalistic ethics in her role as journalism division director for American University’s School of Communication.

Olmsted acknowledges that there are situations in which a journalist should share information with the government, particularly when there is a danger to the general public or a life is at stake. But she calls sharing information with the government a “slippery slope.”

Tim McGuire, a journalism professor at Arizona State University, believes the fact the reporter was assigned an informant number and had contributed information in the past precludes any argument that he was sharing this information in the public good.

“I mean, he’s not only a rat, he’s a really huge rat” says McGuire. “He’s obviously decided that helping the government on an ongoing basis is more important than being a journalist.”
McGuire also warns that journalists acting as agents can have a harmful — even dangerous — impact on the profession. “We’re all endangered by him playing these silly games,” he says. “I think when you’re an agent for the government, you’re putting your fellow journalists in harm’s way.”

“We don’t like being used as an arm of the government to get information because that’s what they do in repressive regimes, not in a society where we’re based on freedom of the press,” says Olmsted. “So I find that very disturbing.”

Occasionally, reporters face a conundrum in which they come into possession of information about a plot that might put people or property in danger or pose a risk to national security. Most news organizations have strict policies for handling such circumstances and reporting safety concerns to authorities through official channels.

Schneider said ABC has long had rules requiring such episodes to be raised directly to the president of network news, or his designee, who then would decide whether to report such information directly to the FBI director.

He said the memo’s description of the reporter approaching agents himself and then acquiescing to an interview a year later — in which specific news sources were divulged — seemed to flout the network’s long-established policy.

“Based on your reporting, we believe the employee involved in the reporting no longer works here,” Schneider said. “Based on the description in the memo, this would not have followed that policy, but I cannot account for who this reporter may have talked with at the time.”

The memo shows several high-ranking FBI officials were involved in approving the approach to the ABC reporter, including Supervisory Special Agent Thomas Nicoletti and Thomas Pickard, then a special agent in charge of the FBI’s New York office who eventually would rise to the No. 2 job in the bureau.

Nicoletti was reportedly hired by ABC after his retirement from the FBI, working as a consultant for the network’s entertainment division on a movie about the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. He eventually resigned to protest the movie’s portrayal of the tragedy.

Nicoletti could not be reached for comment.

Last fall, the FBI faced questions about its use of another journalist, the late photographer Ernest Withers, when documents released several years after his death showed he had been paid during the J. Edgar Hoover years as an informant to spy on Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement. That case involved a much more involved relationship than the one described in the FBI memo from the Oklahoma City case.

STATES OF REBELLION How legislators and governors nationwide are challenging a rogue president

2011 WorldNetDaily

While millions of outraged Americans protest what they see as a lawless and power-mad Obama administration, many wonder how much clout individuals can really have in reining in a wildly out-of-control government.

But suppose, in addition to citizens with little power beyond their vote, those standing up to the federal government were named Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Montana, Maine, South Dakota – and many more?

Incredibly, though under-reported by the establishment press, that's exactly what is happening right now, as the April issue of Whistleblower documents in-depth, in "STATES OF REBELLION: How legislators and governors nationwide are openly challenging a rogue president."

A wide-ranging rebellion is indeed under way – by a large majority of states – against what they claim are intolerable and blatantly unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. And they are seriously intent on declaring such unconstitutional laws null and void in their state.

Here's how Thomas E. Woods Jr., author of the bestselling book, "Nullification: How to resist federal tyranny in the 21st century," succinctly lays out the issue in the April Whistleblower:

Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government.

Take Obamacare: Most people know the GOP-led House of Representatives repealed it (though the Democrat-controlled Senate almost certainly will not, nor will Obama ever sign it). And many also know 27 states are challenging Obamacare in court. But what few understand is that at least 11 states are attempting to legislatively nullify Obamacare within their borders. So far, an act to nullify the entire federal health-care law has become state law in Montana and Idaho, has been approved by one house in North Dakota, and introduced in eight other states – New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas, Wyoming, South Dakota and Oklahoma.

What about the federal government's labyrinthine gun laws? Eight states have already passed laws – signed by their governors – telling Washington its firearms regulations are not valid in those states for weapons manufactured and purchased in-state. Many other states are on the same legislative track.

There's much more: Utah last month became the first state to make gold and silver legal tender in that state. Twenty-four states are defying Obama by copying Arizona's immigration law – the one the Obama Justice Department sued Arizona over. Lawmakers in 40 states are working to halt the epidemic of "anchor babies" establishing "birthright citizenship." And 13 states are considering laws that would require every presidential candidate – including Barack Obama – to prove he is a natural-born citizen before his name can be placed on that state's ballot in presidential elections.

Highlights of "STATES OF REBELLION" include:

* "States to Washington: Follow the Constitution or else" by Bob Unruh, on how power grabs by the federal government increasingly are being met with big opposition from states

* "Unfunded mandates? Obama's the biggest" by Joseph Farah, on the incomprehensible cost America is incurring for having Barack Obama as president

* "The return of a forbidden idea" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr., an exclusive excerpt from his bestselling book, "Nullification: How to resist federal tyranny in the 21st century"

* "3 states looking to set up nullification commissions"

* "Texas and New Hampshire: Stop feeling up fliers!"

* "11 states act to nullify Obamacare within their borders" by Bob Unruh, not to mention the 27 states that are fighting against "socialized medicine" in court

* "State lawmakers declare war on 'birthright citizenship'" by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., documenting how legislators from 40 states are teaming up to stop the spike in "anchor babies"

* "24 states defy Obama by copying Arizona immigration law"

* "Utah lawmakers recognize gold and silver as legal tender" – on how Utah is leading a growing movement to restore sound money to America

* "The buck stops here? Virginia eyes switching off dollar" by Kelly O'Meara, on legislators who cite the "inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System's currency"

* "State legislators attempt to stop Shariah" by Drew Zahn, on legislative efforts to prevent the U.S. from emulating Britain with its 85 Islamic courts

* "Did Jefferson foresee Obama's deficit – and the solution?" by Fergus Hodgson, who notes the third president wanted an anti-debt constitutional amendment – and may yet get his wish

* "Ohio poised to challenge Supreme Court with 'heartbeat bill'"

* "13 states considering eligibility-proof legislation" by Bob Unruh, on legislators who say: "If the federal government is not going to vet these people, we'll do it in our state"

* "Epic 'gunfight' between states and feds" – on how a battle over a Montana firearms law may dramatically limit Congress's power

* "A Virginia plan to cancel Congress's 'authority'" – explaining a radical legislative proposal that would exempt "all goods" from oversight by feds

* "Utah to Washington: This land is my land!" by Bob Unruh, on the almost unanimous resolution asking the federal government to cede 35,000 square miles back to the state

* "A warning to states about a Con-Con" by Phyllis Schlafly, on the serious and hidden dangers of convening a constitutional convention in today's near-lawless America

* "Barack Hussein Alinsky" by Patrick J. Buchanan, who says the big battle shaping up is between the "organizer in chief" and the governors of the 50 states – with America hanging in the balance

* "Leadership requires actual leadership" by Herman Cain, who shows that America's governors, not Obama, are showing the nation how to "win the future"

"There's so much bad news these days," said Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "that it's great to be able to report this crucial and encouraging trend. America is made up of 50 sovereign states – something largely forgotten in this age of seemingly all-powerful federal government. And what a great thing it is to see state after state actually standing up to the Obama administration and saying, in effect, 'Don't tread on me!'"

Added Joseph Farah, founder of WND and Whistleblower, "This issue of Whistleblower documents what may be the single most important and promising avenue for taki