Exposing the Advance of Islam
in Our Public Schools

How ACT! for America Chapters
and Members Are Making a Difference

What do you think would happen if students in your local public middle school brought home a word puzzle that, when solved, spelled out the following?

“There is no Savior but Jesus Christ.”

There would be outrage from the ACLU. Some angry parents would protest. There might be threats of a lawsuit. After all, no child in a public school today brings home any puzzles that exalt one religious belief over another.

Or do they?

Thanks to our growing network of local chapters and members, recently we were apprised of a series of pro-Islamic activities taking place in some California public schools. Click on the first link below and you will see a word puzzle brought home by some children who attend an intermediate school in Corona, California.

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/Puzzle_A.pdf

Now click on the following link and note that the circled letters spell out the phrase “There is no god but Allah.” This is what students saw after completing the puzzle. Some parents complained, and it’s our understanding the principal checked into it and this no longer happens.

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/Puzzle_B.pdf

7th graders at the same school brought home drawings depicting the five pillars of Islam. To see one of the drawings, click below.

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/Five_Pillars.pdf

Some children in an elementary school in Chino Hills, California, sang songs celebrating Ramadan along side songs celebrating Thanksgiving. To see the song lyrics, click on the link below.

http://tool.donation-net.net/Images/Email/1097/Thanks_Ramadan_sm-2.pdf

In another instance, a California high school proclaimed “Islamic Awareness Week.” But when a parent complained, the principal pulled the plug on this program.

These examples raise some very disturbing questions. Why is Islam being taught and celebrated in some of our public schools in a way that other religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, aren’t? Why are songs about Islam being sung during the Islamic holiday Ramadan, while public schools routinely prohibit the singing of Christmas carols and have replaced “Christmas break” with “winter break”? Why would a school proclaim “Islamic Awareness Week” when it is unheard of for a school to proclaim “Christian Awareness Week” or “Jewish Awareness Week”?

One community leader put it this way: “Our public schools have been blitzed by Muslims demanding Ramadan songs to be sung in classes and requiring the schools to allow them to introduce “the benefits of Islam” hand-outs to all the students (based upon their constitutional rights and equal access).”

Such efforts demanding special treatment of Islam will succeed if we do not act. The good news is we can make a difference when we stand up against efforts in public schools to provide special treatment of Islam — and stand up we must. That’s why one of the recommended projects for ACT! for America chapters is to review textbooks and curricula in their local schools and take action when necessary, to ensure that Islam is not receiving special or biased treatment. Had it not been for the existence of a local ACT! for America chapter and several ACT! for America members, we might not have learned about what was going on in these California public schools!

Why? Because you won’t read about incidents like these in your local paper. You won’t see it on your TV news. And as ACT! for America chapters are started in more and more communities, our ability to detect and expose incidents like these will increase dramatically – and with it our ability to take action!

That’s also why we send out emails like this. It’s our hope that you not only read these, but that you’ll forward them on to everyone on your email address list. A simple way to do that is to click on the link at the very bottom of this page, titled “How can I tell others about your organization?” By doing this you share this email with people you know and at the same time introduce them to ACT! for America.

And if you’d like to help support our efforts to educate concerned citizens across America as to how to detect and respond to pro-Islamic activities in our public schools, please click here.

Thank you!

Guy Rodgers
Executive Director

<*><*><*><*><*>
         Chet
<*><*><*><*><*>

http://americancongressfortruth.org/

Wow! You’ve heard us state that American security and liberty is under assault from Islamofascism AND the political correctness that aids and abets it. Now comes a powerful book, reviewed below, that spells out what we’re up against – and why we need to rise up and fight for the values of Western Civilization that produced freedom and prosperity surpassing anything in the history of the world. We’ve highlighted some segments for emphasis, but we strongly recommend that you take a few minutes to carefully read the entire review. Your understanding of the nature of the conflict and what’s at stake will increase dramatically in the next few minutes.

By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, December 13, 2007

The Suicide of Reason: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West
By Lee Harris
Basic Books, 2007.
290 pp., $26.00.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E88A9A17-E3E2-447A-B286-108E99EF27E6 For most in Western societies, the behavior of Muslim fundamentalists is often incomprehensible and, at the same time, terrifying, as illustrated by incidents which make news headlines.

The most recent is that of Gillian Gibbons, a British teacher at a school for children of the Sudanese elite and foreign diplomats. Gibbons was charged by the Sudanese government with inciting religious hatred after honoring a 7-year-old student’s innocent request to eponymously name a classroom teddy bear “Mohammed.” Gibbons was found guilty under Sharia or Islamic law of blasphemy against the prophet Mohammed. She was jailed and informed that she could be punished by 40 lashes and six months in prison. After a “fair” sentence of 15 days was announced by the ruling clerics, frenzied rioters brandished swords and knives across Khartoum, screaming for her death.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman gang raped by seven men was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for being in a state of “khalwa” or in the presence of unrelated males. Under Sharia law, women can appear in public only with male relatives. The victim’s lawyer had his license to practice law confiscated after he deemed the rapists’ sentence lenient and the victim’s sentence unjust.

In 2005, a 14-year-old Iranian boy died after receiving 85 lashes for eating in public during the Muslim holiday of Ramadan.

Such incidents provoke outrage, shock and bewilderment in the West, which perceives the innocence of these victims and the injustice of their punishments for violating outmoded codes of behavior. But Muslim societies perceive these same actions as unacceptable breaches of and major offenses to a rigidly enforced code of behavior and moral precepts.

This dichotomy between attitudes in Western and Muslim societies is explored in depth in Lee Harris’ recent book, The Suicide of Reason. In it, Harris contrasts the enlightened societies of the West and its “rational actor” with the fanatical societies and “tribal actor” that characterize much of the Muslim world. He examines the phenomenon of the “rule of law” Western culture that is guided by broadminded self-interest and tolerance. In contrast, he explores the “rule of the jungle,” his reference to that faction of Muslim culture that is based on a common narrative of superstition and prejudice with a shame-induced, group ethic that fosters a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice, suicide. [emphasis added]

Harris describes the inherent conflict between Western civilization and its emphasis on reason and individualism and Islamic societies that teach intolerance and nurture fanaticism. Western cultures, imbued with a belief in the inevitability of the drive for individual freedom, view as fanatic, those societies which fail to modernize and adopt changed values. Harris posits that the West is disadvantaged in this way because it reacts to the story of change implicit in the history of the Muslim faith and creation of Islamic nation states. However, tribal societies don’t necessarily embrace modernization and abandon their zealotry, upon which their social order is based. Their fanaticism, which includes glorification of martyrdom, thus becomes a weapon that defeats all Western attempts to deal with tribal societies, including negotiation, conventional warfare and punitive economic measures. So, while Islam seeks to destroy the West’s enlightened way of life with the fanaticism of jihad, the West sabotages itself by non-judgmentally viewing these actions as cultural variations or efforts to procure freedom from an imagined oppression. [emphasis added]. Harris further contends that the West’s reliance on reason in the face of fanaticism will destroy Western society.

In The Suicide of Reason, Harris explains the evolution of America’s enlightened culture as a natural development originating from the ideal circumstances of pioneer life. He describes how America was settled by stubborn, rugged individualists who fled to the New World to escape religious persecution and freely practice their religion. These early settlers were mostly Protestant dissenters who valued hard work, were determined to hew their own path and refused to take orders from anyone. While the Old World remained a hierarchal society of landowners and serfs with a strong military and government enforcing laws and maintaining the status quo, the North American continent was a wilderness unburdened by history and rife with opportunity. It was geographically separated from Europe and free of threats except for Indians. It couldn’t be conquered, only settled, and every pioneer was in charge of his own destiny. While the Old World admired the life of the idle rich and military strength and subjugation were the keys to wealth and power, in America, a settler with a Protestant ethic cleared his own land or paid someone else to do it. He held in contempt those who subjugated others to do their work. Hard work was honorable and the route to freedom, wealth and the good life. These unique characteristics of the New World – the right to keep the product of your labor, religious freedom and the lack of imposition on others – spawned American liberalism. Thus, America became fertile ground for the creation of a culture of enlightened reason.

In his provocative book, Harris contrasts this path of cultural evolution with an examination of the foundation of pre-modern societies, such as tribal or Islamic cultures ruled by “the law of the jungle.” Thus, hewing to tribal values, Islam is a totalitarian religious and political ideology that protects the ummah, or the Muslim world, from being undermined and preserves mandated tribal behaviors and beliefs. [emphasis added]. The fanaticism inherent in Islam produces a group allegiance that supersedes all other potential attachments. The tribal code and tribal cohesion takes precedence over anything else and a collective fanaticism fosters cultural protectionism. Harris maintains that it is impossible to appeal to a sense of reason in societies bound by fanaticism because enlightenment directly challenges and threatens their beliefs and very existence.

Another feature of tribal societies is the existence of religious authorities that control the populace and serve as their spokespeople. Fanatical intolerance demands that critics or apostates are shunned and condemned to death. There is no room for self-reflection. The only criticism permissible is that levied at “the other” or the non-believer. [emphasis added]. Ironically, the very qualities that are shunned and prohibited by cultures of reason are viewed as good and virtuous by fanatical cultures. In Islamic fundamentalist societies, the mullahs endeavor to fan the flames of fanaticism in order to make it more intense and powerful.

The principle of honor is of primary importance in radical Islamic cultures. The honor of the community must be protected at all costs and far exceeds any notion of the individual or of individual rights. Religious leaders, who view the world across a long-term time horizon, operate for the good of the ummah, the propagation of Islam over time and the enforcement of Islamic law.

Tribal success hinges on the inculcation of a uniform system of steadfast shared values and of a sense of shame so deep and visceral that it is impervious to reason and makes death preferable to tribal code violations and the accompanying loss of collective honor. It solidifies a rigidly imposed “us vs. them” mindset in which “the other” is a cursed object of abject enmity. The faithful are indoctrinated and prepared to sacrifice themselves for furthering fanatic tribal goals. Martyrs for the cause are celebrated and elevated to a position of honor. [emphasis added] [ACT editor’s note: This helps explain why there are so few “moderate” Muslims willing to publicly criticize the core doctrine of Jihad in Islam – even here in the United States -- and why those who do are ostracized by the Islamic community. There are some who will denounce “terror” in a general sense, but it’s rare to find a Muslim who will renounce the numerous commands for Jihad in the Quran and the Hadiths.]

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Chet Bowen

The Self-Destructing Jihad
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2007/12/self-destructing-jihad.html The paradox of the Islamic Jihad being waged against the West, is that it is a Jihad that is itself parasitic on the West. It could not exist without Western money and Western support. Without these it would quickly shrivel up and die.

There are few better demonstrations than Abu Hamza or Captain Hook living on the dole in the UK while preaching terrorism. Abu Hamza is simply a microcosm of Islamic terrorism which feeds off the West, from the Saudi sponsored Jihad funded by Western oil money and protected by American tanks to Pakistan’s ISI backing of the Mujahadeen which would not have been possible without American support to Fatah’s terrorist infrastructure now being revitalized by the State Department– Islamic terrorism is dependent on the West.

The reason that most Arab states exist in the first place is that they were created by England or France and funded by the United States. The House of Saud and the entire fiction of Saudi Arabia was created with British and American support. The Arab League was organized by the British and when they discarded it, the United States picked it up in order to use it as a bulwark against Communism.

About the only real export of these Arab states is oil and this oil was discovered and developed by primarily American companies which were then slowly taken over and in effect nationalized by these Arab countries. The ruler of the House of Saud, Ibn Saud, began as a bandit and camel raider in the desert at the turn of the century. American and British patronage turned him into a monarch and turned Saudi Arabia into a wealthy land. The House of Saud turned around and has backed Islamic terrorism and expansionism across Europe, America and the World.

Saudi money drives the global Jihad but Saudi money and oil are really American money and oil. It was American tanks that kept Saddam out of Ridyah in 1992. But it is in fact America that has kept most of the Arab world intact. It was America which forced England, France and Israel to pull out of Egypt in the 1956 Suez Canal War. Egypt rewarded America for this by inviting the Russians in. It was American influence that kept Russia from going into Iran instead of Afghanistan. Today Iran is America’s worst enemy. The list goes on and on.

If America and Europe did not exist, does anyone really believe that oil hungry world powers like Russia or China or Japan would have allowed the tinpot bandit Emirs and Princes and Tyrants of the Arab countries to keep control of their oil for very long? It was the long hand of America that protected them all along. For all their wealth and brutality, no Arab state has managed to defeat even tiny Israel, how long would they have lasted against Russia or China?

Not only has America protected their independence, it has even allowed them to nationalize resources developed by American and British companies. The United States has pumped in money and sacrificed the lives of American soldiers to protect them, in return we have received terrorism, oil boycotts and the funding of Islamic expansionism on our own soil.

Rarely has ingratitude been so viciously manifest, but all this goes to show that the Jihad is a self-destructing Jihad. The Jihad is aimed at the West, yet it could not exist without the West. The Islamic terrorists attacking America resemble an angry passenger carving a hole in his lifeboat in the hopes that everyone else in the lifeboat drowns while he somehow swims to safety.

The Arab world has produced nothing in the last century, its technology and its money come from outside. Its literacy level is below that of Sub-Saharan Africa and its labor, from its oil production to its simplest tasks is done by imported foreigners, often Westerners.

The self-destructing Jihad, should it destroy the West, would leave the Middle East barren, without customers for its oil, tourists for its cities, workers for its oil operations and protection for its kingdoms.

If the West responds by cutting immigration and achieving oil independence, then the Middle East will wind up with an economy based on worthless oil and a demographic time bomb turned against itself.

Either way the Jihad loses. The Jihad may succeed in either pushing the world back to the dark ages or at least turn the Middle East into fanatical Mullah and Imam ruled enclaves, but it won’t create a new Islamic civilization, only chaos and dark ages. In Iraq and Gaza, the Jihad quickly degenerated into Muslims killing Muslims. This is nothing new, the Jihad in the end has always turned against fellow Muslims.

When Muslims in the West wage Jihad, these engineers and doctors also attack the very system that provides them with a generous income and generates the technology and resources that makes their profession possible. When Muslims in the Middle East wage Jihad, they attack their best customers and the source of their protection and wealth. One way or another the Jihad is engineered to kill the Goose with the Golden Egg and is literally a suicide Jihad, because its success would destroy the very sources of that Jihad.

The Exclusive interview below appeared on the ACT for America news page and the American Congress for Truth blog yesterday. As ACT for America’s grassroots citizen action network grows, one of the projects we will almost certainly undertake is putting pressure on American internet service providers to stop hosting radical Islamist sites and chat rooms. The following interview is very illuminating.

Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) is one of the most popular voice chat rooms hosting companies in the world. Paltalk hosts tens of thousands of voice chat rooms covering music, entertainment, politics, religion, and Islamic terrorist chat rooms.

We originally posted this report on the ACT for America news site on December 7th. It’s so important we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss it. If you’d like to be kept abreast of daily news and commentary of this nature, make www.actforamerica.org/news/ your home page.

Congressman Gregory Meeks’ Cozy
Relationship With A Terror-Linked
Organization

www.pajamasmedia.com
December 7, 2007 1:00 AM

The DC-based Peace and Justice Foundation has a shockingly wide range of friends, from terrorists in the Middle East to powerful backers on Capitol Hill. Patrick Poole zeroes in on one particularly loyal friend.

By Patrick Poole

Why is a powerful congressman trying to pave the way for terror-linked speakers to appear on Capitol Hill?

That’s the question that comes to mind following the abrupt cancellation of the Muslim Mobilization Conference by the US House of Representatives Sergeant-at-Arms. The event, originally scheduled for August 11, would have taken place in the Cannon House Building Caucus Room had it not been for the last minute discovery of the terror-linked speakers that the DC-based Peace and Justice Foundation had invited to participate.

However the organization is claiming that Congressman Gregory Meeks, who initially helped organize the event, is actively working with them to reschedule, notwithstanding the organization’s public defense of several global terrorist organizations and two notorious cop killers. And a review of the Peace and Justice Foundation’s corporate documents shows that the group has been operating illegally for nearly a decade without any accountability whatsoever for funds it has raised for a wide variety of extremist causes.

According to an article in The Muslim Link, the scheduling of the August conference had been handled by the chief-of-staff for Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY6), Jameel Alim Johnson. Only after the Sergeant-at-Arms contacted Congressman Meeks directly and discovered that he would not be attending was the group told the event would not be permitted in congressional facilities. The conference was held the following day at a local DC-area mosque.

As a result of that decision, accusations of Islamophobia and censorship were immediately made by the conference organizers and speakers. Even Jameel Johnson of Congressman Meeks’ office said in an email, reported by Final Call, that “this certainly seemed to me to be the red-flagging of a Muslim group. For the Sergeant-at-Arms to call out of the blue on the last day to make sure (Rep. Meeks) is going to be there and is sponsoring the function is unusual and unfair.”

But an investigation by Pajamas Media has discovered a host of troubling accusations regarding the Peace and Justice Foundation and its leader, Mauri Saalakhan. Perhaps the most troubling are his enthusiastic, public support for designated terrorist organizations and convicted terrorists, and his efforts on behalf of convicted cop killer Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin.

These multiple ties to terrorist organizations and operatives raise questions about the continued assistance offered to the group by Congressman Meeks, who holds positions on the powerful House Financial Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. He is also active with the Congressional Black Caucus. This reporter spoke with Meeks spokeswoman Candace Sandy, but neither she nor the DC or District Congressional offices for Rep. Meeks would return repeated calls asking for comment on his relationship with Mauri Saalakhan and the Peace and Justice Foundation.

One of the scheduled speakers for the Capitol Hill Muslim Mobilization Conference was Anisa Abd El Fattah, a longtime former employee and past president of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), which one convicted terrorist leader described as “the political command for HAMAS in the United States.” The organization was one of the US-based organizations found liable in a $156 million federal court judgment in the death of an American teenager killed in a Hamas suicide attack in Israel.

Fattah was the subject of a recent Pajamas Media article describing her covert attempts to be appointed to the Columbus (OH) Public School Board. Fattah has also co-authored two books with the current spokesman for Hamas, Ahmed Yousef, and was a longtime consultant to terrorist leader Abdurahman Alamoudi. Alamoudi was convicted of conspiring with the Libyan government to kill Crown Prince Abdullah, the Saudi royal heir at the time and now the king of Saudi Arabia.

After the Capitol Hill event was canceled, another scheduled speaker at the conference, Abukar Arman, promptly scheduled a similar event at the Ohio Statehouse on October 28 with many of the same speakers. These included Anisa Abd El Fattah. This reporter was the first to report on the Ohio Statehouse event, as well as the public financing that paid for the event, noting that the previous conference in August in Washington, D.C., with approximately the same set of speakers, had been cancelled because of their extremism and terror connections.

Those reports prompted a published response from the Peace and Justice Foundation. In an open letter to the Ohio event’s organizers penned by Mauri Saalakhan, this reporter was attacked and numerous terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders were defended:

In addition to the aforementioned individuals and organizations, Mr. Poole also attacked a number of others who I’ve come to know only through careful research, in my capacity as an advocate with a Metropolitan Washington-based human rights organization – individuals and organizations such as Fawaz Damra, Sami Al-Arian, Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, Mousa abu Marzook, the World Islam and Studies Enterprise (WISE), HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda.

A quick review of the “others” that Saalakhan had “come to know” is appropriate:

• Fawaz Damra – convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraiser, deported earlier this year;
• Sami Al-Arian – convicted North American Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, currently in federal prison for reneging on his plea deal to testify against his terror-supporting co-conspirators;
• Sheikh Ahmed Yasin – founder of the terrorist group HAMAS, assassinated by Israel in March 2004;
• Mousa Abu Marzook – HAMAS deputy political leader, former HAMAS North American fundraiser, deported by the US government.

In his open letter, he defends each of these terrorist leaders in detail. Additionally, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda are all well-known US-designated global terrorist organizations. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood is the oldest and largest purveyor of jihadist ideology, as well as the incubator for virtually every single Islamic terrorist organization in the world today.

Saalakhan also rose to the defense of current Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef, identifying him as a “moderate” and a longtime personal associate. He failed to note that Yousef fled the country in 2005 to avoid prosecution in the Fawaz Damra trial, after which he immediately reappeared as a top Hamas official:

Dr. Ahmed Yusuf is not an “extremist.” He is a deeply committed and caring Palestinian activist; someone who is routinely described by those who know him as a “moderate” – and someone who is understandably committed to the liberation of his people. As one of the principle founders of UASR, I always found him to be genuinely committed to dialogue and peaceful resolution whenever possible. (And I’ve known Dr. Yousef for many years.)

Also in Saalakhan’s open letter, he states that his organization had met with Rep. Meeks and is working with his congressional office to reschedule the canceled Capitol Hill conference:

The short of it is this. We have since met with the congressman; he apologized for the mishap and assured us that we will be able to plan the event again with his full knowledge and support.

If Congressman Meeks and his office staff are in fact continuing to assist Mauri Saalakhan and his Peace and Justice Foundation with Congressman Meeks’ “full knowledge and support,” perhaps they can also explain why they believe it is appropriate considering Saalakhan’s ongoing efforts to promote the cause of convicted cop killers Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin and Mumia Abu Jamal.

In the case of Al-Amin, Saalakhan has published numerous articles in his defense, even though Al-Amin was convicted on all charges by a Georgia jury and was identified as the shooter by the partner of the murdered police officer, who was also severely injured in the attack. The weapons used in the ambush of the officers were recovered at the time of Al-Amin’s arrest.

Saalakhan has also published a number of articles in defense of the following convicted terrorists: Zacarias Moussaoui (the “20th 9/11 hijacker”); Abdurahman Alamoudi (discussed earlier as a conspirator in the plot to kill Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah); Jose Padilla (al-Qaeda “dirty bomber”); the “blind sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman (currently serving life plus 70 years for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing); and the members of the Northern Virginia Jihad Network.

Mauri Saalakhan has even come under fire from segments of the Muslim community, such as New Trend Magazine, for failing to disclose the details of the funds he has raised in his various activities, particularly the extensive fundraising he conducted all over the country in support of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin’s defense.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

We originally posted this report on the ACT for America news site on December 7th. It’s so important we wanted to make sure you didn’t miss it. If you’d like to be kept abreast of daily news and commentary of this nature, make www.actforamerica.org/news/ your home page.

This story provides a vivid example of what is known as “cultural jihad” – the advance of “holy war” through means other than direct violence. “Cultural jihad” leads to the Islamic subjugation of society, and as this story illustrates, Britain is clearly being subjugated. Especially note the red highlighted segments.

Remember this — America is next.

BY DANIEL JOHNSON

New York Sun.com
http://www.nysun.com/article/67582

Until a class of seven-year-old Sudanese children decided to call their teddy bear Mohammed, the Koran had been rarely consulted on the subject of cuddly toys. Apart from its connection with the eponymous bear-hunting president Teddy Roosevelt, there was nothing political, let alone blasphemous, about the teddy bear.

On November 25, Gillian Gibbons, a kindly Englishwoman in her 50s who was teaching in Khartoum, found herself arrested for allowing her students to “insult” the name of the Prophet. After the Sharia court ruled that she should not be beheaded or flogged, but merely imprisoned for 15 days in a notoriously overcrowded and brutal jail, mobs appeared on the streets to proclaim: “No tolerance — execution.”

By now the case had become a cause célèbre. The Islamist regime — one of the most evil in the world, guilty of genocide against its own people and terrorism against others — tried to exploit the plight of Mrs. Gibbons in order to extract the maximum advantage from the British. True to form, the Foreign Office acquiesced in its own humiliation. It used to be said that British diplomats were sent abroad to lie for their country; it would be truer to say that they are sent abroad to lie down and be walked over for their country.

Their very mild requests for her release once rebuffed, the British did not wait to hear the Sudanese conditions for not beheading nor flogging Mrs. Gibbons. Instead, an extraordinary mission was dispatched to Khartoum, one unprecedented in the history of British diplomacy. Two life peers, Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi, were flown in, not as formal representatives of the British government, but as intermediaries. They had only one qualification as negotiators: both were Muslims. The Sudanese refused to communicate with the British embassy in Khartoum, and diplomats were reduced to phoning journalists to find out what was going on. [emphasis added]

It is true that Mrs. Gibbons was released unharmed on Monday, terrified and grovelling her apologies: “I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone. I am sorry if I caused any distress.” By then, however, she had unwittingly served her purpose. On the return journey, Lord Ahmed apparently joked about the teddy bear and remarked to the press: “We hope that British aid to Sudan continues and that relations between our two countries will not be damaged by this incident — in fact, this should be a way to strengthen relations.”

Really? Great Britain still is the world’s fourth largest economy and one of the only countries apart from America capable of projecting military power abroad. The days when Her Majesty’s government would respond to the arrest of a British citizen by sending a warship are long gone, but Britain has still managed to fight four wars in the past 10 years.

Yet this great nation, this homeland of democracy and the rule of law humbles itself before a dictatorship by tacitly accepting the monstrous notion that non-Muslims are unworthy even to negotiate with an Islamic state. [emphasis added]

What this incident shows is just how fast the growth of large Muslim communities in Europe is altering the balance of power. Because, in the words of the eminent Muslim theologian Zaki Badawi, Muslim theology “is a theology of the majority,” the fact that Muslims are still a minority in European states does not prevent them demanding the right to live under Shariah law and the right to have a veto over foreign policy. Islamist states, such as Sudan, now insist on negotiating with British Muslims, implicitly treating Britain as if it were already part of the global Muslim community, the Ummah. [emphasis added]. Incredibly, the British government seems content to be sidelined. Last month I attended a meeting at which Ayaan Hirsi Ali debated Islam with Ed Hussein, the author of “The Islamist.” Mr. Hussein has turned his back on his jihadi past, for which he has been condemned as an “extremist” by Muslim leaders, but he is still an enthusiastic Muslim. Ms. Hirsi Ali, by contrast, called her autobiography “Infidel” and she rejoices in her apostasy. The debate had to be held at a secret location: as she said, random Muslims consider it their duty to kill her.

For Ms. Hirsi Ali, the “war on terror” is really a “war on Islam” — though not a “war on Muslims.” “I see no difference between Islam and Islamism,” she declared. “I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘moderate Islam’.” No compromise is possible with a faith that claims to govern every aspect of life, including politics, she thinks. In any test of who is a good Muslim, the fundamentalists would always win against the moderates, she explained.

The fact that so many disputes revolve around the person of Mohammed is not accidental. Strict Muslims believe that they must imitate his conduct. What, asked Ms. Hirsi Ali, about the prophet’s choice of a nine-year-old girl as a bride? Under modern Western law, an adult having sex with a child is punished as a serious criminal. But for a devout Muslim, all the prophet’s actions are by definition justified. The attempt to silence dissent, to prevent anyone from scrutinizing, or criticizing Mohammed’s morality, is at the heart of the confrontation between Islam and the West. [emphasis added]

Mr. Hussein attempted to defend his prophet, arguing that the bride in question, Ayisha, had fought in a battle and must really have been a teenager, maybe 15, by the time she married Mohammed. Ms. Hirsi Ali’s rejoinder was uncompromising: “No, Ayisha was actually six. She was nine when the marriage was consummated.”

Perhaps it was wrong to name a teddy bear after Mohammed — not for the sake of the prophet, but for the sake of the children.

The story below is important to pass along for three reasons. First, as the last paragraph notes, it reveals the mindset and intent of al Qaeda and its allies. Second, we cannot afford to become complacent, no matter how calm circumstances may appear around us. And third, it is essential that, in next year’s elections, America chooses a President who understands the long-term threat arrayed against us and has the experience to deal with it. These are some of the key reasons why ACT for America plans next year to research candidate stands on national security and Islamofascism and to distribute voter information flyers to voters across the country. Jihadis Post Scenario for the Defeat of the United States

By Abdul Hameed Bakier, Erich Marquardt
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373415

On May 14, jihadi forum users Abu Kandahar and Roslan al-Shami posted a five-point scenario for the collapse of the United States and the rise of the Islamic ummah, entitled, “The Next Strikes in the Heart of America, When and How.” It appeared on the al-ommh.net forum, although at least one other jihadi forum, alhanein.com, reposted the scenario. The posting outlines a scenario for attacking the United States, although the sheer size of the operation suggests that it is jihadi propaganda and not an actual plan that could be operationalized. The alleged operation is dedicated to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the Islamic State of Iraq.

The first stage in the scenario involves multiple terrorist attacks on three major U.S. cities, preferably with nuclear weapons, using an unspecified number of trucks. The scenario places priority on attacking New York City because it is the central artery of the U.S. economy and it would prove that the mujahideen are capable of recurrent attacks on the same target. The second city to attack is Los Angeles, an important West Coast “atheist” city. The third “city” to be attacked is Florida because, they argue, it is an East Coast congregation city and has the Kennedy Space Center (considering the description, the statement’s authors probably meant Orlando). While those are the three primary cities for attack, the writers of the document suggest that if the mujahideen wish to expedite the collapse of the United States, they should also conduct attacks in Seattle since it is a strategic border city; Washington, DC, the political center of the United States; and cities in Texas, since the “biggest oil companies” are located there.

According to the writers, the purpose of attacking these specific cities is to cause a sharp decline in the U.S. economy; mass amounts of casualties; the support for the mujahideen by anti-U.S. countries such as Cuba and Venezuela; a decrease in American support for their own government; the withdrawal of the “blasphemous” U.S. military from Islamic territories; mass military desertions; and the inability to fuel U.S. military fighter jets. The document also outlines how the fallout from such large-scale attacks would cause the U.S. military to return to the United States in order to conduct massive relief operations. They refer to the example of how Hurricane Katrina overburdened the U.S. National Guard, calling the hurricane a “Soldier of God.”

After such attacks, they argue that the Islamic State of Iraq will seize the opportunity to launch mass strikes on the apostates in the Iraqi military and police, paving the way for the third stage of the scenario: the commencement of the golden era of the triumphant Islamic conquests that includes the implementation of Sharia, the liberation of the Arabian Peninsula, the removal from power of “the U.S. ruling family” in Jordan and, finally, the big march toward Palestine. In the end, even Washington, DC, will fall to the mujahideen and that will conclude the final stage of Islamic control of the globe.

The scenario appears less of a planned operation than a hope for the fulfillment of a prophecy. The supposed factuality of the scenario is based on various verses in the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad’s teachings. Nevertheless, some of the users on the forums who discussed the scenario asserted that all of the details to execute the operation had already been prepared. One such user, by the alias of Abu Nedal, said, “For your knowledge, the operations are ready and awaiting the orders from our leader Osama bin Laden, God protect him, to decide what he deems appropriate either to strike now or to wait.”

Islamist extremists have always fabricated factitious scenarios for victory over the West based on their own interpretations of Quranic prophecies in times of crisis and defeat. Nevertheless, al-Qaeda has shown prior interest in acquiring nuclear materials for use in an attack, and it is necessary to take such forum postings seriously as they display the mindset and the intent, although perhaps not the capability, of al-Qaeda-affiliated militants.

Decoding the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate
on Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program
Jerusalem Data Brief
http://www.jcpa.org
Gerald M. Steinberg

• The U.S. government’s latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has “high confidence” that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only “moderate confidence” that Tehran has not restarted the program.
• In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is “apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time,” nonetheless, he adds that “in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon.”
• A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a “worst-case” analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.
• Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel “black” Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.
• From the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor.

The U.S. government’s latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) has concluded that Iran froze its active efforts to manufacture nuclear weapons in 2003, and will not have such a capability until at least 2012. While the NIE states that the U.S. intelligence community has “high confidence” that the Iranians halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, it also states that it has only “moderate confidence” that Tehran has not restarted the program.¹ In contrast, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that while it is “apparently true that in 2003, Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time,” nonetheless, he adds that “in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program to produce a nuclear weapon.”²

This assessment contrasts sharply with estimates that, if left undisturbed, Iran will cross the threshold in the next year or two – and the evidence for the NIE’s sweeping claim is unclear. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently confirmed official Iranian claims to have completed construction of the 3,000 centrifuges necessary to produce enough highly enriched uranium for at least one nuclear weapon per year. This is also the basis for the statements from Israeli military and intelligence officials which view the next year – 2008 – as critical for stopping Iran before the finish line.

A number of factors can explain these differences in assessments. Israel, the prime potential target for a nuclear Iran, cannot afford to take the chance of underestimating the threat, and therefore relies on what policy-makers refer to as a “worst-case” analysis. This means that the focus is on Iranian capabilities, rather than intentions, which can only be guessed.

Using this approach, when Iran reaches the technological potential to produce enough fissile material necessary to make a nuclear weapon, it will be considered to be a nuclear weapons state, capable of threatening Israel with annihilation. And while the details of Iran’s weapons fabrication efforts can be hidden and are less likely to be known to intelligence agencies, the operating assumption is that there are secret facilities where this may be taking place. Indeed, Israeli analysts have long warned their U.S. counterparts about the potential for a parallel “black” Iranian weapons program, based on a small nuclear reactor producing plutonium, and following the North Korean model. Indeed, Iran is known to be constructing just such a reactor at Arak, leaving room for another undetected facility.

The consequences of a small, secret Iranian nuclear program are less significant for the U.S., given its massive military superiority over Iran. Therefore, there is more room for political factors and influence in the official U.S. estimates. After having warned of a massive Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction in 2003, and then finding no evidence following the invasion, the U.S. intelligence agencies may be trying to restore their image by going to the other extreme and underestimating the pace of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. And Iran may very well continue to face difficulties in operating a very complex system of thousands of centrifuges spinning in unison and moving uranium to ever higher levels of enrichment without contamination.

However, from the portions of the NIE report that have been released, it appears that much of the assessment is based not only on technical capabilities and information gathered from satellites and other sources, but rather on attempts to understand Iranian intentions. But intentions are the most unreliable dimension in the realm of intelligence, and often reflect the interests, biases, and expectations of the assessor. While the construction of a massive centrifuge facility at Natanz to produce weapons grade uranium may not be the optimum path to nuclear weapons from an American perspective, this may be the best option open to Iran, and cannot be discounted. The scale and cost of the Natanz nuclear complex, as well as the plutonium production reactor and other facilities are not consistent with a program limited to producing low-enriched uranium for energy production. This makes no economic sense.

The NIE report touches on the Iranian plutonium program: “We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.” But the NIE also takes into consideration that such materials might be imported: “We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad – or will acquire in the future – a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon.” U.S. arms control experts specializing in North Korea have indeed warned in the past about the scenario of North Korean exports of plutonium products to Iran as a possible shortcut to producing an Iranian bomb.³

Although President Bush responded to the NIE report by reconfirming his determination to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, the threat of attack from the U.S. in the next five years is now much less credible. Given the disquiet in the U.S. over the status of the situation in Iraq, and with an official assessment stating that Iran gave up its program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago, the president would face very strong opposition to any decision ordering U.S. forces into battle again. And the fear of a potential Iranian counterattack, in the form of mass terror and possible missile attacks against American assets in the region, would increase this opposition.

As a result, a number of Israeli analysts and officials have expressed concern and even dismay over the NIE report and its implications. Israeli officials reject the NIE conclusions, and, as noted, view the threat as far more imminent. If Israeli intelligence concludes that the red lines are closer than those perceived in the U.S., Israel could still use force unilaterally (as was the case in Prime Minister Begin’s decision to destroy Iraq’s Osiraq reactor in 1981). But Israeli officials have sought to avoid a situation of needing to act unilaterally again.

For Iran, the sudden change in the U.S. assessment contained in the NIE report is a mixed blessing. The good news for the Islamic regime is that the odds of American military action have declined, at least for the time being. Iran can apparently continue to develop its centrifuges and reactors without fear of a sudden U.S.-led attack, and the odds of overt Israeli action have probably also declined.

However, the intense Iranian effort to be seen as a nuclear power that can no longer be stopped has been clearly exposed as a bluff. President Ahmedinejad and other officials have invested heavily in the attempt to portray the Iranian nuclear capability as a fait accompli that must be accepted in the region and around the world. And they have been aided at times by Dr. Mohammed El Baradei, the Director General of the IAEA.

Now, however, the Iranian leadership and an increasingly restless public face at least five more years of sanctions, international isolation, and pressure. And Dr. El Baradei has pulled back from granting Iran immunity from sanctions by highlighting the history of deceit and calling for full cooperation from Teheran. Indeed, following the U.S. report, the leaders of Europe, as well as China and Russia, have reiterated the dangers that would result from an Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Thus, the celebrations in Iran may be short-sighted and short-lived. The economic and diplomatic pressure is likely to continue and even increase.

The bottom line, as noted in the NIE report and by President Bush, is that Iranian nuclear efforts remain dangerous, and that there is still time to prevent this radical regime from acquiring these weapons. How much time remains the subject of debate, and the NIE conclusions are tentative and subject to revision at any time as new information becomes available. To its credit, the NIE report admits the limitations of the U.S. intelligence community with respect to its ability to determine that the 2003 halt in the Iranian weapons program is permanent: “We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely.” Clearly, the NIE conclusions now appearing in the press are not the end of the story.

The WorldNetDaily story below is a triumph of good investigative journalism. CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) repeatedly denies ties to terrorist organizations, but the evidence disputing those denials continues to grow. As the old saying goes, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” In CAIR’s case, there’s so much smoke CAIR must be hoping that the smoke will blind our eyes from seeing the fire.
HOMELAND INSECURITY
CAIR called ‘turnstile’ for terrorist suspects
‘Proven record of senior officials being indicted, imprisoned, deported from U.S.’

Posted: December 4, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

As the Council on American-Islamic Relations lobbies Congress to help strike its name from a list of co-conspirators in a federal terror case, WND has learned the Muslim group’s ties to terrorism and extremism are far more extensive than first believed.