Looking Behind The “Purpose Driven” Sheep’s Clothing

Looking Behind The “Purpose Driven” Sheep’s Clothing


by Christopher Adamo

 

The facade is beginning to peel back from the so-called ministry of Southern California Pastor Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Church” and “The Purpose Driven Life.” Unfortunately, many among his ample flock have far too much invested in him, both emotionally and otherwise, to admit their mistakes and cut their losses.

 

Moreover, he certainly faces no possibility of in-depth scrutiny from the “mainstream media,” as his brand of “Christianity” poses little or no threat to their liberal social agenda. Yet to the degree that anyone at all questions Warren as anything less than authentic, his response is thoroughly telling as to his true character, as well as the nature of his “ministry.”

 

Joseph Farah, editor in chief of the premiere Internet news site, “World Net Daily,” opened a can of worms by calling Warren to account over his fawning praise of the terrorist stronghold of Syria. While there, Warren lauded the brutish dictatorship as “peaceful,” claiming that the Islamist government does not officially sanction “extremism of any kind.”

 

When confronted by Farah, an American of middle-eastern decent who knows too well the history of horror and tragedy faced by persecuted Christians in that region of the world, Warren immediately denied ever making such statements.

 

Subsequently, Farah offered as evidence a “YouTube” video from Saddleback Church, where Warren is pastor, inarguably proving Farah’s statement. So Warren’s Church simply pulled the video from circulation and continued the denial, being unaware that a copy of the video file had been downloaded and is still in circulation. Warren’s follow up to this inconvenient circumstance is perhaps most telling of all.

 

In a concurrent set of moves, Warren sent a seemingly conciliatory e-mail to Farah, while distributing another to his “flock,” in which he characterized Farah’s pursuit of the incident as nothing less than “doing Satan’s job for him.” Throughout this sorry episode, Farah’s only error has been to suggest that Warren’s disturbing behavior represents some new departure from consistency.

 

In fact, Warren is actually being entirely consistent. Whether his audience might be Farah himself, Syrian Despot Bashar Assad, or the Saddleback congregation, Warren tells each exactly what he believes they want to hear. This pattern is the essence of what Warren is, and what has made him so “successful” from a worldly perspective.

 

For those among his congregation who sincerely want to know the truth, the evidence is ample. Unfortunately, it always has been available, and any present “confusion” merely results from past decisions to ignore that evidence.

 

For example, his letter to the congregation decrying the “attack” and making his defense by invoking Scripture is barely four paragraphs long. Yet in those four paragraphs, he employs three different “translations” of the Bible. Why, it must be asked, does he not trust any single translation to convey God’s message to humanity?

 

Could it be that he has his own message and agenda to advance, and that he has found it very convenient to utilize different wordings of different passages, not because they better convey God’s purpose, but rather his own? It would be better to ask, could his motivation possibly be anything else?

 

As Farah has refused to let this indefensible situation simply drop, Warren has responded by taking it to another realm, making personal attacks against Farah in an interview with the magazine, “Christianity Today.” But once again, by so doing Warren succeeds in revealing much more about himself than about his adversary.

 

Warren, who has not to date been known as any sort of standard bearer for Christian principle in the political arena, decries Farah (whose societal and moral views fall unambiguously on the right) and his ideological allies as part of a wrongful “political” encroachment on the faith.

 

In contrast, Warren’s forays into the political realm prove, not surprisingly, to be decidedly leftist. At a recent conference on the African AIDS epidemic, Warren invited the very liberal Senator Barak Obama (D.-IL) as a keynote speaker. He justified the inclusion of Obama, who avidly supports abortion and same-sex “marriage,” on the grounds that Obama offered a worldly solution to ostensibly curb the spread of the disease through condom usage.

 

The morally ambiguous message conveyed by the advocacy of condoms, along with their inherent unreliability, make them nothing less than iconic to the abortion industry, which fully understands how much new business they generate. In the face of such pragmatism, one has to wonder what will be next. Perhaps Warren’s Church will sponsor a “designated drivers ministry” at every bar in its locale.

 

Appalling though Obama’s inclusion in the conference may be, it is nonetheless entirely consistent with Warren’s behavior from the beginning. Leading a megachurch in the culturally disintegrating landscape of Southern California, Warren certainly knows that his prospects of maximizing the “flock” will be greatly enhanced as long as he shows proper deference to the real religion of the area, “political correctness.”

 

In this, his Christian populism movement has proven to be far more palatable to the God-hating secularists of the surrounding communities than such stodgy, old-fashioned, and “intolerant” notions as “Thou Shalt Not.” And the Warren influence has been predictable wherever it can be found.

 

If other Churches that abide in the Warren philosophy, such as Chicago’s gargantuan “Willow Creek,” were to truly uphold Christian values among their enormous congregations, they would certainly be a constant “thorn in the side” of their surrounding populace, acculturated into the modernism as those communities certainly are. Yet an amazing degree of compatibility and congeniality exists between the Warren Church model and the social structures of Chicago and Southern California.

 

The tradeoff between true Christian principle and acceptability to the locals is apparently worth the spiritual sacrifice it entails, with expanding parking lots, increasingly lavish facilities, and of course, fuller collection plates bearing witness. Meanwhile, such Churches offer ever less of a worthwhile and much needed alternative to the ailing world around them.

 

Ultimately, Warren gives conformist Christians, wearied from their ongoing battle with a world that is increasingly hostile to true Christian faith, an apparent “out” by offering a version that the modern world can find more acceptable while remaining in its present spiritual darkness.

 

Many among Warren’s vast following have made the mistake, in light of his “purpose driven” ministering, of presuming, at the heart of the movement, a Christ-driven purpose. Yet as Warren’s real character continues to be revealed, it is becoming apparent that members of that following are presuming too much.

 

Fifteeen Refusals for 2007

No “Grand Bargain” for Iran

No “Grand Bargain” for Iran
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 21, 2006

The Council on Foreign Relations is at it again.In yet another effort to second-guess Bush administration foreign policy, the Brahmins of Stability have invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a pow-wow in New York this week, aimed at promoting a “grand bargain” between the U.S. and Iran.

The CFR invite to the man who has said publicly he wants to wipe Israel off the map and destroy America drew a quick response from Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA.

“President Ahmadinejad does not afford his own people the freedom of speech,” Santorum wrote on Monday to CFR president Richard Haas, a former State Department official and protégé of Brent Scowcroft. “By allowing him the opportunity to address a public forum in the United States, you would be sending the wrong message to the people of Iran.”

The CFR has consistently promoted a “grand bargain” with the regime in Tehran, a policy it laid out in detail in a 2004 white paper written by CFR staffer Ray Takeyh and his wife, Susan Maloney. As an official at the State Department office of Policy Planning, Ms. Maloney-Takeyh has been instrumental in blocking U.S. government funding to pro-democracy groups in Iran, which she has called “too confrontational.”

The 2004 CFR report, which I describe in more detail in my book, Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, was issued under the imprimatur of CFR heavy-hitters Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft.

Funny how all this fits together.

The interests of the Council on Foreign Relations and of many large American corporations in forging commercial and diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran run directly counter to the U.S. national interest, the interests of the Iranian people, and to the president’s freedom agenda.

The CFR and certain large U.S. corporations (CONOCO and Boeing among others) can’t see any good reason why they should abandon a potentially good market in Iran to competitors in France, Germany, or Japan.

What’s refreshing about this argument is the fact that we haven’t heard it made with such forcefulness and such wantonness since the Clinton years. And that is also what is disturbing about it. It’s back.

In the final months of his presidency, Clinton appointed a “special ambassador” to negotiate a “grand bargain” with Iran, and came very close to making a deal that would have put an end to the aspirations to freedom of the Iranian people for a generation. Until now, however, the Bush administration has rejected such an approach.

Last week, at a conference in Washington, D.C., a number of CFR “experts” and protoges tried to paint a pretty face on negotiations with Iran, including left-wing financier George Soros.

They described a recent “private” dinner in Boston with mullah Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s former president, who said that Iran wanted talks with the United States, but was not willing to give up uranium enrichment as the price.

That’s okay, said CFR expert Charles Kupchan. “The key is to get to a point where the United States and Iran can build a relationship built on trust,” he said. “We need to buy time for Iran to come around and make a deal.”

But as Ahmadinejad told the United Nations on Tuesday, the only deal Iran wants is one that allows it to develop nuclear capabilities that will give it the technology and know-how to build nuclear weapons at a time of its choosing.

Apparently seduced by the CFR siren song, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her top advisor, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, have revived the failed policy of seeking to negotiate with Tehran’s leaders.

There can be no doubt as to the outcome. Why? Because the Europeans have been “negotiating” with Iran over a variety of issues since the early 1990s, and have absolutely zero to show for it.

In the 1990s, the Euro-appeasers called it “constructive engagement.” The idea was to talk to Iran about specific human rights violations – such as Iranian intelligence agents traveling to Berlin and assassinating Iranian Kurdish dissidents, as they did in 1992 – and hope they wouldn’t repeat the offense, so Europe would actually have to do something about it.

After a laborious, four-year legal proceeding, a German court issued arrest warrants for then President Hashemi-Rafsanjani (touted by the CFR as a “moderate”), Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, intelligence minister Ali Fallahian, and Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati. Wringing their hands, the Europeans temporarily withdrew their ambassadors from Tehran…and continued commercial relations without skipping a beat.

Since 2003, the Europeans have been “negotiating” with Tehran’s mullahs over their previously undeclared (and thus, illegal) nuclear program. Here we are, more than three years later, and Iran continues to enrich uranium, in utter defiance of the Europeans, the IAEA, and now the UN Security Council. And Condi and the CFR actually believe we are going to achieve something through yet more negotiations?

Bang! Bang! The Witch is Dead – or at least, she should be.

To the credit of the CFR’s Charles Kupchan, he rightly concluded at last week’s conference at the New America Foundation that the current U.S. policy is leading directly to one of two thoroughly unacceptable results: U.S. acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran, or war.

But the CFR prescription of a “grand bargain” also leads to war, because it empowers the current clerical leadership in Iran, and that leadership is hell-bent on war. Even worse: over the past two years, seeing the U.S. falter in Iraq, they have come to the conclusion that they even can beat us.

If I were a cynical Washington Beltway rat, I would conclude that the State Department and the CIA (which favors this failed policy, because they are incapable of recruiting spies in Iran), knows that negotiating with Iran will fail, and will only allow the Iranian regime to buy time to perfect its nuclear technology.

They will say – indeed, they say so today – that no one has proposed a better alternative.

But that is patently false. Congress has passed any number of bills, which have been signed into law, that call on the administration to fund bonafide Iranian opposition groups and opposition radio and television radio broadcasts. Instead, the State Department (perhaps, instructed by the CIA) has chosen to fund charlatans and fakes.

For example:

  • $2 million has gone to a pseudo think tank at Yale University to document human rights abuses that others have been documenting for years with little or no U.S. government support;
  • $50 million has been pledged to expand Voice of America television broadcasts that give equal time to Hezbollah representatives (that’s the VOA’s old “fairness” doctrine at work), while VOA’s more effective (but less expensive) short-wave radio broadcasts have been given the axe; and
  • Close to $1 million has gone to “reformers” who have recently left Iran and have been making U.S. government-sponsored tours around America, to drum up support for an internal “reformation” of the Islamic regime in Tehran.

In the meantime, folks like ex-CFR staffer Susan Maloney at the State Department have vetoed funding of Iranian opposition radio and TV broadcasts, and training for opposition groups inside Iran, on the grounds that it might offend the Tehran regime.

There can be no doubt: The State Department and the CIA want the United States to fail in stopping Iran from going nuclear, because they fear confronting the mullahs running the show.

But the temerity of the CIA and the State Department today is going to cost the lives of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen tomorrow. And when the going gets rough, those advocates of “caution” and “negotiation” will happily whistle past the graveyard as the bombs and missiles fly, and whisper to the press that it is “Rumsfeld’s war.”

Because war is what we’re going to get if we continue the present course.

How Barack’s winning the evangelicals — Beware

How Barack’s winning the evangelicals

By Nicole Russell

For all his flaws, George W. Bush is a master–or was–at courtship.  On the campaign trail in 2004, Bush talked the talk, (and walked the walk) to the 100 plus million people who call themselves evangelicals.  Like a compelling shepherd, Bush didn’t just ask God to bless America, he prayed with people, referred to his faith regularly and often told of his personal story of redemption.  With enthusiasm and ease, he convinced hand-raising evangelicals to join his army, and follow their leader. 
The successful relationship between Bush and evangelicals resulted in the year of that devoted values voter, the product of the carefully-followed specs of Karl Rove’s architectural genius:  cater to the evangelical movement, a voting block too large to be dismissed.  When the Bible-thumpers made up the margin of victory for President Bush, candidates and state parties took note.  Two years later, they hired people to do what the President had done, but on a smaller scale:  Hold voter registration tables at churches, send out marriage amendment petitions, set up prayer teams (I know, I was one of them.)
Though it didn’t work for Republicans this time around, while conservatives and Christians were licking their wounds, someone else picked up where President Bush left off.  Like a dutiful dancing partner, Senator Barack Obama has begun courting the evangelical right, and some are already waltzing along in perfect time.
With his attendance at Rick Warren‘s church, Saddleback Valley Community, a mega-church in California for a large conference about AIDS, Obama has begun to align himself with an important base of voters to gain what conservatives lost this last year.  Already lauded by some prominent evangelical publications for his outstanding “Christian faith” and a person Rick Warren called a “good friend” and a someone he’d like to work with on important issues, Obama is in perfect position, if he can keep the momentum, to use an unusual strategy for political gain.
Obama has become well-known not only for his charisma and sudden rise to fame in the last few months, but for his outspoken Christian faith to which he refers regularly.  Over the past summer, Obama’s strategy started by chastising his fellow Democrats for failing to “acknowledge  the power of faith in the lives of the American people” (Associated Press, June 28, 2006).    
While some liberal politicians, a la Hillary Clinton, have begun to gravitate to the center while citing the importance of faith and God, most stay away from being openly seen in the trenches with those believers:  Someone might discover their Jesus-lingo is limited (remember Al Gore claiming John 16:3 as his favorite verse?).  But Obama has taken a different approach and with Bush-like-bravado has positioned himself alongside those Onward Christian Soldiers, ready to fight their fights in the next important battle. 
Unfortunately for Obama, he’s still got something of a pesky voting record, the one that alarmed the other half of evangelicals, and caused considerable controversy (18 antiabortion leaders asked Warren to disinvite Obama) when Warren invited Obama to his conference.  That proof of his die-hard liberalism is in the pudding: His votes are 100% that of a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, and his pro-choice position on abortion, is his most alarming. 
Though Warren admits he disagrees with Obama’s pro-choice position, that didn’t, and doesn’t, seem to stop many evangelicals to from dancing with their new partner.  Oblivious to his liberal leanings, many seem smitten by his boyish charm, attracted to his forthrightness, and infatuated by his gravitas.  Knowing this, Obama is visible among those evangelicals (like Warren) who are concerned with issues de jour, poverty and AIDS, instead of those aligned with typical, and more politically-charged issues like abortion and gay marriage. 
While the evangelical movement has been regrouping from the losses of their pet conservatives this last year, Barack Obama snuck into their Jesus-camp.  If he stays, he just may be one of the first to win both sides of the voting block, and if the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing, conservatives could have a problem, and liberals could have their solution.

Christ in Pakistan

The Imam Scam and the Democratic House of Games

The Imam Scam and the Democratic House of Games

December 28, 2006

Vox PopuliBy Marc Sheppard

Remember when fear of flying was a normal, human response to an inner doubt that a 3 quarter million pound hunk of metal had any business being 30,000 feet in the air? Of course, that was before 19 men – all Mideast Muslims – ended their miserable lives on September 11, 2001 and took nearly 3,000 innocent victims along for the ride. Since that dreadful day, it’s doubtful that even the most ardently PC liberal has boarded any airplane without carefully evaluating all fellow passengers – and not to evade inebriated Shriners.

It is that same indelible angst of their brothers’ making which a group of Muslim thugs targeted last month to perpetrate a hideous hoax. And the soon-to-be empowered Democrats and their gullible accomplices in the media proved the perfect patsies for this odious plan to make the skies ever more dangerous for Americans. Or did they?

In a swindle blending the shakedown tactics of Jesse Jackson with the outright fabrications of Al Sharpton, the flying imams set out to provide Democrats the perfect cover to breathe life into a deservedly dying bill — The End Racial Profiling Act. Passage of this absurd waste of paper would all but assure terrorists unfettered access to our greatest of vulnerabilities – particularly airlines.

Step 1 — The Plan

The grift likely began in Minneapolis on November 18th, where approximately 150 Imams attended the annual conference of the North American Imams Federation. The stated theme was “Towards Improving Imams Professionalism and Community Outreach.” But their immediate purpose was to stage an event that would dupe their enemies into enacting law which would be tantamount to suicide.

It’s clear that modern Jihadists have learned to utilize liberal intolerance of collateral damage and civilian casualties when waging public opinion wars abroad. But here at home, they know the secret lies in exploiting liberal intolerance of, well — intolerance.

With just that in mind, this pack of terror-sympathizers hatched the perfect plot to outrage their weak-kneed allies on the left into a quite predictable course of action. These architects of fear included such stand-up “American” Muslims as:

• Siraj Wahhaj – an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 plot to blow up several New York Landmarks and a “character witness” for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. The “Blind Sheikh,” now reportedly on his death bed, is serving a life sentence in the U.S. Medical Center for Prisons in Springfield, Mo. He was the “spiritual leader” of the terror cell that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing and was planning to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.
• Ashrafuzzaman Khan — who is alleged to have run the Jamaati executioners death squads during the Bangladesh war. He escaped prosecution for the murders of a group of Bengali intellectuals when he fled that country in 1971.
• Imam Dr. Omar Shahin – who has been linked to fund raising activities for both al-Qaeda and Hamas. He’s currently the President of NAIF and served 3 years as Imam and director of the Islamic Center of Tucson. The ICT’s former president, Wael Hamza Jalaidan is believed to be a founder of Al Qaeda. Alumni of the mosque read like a whose-who of Islamo-terrorists, including Hani Hanjour, the Saudi who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Of definite note was the presence of guest speaker Rep. Keith (Hakim Mohammed) Ellison, a CAIR hand-puppet and the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. The Minnesota Democratic freshman and unrepentant radical Muslim – he has demanded to be sworn in next month with his hand on the Koran – is, not surprisingly, a strong backer of the ERPA

Rounding out the conspirators were the Shills — including CAIR and innumerable other Islamic activists and web-sites, which were strategically placed to play their parts in fueling the impending arsonists’ media fire. Bunko Team ready — Let the games begin.

Step 2 – The Setup

On November 20th, Shahin led 5 fellow Imams to the U.S Airways terminal at Minneapolis-St Paul International airport purportedly to catch a flight to Phoenix. But once there, they quickly set the stage for their flim-flam. In the words of Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, the six assembled in the gate area prior to boarding and

“were praying loudly and spouting some kind of anti-US rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq and Saddam Hussein.”

Witnesses reported that they shouted to “Allah” loudly and repeatedly. Imagine the anxiety this disturbance caused ticket-holders who were all too aware of the historic last words shouted by lunatic suicide bombers – including the 9/11 murderers.

Upon boarding the plane, the imams each sat in separate sections. But according to passengers and flight attendants, they then moved without crew permission from their assigned seats to 2 in the front row of first-class, 2 in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and 2 in the very rear of the cabin. Those paying attention reportedly recognized this as the seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers. Commenting on this dispersion model, a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous told reporters,

“That would alarm me. They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane.”

Frankly, it’s difficult to imagine any reasonable person not being alarmed, but terrified, by this now familiar stratagem. Sure, liberals would have us treat Muslims behaving menacingly on airplanes the same as we’d treat similarly misbehaving frat-boys returning from spring-break. It’s the very fact that such lunacy goes against every human survival instinct that moves them to legislate us into their quixotic and suicidal world.

Now, there appears to be some controversy as to whether 3 or all 6 had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. Also in dispute is whether 1 or none had been legitimately bumped to first class, where 2 of them eventually sat.

No matter — once the flight was delayed due to their outrageous behavior they moved about the cabin and conspicuously spoke Arabic in a deliberate effort to further heighten passenger terror. They also requested seat-belt extensions from the flight attendants, though neither necessary for nor actually used by any of them. Instead, they were placed on the floor for all to see, brandished as potential weapons or restraints.

As expected, at least one horrified passenger opted to obey the now familiar airport sign demanding “If you see something, say something!” Surely, everyone on flight 300 had seen more than enough.

Once notified, the pilot calmly asked the six to disembark for further screening. They refused. Again, according to plan, police were called onto the plane and the men were forcibly removed, taken into custody and quickly released when no weapons or bombs were found by the FBI. Setup complete — the pigeons were cooped.

Step 3 – The Sting

Within hours, readily available Muslim-rights groups launched complaints of “religious harassment” which were quickly and obediently gobbled up by the eager media. The complicit MSM predictably dispensed their duties by depicted the 6 as innocent Imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis who were persecuted for praying prior to flying. Yeah, and Hyman Roth was just a retired investor on a pension returning to the U.S. Nonetheless, cries of “Islamophobia” were stridently shouted from the rooftops and the outrage immediately morphed into a plethora of proposed remedies.

CAIR quickly issued a statement demanding congressional hearings to investigate this and other incidents of “flying while Muslim.” And, according to Investor’s Business Daily just 2 days after the mock-hijacking, incoming Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-MI), whose district includes one of the largest Islamic populations in the country,

[had] already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

This as an addendum to an already security-weakening bill Conyers had promised his Muslim constituency he’d see passed. What’s more, taking political correctness to the verge of mental illness — Pelosi (D-CA) and Ellison publicly called for criminalizing the act of profiling. The potentially compromised Speaker had already promised Muslims in 2004 to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible, adding that,

“Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal”

To cover any “excuses” of post 9/11 jitters, the always hilarious Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who once complained that hurricane names were all “Lily White,” was on hand to remind us that the terrorist attacks,

“cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans. Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment”

Then, exactly one week after the apparent mock-hijacking, and in an effort to heighten visibility and thus liberal outrage, an “interfaith pray-in” was staged at the U.S Airways ticket counter in Reagan Washington National Airport. The event gave ringleader Shahin another opportunity to give his highly dubious version of the incident. Claiming it to have been the “worst moment of [his] life,” he again flatly denied that any of the imams had done anything suspicious.

Shahin then called upon Muslims to boycott the airline, which might have an ironic impact – knowing that Muslims are avoiding U.S Airways has caused many to believe it to be the safest method of air travel.

The next day, Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, attempted to seal the terror-abetting deal when he told IslamOnline.net that,

“.. we are desirous of large financial compensation for the imams, civil and federal sanctions for their conduct, and new broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling”

Could it be merely by chance that such legislation is exactly what Pelosi, Conyers, et al had in mind – for starters anyway?

Step 4 – The Expected Payoff: The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007

S. 2138 provides federal funding defaults and potential civil penalties for any agencies which, when challenged, cannot prove that they did not racially profile anyone they questioned, detained, searched, or seized contraband from. It broadly defines the offense as (emphasis mine):

relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure….

It further requires that law enforcement agencies keep records as to the race, ethnicity, national origin and religion of all stops and searches. This data will be analyzed regularly by designees of the DOJ to determine if that agency is engaging in profiling. These inane determinations will be made based upon percentages of encounters compared to percentages of the population.

Such folly would keep our courts busy entertaining frivolous lawsuits driven by cherry-picked data and our law enforcement agencies more concerned with sticking to quota than solving and preventing crimes. This would allow jihadists to repeat upon our mass transit system that which they’ve accomplished in the Mideast and Europe. Daniel Horan of the LAPD, who spent 6 years at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues agrees:

“A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety.”

Moreover, such a law would ultimately provide exclusionary cause for captured terrorists, as well as yet another “blame the victim” modus for ACLU-molded lawyers to confuse low IQ or nullify minority juries.

Coincidently, in a July article exploring the same inherent flaws in the gathering of racial information at traffic-stops for analysis by Suffolk County, NY cops, I sarcastically concluded:

What next – a similar program at airports to affirm that Muslims, who comprise nearly 100% of the terrorist population, are not searched in numbers greater than the percentage they represent of the flying population? Has this country gone completely mad?

Last month’s election results may both create the hypothetical and answer the rhetorical questions in that paragraph. Of course, even should the idiocy and mind-blowing danger of this legislation somehow manage to escape both Houses, it’s unlikely that the president’s veto pen would remain MIA. Surely Pelosi, Conyers, and even Ellison know this – they’re likely laying the groundwork for what they predict as a post 2008 power Troika.

And that’s exactly why this bill, which has been terminally ill for over 4 years, must be killed once and for all, along with those it would ultimately help to destroy us,. Furthermore, if Conyers wants special consideration for Muslims, he should have it. Specifically — legislation must be considered which would make the actions perpetrated by these Imams at least comparable to crying “fire” in a crowded theater or otherwise inciting a riot.

The Next Speaker of the House of Games

Finally, nothing which took place on that airplane even remotely qualifies as religious or racial profiling. What was “profiled” — to use the ridiculously misleading term du jour — was intentionally suspicious behavior. Indeed, if 6 men walked into a bank wearing ski-masks, an alert teller would not wait to see their weapons before tripping the silent alarm: They were, after all, behaving in a manner highly consistent with that of armed robbers. Now that Islamic males of Mideastern extraction have defined manners equally consistent with murderous plane-hijackers, behaving as such should and must be met with similarly appropriate defensive maneuvers.

Whether the eager-to-oblige “proud” co-sponsors of the original act, Rep. Conyers and Speaker-to-be Pelosi were merely “marks” or something more is still open to conjecture. Then again, which would be worse – control of the House by those who would conspire with our enemies or those who would be so easily duped by them?

That’s some choice.

People of the Year: Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean

People of the Year: Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean
By FrontPage Magazine
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 29, 2006

The annual FrontPage Magazine Man of the Year award seeks to honor individuals who have devoted their lives to promoting the spread of liberty and the defense of their country and its people. Moreover, FPM seeks to fete those who have suffered as a result of their actions. In recent years, this has included Col. Allen B. West, John O’Neill, and Orianna Fallaci, whose good deeds have brought them derision, harassment, or physical or verbal abuse. This year, so many people met both qualifications (see the first two “Honorable Mentions” below) that the intensity of suffering tipped the scales.

In 2006, none have suffered worse for doing good than Border Patrol agents Ignacio “Nacho” Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28. In August, the pair received 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively, for trying to stop a drug smuggler from entering the country.

 

On February 17, 2005, Ramos and Compean were patrolling the border town of Fabens, Texas, when a Mexican illegal alien and drug smuggler, attempted to secret nearly 800 pounds of marijuana into the United States in his van. Agent Compean chased Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila by vehicle and on foot, ordering him to stop. Compean says Aldrete-Davila ignored him, pushed him down, and assaulted him, whereupon the agent called for backup, drawing seven additional units, including Ramos. When he arrived on the scene, he heard gunfire, saw Compean bleeding on the ground, and the fugitive – still refusing to stop as commanded – stealing furtive glances over his shoulder while holding something shiny he believed to be a handgun. Both state they felt threatened, and both fired rounds in the alien’s direction, Ramos striking him in the buttocks. The alien got away, but the two men had jeopardized their own well-being to keep his noxious contraband off our streets.

 

Returning to Mexico, Aldrete-Davila related his misfortunes to his mother, who contacted the mother-in-law of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez. Sanchez in turn tipped off a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who went to Mexico to offer immunity if Osbaldo would act as a state’s witness against Ramos and Compean: the feds wanted to prosecute the agents shooting the alien narcotics supplier.

 

To sweeten the immunity deal, the feds paid for Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila’s medical treatment of his ailing backside – a taxpayer-funded recuperation at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. He showed his gratitude by breaking his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America. The prosecution further extended its immunity to this felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila repaid this new shower of grace by suing the federal government for $5 million, alleging the shooting violated his civil rights. However, he agreed to help in their criminal prosecution, as well, and the feds are apparently happy to collaborate with the pusher as long as he helped put effective lawmen behind bars.

 

What exactly is their crime? In the words of Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing.” That is, if an illegal immigrant – even a drug kingpin or terrorist – flees from a Border Patrol agent, regulations demand that he not further pursue or apprehend the fugitive. Patrol agents acknowledge this procedure is widely disregarded, for obvious reasons. Secondly, both men have said numerous agents were on hand for the shooting and had filed a report, so they did not file a report of their gunfire. Compean also picked up his shells from the scene, though Ramos did not. These actions breach Border Patrol protocol and should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Instead, the federal government portrayed Ramos and Compean as bloodthirsty racists and threatened them with 20+ years in prison.

 

Compean’s lawyer, Chris Antcliff, attempted to insert some sanity to the proceedings. He reminded the jury Osbaldo was the criminal and told the media, “This case is a little bit upside down in my mind.”

 

Conversely, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof prosecuted the case with rare initiative. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security – the department that is supposed to protect American citizens from the likes of Aldrete-Davila – joined her program to demonize the agents.

 

The prosecution contended Compean called the alien victim a “Mexican piece of sh-t.” The DHS went further, telling concerned Congressmen in Texas on September 26 that the agents confessed they “were out to shoot Mexicans.” The department’s Office of Inspector General has provided no proof for the assertion. Nor do they seem concerned that both alleged racists, Ramos and Compean, claim to be of Mexican descent.

 Further, Kanof claimed the agents themselves never said the smuggler had a gun. Prosecutors contended Aldrete-Davila “had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean’s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next.” Allegedly, the good-hearted smuggler was climbing out of this ditch in order to surrender to Compean. However, the prosecutors did not explain why he ran into the ditch in the first place, if surrender were his goal. They claimed “Compean swung his shotgun around in an attempt to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his weapon, but lost his footing and fell face down into the dirt and brush.” Poor Osbaldo did not lay a finger on the clutz. 

The prosecutorial caricature proved so transparent local media rapidly saw through it. The (Ontario, CA) Daily Bulletin provided outstanding coverage of all aspects of the trial, reporting:

 

[A]n Office of Inspector General memorandum obtained by the Daily Bulletin Tuesday contradicts [Prosecutor] Sutton’s claim that Ramos and Compean reported Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. The memorandum of activity was written April 4, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, the OIG investigator who questioned Compean about the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting. Sanchez was the same agent who went to Mexico to interview Aldrete-Davila, according to documents obtained by the newspaper.

 

The Sanchez memo notes:

 

Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him. Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila’s hand and because Aldrete-Davila continued to look back towards his direction. Compean explained that he thought the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot at him because he kept looking back at him.

 

Two of the smuggler’s family members lend credence to his concern, telling the newspaper Aldrete-Davila had been smuggling since age 14 and “wouldn’t move drugs unless he had a gun on him.” One of them added he had lately taken to “bragging about the money he’s going to get in a lawsuit every time we talk to him – but now he’s nervous.”

 

Further, murderous retaliation was not confined to his past. The Sanchez memo continues:

 

Osbaldo [Aldrete-Davila] had told [Border Patrol agent] Rene Sanchez that his friends had told him they should put together a hunting party and go shoot some BP [Border Patrol] agents in revenge for them shooting Osbaldo. Osbaldo advised Rene Sanchez that he told his friends he was not interested in going after the BP agents and getting in more trouble. (Emphasis added.)

 

On the other hand, even the prosecution admits, “in the entire time of the defendants’ employment as Border Patrol agents, every reported shooting had been ruled justified and no agent was disciplined as a result of a shooting.”  

 

Aside from conflicting stories of Border Patrol agents caught up in the heat of a shootout, the case comes down to the word of two exemplary officers with spotless records versus that of a drug smuggling border crasher who may or may not have opted to have his gangland friends execute innocent Border Patrol agents as long as it would not entail “getting into more trouble.” Ramos is a Navy veteran and has been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

 

Nevertheless, this August a jury in Texas convicted the two of assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, violating the “civil rights” of an illegal alien, and obstruction of justice “for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.”

 

Some of the jurors broke down in tears at the reading of the guilty verdict. Three jurors – Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres, and Edine Woods – came forward days before the sentencing in October to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge would not allow a hung jury. Doing so, they noted, violated their consciences. Gourley wrote, “Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different.” Two days later, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the motion for a new trial.

 

Although many Congressmen hoped for a federal investigation, Judge Cardone – a 2003 George W. Bush appointee whose near-total focus before assuming the federal bench had been family law – had also refused to delay sentencing until after any potential review, saying it would only “postpone the inevitable.” Ultimately, no review ever came.

 

In October, Cardone sentenced Ramos to 11 years, and Compean to 12 years, imprisonment – 6-7 years longer than the sentence a U.S. district judge imposed that July upon another Border Patrol officer who had smuggled 100 illegal immigrants into the country.

 

Outraged by this decision, 48 Congressmen asked President Bush to grant a Christmas pardon to the two via letter on December 9. “We submit this letter, in the spirit of reconciliation and pardon that is such a part of this season, asking you personally to commute the sentences of U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean,” they wrote.

 

The effort is a bipartisan affair. One is unsurprised to learn Reps. Tom Tancredo and James Sensenbrenner have signed on. However, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, has also called for a Congressional investigation and appealed to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “It appears that the facts do not add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts,” she said. “Border agents often have a difficult and dangerous job in guarding our nation’s borders. Undue prosecution of Border Patrol agents could have a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties.”

 

Rep. Walter Jones, R-NC – a conservative who has also championed the Academic Bill of Rights – penned his own letter to the president. “This demoralizing prosecution puts the rights of illegal smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing immigration laws,” Jones wrote.

 

The Bush Justice Dept. merely responded to this coalition with a note that indicated “should Messrs. Ramos and Compean wish to petition for clemency, they may contact the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice for further information on eligibility and procedures.” No further action has been taken.

 

This inaction has spurred more than 156,000 people to sign a petition for the agents’ pardon at Grassfire.org. (Here is another.)

 

The Ramos family has seen its home slide into foreclosure trying to pay its legal bills; the costly appeals process seems prohibitive. Unless action is taken, the Ramos family could lose their breadwinner to incarceration and Jose Compean could be taken from his three-month-old child’s side as early as January 17.

 

The agents may not have followed protocol to the letter, and FrontPage Magazine does not condone or excuse that. However, they displayed the mettle necessary to protect their fellow countrymen from drug smugglers, terrorists, and other illegals on a daily basis – qualities of purpose, fortitude, and self-sacrifice that have themselves become alien from so those in the federal bureaucracy. How else could federal prosecutors and U.S. the Department of Homeland Security, run by a hawkish administration in the midst of a War on Terror, side with a gun-toting drug smuggler over a veteran and an officer with an impeccable record? The federal government has presumed against two of its own, lied and demonized them, as they tried to plug one porous hole in our ossified War on Drugs. Bureaucratic infractions call for bureaucratic penalties; these men have lost their money, their reputations, and (perhaps soon) their freedom trying to protect our nation. For that, they deserve our thanks.

 

Honorable Mentions (in no particular order):

 

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The much-maligned Defense secretary who led American forces through one of the most rapid military overthrows in history, followed by the most benign “occupation” marked by the most humane rules of engagement (yea, these even to our soldiers’s detriment). He transformed the military, spoke the truth about our Eurosocialist “allies,” and showed grace in resignation. A leaked memo showed he was far more flexible than ever given credit for. He proved a model appointee. With his departure exits perhaps the last man in the administration who still dared to calculate the means of an American victory.

 

UN Ambassador John Bolton. After a stormy non-confirmation, Bolton won over even his hardened critics with a performance that forced the United Nations to take baby steps toward reform. Since the GOP put off the confirmation in the interests of Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s re-election, it gave a sore loser the opportunity to deprive America of its most successful advocate in two decades.

 Former Secretary of State Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Merely recounting her words and deeds – now more than two decades old – has injected reality into the discussion of foreign policy following the Iraq Study Group’s terms of surrender. RIP.

The Lamest Excuse

The Lamest Excuse
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | December 29, 2006

That American progressives should have aligned themselves with the terrorists in
Gaza comes as no surprise and is hardly interesting. American progressives have aligned themselves with totalitarian movements since 1917 and, indeed, since 1789. It is what they do and who they are. What is interesting are the pathetic excuses they make for 21st Century Nazis. In the December 28th Nation Chris Hedges has a defense of Jimmy Carter’s latest effort to the throw the Jews to the lions. 

In the course of feeding the anti-Jewish frenzy of the Islamic crusade, Hedges explains the fratricidal mayhem between genocidal factions among the Palestinians in
Gaza. For those not paying attention, a highlight of this was assassination of three Palestinian children aged 3 to 9 on their way to school to punish their father for belonging to the wrong terrorist group. Approximately 500 Palestinians have been killed by other Palestinians in the same fracas. 

Hedges’ explanation is drawn from the fertile brain of an Israeli leftist: “[The Palestinians in
Gaza] are behaving as expected at the end of the extended experiment called ‘what happens when you imprison 1.3 million human beings in an enclosed space like battery hens.’” This is pretty neat. For forty years – since Israel liberated Gaza from Egyptian rule – Arabs have complained about the “occupation” of their “homeland,” one of innumerable Arab lies since the reason for the presence of Israeli troops was 1) Gaza was a hostile corridor across which Israel was invaded three times; 2) the Arabs have been in state of declared war against Israel since 1948; and 3) there were 7,000 Jews living in Gaza who, unlike the Arabs living in Israel, would be slaughtered if there were not Israeli troops to protect them. Hedges and his friends relentlessly overlook the genocidal ambitions of the Palestinians in discussing these issues. In 2005, the Israelis left Gaza and evacuated the Jews – by the way its most productive and law-abiding citizens of
Gaza. So now that it is liberated,
Gaza is – a prison! And of course the entire Middle East will be a prison until Jew-haters like Hamas and The Nation progressives have their way and
Israel is wiped off the map.

But this is only the beginning of the explanation. It seems that for progressives like Hedges, Palestinians have the brains of chickens. When cooped up, they kill each other. Actually, not even chickens are this brainless. They have to be more than cooped up, they have to be packed like sardines.


Gaza is a lot bigger than the Warsaw Ghetto, where 500, 000 Jews – unlike the Gazans – were actually imprisoned. Yet no Jews, in those circumstances, went around assassinating three- to nine-year-olds. Anne Frank and her family were actually penned up like battery hens. It didn’t make them killers. 

There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel – roughly the number of Arabs living in
Gaza. By The Nation’s standards, you could say they were penned up like battery hens. Yet they don’t go around killing each other. The reason is that in
Israel – unlike any other Arab state – they are free. They are even in the Israeli government. And unlike the Arabs in
Gaza they are not followers of a government sponsored death cult which teaches them to kill for Allah and especially to kill Jews. This death cult is the problem in the
Middle East, the source of the conflict and the reason why Palestinian factions are killing each other. 

The death cult calls on its followers – the very religious fanatics that progressives have embraces – to kill and be killed for God. Of course, the genocidal mission begins with the Crusader-Zionist alliance, Americans and Jews. Here is a frenzied utterance of the late and unlamented head of Hamas, Abdel Azziz al-Rantissi (mercifully executed by the Israelis): “We realize that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims.
America declared war on God. Sharon declared war on God and God declared war on America, Bush and
Sharon.”

But that is only the beginning. If you are in the army of God then even the enemies in your own camp are not. During the current mayhem in Gaza, followers of Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah fired on a Hamas rally in the
West Bank. This was the response, as reported by ABC on December 16: “What a war Mahmoud Abbas you are launching, first against God, and then against Hamas,” senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya told a Gaza City rally of 100,000 Hamas supporters, who fired their guns in the air and chanted ‘God is Greatest.’”

 In other words the sickness that has consumed the Palestinians of Gaza and the
West Bank is self-generated, an emanation of the death cult they have been nurturing for decades. But if you’re a progressive, blame it on the Jews. After all this is what your genocidal friends would say themselves.

Somali troops enter Mogadishu to cheers A victory for the free world, and for Somalia

Somali troops enter Mogadishu to cheers

A victory for the free world, and for Somalia — if they can make it stick. By Mohamed Olad Hassan for Associated Press:

MOGADISHU, Somalia – Jubilant Somalis cheered as troops of the U.N.-backed interim government rolled into Mogadishu unopposed Thursday, putting an end to six months of domination of the capital by a radical Islamic movement.Ethiopian soldiers stopped on the outskirts of town, after providing much of the military might in the offensive that shattered what had seemed an unbeatable Islamic militia. Islamic fighters fled south vowing to continue the battle.

“We are in Mogadishu,” Prime Minister Mohamed Ali Gedi declared after meeting with local clan leaders to discuss the peaceful hand-over of the city.

Despite the celebrations in the streets, worries about the future were widespread in a country that hasn’t had an effective national government since clan warlords toppled a longtime dictator 15 years ago.

Many in overwhelmingly Muslim Somalia are suspicious of the transitional government’s reliance on neighboring Ethiopia, a traditional rival with a large Christian population and one of East Africa’s biggest armies. Witnesses said crowds threw rocks at Ethiopians troops on the city’s northern edge.

Somalia’s complex clan politics also are a big worry, having undone at least 14 attempts to install a central government in this violent, anarchic nation.

Gedi’s government, set up in 2004 with U.N. backing, is riddled with clan rivalries, most notably between the young prime minister and elderly president.

“The future of Somalia is very bleak and Somalis will share the same fate with Iraq and Afghanistan,” a Mogadishu resident, Abdullahi Mohamed Laki, told The Associated Press. “The transitional government has no broad support in the capital.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers