Somali Islamists declare : “we will slaughter Christians” – “Somalis are 100% Muslim and will always remain so”

Somali Islamists declare : “we will slaughter Christians” – “Somalis are 100% Muslim and will always remain so”

October 17, 2006
MIM: According to the Society for Internet Research more then 500 Christians were killed in Somali over the past decade. The killing of an Italian nun in front of a children’s hospital had several precedents which garnered scant media attention.

“….there were several attacks against non-Muslim international relief workers in October–December 2003. On October 5, 2003, the Italian nun Annalena Tonneli—known as Mother Theresa of Africa and who had served in Somalia for thirty years “founding a hospital, orphanages and schools”—was killed by two armed men in front of the hospital. Soon after, on October 20, 2003, a British couple Richard and Enid Eyeington—working for SOS Children’s villages in Somaliland—were shot dead by several gunmen in their home inside the school compound. In November 2003 a Kenyan Christian working for the Seventh Day Adventist mission in Gedo, South West Somalia, was reportedly murdered by Islamist radicals…”

The zero tolerance for Christians was epitomised by the words of a Sheik who pronounced a death sentence on them in a 2003 interview:

“… Sheikh Nur Barud, vice chairman of the influential Somali Islamist group Kulanka Culimada…stressed that “all Somali Christians must be killed according to the Islamic law. A Muslim can never become a Christian but he can become an apostate. Such people do not have a place in Somalia and we will never recognize their existence and we will slaughter them”. The Sheikh concluded his interview by saying “Somalis are 100 percent Muslim and they will always remain so”.

MIM: How ironic that Somali taxi drivers at the Minnesota airport attempting to implement shari’a law by not picking up non Muslim passengers carrying alchohol complained that their “religious rights have to be respected”. jOver the years groups of Somali workers have been filing lawsuits against employers for discrimination after they were not granted permission to pray 5 times a day on company time.

More egregious still – Somali Muslims who were resettled in the United States to escape the strife in their home country are sending millions back to the warlords to perpetuate the violence. The government is also comprised of Islamists who believe in equal opportunity murder, and recently executed a citizen for a cell phone dispute to make it clear that shari’a law was to be enforced.

“…The man killed Friday, was sentenced to death for murdering a man in a cell phone dispute. A spokesman for the Islamic courts said the execution will send a message that Islamic sharia law will be enforced…” http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-22-voa14.cfm

Also see:

PDF] Somalia’s Islamists

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
with Somali priorities – the restoration of peace, legitimate. and broad-based government, of Muslim Youth (WAMY, based in Saudi Arabia); the
se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=7&fileid=792A1DE7-B212-2D2A-4543-3A46F13B1E68&lng=en – Similar pages

Muslims Persecution of Christians: The Unknown Side of Radical Islam in Somalia

http://www.sofir.org/sarchives/005657.php#

Somalia is considered to be a country that does not recognize religious freedom, because there is no constitution and no legal provision for its protection. About 99.5 percent of the Somalia population is Muslim. The very small Christian minority comprises of ethnic Bantus, as well as humanitarian workers and expatriates. According to Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights organization, Somalia is the worst persecutor of Christians among all the nations in Africa. Thus, it can mean death to be openly Christian in Somalia. Christians are now the only group having no place to flee in Somalia, and cannot register as refugees to resettle in other countries. Since Muslims control refugee camps, most Christians have fled to the remote areas of Ethiopia and Kenya along the border.

Since U.S. and U.N. peacekeeping forces left in 1995, Islamic mobs have murdered more than 500 Christians in Somalia. The Transitional Federal Government (TFG), created in 2004, has enacted a constitution, which recognizes only Islam as the national religion. It tried to establish a central government but the two other parts of the country, the Republic of Somaliland and the Republic of Puntland, have declared independence, proclaiming themselves to be Islamic states, and established Shari’ah law. However, regional authorities do not espouse rhetoric against non-Muslims. The Judiciary in most regions relies on some combination of Shari’ah, traditional and customary law, and the Penal Code of the pre-1991 Siad Barre government.

The hatred of the Muslims toward Christians may be caused by the attitude of many toward Christianity, which is regarded as a foreign religion of their historic enemies in Ethiopia and their former colonial masters, Italy and Great Britain. In 1886 the Roman Catholic Mission setup a mission base and established a school at the port town of Berbera in the then British protectorate of Somaliland. About the same time the Franciscan mission of the Roman Catholic Church and the Swedish Overseas Lutheran Mission each setup a mission base in Mogadishu and Kismayu towns respectively. Soon, the church was expanding rapidly to Margarita (Jamame), Mugambo and Alexandra (Jilib). Their missionary brought about a tiny Christian community of up to one thousand people, mainly in the south.

During the 1950s three Christian missions, namely the Swedish Lutheran Mission, the Mennonite Mission and Sudan Interior Mission (SIM) arrived in Somalia and Somali inhabited territories of Ethiopia and Kenya. Small group house churches sprung up in several towns throughout the Somali territory. As the church started to grow, so was the persecution, murdering and forced exile. Church property and institutions were nationalized in 1972 and all mission work was stopped in 1974. Furthermore, during Said Barre’s rule, in the 1970s and 1980s, the government banned the printing, importing, distributing or selling of Christian literature in the country. The government and its National Security Services secret police threatened, arrested, tortured, and murdered Somali Christians. Literally, freedom of religion was stated in the national constitution, but practically no one applied it. Many Somali Christians lost their jobs and businesses; others to survive abandoned their faith or immigrated to the western world. Those lucky enough got jobs with western embassies and international organizations in Mogadishu.

When president Siad Barre’s government was ousted from power in 1991 and the national government of Somalia fell apart, radical Muslim organizations became stronger and more powerful to do whatever they wish. They set up a committee of several sheikhs to search and identify all Somali Christians, whether they were in or out of Somalia. They also appointed a group of armed young men to execute all Somali Christians. Between January 1991 and December 1995 over two hundred Somali Christian adults were killed in Somalia and the neighboring countries of Yemen, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti. Many more were wounded and either became refugee to other countries or denied their faith to save their lives. Thousands of Somali Christians left Somalia and became refugees and still many more Christians remain underground in Somalia. They followed those who took refuge to Kenya and the neighboring countries. Many are persecuted, beaten or charged with false accusations in Nairobi by the Somali radical Muslims. In May 2001, for instance, Somali Christian man by the name of Bashir was tranquillized by his relatives by force and abducted to Somalia through Wilson airport without the government’s knowledge of his being abducted. Later, he was murdered in Burao, Somalia.

Thus, many Christian Somalis have fled abroad as a result of the wars, chaos, civil strife and instability which followed the collapse of Somalia in 1991, a situation which apparently continued following the withdrawal of American forces in 1994. Christian churches have been driven underground because of persecution and a number of Christians have been imprisoned and martyred over the years. Evangelism is prohibited, and Christians pray on Friday to avoid association with foreign Christianity.

The peace conference nearly collapsed in February 2003, when three Somali Christians went to Eldoret town and requested to participate on the Somali peace conference and represent the Somali Christian community. The Christians had demanded their right to freedom of religion and assembly, political representation, and free movement. Christian representatives were reportedly “shouted down by Muslim delegates who insisted Somalia had no Christians and who declared Islam to be the official religion of Somalia.” Peter Ahmed Abdi, leader of the Mogadishu Pentecostal Church, who is also chairman of the tiny Christian Somali community, said then “we live in constant fear. We have very little rights, since people believe that there are no Christians in Somalia”.

On February 9, 2003, the umbrella of the Somali Muslim religious groups, a powerful religious organ, met in Mogadishu and issued a memorandum. They stated in their memorandum and press release which was broadcasted or published by several local and international radio stations, newspapers and websites several articles concerning the Somali Christians. They also asked the participants of the peace conference not to accept any Somali who is claiming that he or she is Christian to participate in the conference and sit with them. According to the articles, Somali Christians abandoned Islam and must be killed; Somali Christians can neither inherit nor be inherited; their marriage to their spouses must be dissolved; Somali Christians forfeited their Somalihood; and once they die, Somali Christians cannot be buried in Somali soil. Fourteen sheikhs representing different major Somali clans signed this memorandum. Some of them are those who authorized and organized the campaign to eliminate Somali Christians from the Horn of Africa region.Sheikh Nur Barud, vice chairman of the influential Somali Islamist group Kulanka Culimada, claimed on April 22, 2004, that “some Somalis who claimed to be Christians went to attend the Somali reconciliation conference in Nairobi. These Somalis are apostates and they will be killed upon their return to Somalia”. The Kulanka Culimada was founded in February 1991. Most of its key leaders are graduates of Islamic seminaries in Saudi Arabia. In an interview to Himilo online held in November 2003, the Sheikh stressed that “all Somali Christians must be killed according to the Islamic law. A Muslim can never become a Christian but he can become an apostate. Such people do not have a place in Somalia and we will never recognize their existence and we will slaughter them”. The Sheikh concluded his interview by saying “Somalis are 100 percent Muslim and they will always remain so”.

According to the U.S. State Department’s 2005 report on international religious freedom, the Christian minority in Somalia is “small” and “extremely law profile”. Proselytizing for any religion except Islam is prohibited in Puntland and Somaliland and effectively blocked by informal social consensus elsewhere in the country. Although Christian-based international relief organizations generally operate without interference, provided that they refrain from proselytizing, there were several attacks against non-Muslim international relief workers in October–December 2003. On October 5, 2003, the Italian nun Annalena Tonneli—known as Mother Theresa of Africa and who had served in Somalia for thirty years “founding a hospital, orphanages and schools”—was killed by two armed men in front of the hospital. Soon after, on October 20, 2003, a British couple Richard and Enid Eyeington—working for SOS Children’s villages in Somaliland—were shot dead by several gunmen in their home inside the school compound. In November 2003 a Kenyan Christian working for the Seventh Day Adventist mission in Gedo, South West Somalia, was reportedly murdered by Islamist radicals.

In addition, in April 2004. thousands of Somalian Muslims marched through the streets of Mogadishu and in the southern coastal town of Merca, protesting at what they said was an attempt by aid agencies to spread Christianity. Muslim scholars organized the protest following reports that school children were given gifts with Christian emblems alongside charitable aid. The protesters set ablaze hundreds of cartoons containing goods, some marked only as gifts from the “Swiss Church”. The protesters warned the aid agencies against using relief items to evangelize in the country.

+++

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2474

The Truth about Islam

The Truth about Islam

CS Karlson

 

One cannot profess a belief in something one cannot define.  Being unable to define what you give a name to makes your belief irrational.  Likewise, a thing cannot be defined differently from one time to another.  Any definition of a real “thing” cannot change between people or over time.  We cannot in the name of being tolerant or “catholic” ascribe mutually exclusive attributes to a thing, and allow us to proclaim ourselves to be correct.  If we are to believe in a single, universal reality, we cannot accept personally derived definitions of it.  This is not a problem with reality; this is a problem with knowledge and understanding, and often communication.  As Ayn Rand would say, “A is A”. Islam appears to possess this characteristic of ambiguity and internal inconsistency.  Some claim it is peaceful.  Others say it is hateful and violent.  Both characterizations cannot be correct. 

What is of overriding importance then, is not to listen to the laments of such as Tashbih Sayyed, who cannot fathom why the non-Muslim world would cast a suspicious eye on Islam.  It is also not important to simply believe that Islam is unjust, cruel, or abhorrent without a realistic basis.  What is critical is to determine what Islam is.  Once we know what Islam is, because of the magnitude of its presence in this world, we must judge it against a standard of morality.  Either Islam should stand as a truly peaceful and just religion, and all false interpretations can be cast out as heresy, and all true Muslims can join the fight against the heretics who defile the name of Islam with invocations to violence, or Islam must be known by all concerned, intelligent people to be an abomination. Perhaps the truth is a little of both, but we must know, or all arguments and conflicts become arbitrary exercises in nonsense.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe what they are told about a religion.  They derive their “knowledge”\nfrom hearsay.  Because religions are complex and take time to understand,\nlearning from others is how most people gain knowledge about a faith.  But\nthis method is subject to tremendous errors in understanding.  How do you\nknow for sure that what you are being told is reasonable or true?  We need\nmore.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\nbelieve a religion is what the majority, or plurality, or consensus of its\npractitioners believe it to be.  This is the participatory democracy\ntheory of religious expression.  But this must necessarily not be correct,\nfor that model of reality renders the creed subject to personalization and\nvariation over time, and that is irrational.  As pointed out above, the\ndoctrine cannot change without a specific, clear process for change (in\northodoxy).  Either people can find an error in their interpretation of\nit, or they can shift away from it and establish an alternative religion, sect,\nor denomination.  But we cannot look to an average of all opinions about a\nreligion and be certain that a commonly peaceful religion wouldn’t turn\naround and become viciously sadistic.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe that all religions are man-made institution, and as such are\ncapable of transitioning through a historical process of continuous\nenlightenment.  This is the evolution theory of religious\ndefinition.  It assumes that in their dark, formative years, all religions\nare based on the norms for those relatively uncivilized folks, and as secular\ncivilization advances, the religion is upgraded to keep up.  Thus any\nreligion can, given enough time, evolve into something mature and tolerant. \nThis notion cannot be accepted, as it only allows a definition of a religious\ndoctrine to exist at a point in time, which upon sunset or daybreak could be interpreted\ndifferently to keep up with the events of the day.  We need more.”,1] ); //–>  

Some people believe what they are told about a religion. They derive their “knowledge” from hearsay.  Because religions are complex and take time to understand, learning from others is how most people gain knowledge about a faith.  But this method is subject to tremendous errors in understanding. How do you know for sure that what you are being told is reasonable or true? We need more. 

Some believe a religion is what the majority, or plurality, or consensus of its practitioners believe it to be. This is the participatory democracy theory of religious expression. But this must necessarily not be correct, for that model of reality renders the creed subject to personalization and variation over time, and that is irrational. As pointed out above, the doctrine cannot change without a specific, clear process for change (in orthodoxy). Either people can find an error in their interpretation of it, or they can shift away from it and establish an alternative religion, sect, or denomination. But we cannot look to an average of all opinions about a religion and be certain that a commonly peaceful religion wouldn’t turn around and become viciously sadistic. We need more. 

Some people believe that all religions are man-made institution, and as such are capable of transitioning through a historical process of continuous enlightenment.  This is the evolution theory of religious definition.  It assumes that in their dark, formative years, all religions are based on the norms for those relatively uncivilized folks, and as secular civilization advances, the religion is upgraded to keep up.  Thus any religion can, given enough time, evolve into something mature and tolerant.  This notion cannot be accepted, as it only allows a definition of a religious doctrine to exist at a point in time, which upon sunset or daybreak could be interpreted differently to keep up with the events of the day.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nSome\npeople believe that a religion is what its practitioners do.  This is the “walk\nthe walk” theory of the definition of a religion.  But we cannot\nlook to a believer’s behavior to define the belief system that the agent (of\nthe behavior) purports to represent.  What if the agent is wrong? \nThen their behavior is not representative of the creed.  Moreover, most\nreligions represent ideals, and as most people realize, we (people) are not\nthat good at living up to ideals.  Religions are intended to be instructional,\ninspirational, and directional.  That we cannot self-configure and self\nmaintain the ideal state is the reason why we have religion to begin with.  Looking\nat the behavior of people can never give you the true picture of their\nreligion.  We need more.

\n\n 

\n\nThis\nis not to say that the behavior patterns of a large sample of professed\nbelievers in a religion (necessarily) do not represent the ethical basis for a religion. \nLikewise, the assertions of those who repute to adopt a religion may (but do\nnot necessarily) represent some measure of truth about the religion\nitself.  While the behavior of the believer does not guarantee knowledge\nof the religion, observed behavior could certainly give rise to a hypothesis\nabout the definition of the religion.  This is essentially a scientific\nproblem, which can be tested.  But science does not measure fantasies or\nsubjective notions.  It can only verify reality, otherwise science itself\nis a pointless exercise.  A scientific method to determine the reality of\na religion’s principles can use behavior patterns to design an\nexperiment.  But that experiment must measure something firm, something\ndiscoverable.  Thus, the religion itself can only be defined by a single body\nof knowledge that all believers profess to accept.”,1] ); //–>  

Some people believe that a religion is what its practitioners do.  This is the “walk the walk” theory of the definition of a religion.  But we cannot look to a believer’s behavior to define the belief system that the agent (of the behavior) purports to represent.  What if the agent is wrong?  Then their behavior is not representative of the creed.  Moreover, most religions represent ideals, and as most people realize, we (people) are not that good at living up to ideals.  Religions are intended to be instructional, inspirational, and directional.  That we cannot self-configure and self maintain the ideal state is the reason why we have religion to begin with.  Looking at the behavior of people can never give you the true picture of their religion.  We need more. 

This is not to say that the behavior patterns of a large sample of professed believers in a religion (necessarily) do not represent the ethical basis for a religion.  Likewise, the assertions of those who repute to adopt a religion may (but do not necessarily) represent some measure of truth about the religion itself.  While the behavior of the believer does not guarantee knowledge of the religion, observed behavior could certainly give rise to a hypothesis about the definition of the religion.  This is essentially a scientific problem, which can be tested.  But science does not measure fantasies or subjective notions.  It can only verify reality, otherwise science itself is a pointless exercise.  A scientific method to determine the reality of a religion’s principles can use behavior patterns to design an experiment.  But that experiment must measure something firm, something discoverable.  Thus, the religion itself can only be defined by a single body of knowledge that all believers profess to accept. 

The body of knowledge must be a preserved state of thinking from the originator(s) of the religion.  It must be an intellectual property, which becomes the most reliable way to comprehend the nature of a religion.  But what is the body of knowledge?  And where is it?  Knowledge must come through some kind of reliable, stable interface between your mind and an intellectual property that represents the truth of the religion.  This interface is a medium where the “word” or the religion is documented and preserved.  Fortunately, we have a reliable source of knowledge about Islam, which transcends common ideas, common behaviors, and common chit chat.  It is a codex, a scripture.  It is the Koran and the Hadith.  While some apocrypha has crept into the body of Islamic scripture, there is a plain and accepted orthodoxy, that is fairly easy to determine in this, the world’s newest major religion. 

So the question for rational thinkers is this:  Is Islam a religion of peace, toleration, and forgiveness?  Or is it a religion of violence, revenge, and coercion?  Or is it a mix of both?  Or is the religion truly ambiguous, so metaphorical that its meaning simply cannot be derived, rendering the whole doctrine an absurd fantasy?  Is Islam immutable, or is it subject to change over time by a consensus of recursively enlightened representatives?  In today’s repressive culture of bashing Christianity and embracing “alternative” religions, are we even allowed to ask such impolite things, or will a million Muslims riot in the streets because we dare to seek the truth? 

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n1:  Islam is a belief system established as a way to reject and detest Judaism\nand Christianity as being heresies against “true” Abrahamic faith\nin God, and as abominations to the Muslim god, Allah.

\n\nTherefore,\nJews and Christians are necessarily subject to distaste, distrust, and ill\njudgment.

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n2: Islam calls for a lack of respect for, lack of forgiveness of, and\ninstitutionalized intolerance towards Jews and Christians.

\n\nTherefore,\nJews and Christians cannot be considered co-equals or “sinners”,\nbut as defilements, and obstacles to God’s will.

\n\n 

\n\nFact\n3:  Islam empowers and urges believers to wage violent, physical struggle\nagainst Jews and Christians as well as “pagans”, until the world is\nunder the political, military, and social authority of Islam.  Muhammad\nled or participated in wars of overt aggression, and these wars were approved\nand urged by the Muslim god, Allah to save the world by establishing Islamic\nrule.  Warriors for Allah are assured the highest benefits in heaven.\n(there is a notion of a “greater” Jihad, one of inner acceptance of\nIslam, but this notion is only applicable where Islam has already become\nsupreme….meaning, after the world is brought under the control of Islam,\nthe Muslims are free to continue a personal “struggle” against\ntheir natural urge to be free.”,1] ); //–>Let’s find out.  And when we do, we won’t have to worry about endless debates over whether or not the non-Muslim world has anything to fear from Islam’s encroachment.  Each of the assertions below is testable and verifiable, and we should welcome the task of validating the truth about Islam.  In fact, once validated, Islam can be compared with other religions in terms of its ethical essence, using similar processes to ascertain the truth about them. 

Fact 1:  Islam is a belief system established as a way to reject and detest Judaism and Christianity as being heresies against “true” Abrahamic faith in God, and as abominations to the Muslim god, Allah.

Therefore, Jews and Christians are necessarily subject to distaste, distrust, and ill judgment. 

Fact 2: Islam calls for a lack of respect for, lack of forgiveness of, and institutionalized intolerance towards Jews and Christians.

Therefore, Jews and Christians cannot be considered co-equals or “sinners”, but as defilements, and obstacles to God’s will. 

Fact 3:  Islam empowers and urges believers to wage violent, physical struggle against Jews and Christians as well as “pagans”, until the world is under the political, military, and social authority of Islam.  Muhammad led or participated in wars of overt aggression, and these wars were approved and urged by the Muslim god, Allah to save the world by establishing Islamic rule.  Warriors for Allah are assured the highest benefits in heaven. (there is a notion of a “greater” Jihad, one of inner acceptance of Islam, but this notion is only applicable where Islam has already become supreme….meaning, after the world is brought under the control of Islam, the Muslims are free to continue a personal “struggle” against their natural urge to be free.

\n\nTherefore,\nthere can be no lasting peace between non-Islamic and Islamic societies.  Further,\neven after Muslims are defeated in war, as long as they retain their religious\nbeliefs, they are actively encouraged to reinitiate war.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 4: \nIslam allows those captured in wars of aggression (for the glory of Allah) to\nbe killed and their possessions taken, and their women raped.  Islam\nallows and encourages the wealth of non-Muslims to be usurped and shared with\nthe Muslim church.  Islam allows those resisting its supremacy to be taken\nas slaves in the new Islamic order that follows defeat of the infidels. \nIslam allows and encourages, but does not force those under Islamic rule to\nconvert to Islam.

\n\nTherefore,\nlosing a war with military forces under the banner of Islam is painful and\ncostly.  Further, Islam sanctions rape, murder, looting, slavery, discrimination\nagainst non-Muslims, and forced conversions.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 5: \nIslam commands and prescribes many behaviors because either Muhammad commanded\nthem (Koran), or Muhammad behaved according to them (Hadith).  Muhammad’s\ncommandments and behavioral examples are to be personally emulated or politically\nimposed upon Islamic society.  There is little room in these commandments\nfor interpretation or inconsistency.  Many of these behavioral rules are\ncodified in sharia law.

\n\nTherefore,\nIslam is intended to impose a strict theocracy via sharia upon all subjects\nwithin its authority.  This authority (once Islam is supreme) permits\nofficial Islam to recognize alternate religions, but does not force them to do\nso.  And, all non-converts must be taxed and may be enslaved by Muslims.”,1] ); //–>

Therefore, there can be no lasting peace between non-Islamic and Islamic societies.  Further, even after Muslims are defeated in war, as long as they retain their religious beliefs, they are actively encouraged to reinitiate war. 

Fact 4:  Islam allows those captured in wars of aggression (for the glory of Allah) to be killed and their possessions taken, and their women raped.  Islam allows and encourages the wealth of non-Muslims to be usurped and shared with the Muslim church.  Islam allows those resisting its supremacy to be taken as slaves in the new Islamic order that follows defeat of the infidels.  Islam allows and encourages, but does not force those under Islamic rule to convert to Islam.

Therefore, losing a war with military forces under the banner of Islam is painful and costly.  Further, Islam sanctions rape, murder, looting, slavery, discrimination against non-Muslims, and forced conversions. 

Fact 5:  Islam commands and prescribes many behaviors because either Muhammad commanded them (Koran), or Muhammad behaved according to them (Hadith).  Muhammad’s commandments and behavioral examples are to be personally emulated or politically imposed upon Islamic society.  There is little room in these commandments for interpretation or inconsistency.  Many of these behavioral rules are codified in sharia law.

Therefore, Islam is intended to impose a strict theocracy via sharia upon all subjects within its authority.  This authority (once Islam is supreme) permits official Islam to recognize alternate religions, but does not force them to do so.  And, all non-converts must be taxed and may be enslaved by Muslims.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 6: \nIslam can never be changed by reinterpretation, redefinition, or even formal\nabrogation.  It can never be modified, ignored or abstracted.  No\nsubsequent or future prophets can succeed Muhammad’s authority.  If\nyou attempt to change the tenets of Islam as defined in the Koran, and as\nexemplified by Muhammad, you are an apostate, itself a crime punishable by\ndeath.  Further, whenever the Koran is in conflict with itself (some\npassages contradict other passages), the latter passages always supercede the\nformer (because the former passages are ipso facto Satanic verses).

\n\nTherefore,\nthose who claim Islam can be defined by contemporary consensus or circumstances\nare wrong.  Islam can never be considered to have changed in any context\nwhatsoever.  Further, where there are few, isolated examples of toleration\nand peacefulness in the Koran, these passages are rendered inoperative by any\ninvocations to violence and intolerance that appear later.  Muhammad’s\nactions and words right up until his death were clear indications of his intent\nto wage war on the non-converted world and to treat infidels in a\ndiscriminatory manner.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 7: \nThe figure and historic person of Muhammad (the prophet) may never be mocked,\nridiculed or tormented.  Those who engage in this conduct are subject to\nwrits of assassination.

\n\nTherefore\nMuslims are empowered to murder those they accuse of mocking the prophet.

\n\n 

\n\n“,1] ); //–>  

Fact 6:  Islam can never be changed by reinterpretation, redefinition, or even formal abrogation.  It can never be modified, ignored or abstracted.  No subsequent or future prophets can succeed Muhammad’s authority.  If you attempt to change the tenets of Islam as defined in the Koran, and as exemplified by Muhammad, you are an apostate, itself a crime punishable by death.  Further, whenever the Koran is in conflict with itself (some passages contradict other passages), the latter passages always supercede the former (because the former passages are ipso facto Satanic verses).

Therefore, those who claim Islam can be defined by contemporary consensus or circumstances are wrong.  Islam can never be considered to have changed in any context whatsoever.  Further, where there are few, isolated examples of toleration and peacefulness in the Koran, these passages are rendered inoperative by any invocations to violence and intolerance that appear later.  Muhammad’s actions and words right up until his death were clear indications of his intent to wage war on the non-converted world and to treat infidels in a discriminatory manner. 

Fact 7:  The figure and historic person of Muhammad (the prophet) may never be mocked, ridiculed or tormented.  Those who engage in this conduct are subject to writs of assassination.

Therefore Muslims are empowered to murder those they accuse of mocking the prophet. 

\n\nTherefore,\nIslam is an institution of perpetual discrimination against women.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 9: \nMuslims are encouraged to deceive and lie about their motives and tactics in\ntheir ongoing war with infidels.

\n\nTherefore,\nyou cannot trust or believe a Muslim’s words or deeds.

\n\n 

\n\nFact 10: \nMuslims are encouraged to not just wage war, but to terrorize the enemy into abandoning\nthe will to resist the onslaught.

\n\nTherefore,\nterrorism is a tool and manifestation of orthodox Islam.

\n\n 

\n\nBy\nthese truths, plainly evident in numerous, unabrogated sections of Islamic\nscripture, Islam can be known.  Those who uphold these tenets cannot be\nseen as extremists or deviants with regard to the doctrine of Islam. \nThose who practice these prescriptions are adhering to the fundamental, essence\nof the Islamic creed.

\n\n 

\n\n“,1] ); //–>Fact 8:  Women in Islam have dramatically lower rights than men.  Men can marry several women, but women cannot marry several men.  Punishments for crimes conducted by women are more severe than punishments for men who commit similar crimes.  Rights of women in divorce or inheritance are lower than the rights of men.  Women must be veiled, but not men.  Women may be genitally mutilated, but not men.

Therefore, Islam is an institution of perpetual discrimination against women. 

Fact 9:  Muslims are encouraged to deceive and lie about their motives and tactics in their ongoing war with infidels.

Therefore, you cannot trust or believe a Muslim’s words or deeds. 

Fact 10:  Muslims are encouraged to not just wage war, but to terrorize the enemy into abandoning the will to resist the onslaught.

Therefore, terrorism is a tool and manifestation of orthodox Islam. 

By these truths, plainly evident in numerous, unabrogated sections of Islamic scripture, Islam can be known.  Those who uphold these tenets cannot be seen as extremists or deviants with regard to the doctrine of Islam.  Those who practice these prescriptions are adhering to the fundamental, essence of the Islamic creed. 

If\nthis is not true, let a Muslim reveal scripture that contradicts these\nassertions, which conforms to the Islamic rules of abrogation.  Once the\ntruth about Islam is revealed, we may then judge the behavior of terrorists and\nImams who preach their hate as being orthodox and conventional.  We can no\nlonger refer to them as “radical;” or “extreme”.  Moreover,\nwe can judge so-called moderate Muslims to be heretical and ignorant (or\nperhaps deceitful).  The moderates can be dismissed from the entire\ndebate.

\n\n 

\n\nOnce\nwe have established a truthful platform, we can begin to ask if Islam is in\nfact, per se, evil.  To do this we must go through that difficult process\nof defining evil.  If we cannot do this, we cannot arrive at any basis for\nstudying or arguing ethics.  We’d have to content ourselves with an\narbitrary, capricious, fickle world of anything-goes.  Fortunately, most\npeople believe in some kind of absolute standard of ethics.  We must then,\nmeasure Islam against that standard.  We can certainly measure other Godly\nand Godless belief systems against the same standard and see how they come\nout.  There are a lot of atheists, agnostics, and secularists, as well as\na good many insecure Christians who would be very afraid to examine their own\nscriptural foundation for ethics, so they reflexively and unconsciously declare\nany judgment of Islam to be impolite.  But they are wrong.

\n\n 

\n\nSociety\nmust not refuse to protect itself and accept any wolf that arrives in sheep’s\nclothing.

\n\n 

\n\nWe\nmust know the truth about Islam.”,1] ); //–>If this is not true, let a Muslim reveal scripture that contradicts these assertions, which conforms to the Islamic rules of abrogation.  Once the truth about Islam is revealed, we may then judge the behavior of terrorists and Imams who preach their hate as being orthodox and conventional.  We can no longer refer to them as “radical;” or “extreme”.  Moreover, we can judge so-called moderate Muslims to be heretical and ignorant (or perhaps deceitful).  The moderates can be dismissed from the entire debate. 

Once we have established a truthful platform, we can begin to ask if Islam is in fact, per se, evil.  To do this we must go through that difficult process of defining evil.  If we cannot do this, we cannot arrive at any basis for studying or arguing ethics.  We’d have to content ourselves with an arbitrary, capricious, fickle world of anything-goes.  Fortunately, most people believe in some kind of absolute standard of ethics.  We must then, measure Islam against that standard.  We can certainly measure other Godly and Godless belief systems against the same standard and see how they come out.  There are a lot of atheists, agnostics, and secularists, as well as a good many insecure Christians who would be very afraid to examine their own scriptural foundation for ethics, so they reflexively and unconsciously declare any judgment of Islam to be impolite.  But they are wrong. 

Society must not refuse to protect itself and accept any wolf that arrives in sheep’s clothing.

We must know the truth about Islam.

Harry Reid [D-NV] The Most Corrupt Senator In DC

Harry Reid [D-NV] The Most Corrupt Senator In DC
October 17, 2006 – Washington, DC – PipeLineNews.org – Harry “The Fixer” Reid: “so don’t lump me in with Jack Abramoff, this is a Republican scandal. Don’t try to give any of it to me.” – Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), “Fox News Sunday,” December 18, 2005 But a recent press report cited Reid among the “first tier” of lawmakers under investigation by the Justice Department probe of “influence peddling” by lobbyist Jack Abramoff – Jerry Seper and Audrey Hudson, “Abramoff-Linked Probe Focuses On 5 Lawmakers,” The Washington Times, January 11, 2006 Fixer Reid: “any money that I received had no fingerprints of Jack Abramoff on it.” – Senator Harry Reid, Press Conference With Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) and candidate Jim Pederson (D-AZ), Phoenix, AZ, January 10, 2006 But from1991-2000, Reid received zero contributions from the follwoing non-Nevada Indian tribes, but as soon as the tribes were clients of Abramoff, Reid received over $50,000 from them. 1. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California) contributed $19,500 to Reid between 2001 and 2004
2. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Louisiana) contributed $5,000 to Reid 2001 between 2001 and 2004
3. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Mississippi) contributed $7,000 to Reid between 2001 and 2004
4. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan (Michigan) contributed 19,000 to Reid between 2001 and 2004 – Source, Campaign Finance Analysis Project Website, http://www.campaignfinanceanalysisproject.com, Accessed January 12, 2006
Fixer Reid: “Eddie Ayoob didn’t work for Jack Abramoff, he worked for a 1,000 member law firm” – Erica Werner, “Reid Says His ‘Conscience Is Clear” Despite GOP Abramoff Attacks,” The Associated Press, January 18, 2006) But “Abramoff did hire as one of his lobbyists Edward P. Ayoob, a veteran Reid legislative aide.” – Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis, “Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations,” The Washington Post, June 3, 2005 Ayoob was a member of “Team Abramoff.” “Abramoff assembled a group of lobbyists that some in the media have dubbed “Team Abramoff.”…they included Ayoob, a former aide to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is now the Senate minority leader.” – Paul Barton, “Lincoln Aide, Others Say $2,000 Isn’t Abramoff-Linked,” Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, January 6, 2006 Fixer Reid blasted Republicans for “inviting lobbyists inside our nation’s capitol.” Fixer Reid today: “And then, we have the Republican “K-Street Project,” which has invited lobbyists inside our nation’s Capitol, as long as they are willing to pay the right price…When we make leaders accountable to people, not lobbyists, there is no limit to how far America can go.” – Senator Harry Reid [D-NV], “The Real State Of Our Union,” Center For American Progress, January 24, 2006 Fixer Reid knows a bit about lobbyists inside our nation’s capitol: his family members used to lobby his own staffers! When it comes to family members who lobby the government, “Reid is in a class by himself.” “At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington . . . . But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid’s help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator. In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington. So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada’s leading industries and institutions that it’s difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.” (Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, “In Nevada, The Name To Know Is Reid,” Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2003) Fixer Reid’s Sons And Son-In-Law Used To Lobby Reid’s Own Staff On Pending Legislation Affecting Nevada. “In an internal memo, [Reid chief of staff Susan] McCue said Reid’s family members had lobbied his staff by ‘supplying research, technical support and strategic guidance.’ She described them as ‘effective advocates for their clients.’” (Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, “In Nevada, The Name To Know Is Reid,” Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2003) Fixer Reid Said He Saw No Problem With His Sons Lobbying His Staffers Until The Los Angeles Times Started Asking Questions. “Reid said in an interview that he sees no problem with lobbying by relatives, because lobbyists’ activities are ‘very transparent.’ . . . In September 2001, Reid sent a letter to his staff telling them that he had sought guidance from the Senate Ethics Committee and had been advised that there was no restriction on lobbying by a relative of a senator. He told his staff to treat his family members who were lobbyists no better or worse than any other lobbyist. Soon after The Times interviewed him about his children’s activities last fall, the senator decided to ban relatives from lobbying his office entirely. The ban applies to members of Reid’s family but not to colleagues at the firms where they work, such as former Sen. Bryan.” (Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper, “In Nevada, The Name To Know Is Reid,” Los Angeles Times, June 23, 2003) From 2001-2002, The Law Firm Of Harry Reid’s Sons And Its Clients Identified By The Los Angeles Times Contributed Over $150,000 To Reid’s Leadership PAC In Soft Money. According to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Harry Reid’s leadership PAC, Searchlight Leadership Fund, received over $150,000 in unregulated and unlimited soft money from Lionel Sawyer & Collins and the entities which the Los Angeles Times found it represents. (Political Money Line Website, http://www.tray.com, Accessed January 17, 2006) Fixer Reid’s Office Eventually Instituted A Policy To Prohibit His Family Members From Lobbying His Office, AFTER Completion Of A Bill That Benefited His Family’s Clients. “Reid spokesman Tessa Hafen said Monday it was coincidence that the policy was issued after completion of the land bill.” (Tony Batt, “Lobbying Congress: Senator Downplays Family Ties,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, June 24, 2003)  

The Arizona 9/11 memorial disgrace

Hawaii’s “Progressive” Surrender Candidate read this very carefully ====Scary

Hawaii’s “Progressive” Surrender Candidate
By Andrew Walden
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 19, 2006

Like far-Left Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, Hawaii Democratic Congressional candidate Mazie Hirono calls for replacing the U.S. Defense Department with a “Department of Peace, to educate us into peaceful ways of resolving our conflict.” Hirono has promised to join Kucinich and fellow Hawaiian Rep. Neil Abercrombie in the far-Left Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). Her record and rhetoric show she would be a perfect match for this extreme, quasi-socialist organization.

As is the case with so many left-wingers, Hirono finds hefty support on the hate-filled pages of The Daily Kos, the largest so-called “liberal” blog.  Kos’ Maui-based diarist “Raatz” enthuses about Hirono in a July 13 post:

Yesterday, Mazie told a crowd at Maui Booksellers in Wailuku that, if elected, she will join the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She also expressed her support for expanding gay rights (as evidenced in part by her courageous opposition to the mean-spirited constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 1998).

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is a former co-chair of the CPC, and Hirono’s misnamed Department of Peace campaign is led by Kucinich and new-age mystic Marianne Williamson, who has been called by some “
Hollywood’s answer to God.”

If elected, she will be in some heady, radical company. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, is a CPC member. The current co-chairs of the CPC are Lynn Woolsey, D-CA, and Barbara Lee, D-CA. Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force in
Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, and Woolsey introduced a unilateral surrender plan a year before Rep. John Murtha, D-PA. The CPC co-chairs and membership generally support the Murtha plan to retreat from Iraq to Okinawa
.
The CPC was openly allied to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) until 1999; all mention of the alliance was removed from the Progressive Caucus and DSA websites after press reports called attention to the link.

She does have bona fides on the social issues: While most of
Hawaii was still digging out the day after the recent

Big
Island earthquake, Hirono issued a statement reminding us she supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. (Although at the same time, she would leave Middle Eastern women to the tender mercies of Islamist terrorists.)
 

“Raatz” continues defending Mazie’s surrender credentials:

Two days ago, I personally heard Mazie say she would’ve voted against the Iraq resolution and that she’d work to bring the troops home safely with Kucinich and Abercrombie (two of the strongest peace advocates in Congress – and she mentioned both by name). In the talk I saw earlier this week, she also said that the main reason she joined the Democratic Party in 1972 was to support antiwar candidate George McGovern…Mazie has also been endorsed by
Maui peace activist Ave Diaz (Kucinich’s campaign chair here).

Ironically, 1972 was one of the few elections in which Hawaii voted Republican against the radical campaign of George McGovern.

Hirono echoes Raatz’s views, writing on her campaign website:

Our most pressing foreign policy problem is our reputation in the world as a result of our basically unilateral action in preemptively attacking
Iraq. Preemptive strike is not a policy which builds allies and strengthens our position at the global table. The President’s conduct in the war in Iraq influences our country’s ability to lead on a number of other important matters—human rights, environmental responsibility, and international health issues like avian influenza (bird flu), just to name a few.

Hirono does not even mention the War on Terror among the nation’s priorities. To hear her tell it, the real issues are America’s “reputation” abroad, bird flu, and “environmental responsibility.” Perhaps Hirono would like to explain how “environmentally responsible” it would be to surrender
Iraq,
Afghanistan, and
Pakistan to Islamist warlords and terrorists? How much “environmental” damage would be done by an Iranian nuclear weapon or by the decades of war which would result from U.S. withdrawal? 
Hirono continues: “We should get out of the quagmire that is
Iraq with a phased redeployment of
U.S. forces that begins before the end of 2006 and significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty should also occur. The
U.S. should play a leading role in promoting peace in the region. As long as we are at war, we are severely compromised in our ability to do so.”
Hirono’s plan for immediate withdrawal from
Iraq, beginning even before she would be sworn in, would quickly lead to a collapse of the democratic governments of
Iraq and
Afghanistan. Hirono’s plan to get
America out of the region would quickly lead to the overthrow of Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf, putting Pakistani nukes in the hands of Islamist radicals. Iranian nuke-builders would go unchallenged.

This is not a peace plan—it is a victory plan for the other side.

The result of implementing Hirono’s ideas would be a far larger war costing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of American lives—and millions of lives in the Mideast and
South Asia. 

…Which would not be so upsetting, if she had not pledged in her campaign to micromanage foreign affairs, the Constitutional domain of the president. Hirono writes on her campaign website:

No one can link the Pentagon’s financial inputs to its policy outputs; in other words, Congress and the public cannot know whether a line item is actually linked to a desired policy outcome. This must change. We expect public schools to be accountable for meeting their goals; it is time to hold the Pentagon to the same standards.

In other words, our national defense should be run more like Hawaii’s failing Department of Education. Hirono would make every military move subject to the pet theories of hundreds of preening, self-important politicians. Hirono’s proposal, which has been echoed by Abercrombie, would result in a death by a thousand cuts to our armed forces.

 

It would certainly doom any advanced anti-missile defense, which protects
Hawaii from North Korean missile attacks. There are reports that
North Korea’s failed long-range missile test was aimed at Hawaiian waters. Those who believe American action is at the root of the world’s problems—including Hirono—will argue that

North Korea is belligerent because
America is a threat. From their point of view, spending on anti-missile defense would not logically link to a “desired policy outcome” and therefore should be cut from the budget.
 How many
Hawaii residents would like to base their protection on the belief that Kim Jong-il can be trusted to leave us alone if only we leave him alone?

 

How can spending on training, readiness, force protection, ammunition, personnel, tanks, ships or planes be measured in so-called “peace” outcomes in Iraq, North Korea—or even Darfur, for that matter?

Hirono’s pacifist orientation clashes with the founding of her party. The Hawaiian Democratic Party was put in power in 1954 by Nisei veterans returning from WWII. After fighting for their country in European battles, some of which cost more than 3,100 soldiers in a single day, they couldn’t see themselves going back to living under the thumb of the plantation system. Hirono isn’t part of that tradition. Hirono wants
America to run from a War on Terror which has cost
America about 3,100 soldiers in five years.

Hirono does not explain how peace comes from restoring
America’s Clinton-era cut-and-run “reputation,” which led to the series of terror attacks culminating on 9/11.
America needs to have a reputation for standing up to attackers. It is only when the
U.S. confronts terrorist warmongers that we are able to promote peace.
Any other reputation invites more attacks. 

Although it has been the defining moment of our lives, Hirono only once mentions 9/11 once: “We need to support the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and we must fully fund the needs of our firefighters, police officers, and others who serve in the homeland security efforts.” 

This is probably good advice, because if Hirono gets her way in Congress, firefighters and police will again and again find themselves on the front line of the War on Terror—which will have shifted from Iraq and Afghanistan to the heart of American cities.

The Battles of Hastings I give you Alcee Hastings, Democrat from Florida, the next chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should Democrats win a majority in the next Congress.

The Battles of Hastings
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 19, 2006

I give you Alcee Hastings, Democrat from
Florida, the next chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence should Democrats win a majority in the next Congress.

Before I explain exactly why that is a bad thing for
America, let me make clear that I am a registered Republican. I tell you this up front because several of my friends who say they are Republicans have told me recently they intend to vote for Democrats this November, because the Republican Party has betrayed their trust.

These “Republicans” have two main gripes with the party they embrace on sunny days.

Under Bush, they say, the size of the federal government has expanded by leaps and bounds. We are small-government Republicans. If our party won’t limit the size of government, who will? they ask. (Answer: not the Democrats, that’s for sure).

Under Bush, they say – gripe number two – the size of federal budget deficits continues to grow. It couldn’t get much worse under tax and spend Democrats, they argue. What we have now are tax and spend Republicans. They need a lesson that only electoral defeat can give them.

We all have heard such arguments from family and friends. The Republicans won’t do my bidding, so let’s get rid of the Republicans!

Who cares if the Democrats won’t do any better; at least my guys will have learned their lesson!

This column is not about the value of consensus, or about the need to find common ground with your political opponents for the greater good of the nation – although both are extremely important when it comes to the day to day business of actually governing.

It’s about what my friend Paul Weyrich recently evoked in reminiscing on what has disappeared from American politics since leftists (as opposed to liberals) took over the Democrat party.

“There once was a time…when you did not fear victory by the opposition party,” Weyrich writes. “In 1960, I worked hard for Nixon. I did everything I could to help him defeat Senator John F. Kennedy. But when the electoral votes were in and Kennedy had apparently won, I was disappointed but had no fear in my heart.”

No fear in my heart.

Now imagine for an instant Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Here is a man who was appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979, and whose outright corruption was so egregious that his own party saw fit to impeach him ten years later.

Judge Hastings was one of just six federal judges since the beginning of the Republic to be impeached by Congress and removed from office by the United States Senate.

After his impeachment and removal from office in 1989 – on charges of corruption and perjury –
Hastings did not retreat in a corner. He did not beg forgiveness. He made no public display of repentence.

On the contrary. Judge Hastings played the Jesse Jackson race card. He was a victim. He had been wronged – not the people of
Florida, to whom he had lied and from whom he had stolen (such is the meaning of perjury and corruption, after all).

In November 1992,
Hastings ran successfully in the newly-created 23rd district of Florida, an overwhelmingly Democrat district created by the 
Florida legislature after the 1990 census as a safe Democratic seat.

Since then,
Hastings has been re-elected with comfortable margins every two years. His official biography makes no mention of the untidy fact of his impeachment and removal as a federal judge. I guess he figures it’s not something potential voters in Broward and

Palm Beach
County need to know.

And that’s just for starters.

Since Congress began investigating the September 11 attacks, senior members of the
U.S. intelligence community have been in open revolt against the Bush administration.

The leaders of this revolt continue to occupy the highest ranking positions in the intelligence community. Over the past four years, their efforts to undermine the Bush administration through the systematic leaking of national security secrets and the compromise of top secret operations in the war on terror, constitute nothing less than treason.

They have been given cover by Democrats on both the House and the Senate intelligence committees, who have been more than willing to serve  as conduits for their partisan attacks against the Bush White House and, in some cases, as conduits for leaking intelligence secrets to the press.

Ever wonder how the media first learned that the CIA had set up “secret prisons” in
Europe and the
Middle East, where it was interrogating al Qaeda members captured during hush-hush operations?

Or how the media first got wind that the National Security Agency was listening to telephone calls and other communications between known terrorists and individuals in the
United States, without seeking a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court?

Or how the press got word of a long-standing effort by the U.S. Treasury department to work with the SWIFT bank consortium in
Belgium, to monitor international wire transfers by individuals suspected of terrorist ties?

These leaks have done irreparable harm to the people of the
United States by limiting the ability of the
U.S. government to track terrorists, capture them, and learn their secrets.

Alcee Hastings was not personally behind those leaks, as far as I know. But Alcee Hastings, and the current ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, Jane Harman (who is term-limited from becoming chairman should the Democrats win in November) have transformed the House intelligence committee from its bipartisan oversight role into a highly-partisan attack committee – at least, the forty percent of it they currently control.

Should Democrats win this November, we can expert Mr. Hastings to use the HPSCI to conduct a series of partisan witch hunts against the White House and against Republicans elsewhere in the administration. These “investigations” will be conducted under the banner of “oversight,” and will allege partisan personnel appointments to top intelligence positions.

In fact, the goal of the Democrats is to use the Congressional oversight process to cripple the ability of a Republican administration to effectively run the federal government.

So far, they have made a pretty good job of it, even though they have been in the minority. They hounded Porter Goss out as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and have brought back a representative of the CIA “Old Boys Club,” Stephen Kappes – whom Mr. Goss correctly fired for insubordination in November 2004 – as Deputy CIA director.

The word on the street is that Mr. Kappes is now angling for the top CIA slot, after his current boss, Air Force General Michael Hayden, replaces John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence later this year. (Mr. Negroponte is said to want Secretary of State, or NSC).

Imagine this pair: a former judge, impeached for corruption, teaming up with a former clandestine officer, fired for insubordination, at the head of
America’s premier spy service?

And you think they will turn their talents on al Qaeda?

My money is that they will use their formidable powers to hound out Bush administration appointees from the intelligence community, and to quietly put an end to the war against our terrorist foes.

Call it, unilateral disarmament.

I give you Alcee Hastings.

The Coming Impeachment

The Coming Impeachment
By Rocco DiPippo
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 19, 2006

A plan is in place to censure and impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Orchestrated and organized by the radical Left and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., this plan is ready to go should the Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in November.

The plan is the ultimate manifestation of left-wing hatred for George W. Bush rooted in the contentious election of 2000. Since failing to defeat Bush in 2004, the Left has focused its efforts on destroying his presidency by assembling a list of charges aimed at impeaching him.

 

Impeachment plans began seriously coalescing in 2005, after the NY Times published classified aspects of the NSA surveillance program. In mid- December of that year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-CA, asked a group of presidential scholars whether President George W. Bush had committed an impeachable offense when he authorized the NSA foreign surveillance program. John Dean, the long-time Bush critic of Watergate fame provided Boxer with the answer she and most other Democrats were looking for: “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” he said.

 

Around the same time, Senator John Kerry, D-MA, told a gathering of 100 Democrats that, should they capture the House in 2006, there would be a “solid case” for impeachment based on President Bush’s “misleading” the American public over prewar intelligence. Kerry was picking up where another prominent Democrat had, on November 1, 2005, left off. On that day, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a rare closed Senate session with other Democrats to look into the “misinformation and disinformation” used by the Bush administration to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

Boxer and Kerry weren’t the only prominent Democrats discussing the possibility of impeachment during 2005. Such matters were also being discussed by Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and Ron Wyden, who, along with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and left-leaning Republicans Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe, called for both Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee investigations into the NSA wiretaps. And on December 20, 2005, Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, underscored those calls, saying:

 

I look forward to further inquiry in the House and Senate on these matters. The American people deserve the truth. We must gather the facts and determine once and for all whether the law was violated. There is no question that the U.S. Congress has impeached presidents for lesser offenses.

 

More recently, Rep. Brad Miller, D-GA, said, “The Democrats on the House Science Committee are collecting stories of the intimidation or censoring of scientists. We’re building a case for hearings by the Committee, which may be unrealistic to expect under the current majority, or to be ready for hearings next year if Democrats gain the majority in November.” [Emphasis added.] Miller was making that threat in relation to accusations by leftists and Democrats that Bush was silencing those concerned about global warming.

 

And then there are the constant calls by congressional Democrats, led by Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, to investigate the treatment of terrorist prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay and other locations. But most telling of all was Senator Harry Reid’s November 2005 attempt to begin the “Phase II“ investigation into the Bush administration’s use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Reid said Congress must subpoena administration officials and documents in order to determine how Bush built his case for war.

 

To some observers, the Democrats’ endless calls for investigations might appear to be simply a dead-end continuation of the 2000 election – heavy on anti-Bush vitriol and posturing, light on concrete action. And such observers might have been right, if not for the fact that a bill, H.R.635, aimed at investigating articles of impeachment, was submitted to Congress on Dec.18, 2005. The submission of that bill by John Conyers Jr. was, first and foremost, a legislative victory for the radical Left and its sugar daddy, Shadow Party leader George Soros, who for all practical purposes guides the anti-U.S., terrorist-sympathizing agendas of the Democratic Party by funding groups that push far-Left candidates and threaten the careers of existing Democratic Party members who do not tow the radical Left line.

 

Conyers’s H.R. 635 involves creating “a select committee to investigate the Administration’s intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”

 Justifying the submittal of that bill, Conyers said, “There has been massive support for House Resolution 635 from a very vigorous network of grassroots activists and people committed to holding the Bush Administration accountable for its widespread abuses of power.” And he was right, for since the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, radical left-wing groups had been calling for Bush’s impeachment– and organizing petition drives to pressure legislators to that end.  

The committed activists Conyers spoke of include:

 

 

But the most committed and influential of those pro-impeachment groups, and the ones that gathered most of the signatures that Conyers uses as his justification for H.R.635, are AfterDowningStreet and ImpeachPAC. Both are directed by a rising star of the radical Left, David Swanson.

 David Swanson was failed presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich’s press secretary. He is also one of the principal organizers of the AfterDowningStreetCensureBush coalition and the director of MeetWithCindy and KatrinaMarch. A Progressive Democrats of America board member, Swanson also directs Democrats.com and has beaten the pro-impeachment drum for the Huffington Post. His ImpeachPAC website is a high-traffic clearinghouse for the impeach-Bush movement. Its stated purpose is “electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney.” ImpeachPAC has so far gathered well over 500,000 pro-impeachment signatures. Rep. Conyers cites those signatures, and others, as a major reason for filing H.R. 635 and its related bills: H.R. 636, which calls for censuring President Bush and H.R. 637, a bill calling for the censure of Vice President Cheney. During the time of leftist hysteria over the discredited Downing Street Memo, on June 16, 2005, Conyers delivered those and other impeachment related petitions to the White House gate. He had just finished conducting farcical impeachment ”hearings”  in the basement of the Capitol. One of the star ”witnesses” giving ”testimony” at those ”hearings” was Cindy Sheehan. As he was delivering the petitions,  Conyers was surrounded by a sympathetic crowd screaming anti-white, racial slurs.  

Initially, H.R. 635 had 19 cosponsors, but due to an intense lobbying effort by David Swanson, MoveOn and a host of other radical Left “netroots” groups, that number has swollen to 37. Cosponsors now include prominent legislators Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-TX; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA; Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY; and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-IL.

 

The bill’s most recent cosponsor is Rep. Hilda L. Solis, D-CA, who signed on to the measure on May 3, 2006. But then, less than two weeks later, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in an effort to deny the Republicans a potent election issue, announced, should Democrats win the House in 2006, impeachment was “off the table.” Her statement was a warning to fellow Democrats against further cosponsorship of Conyer’s bills. Since that warning, cosponsorship of H.R.635 has died out.

 

Although Pelosi said impeachment was “off the table,” she also said that a Democratic-controlled House would “launch investigations of the administration on energy policy and other matters.” [Emphasis added.] When asked if those “other matters” would be related to impeachment she said, “You never know where it [investigation] leads to.”

 

Should Democrats gain control of Congress in November, Pelosi’s politically expedient, ban on cosponsoring Conyer’s bills will be lifted, and Democrats will rush to endorse them. Those bills (concerning “other matters”), will advance through Congress, since 72 congressmen, overwhelmingly Democrats, officially supported two recent lawsuits brought by the Legal Left against Bush: ACLU vs. NSA and CCR vs. Bush.  Both suits allege that the Bush Administration broke the law when it ordered warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists and terrorist operatives. Those suits are central to the Left’s drive to impeach George W. Bush, since their outcomes will officially determine whether he did in fact break the law in the NSA matter. Currently, both of them are winding their way through the courts.

 

Some might be tempted to dismiss the impeachment machinations of John Conyers and the radical Left as little more than fruitless protest by a frustrated, impotent minority against an individual and Administration it hates. After all, legislators often file impractical, non-viable legislation in order to dramatize an issue. But in light of five years’ worth of endless calls by influential Democratic Party politicians and a few left-leaning Republicans to investigate the Bush Administration’s approach to the War on Islamist Terror, H.R. 635-637 must be considered as legislation with a future.

 

Then there is a detailed impeachment blueprint designed by the Legal Left, and prepared at the direction of John Conyers Jr. called “The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.”

 

The Constitution in Crisis (CIC) is a 354-page text detailing charge after charge against the Bush Administration. Those charges are divided into two general categories: crimes committed during the planning of the Iraq War and during its prosecution, and crimes involving the Bush administration’s use of anti-terror surveillance programs since it began. In summary, the CIC claims that the entire Iraq War undertaking has been a criminal enterprise based on Bush’s desire to avenge Saddam Hussein’s assassination attempt on his father and to fulfill the desires of “neocons.” In other words, Bush and a predominately Jewish cabal committed crimes by misleading Congress and the American people into war. And during that war they illegally spied on and tortured people.

 

The Constitution in Crisis states that Bush broke numerous U.S. laws. John Conyers and the Center for Constitutional Rights have drawn up a list of laws allegedly violated by the Bush administration that are contained within the Constitution in Crisis‘s pages. They include:

 

  • Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371)
  • Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001)
  • War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148)
  • Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301)
  • Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
  • National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15)
  • Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222)
  • Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702)
  • Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121)
  • Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505)
  • Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302)
  • The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211)
  • Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513)
  • Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)
  • The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
  • Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)

 

All of these are serious charges. Unfounded they may be, but John Conyers would become head of the House Judiciary Committee if the Democrats win in November. And then, not only would he be in position to order investigations of the charges, he would be obligated by his Congressional oath to do just that.

 

What would the financial cost of such investigations be? In the 1990s, President Clinton was accused of perjury. That charge and the others surrounding it were far less complex than those currently leveled by the Left at Bush and his administration. The investigations of Clinton disrupted the business of Congress, became the focus of the country, and cost American taxpayers at least $80 million. Investigating all of the complex charges leveled by Conyers and the Democrats would grind Congress to a halt – in the middle of a war – and would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

An intriguing question arises: If Democrats won control of Congress in November, why would they expend enormous political and financial capital on pursuing articles of impeachment against a lame duck President?

 

Some have speculated that such actions would be political payback for the Clinton impeachment. Others speculate that the Left’s extreme hatred of Bush is reason enough for it to pursue his destruction through impeachment or censure. Though both rationales are plausible, either separately or in conjunction with each other, there is a more important, and therefore more likely, reason for the Democratic Party (should it win Congress) to initiate endless investigations of Bush – its obsession to abandon Iraq and end the War on Islamist Terror.

 

Facing the serious possibility of a pro-war Republican winning the 2008 presidential election, the Democratic Party has a narrowing window of opportunity to end the Iraq War and realize its Vietnam Dream. The best way to make that dream come true would be to level and investigate charge after charge against the Bush Administration, destroying its legitimacy to have initiated the Iraq War and to have conducted it.

 

Naturally, an avalanche of anti-Bush, antiwar press would accompany such investigations. Opposition to a war perceived as having been unjustly waged, would skyrocket. The public’s call for an end to the war would justify its de-funding in the eyes of Congress.

 

The ploy of leveling serious, unfounded charges against one’s political opponents has served the Democratic Party well in the past. It is the ideal one to effect a quick U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-NY, who will head the powerful House Ways and Means Committee upon a Democratic Party victory in November, has hinted that de-funding the Iraq war will be both his and the Democratic Party’s priority. To Rangel, de-funding the war is a moral imperative. “[The Iraq war] is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country…This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed,” he has said.

To carry out an impeachment of President Bush, the Democrats need to capture both the House and the Senate. But to cause serious disruptions of the body politic during our nation’s time of war, they only need to win the House. With John Conyers, Jr. heading the House Judiciary Committee, Charles B. Rangel heading the House Ways and Means Committee, Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, and other far-Left Congressmen in control of important House committee chairs, endless investigations of the Bush administration in order to end the Iraq War will almost certainly commence.