The number of Hispanic Americans converting to Islam is growing rapidly — particularly in New York, California, Texas and Florida, which have the greatest concentration of Hispanic residents. Muslim leaders say interest in Islam has increased in the past few years, and they also note that Muslims and Hispanics, many of whom are immigrants, share a number of common concerns. Steve Mort reports from a mosque in Florida that has seen a steady increase in Latino worshippers.

The number of Hispanic Americans converting to Islam is growing rapidly — particularly in New York, California, Texas and Florida, which have the greatest concentration of Hispanic residents.  Muslim leaders say interest in Islam has increased in the past few years, and they also note that Muslims and Hispanics, many of whom are immigrants, share a number of common concerns.  Steve Mort reports from a mosque in Florida that has seen a steady increase in Latino worshippers.

The al-Rahman mosque in Orlando opened in 1975 and is the oldest Muslim place of worship in the city.

But over the years its membership has changed, and now increasing numbers of Hispanics, like Jesus Marti, are joining the congregation. “It’s the right way to be worshipping God, and I love the Islamic religion.  It really has given me a lot of knowledge, and I have learned so many things from Islam.”

Jesus, a Puerto Rican living in Florida, converted to Islam only a year ago. He is one of tens of thousands of Hispanic Muslims in the United States: estimates range from around 70,000 to 200,000.

He says that while he has faced criticism for converting to Islam, he has found broad acceptance as a Muslim in America. “Islam is not a country. Islam is a religion. Islam is definitely a way of life, for discipline where you follow and you try to enhance yourself to get the most positive things out of yourself for the benefit of your own self and for the benefit of your own family and the society as a whole.”

Muslim leaders say Jesus Marti and other Hispanics choose Islam for a variety of reasons. They say Muslims and Hispanics face common issues and concerns, like finding their way in a new, unfamiliar country. The media focus on Islam since September 11th has also been factor.

Imam Muhammad Musri is president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida.  The society  has about 40,000 members.  Iman Musri says Latinos and Muslims find they have a lot in common. “There are so many common denominators between immigrant Muslims and immigrant Hispanics who see the issues common to both of them — immigration issues, as it is a big discussion in the United States, and there are other issues of trying to find a job, keep a job, buy a home — all the same struggles two groups of people happen to be going through creates this bond between them”.

Hundreds of worshippers attend Imam Musri’s mosque, and there is an increasing demand for religious literature in Spanish.

He points to Spain’s historical ties with Islam. And that many Hispanics find Muslim culture and values similar to their own.

Iman Musri says, “Many who come from Central and South America come with conservative values and, as well, Muslims come with conservative values.  And here in the States they find that those values are put in question or are being challenged.  So it is common to see Hispanics and Muslims working on similar projects in terms of family and education and reforms to protect their values, their conservative values they have.”

For Jesus Marti and his fellow Hispanic worshippers, the decision to convert to Islam is personal, but also part of a broader trend.

He hopes greater diversity among America’s Muslims will help strengthen understanding of Islam within the wider U.S. population.

Why ’24’ Makes CAIR Nervous

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Why ’24’ Makes CAIR Nervous

TheWall Street Journal ran the following defense of the real-life Jack Bauers by Arab-American Emilio Karim Dabul:

In Defense of ’24’

An Arab-American defends the real-life Bauers.


Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:01 a.m.

I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of “24.” The two things are not mutually exclusive, despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season’s opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society.

Most of the terrorists represented in “24” through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.

And this is what makes “24” a compelling drama every week. Instead of pretending Islamic terrorists don’t exist, the show presents frighteningly real worst-case scenarios perpetrated by Osama bin Laden’s followers. So CAIR thinks it’s over the top for the terrorists in “24” to blow up Los Angeles with a nuke? Please, if bin Laden and his crew had nukes, most of us would be way too dead to argue over such points.

There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. When Bill Cosby talks to African-Americans about self-respect and responsibility, and says publicly what many have been saying privately for years, he’s branded a “reactionary,” “misinformed,” “judgmental,” and so on. When “24” confronts America’s worst fears about al Qaeda–whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible–the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.

Well, here’s the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America’s survival, viewers will lose interest in “24,” because it will have lost its relevancy. Until such time, I will continue to watch “24”–because, believe it or not, the idea that there are Jack Bauers out there in real life risking their lives to save ours does mean something to me.

And as for “24” causing a possible backlash against Muslims and Arab-Americans, where’s the evidence of that? The show is now in its sixth season and there hasn’t been one recorded incident of any viewer ever slurring or attacking any Muslim or Arab-American because of something that happened on the show. More to the point, in the latest episode President Palmer stated, “The American Muslim community is the greatest line of defense against these terrorists.” He advocates strengthening ties with Islamic leaders across the U.S., and is opposed to measures that would in any way infringe upon the constitutional rights of Arab Americans.

That said, I would certainly welcome more characters in movies, TV programs and novels who reflect the overall Arab-American experience. Truth is, most of us don’t have bomb-making skills or a desire to become human missiles. And there are Muslim and Arab-American CTU heroes out there, as well as doctors, superdads, women scientists, etc. But just as it took Saul Bellow to give literary voice to the Jewish-American experience, we need our own storytellers to weave the pastiche of tales that make up Arab-American life.

In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like “24,” maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist.

And maybe that same reporter could take a closer look at CAIR. Ask CAIR about the Holy Land Foundation and its support of Hamas. Ask it about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the CAIR board member who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in that case–yet still sits on CAIR’s board. Look a little closer, and maybe you’ll find that CAIR has good reason to get nervous about shows like “24.”

Because terrorists and their supporters continue to hide among us in plain sight, we need Jack Bauer, now more than ever.

Eurabia Moves Forward: Italy Launches “Mediterranean Health Partnership”

Eurabia Moves Forward: Italy Launches “Mediterranean Health Partnership”

The first time I read Bat Ye’or’s description of the Eurabian networks, I found it hard to believe that something that big could go on despite the fact that I had never heard about any of it. But then I started checking the available documents myself, and discovered that it was all true. Perhaps the greatest betrayal in modern Western history, yet largely ignored by Western media.

The EU Commission and senior European officials at the very highest levels, frequently diffused through various innocent sounding and semi-official organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them later as federal EU policy.

This is accomplished because tens of billions of Euros paid by European tax payers are floating around in an EU system with very little control. Europeans are thus financing their continent’s merger with, in reality colonization by, the Arab and Islamic world without their knowledge and without their consent. If average Europeans understood the implications of what is going on, there would be explosions of anger from tens of millions of people all over Europe and the entire European Union would immediately disintegrate and collapse. However, most people do not yet understand the full scale of this, since our so-called critical and independent journalists remain suspiciously quite about the issue.

Here is an example from Italy. Romano Prodi, Prime Minister and leader of the current left-wing Italian coalition government, is a former leader of the European Commission, the EU’s government, and has been identified by Bat Ye’or as a particularly passionate Eurabian. Upon taking office as PM last year, one of his first announcements was that he would speed up the implementation of Eurabia. Well, it looks like he is a man of his words, as his Minister of Health is now announcing a massive transfer of knowledge and technology to Arab countries:

Italy’s health minister Livia Turco on Thursday launched an intiative by Mediterranean and Middle East countries to co-operate in health care, including sharing research facilities, computer databanks and identifying best practices and excellence in service provision. “The plan is diplomacy in health care through which Italy wants to contribute to peace and development in the Mediterranean region,” Turco said speaking at an international conference in Rome to implement the project. The project will also involve the creation of a “command room” that will co-ordinate initiatives between, national, regional and local governments in the region as well as with universities and other research and education institutions and the private sector, Turco said.

Super-Eurocrat Romano Prodi wants more cooperation with Arab countries. He talks about a free trade zone with the Arab world, but this implies that Arab countries would enjoy access to the four freedoms of the EU’s inner market, which includes the free movement of people across national borders. This fact, the potentially massive implications of establishing an “inner market” with an Arab world with a booming population growth, is virtually NEVER debated or even mentioned in European media. Yet it could mean the end of Europe as we once knew it.In June 2006, then newly elected Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi stated that “It’s time to look south and relaunch a new policy of cooperation for the Mediterranean.” Prodi was outlining a joint Italian-Spanish initiative which sought to provide countries facing the Mediterranean with “different” political solutions from those offered in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. The prime minister then explained that the Barcelona Process – whose best known aspect is the creation of a free trade zone by 2010 – was no longer sufficient and a new different approach was needed. “The countries on the southern shores of the Mediterranean expect that from us” he added.

Notice how Prodi, whom Bat Ye’or has identified as a particularly passionate Eurabian, referred to what the Arabs expected from European leaders. He failed to say whether or not there was great excitement among Europeans over the prospect of an even freer flow of migrants from Arab countries and Turkey, which is what will result from this “Euro-Mediterranean free trade zone.”

The Strategy and Objectives of Al-Qaeda

The Strategy and Objectives of Al-Qaeda

By Dave Gaubatz

Al-Qaeda is not organized legally as a corporation, but like most multinational enterprises, it has objectives and a strategy to realize them. AQ’s primary objectives are:

  1. Spread Islam throughout the world (with or without the consent of the occupants).
  2. Destroy Israel and any country it regards as affiliated with her – specifically the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and even France.

Understanding the objectives does not require the sources  an intelligence officer, speaking Arabic, or even knowing where Iraq is on a map.  Al-Qaeda the other Islamic terrorist organizations almost daily states their objectives through both formal and informal leaders.
The strategy of Al-Qaeda is only slightly more difficult to understand. Again, you do not have to be an intelligence officer, but it does help if you study the mindset of Islamic terrorists. This is what I have done for years. With and without their consent. 
While in Iraq I had the opportunity to speak with hundreds of Iraqis, many law-abiding and many others who hated America.  I preferred to speak with the ones who truly hated America.  By doing so they were playing into my hand.  People who hate Israel and America provided me information (unwittingly) on what I needed to do to counter “terrorism”. 
Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, and people from Pakistan, to name a few, have detailed their strategies to achieve their primary objectives.  I want to emphasize there are more good people than bad in any country, but my focus is on the “bad” people.  The ones who want to kill your children and my children and destroy your country and my country.  These are the people I have devoted my life to locate and then insist our justice system follows through.
Al-Qaeda has four basic strategies in order to reach their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and America.  They are:

  1. Overwhelm the enemy
  2. Strangle the enemy financially
  3. Have the enemy fight amongst themselves
  4. Stretch the enemy thin

Overwhelm the enemy 
This strategy involves disrupting the lives of the enemy.  Al-Qaeda has achieved this in many ways.  Our law enforcement agencies have shifted their priorities from solving homicides, rapes, gang activity, narcotics, and robberies, to working counter-terrorism issues.  We now have more officers located in the airports, around high profile locations, and running down many leads which are usually frivolous. 
Citizens are now afraid to travel because of the real hassles they will encounter at the airports or while traveling overseas.  Many still travel but security is always now in the backs of our minds. The enemy wants our children to understand the terror. That is what  terrorism aims for – terrorizing.  Our newspapers, television, and video games are filled with scenes of terrorism.  My 8 year old daughter knows more about terrorism than I did when I first went into the armed forces. 
Most of us knew little about terrorist or terrorism until a few short years ago.  Al-Qaeda has made each of us go through each day thinking at one time or another about terror or seeing scenes of terrorism.  How many people now in America, Canada, or Britain do not think of terrorism every time they get on an airplane (say, while flying to Disney World), or when getting on the subway (to simply go to work or on vacation in a big city). When we take our children to visit the Washington monument we are reminded of terrorism.  Police officers are in every corner. Tourists are searched before entering many of our national treasures.  The enemy has achieved Strategy number one. 
Strangle the enemy financially
The terrorist organizations want their enemy to spend billions and billions of dollars on security.  Since 9/11 we have allocated more than ten times as much money than we did previously on counter-terrorism.  States, cities, towns, have spent more money on security than on our health care for senior citizens. Several countries have spent billions in fighting terrorist in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Somalia, and we will most likely be spending billions more fighting terrorists in Iran.  The enemy has achieved strategy number two.  Strategy number three is the most difficult for me to write about.
Fighting amongst ourselves
This is a major goal of Al-Qaeda. They want Americans to be against Americans, British against British, and so on.  They want us to be split.  Years ago the majority of Americans voted Republican or Democratic based on what their parents had done and their grandparents had done.  Many will not admit it but most Americans 15 years ago could not tell you the major differences between the Republican and Democratic parties.  The majority of Americans could not tell you who their Governor was, or their local mayor.
Now we are all experts and we all know how to solve the world’s problems.  We are all politicians (God help us all on that one). The intent for Al-Qaeda is to have us fighting over trivial problems instead of having us united and fighting terrorism together.  There was a time in our history when a Democrat would still give a Republican President respect, and vice versa.  In today’s America there is precious little respect given to our President by many in the opposition. 
When I served on active duty I gave 100% to all of the Presidents I served under (Republican and Democrat).  I would have and still would give my life for an incumbent of either party.  But this is no longer the norm, at least judging from what I see in the media.  We now have active duty members who openly disrespect their Commander in Chief.  The enemy has achieved Strategy number three. Unfortunately we must move to Strategy number four.
Stretch the enemy thin
The final goal of Al-Qaeda.  The terrorists want their enemies to be stretched so thin in their security forces that they can no longer protect themselves internally.  They want our law enforcement agencies to be undermanned.  They want our military forces to be fighting in many countries. They want our leading scientists and engineers to be allocating their time developing counter-terrorism measures and not utilizing their time in areas such as medicine or finding ways to feed the poor.  Why, you might ask, would the enemy want their enemy to devote time and money developing counter-terrorism strategies?  Because they know it is extremely difficult to fight terrorists. Terrorists and terrorist organizations are ghosts.  Go into any city and point out a terrorist.  It is nearly impossible.  They know this.  Terrorists blend into our society. The terrorists are very close to achieving Strategy number four.
Terrorists will strike their most devastating blows when they have achieved all four strategies. This is when they will use their most dangerous weapons.  They will use suicide bombers and chemical, biological, and nuclear material when strategy number four is achieved.  We can only stop their objectives when we unite, when we stop being scared of being politically correct, when we stop being nice
This is not the way I was raised and do not want to become this type of person, but I love America and I want our children to not live their lives in fear.  “The truth is often unpopular, but it is never wrong”       
Dave Gaubatz is former Federal Agent and was the first civilian Federal Agent deployed into Iraq in 2003. His website is here

Gobal Warming’s Globalist Backers

Gobal Warming’s Globalist Backers

By J.R. Dunn

The other shoe has dropped concerning global warming. Fasten your seat belts: an “international authortity” to act as enforcer has been demanded. Concurrent with the release of the International Panel on Climate Control’s “report” (actually a twenty-page “summary for policy makers” with the report itself to be released eventually, maybe in April, maybe in May), we have a demand for an international authority to be set up to police compliance, voiced by none other than Jacques Chirac and seconded by no less than 45 countries. As yet no goals or specific regulations have been designated. But rest assured that “experts” will be consulted to spare us from the menace of carbon dioxide.
International authorities of this type, with full police powers and answerable to no one, are a venerable daydream of the UN bureaucracy and, not coincidentally, of the left at large. Kofi Annan’s calls for taxation power and an independent army for the UN are other examples. Another, more subtle episode involved the UN’s late-90s attempt to emplace international media rules derived from the censorship practices of third-world dictatorships. More recently we have heard rumblings concerning international gun control. What all these have had in common was their transparent goal of enabling the UN to horn in on the policies of independent states, and the fact that they went absolutely nowhere.
This style of internationalism – establishing a “global government” to act as a schoolmarm for recalcitrant nation-states — has long been an ideal of the left, derived in large part from the supposed solidarity of the international proletariat, whose “class interests” were held to pull them together more than national and cultural differences pushed them apart. It’s one of those left-wing ideas that fail to stand the test of reality. At the outbreak of WW I, every last European socialist party voted to support its country’s war effort, something that nearly drove Lenin – then in exile in neutral Switzerland – out of his mind. The same division endured, despite decades of efforts by assorted Cominterns and Cominforms. But a form of internationalism survives as a kind of nucleus for a new, transnational revolutionary class.
At the dawn of the 50s, with all things Soviet beginning to look more than a little shabby, left-wingers transferred their allegiance to the UN, which (they hoped) would form the basis of a truly humane and progressive global government. This attitude was personified by Gary Davis, a misfit who carried out a sit-in at the UN’s Turtle Bay construction site, demanding to be given a passport as a “world citizen”. Despite every conceivable discouragement, this idea remains fixed in many minds as something of an ultimate goal for an enlightened international system.
It’s also proven a recurring nightmare to the more unrestrained American paleocons, who repeatedly found evidence of UN encroachment in places where, to put it kindly, little was discernable to calmer eyes. The last panic afflicting this group was the entertaining “black helicopter” scare of the mid-90s, in which talk radio and the infant Internet blazed with tales of hordes of UN troops about to descend on the United States to enforce some sort of undescribed but horrible UN despotism. (If the standard run of UN blue helmet is any indication, they’d have probably have needed help getting off the choppers.) You’d almost think that these proposals were deliberately put forward to send the troglodytes raging.
But in fact, they’re serious, though not in the sense offered. If UN efforts had anything to actually do with global warming, they would not consistently overlook China and India. Attempting to address a problem as vast as climatic change without accounting for the world’s two most populous countries – both engaged in breakneck efforts at industrial modernization – is well beyond simply asinine. Particularly since China stands in a class by itself as far as pollution goes, messing up rivers, ecosystems, and entire orbital zones with equal abandon. There are, to choose only one example, evidently several hundred abandoned, blazing coal mines in the Chinese interior that have been left to burn themselves out. What effect this has to the carbon dioxide balance can only be imagined, since nobody has dared question the Chinese about it.
As far as climate change goes, what this translates into is (as Dr. Robert Giegengack puts it) that the battle is over. Every last SUV on every American highway wouldn’t account for a drop in the bucket representing Chinese and Indian plans. So in the unlikely event that global warming is the case, we will simply have to learn to live with it, as the Vikings and everybody else did at the end of the last millennium
But of course, that’s not the point. Apart from providing Chirac with something to step up to after leaving the helm of le Republique Grande, the aim of all these schemes, from Annan’s tax plans to the Kyoto Treaty to the climate change authority, is simply to bridle the United States. If not to bring it under complete UN suzerainty, then to exercise some form of bureaucratic restraint over what the UN hierarchy has long viewed as an out-of-control colossus. The UN effectively controls many derelict third-world states (and even the occasional European example, such as Kosovo). Why not the U.S.?


The simple answer – and one we don’t need to look past – is that the day the UN seriously attempts any such thing is the day it gets evicted. Nothing pulls together the irreconcilable elements of the American polity more completely than a threat to U.S. sovereignty. The 1997 vote on the Kyoto Treaty, 95-0, makes that clear. Many of those who voted against the protocol (including Kerry, Boxer, and Schumer) share global warming fears and even the internationalist impulse. But not to the extent of placing themselves under UN oversight. The transnational dream comes in many varied and dissimilar forms, depending on who’s doing the dreaming.
So we can probably leave any sort of global warming authority out of our future calculations. Excepting one possible case: we’ve previously pointed out here that environmentalism displays all the aspects of a pseudo-religion. And religions – as we’ve seen in recent years with the Jihadis – represent the sole existing example of a working transnational structure. A militant global environmentalist creed might very well be capable of pushing such a program through. It wouldn’t necessarily establish a warming authority as much as it would become one, in and of itself. A very spooky possibility, if only because there are plenty of people in the U.S. who would welcome such a thing. So it might be worth keeping one eye on the situation. But no morethan that. For a religion to spread in such a manner it would require a messiah. And the Greens, despite Al Gore’s best efforts, don’t have one of those yet.
J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Page Printed from: at February 09, 2007 – 02:08:27 PM EST

Our mosques are importing jihad

Our mosques are importing jihad

Gina Khan is a British Muslim woman who lives near the men suspected of a plot to kidnap and kill a Muslim soldier. She says that it’s time to stop the radicals, and to stop being afraid of themOur mosques are importing jihad

Gina Khan is a very brave woman. Born in Birmingham 38 years ago to Paki-stani parents, she has run away from an arranged marriage, dressed herself in jeans and dared to speak out against the increasing radicalisation of her community.

“There are mosques springing up on every street corner,” she says, pointing them out to me as we drive to her tiny house in Birmingham, near the district where nine men were arrested last week on suspicion of plotting to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier. Two suspects have since been released without charge.

We pass the biggest mosque, Birmingham Central, where Dr Mohammad Naseem preached at the weekend that British Muslims were being treated like Jews under the Nazis and that the Government had “invented the perception” of a terrorist threat.

“He is not the voice of Muslims in Birmingham,” says Khan, angrily. “I don’t how he has got himself that position. He does not know what he is talking about, he is 80 years old and needs to retire. If you want someone to be running these establishments, you need a British Asian, modern, liberal man.”

Over the past 15 years, she says, there has been an influx of jihadist thinking into her part of Birmingham. Bookshops sell radical literature and the mosques preach separatism and hatred. The Government and the white Establishment have allowed it to happen. And she is outraged about it. “It’s all happening on your doorstep,” she says, “and Britain is still blind to the real threat that is embedded here now.

“I truly believe that all these mosques here are importing jihad. The radical teaching is filtering through, and these mosques are not regulated. They are supporting everything that is wrong about Islam. We within the community knew this. People are lying. They are in denial. They knew they were bringing in radicals.

“But there are still more English and British people, no matter what, and if they got together and wanted to stamp out this radicalism, they could. I am wasting my time talking to my own people; that is why I am sitting here talking to you, to open your eyes.”

Khan is particularly worried about how mosques are brainwashing children and young people: “To me, it is starting to look like a cult.” And her local community certainly seems to be in denial. “After the raid I went to the corner shop here, and they were all saying it was a conspiracy. I turned round and said, ‘No, it is not. Let us be honest’.

“They say we’re being victimised. We’re not. The truth is coming out at last, but it’s 20 years too late.” The trouble is, says Khan, that many of the Pakistanis who have come to Birmingham are all too easily swayed. “Most of them are ignorant, uneducated, illiterate people from rural areas. It is very easy for them to be brainwashed, very easy. These are people who have been taught from the beginning that our religion is everything, it is the right way. You are going to Hell simply because you were not born a Muslim.” Khan is far too independent-minded to accept these beliefs wholesale. “I would say to my mum, ‘Are you telling me that Mother Teresa is going to Hell?’ and she didn’t have an answer. My mum was not backward, but everyone is being taught that Islam is going to take over, there are going to be mosques everywhere. This is something jihadists have planned for centuries. They were just looking for our weaknesses, which they have found.”

Khan believes that the radicals have coopted concerns about foreign policy to suit their cause. When she began to be worried about what the mosques were teaching her children, she decided instead to ask a female student to instruct them at home. Khanpicks up the story: “She was in the kitchen making the tea and it was after the London bombings. She said, ‘What do you think about what’s happening in Palestine?’ I got angry. I didn’t realise how patriotic I was getting. I turned round and said, ‘I do not care what is happening in Palestine or Israel. I give a damn about what is happening on my doorstep. I have family in London. Look at what is going to happen because of these few people. Look at the people who have died or had limbs amputated. Where were the Muslims then? Why did not anyone care? Because they were mostly white Christians’. And now they’ve turned the bombers’ graves into shrines! They’re just killers.”

Khan says she would be delighted if her son joined the British Army or the police. “I say to him, ‘You have these options, you can go into the army and police. You are British, do not listen to anybody else’. I had too much rubbish fed in me that I would be too Westernised. I was told to keep my distance from you because I am a Muslim. It is still really hard to explain to you how you are conditioned. From a young age those thoughts are put in your head: ‘I am a Muslim. I do not mix with those people’. I would honestly say that we are more racist and more prejudiced than the English.”

Yet she feels utterly British herself, and senses no conflict between her race, her religion and her nationality. “I am definitely British. I have a British passport. I love this country. When I went to Pakistan I missed my baked beans. It was as simple as that for me. I went in the 1980s and found that there was more rock music, head-bangers, modern kids there than what was happening here. I came back and said to my mum, ‘What have you been doing to me in this country?’ ” What has been done to her — and so many other Muslim women — is what incenses Khan most, and has emboldened her tospeak out. Muslim society, she says, is based on male domination and the oppression of women. The mosques are run entirely by men, the Sharia councils are run by men, the “voice” of the Muslim community is always male. And it is women who suffer as a result.

Three issues in particular enrage her: forced or arranged marriages for teenage girls, polygamy and the veil. Khan herself was pressurised into marriage at the age of 16 by her father, against her mother’s wish-es. “I was manipulated by my dad’s side of the family into a teen marriage — you know, you are a passport for someone from Pakistan. My mum wanted me to study and make something of my life because she knew what this country had to offer.”

Khan married and became pregnant, but after her baby died she says that she suffered terrible postnatal depression and left the marriage. Her family disowned her, as did the Muslim community. “Where is the support in the community for women?” she asks. “Where is it? It is not here. The best thing you can do is go to the social services.” She is full of praise for the instruments of the British state: social services, the police, job centres. If she were prime minister, she says, the first thing she would do is ban teen marriages. “They are still being pulled out of the local girls school here and taken back home, aged 16 or 17, not allowed to get an education. These girls are so young, they can be manipulated by their family’s culture and religion. They don’t have a chance. To wait until they are 25 or so would make more sense.”

The mosques, she says, collude in these marriages, as they do in the informal polygamy that she claims is rife in Muslim communities. “It is still very, very common here, polygamy. This is Pakistan I have just brought you back into,” she says, gesturing at the streets of terraced and semidetached houses. “I know enough stories from women who have come out from abroad, settled with their husbands in arranged marriages and then their husbands have gone back to Pakistan to marry someone else and work out a legal way to get them in the country. In 21st-century Britain the men in the mosques are saying that polygamy is OK, when it does nothing but increase depression in women. No woman in her right mind can share a man. I defy any woman to say she can.”As a result, the first wives get desperately depressed. “I am not exaggerating this. There is a majority of mothers with depression. Fathers commit polygamy; any child you ask tells you it is an unhappy and sad situation to be in. It is damaging to society. It should not be happening in 21st-century Britain. They need people to stop it happening.”

But the mullahs are implicitly condoning both forced marriages and polygamy. “They do not question or do anything about the fact that there are two people who do not want to get married. They are no good with these issues because their answer will be, ‘Yes, he is a man, he can have two wives. Yes, you should listen to your parents and marry the person they have chosen’.”

So, although polygamy is illegal in Britain, it is still, says, Khan, being practised with a Muslim seal of approval. The “marriages”, after all, are being sanctioned in the mosques. “My mum would turn in her grave if she knew Sharia was here. This is England, how can this be happening, how in this country? People in Pakistan are fighting for it not to happen there.”Khan is also vociferous on the subject of the veil, which is not, she says, a religious requirement: “It’s a 7th-century garment that should not be in this country.” In places like Pakistan, where there is little protection by the police from sexual harassment, she can see the point of it, but not here.

“It hurts me,” she explains. “This was once a nice, mixed area. It hurts me that people are on the streets and women are afraid to walk around. No one is talking to each other, white women on one side, veiled women on the other, walking around. They are ignoring me too. I do not know them and I cannot say hello to them either.”

As for the woman who was recently photographed in a burka, sticking two fingers upto the photographer, “To me, I felt she did that to me. To me it was a sign of the real thing which you don’t see. They are not all pious and vulnerable and dignified under that garment. If she was, she would not have done that.”

Khan often dresses in Western clothes, but not immodestly. Her sleeves are long, and she wears jeans, not a skirt. But she resents being judged by men and more fundamentalist women for choosing to do so. “On one side you have liberal Muslims who do their own thing and on the other, you have the fundamentalists and they are looking down at you. That’s the worst thing, they look down at you because you do not want to be like them. You get grass thrown inyour face, you cannot be a good person unless you are reading the Koran, unless your children are and you are living as an Asian woman should.”

Having banned teen marriages and the veil, cracked down on polygamy and ensured women’s representation in mosques, Khan’s next priority as prime minister would be to get rid of faith schools and teach Britishness more effectively. Although her children are taught well at an excellent Catholic school, she fears that Muslim schools exacerbate separatism. “Britishness should be compulsory in schools, taught by English teachers. And we should let kids know how valuable their British passports are around the world.”

Khan would love to start a movement of like-minded people, who are grateful for what Britain has given them. “I am trying to get together people, whether Christian, white, black, Turkish. Whoever you are, we have one thing in common: we care about Britain, we care about our country. Whoeveryou are, we want this country to be a safe place. We want to live here, we know we have the best place.

“Compared with Third World countries, compared with every Muslim country, we Muslims are a lot safer here, I know that still. I would not want to leave and move to Pakistan or anywhere on my own as a woman with a grown daughter. I know that now, though it may have taken me a lifetime to realise it. I am so lucky to have been born here.

“We are women, we are treated equally here. If I am raped or sexually abused, the cruellest things that can happen to a woman and leave a residue on your life, this is a country that supports you. I do not have to hide. They are going to help me, give me counselling. What are they going to do in a Muslim country? Stone me. I need four witnesses. They are going to ostracise me, as if I am dirty.”

But still, within the British Muslim community, women are not equal. “We are just treated as second-best. It has always been like that. It does not matter whether you are from a village and backward or from a cultured Asian family — the mentality across the board is the same.

“You are fighting this mentality all your life, so it is hard to be who you are. You can either be miserable, as I was for 34 years, or you can say, ‘You know what? I am ahuman being, God gave me a brain equal to the brain he has given you and I am not going to bend over and pray behind you just because you are a man’. Nobody can change that about me because I totally believe that.

“Muslim women aren’t suppose to make waves. I didn’t even hear my own screams and tears for 34 years. I have now stepped back and decided to understand and challenge my religion.”

So Khan wants like-minded women (and men) to join her. “We need to get together. We need mothers getting together. You know what? It is one thing to sit and talk about it and be angry about it; it is another thing if they play psychological games. We can show how mentally strong we are, we women, we can do it, mothers can.

“Let us have a stronger voice. Let us start with the real problems and say, ‘Whether you like it or not, this is what we demand’. We could start with all the things that should have been done a long time ago. I would start by ending the teen marriages.“A whole generation of us have been messed up by these arranged marriages. Women like me lived in depression for 30, 40 years. We do not want to be depressed any more. We want to have a strong voice.”

But it is a very brave course to embark upon. Already Khan has had bricks through her car window for speaking out locally about domestic violence and sexual abuse, issues that are taboo in the Muslim community.

She is determined, though, to stand strong. “It has been a constant mental battle for me all my life until I decided I am who I am, I am not afraid. I have been living in this community, but lots of thing I say people will not like.

“I fear no one. I fear God punishing me for never revealing the truth. Women like me usually jump in front of a running train. I was close once, but I’ll be damned if I let another jerk put the fear back in me again. I have freedom of speech, too.

“I am not going to live in fear. I have been told not to say too much. I have been told to be careful what you say, there are people, men, out there who won’t like it.”

But there are thousands, millions perhaps, who will. They will cheer for Gina Khan, admire her courage and pray that she remains safe. “The bottom line for my agenda is to eradicate the radicals,” she declares. “We need to say, ‘Wake up, you have to understand you are not being taught the right thing’.”

Let’s just hope they listen.

Left Allows Europe to Fall to Muslims

Left Allows Europe to Fall to Muslims

In a recent interview, Prof. Bernard Lewis, famed historian and leading expert on Islam, warned that “Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe.” The irony is that this takeover — be it in 10 years or 30 — is not because Islam has more tanks or better missiles than the Europeans. It is because the minority Islamic populations already living within Europe are making demands to Islamize Europe and no one seems to be willing to say no. No one has the political will to announce to the Islamic communities that daily life and laws in Europe must be in accord with the Western outlook that is Europe’s heritage.

Was the fall of Europe inevitable? No, according to Prof. Lewis, who says it is coming about because “Europeans have surrendered on every issue regarding Islamic demands, due to political correctness and multi-culturalism.” Europe has become woefully secular and its tepid attachment to a forgotten and dismissed Christianity is no match for the zeal of Muslims who remain fervent believers in their faith. Having been force fed that all cultures are equally valid, Europeans consider it unenlightened to assert the primacy of their culture even in their own countries.

What is even stranger is that secularized and politically correct European elites do insist on the primacy of indigenous cultures and religions when speaking of other faraway regions, yet find such insistence arrogant when it concerns the indigenous culture of its own lands. In other words, other countries are there to preserve their own way of life while the West is supposed to jello-ize and even deny its historic way of life. The bottom line: “Europeans have no respect for their own culture.” Their worship of open-mindedness, no matter the cost, is leading to their demise.

Perhaps for the first time in history, we are witnessing the death of a civilization not due to outside forces stronger militarily but because “instead of fighting the threat, Europeans have simply given up, and do not want to fight.” Pacifism in Europe runs so deep that it goes beyond a reluctance to take up military arms and extends to not even battling verbally, be it with laws or assertive opinion, or by fighting for Western culture even in routine social conversations.

As is well known, after World War II, Europe began denigrating the concept of nationalism, and the further left it became politically, the further it extolled transnationalism. Brainwashing citizens against the natural human inclination to be proud and loyal to one’s own country over others has boomeranged to the point where Europeans can no longer even make the case for their own culture and history.

The lesson for the United States is clear. So as not to fall and disintegrate as is Europe, we need strong national patriotism, a genuine belief in the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage and religion, and a conviction that our inherited culture and civilization is best for us and has been the true source of our blessings, success and freedom. Bereft of these deep and abiding associations, what is there to fight for?

Moreover, it is necessary to assert that our historic ethos is superior to that which Islam is demanding. Europe, as well as history, shows that those unable to assert the primacy of their own culture at home are unwilling to even assert its parity, and mire in “suicidal self-abasement.”

This self-abasement has gone so far that “sophisticated” Europeans extend respect and “understanding” to Islamic marital habits that they’d condemn if practiced by their own. They would never accept rampaging and burnings in response to cartoon publications and statements if done by fellow Englishmen. Nor would they countenance censorship of the press if a bishop was offended by some newspaper article.

Yet out of a strange deference and submission to things Islamic, many are accepting that which they would condemn if perpetrated by a native Christian Brit. In other words, Islamic “honor” is more important than British honor, and Islamic habits are given more deference than Western customs and mores continually under self- assault and self-criticism. Criticism is reserved only for our culture, the “bad, discredited, and passé Western culture.”

What brought Europe to this pitiful surrender is the left/liberalism that has controlled it since the 1960s. This post-modern liberalism has used political correctness and multi-culturalism to strip Europe of that which had previously made it great, and worthwhile. If it has proven a disastrous recipe for Europe, it certainly is no prescription for us in America. It is a cultural poison, a death potion. We, therefore, must not allow the elitist left to do here what they’ve already done to Europe. We know, however, that is precisely what the American Left is trying to do, and we see how the elitists in this country always ape Europe, demanding that “we Americans act more European-like.”

To be sure, some in Europe accede to the demands of Islam over European life not out of a sense of cultural inferiority but fear, palpable fear. But the question remains: Given that the Islamists living inside Europe are not armed with tanks or other heavy military equipment, why can’t the better equipped police forces subdue the Islamic gangs and imams that are intimidating the British and European public? Why can’t law enforcement shut down the Islamic hot heads and centers that are creating such fear among Europeans that they’d rather forfeit actual civil liberties (freedom of speech), their culture, and way of life so as to appease the threatening Islamists?

Because political correctness has tied the hands of those entrusted to protect the home-grown citizenry. The courts and the ruling elites in charge of European legal institutions have made it almost impossible to enforce the laws and protect the people. New operational terms, such as racial profiling, cultural understanding, mosque sanctuary, community deference, etc., have been sanctified so that Moslems are exempt from the very tough investigatory and law enforcement procedures normally used when trying to apprehend other criminals and violators of the law. Sociology is replacing strength and common sense.

Worse, the blood-curdling threats by imams against the public go unpunished while candid and forthright apprehensions over what the Islamic community is doing to society is punishable as a hate crime.

Out of fear, Europe is appeasing. It has become a supplicant. Out of guilt, Europe is acquiescing. Out of years of self-criticism, it no longer feels worthy. Cynicism has lead to defeatism. Pacifisim has replaced religion. They believed in the parity of everything, so they now believe in nothing — not even themselves. They, not the enemy, are orchestrating their own national demise.

To those elites in Europe, and America, who feel a greater kinship with the exotic peoples of other cultures than with the dull citizens of their own country, there is nothing to fear. For what will have been lost is something, a set of cultural beliefs, they discarded long ago nationalisms that were objects of scorn and had, for them, become boring. An Islamized Europe is nothing to fret and worry over. Wrong!

Prof. Lewis warns: “The growing sway in Europe is of particular concern given the ever-rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements.” But these self-righteous, self-centered elitists born of the 60s Left still need not worry. They probably will not be the victims of the annihilation they have wrought. It will be their children and grandchildren.

The Conduct of War

The Conduct of War
By Henry Mark Holzer | February 9, 2007

Recently, President George W. Bush—constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the
United States —stated what should be obvious to anyone who has not failed Civics 101: Mr. Bush is the “decision-maker” on issues of war.  Period!
Yet the strutting, runaway Democrat-controlled Congress, especially the Senate, with more than a few opportunistic Republicans on board—lacking the courage of their partisanship to defund the war— has been trying to engineer a “non-binding resolution” that would micromanage the President’s conduct of the Iraq War by tinkering with his movement of troops.The Democrat and fellow-traveling Republican proposals oppose the President’s deployment of the
United States military.  They want an unequivocal statement of opposition to the President’s intended increase in troops or, as a “compromise,” a series of “benchmarks” or “goals” that must be met—in effect, hoops through which the Commander-in-Chief must jump through at the behest of the legislative branch.

I have recently written that “[w]hile Article I of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to ‘declare War,’ to ‘raise and support Armies,’ and to ‘provide and maintain a Navy,’ Article II provides that the ‘executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States,’ who ‘shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.’”


I added that “[t]he Constitution’s text is clear regarding the division of war powers: Congress can, if it wishes, declare war, and can fund or not fund, military operations.  But it is the President who commands that military. 


Just in my lifetime, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Commander-in-Chief, not some committee of Congress, who abandoned the Philippine Islands after Pearl Harbor, who declined to open the “second front” invasion of mainland Europe until he was ready, and who insisted on “unconditional surrender” of the German and Japanese armies.  As a matter of fact, President Roosevelt, on his own, created a virtually parallel (albeit infinitely smaller) army alongside the regular military forces of the
United States.  It was called the Office of Strategic Services, the


President Truman dropped two atomic bombs on
Japan, and stymied the
Soviet Union with the Berlin Airlift (which lasted one year). He didn’t ask Congress’s permission.


President Eisenhower let it be known that unless the Chinese Communist threw in the towel, the use of nuclear weapons was on the table.  He didn’t ask Congress’s permission.


President Kennedy invaded
Cuba (before he cut and run, leaving the attackers stranded on the beach).  He didn’t ask Congress’s permission.


President Johnson put troops into the
Dominican Republic.  He didn’t ask Congress’s permission.


All of these actions were, or would be, military in nature, and Congress did not—indeed, dared not!!—meddle with these Commander-in-Chief decisions, nor any of the countless others these five Presidents made and implemented with raw presidential power. 

Today, however, we have a gaggle of frustrated federal legislators flailing furiously in an attempt to work their will on the Commander-in Chief, conveniently forgetting that some five years ago they themselves enacted the binding Joint Resolution “Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF).

Beyond even President Bush’s power as Commander-in-Chief, the AUMF recited that its purpose was “[t]o authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States,” that “the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States,” and that accordingly “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”  (Emphasis added.)

Thus did the Joint Resolution expressly delegate to the President alone the discretion to run the Iraq War.  (Not that it had to.  See “President Bush Has the Power to Attack
Iran,” at
Given the textual powers of the President under Article II, the unquestioned use of those powers by past Presidents, and the AUMF, we have every right to expect that the Supreme Court will let Mr. Bush run the Iraq War (for better or worse) the way he sees fit.

But maybe not.

The Supreme Court has already held that enemy combatants are entitled to contest their status, to sue in American courts, to due process of law, to seek habeas corpus relief anywhere in the United States, and to be tried by military commissions only if they are approved by Congress (as they now have been, in the Military Commissions Act of 2006).These arrogant judicial incursions into the war power of the Commander-in-Chief are not  passing aberrations.  They reflect a belief by some justices of the Supreme Court that the judiciary has a policy role to play in the President’s conduct of war.  Regrettably, this belief is shared by at least a majority of the House and Senate.Of all the justices on the Supreme Court of the
United States, only Clarence Thomas fully understands that neither Congress nor the courts have an allowable constitutional role in micromanaging this or any President’s conduct of war.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case in which other justices held illegal the President’s military commissions, Thomas wrote that the Court’s opinion “openly flouts our [the judiciary’s] well-established duty to respect the Executive’s judgment in matters of military operations and foreign affairs. The Court’s evident belief that it is qualified to pass on the ‘military necessity’ . . . of the Commander in Chief’s decision to employ a particular form of force against our enemies is so antithetical to our constitutional structure that it simply cannot go unanswered.” (Emphasis added.)

Thomas then followed with an explanation of each branch of government’s role in the “conduct of war,” and then “emphasize[d] the complete congressional sanction of the President’s exercise of his commander-in-chief authority to conduct the present war.”  Because of that, Thomas argued, the Court’s duty to “defer to the Executive’s military and foreign policy judgment is at its zenith; it does not countenance the kind of second-guessing the Court repeatedly engages in today.” Thomas reminded Justice Stevens and the other members of the Court what, in the previous term’s terrorist case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas had said in dissent about military and foreign policy judgments.  They

are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.

The balance of Thomas’s dissent in Hamdan was devoted to a rebuttal of each of Stevens’s points, culminating near the end with the following statement.  Although it’s lengthy, because Thomas is alone in correctly viewing the Commander-in-Chief power under Article II, his statement needs to be quoted nearly in full.

Today a plurality of this Court would hold that conspiracy to massacre innocent civilians does not violate the laws of war. This determination is unsustainable. The judgment of the political branches [Congress and the President] that Hamdan, and others like him, must be held accountable before military commissions for their involvement with and membership in an unlawful organization dedicated to inflicting massive civilian casualties is supported by virtually every relevant authority, including all of the authorities invoked by the plurality today. It is also supported by the nature of the present conflict. We are not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state, but with a worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows conspiring to reproduce the atrocities of September 11, 2001, and who has boasted of sending suicide bombers into civilian gatherings, has proudly distributed videotapes of beheadings of civilian workers, and has tortured and dismembered captured American soldiers. But according to the plurality, when our Armed Forces capture those who are plotting terrorist atrocities like the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the U. S. S. Cole, and the attacks of September 11—even if their plots are advanced to the very brink of fulfillment—our military cannot charge those criminals with any offense against the laws of war. Instead, our troops must catch the terrorists “red handed” . . . in the midst of the attack itself, in order to bring them to justice. Not only is this conclusion fundamentally inconsistent with the cardinal principal of the law of war, namely protecting non-combatants, but it would sorely hamper the President’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.

After seeing the plurality overturn longstanding precedents in order to seize jurisdiction over this case [see Justice Scalia’s dissent] . . . it is no surprise to see them go on to overrule one after another of the President’s judgments pertaining to the conduct of an ongoing war. Those Justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief’s wartime decisions, only 10 days ago [in another end-of-the-term case]deferred to the judgment of the Corps of Engineers with regard to a matter much more within the competence of lawyers, upholding that agency’s wildly implausible conclusion that a storm drain is a tributary of the waters of the United States. * * * It goes without saying that there is much more at stake here than storm drains. The plurality’s willingness to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous. (Emphasis added.)

“Dangerous,” when it comes to over five-hundred politician-legislators and several unelected Supreme Court justices running a war, is an gross understatement.  A more apt, and much scarier, word is suicidal

The Real Obstructionists

The Real Obstructionists
By Michael Reagan | February 9, 2007

Aside from the fact that it is patently untrue that Senate Republicans are blocking any debate on the current state of the war in Iraq, the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue boggles the mind.

If you believe what you read in the media (a very foolish thing to do nowadays, when the boys and girls in mainstream media have finally bowed to reality and abandoned any pretense of being non-partisan), the GOP leadership is hell-bent on preventing any debate on the Senate floor about the planned surge of troops and the president’s new strategy of cleansing the strife-ridden streets of Baghdad and neighboring Anbar province.

That’s flat-out untrue, but sticking to the truth is not one of the things for which the Democrats and their media allies are best known.

According to CNN News on Wednesday, top Senate Democrats called on Senate Republicans to “stop blocking a debate” on President Bush’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq.

“Before sending another 48,000 young Americans into battle, the Congress owes it to our troops, their families, and their communities to have an honest and open discussion about their mission,” the Democrats said in a news release.

Ooops! The president is sending about 21,000 new troops, not 48,000; but then, as noted above, the Democrats never let the truth get in their way when playing the demagogue game. After all, 48,000 sounds scarier than 21,000.

Anyway, the Democrats are busy trying to convince the public that in blocking a vote on the “no confidence” Warner resolution criticizing President Bush’s troop-surge and pacification strategy the Senate Republicans are trying to block any debate on the matter.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rants that Republicans “did our country a grave disservice” by “blocking a debate” on the Iraq war.

The fact is that the Senate GOP leadership insists that they do want a full debate on the issue and not one limited to a single no-confidence vote on the president’s surge strategy.

According to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the U.S. mission in Iraq is the most important issue facing the country.

“And this means, of course, that the men and women of this body have no higher duty than to express ourselves openly and honestly on this issue — to take a stand on where we stand.”

And, adds McConnell, the best way to do that is for the senators to “express themselves on whether to fund or not fund the war in Iraq.”

By blocking a vote on the war-funding resolution, McConnell charged, Democrats are blocking a vote on the “essential question…Do we oppose this war to the point of action, or do we simply want to make a point?”

The Democrats, he said, “do not want to vote on whether troops should be funded. Period. There is no more critical question at this moment. We have the duty to take it up, and we’ll continue to fight for that right.”

According to The Washington Times, McConnell – who previously insisted he won’t “allow a vote on the resolution of no confidence” without a vote on two other resolutions – has modified his stance.

One of the resolutions, authored by Sen. John McCain, “would endorse the ‘surge’ plan but set benchmarks for Iraqi self-governance,” and the other sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg, “would promise not to cut funding for the war.”

McConnell now offers to allow the [Warner/Democatic] resolution to go forward in exchange for a vote on the ‘no funding cutoff’ resolution only.”

But according to USA Today, Reid told McConnell to go fly a kite, saying “negotiations are over.”

You have to be amused by the Democrats’ antics – after all, these are the same people who made a career out of blocking up-or-down votes on the confirmation of hordes of constitutionalist nominees to the federal courts.

And now they are back at it, blocking a full debate on the war and the vital issue of funding our troops in harm’s way and having the gall to say it’s the Republicans doing the blocking.

Click Here to support

Squeeze Iran

Squeeze Iran
By Kenneth R. Timmerman | February 9, 2007

A sea change is beginning to occur in Iraq: for the first time since the insurgency took off, the terrorists are starting to run.

This is occurring not because the United States has successfully promoted political dialogue among Iraq’s torn communities, although a successful dialogue is certainly to be desired.


It is occurring not because the United States has given in to the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton commission and others, who have suggested a policy of unilateral capitulation to the terror-masters pulling the strings of the insurgency in Damascus and Tehran.


Nor is it occurring because we have suddenly become better at winning “hearts and minds” in Iraq, although such an effort, as described by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, would appear to be sound counter-insurgent policy.


The terrorists are on the run for one reason only: they fear the United States.


“In Tehran, they are now referring to the United States as mar-rouye domesh vastadeh – the Cobra standing on his tail,” says Shahriar Ahy, an Iranian-born political analyst who helped build the post-war broadcasting network in Iraq.


The sea-change began on January 10, when President George W. Bush announced that the United States would no longer tolerate Iranian and Syrian intelligence officers using Iraq as a playground for their murderous games.


When he announced the troop surge in Iraq, Bush also put Iran and Syria on notice. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops,” he said. “We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”


Those weren’t idle words. That very night, U.S. forces raided an Iranian intelligence headquarters in the Kurdish town of Irbil, capturing six Iranians. The Iranian government screamed that they were diplomats, but apparently only one had any sort of diplomatic credentials. My sources tell me this was Hassan Abbassi, a well-known strategist who is close to president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


The other five turned out to be Revolutionary Guards officers. My sources identified three of them by name, and told me they were providing a treasure trove of intelligence to their U.S. interrogators (who appear to be receiving help from an intelligence expert from the opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq).


“They are key people in the Sepah Quds,” the overseas terrorist arm of the Revolutionary Guards, a former Iranian intelligence officer told me.


Iranian exiles and Kurdish sources identified another captive as Brig. Gen. Mohammad Djafari Sahraroudi, a Kurdish affairs expert who is wanted by Interpol for his involvement in the 1989 murder in Vienna of Iranian Kurdish dissident Abdulrahman Qassemlou.


Also among those detained was Mohammad Jaafari, an aid to National Security advisor Ali Larijani, the sources said.


The raid in Irbil was in fact the second U.S. backed raid that captured senior Iranian revolutionary guards officials recently. Shortly before Christmas, coalition forces raided the headquarters of Shiite political leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, just three weeks after he was in the Oval Office meeting with President Bush.


During that raid, they captured documents which American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen called “a wiring diagram” of Iran’s terror networks in Iraq.


Iran is believed to be operating a number of intelligence offices in Iraq similar to the one in Irbil, to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. forces and supply money and equipment to insurgents.


“The mullah infiltration of Iraq is far more extensive than the U.S. has thought,” said Iranian exile Sardar Haddad. “They have infiltrated every single ministry, especially the defense and interior ministries, not just with one or two people, but massively.”


Referring to the Irbil incident, “It’s not five Iranian agents, but 5,000,” he added.

The U.S. is also investigating Iran’s alleged involvement in the kidnapping and murder of five U.S. soldiers near Karbala on January 20, and reportedly has detained two high-ranking Iraqi generals suspected of collaborating with the attackers.


I am told that those interrogations have turned up astonishing information, including documents sent by the Iranian regime to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malaki, offering to “welcome” an extended visit to Iran by Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and top members of his Jaish-al Mahdi militia.


According to one source, the generals revealed the names of nearly a dozen top Iraqi politicians who were on the payroll of the Iranian government, including a Shiite member of parliament convicted and sentenced to death in Kuwait for his involvement in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait city.


Jamal Jafaar Mohammed is said to have fled to Iran in recent days, fearing U.S. forces would arrest him and send him to Kuwait. He was elected to parliament in 2005 as a member of Prime Minister al-Malaki’s Dawa party.


Yesterday, U.S. forces arrested deputy health minister Hakim Zamili, accused of helping Shiite militiamen to infiltrate his ministry. He was also accused of funelling money to Shiite death squads loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.


The U.S. Cobra is finally standing on its tail. This strategy is clearly working.

In Tehran, shortly after the January 10 speech by President Bush, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei set up two commissions, terrified that the policies of President Ahmadinejad were taking his regime to defeat.


A domestic policy review board is examining Ahmadinejad’s dismal handling of the economy, which has led to increased unemployment and runaway inflation.


A national security and intelligence review board led by Khamenei’s son Mojtaba and his chief of staff, Akbar Hejazi, is looking at Iran’s nuclear face-off with the international community and its aggressive posture in Iraq.


According to Iranian exiles who have been following these events closely, a rift has developed between Ahmadinejad and senior Revolutionary Guards “professionals,” who believe the President’s overheated rhetoric and behavior is endangering the survival of the regime.


“It’s not that these professionals want to make peace with America and sing Kumbaya with the opposition,” said Shahriar Ahy. “Rather, they feel that Ahmadinejad has brought in undisciplined amateurs who are riding roughshod” over their agencies and “destroying all the work” the professionals have accomplished over the past twenty years.


Tehran’s reaction to the more forceful U.S. policy in Iraq gives the lie to the U.S. politicians and analysts who have been arguing that the United States must talk to Tehran.


In fact, it shows they were completely wrong.


Council on Foreign Relations Iran “expert” Ray Takeyh, Washington Post reporter Robin Wright, and pro-regime lobbyist Housang Amirahmadi have been saying for years that pressure on the regime in Tehran will be counterproductive, because it will unite the people behind the regime.


“They have even argued against using coercive diplomacy,” says Iran analyst Hassan Daioleslam.


But Daioleslam and others believe recent events have shown just the contrary. When the U.S. squeezes the Tehran regime, they retreat.


“Coercive measures work against Iran. They worked in 1988 at the end of the war with Iraq, and they worked again in 1996 when Europe and the United States took a hard stance against Iran. The hard-liners only got strong when the West was soft with them,” he says.


A strong faction has emerged in Congress arguing for the United States to “go soft” toward Iran once again. Among the best known advocates of this policy are Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. Chuck Hagel.


But Daioleslam says the “pro-Iranians are wrong because they base their policy on two false assumptions: first, that the people of Iran support the regime. Second, that the factions are united. Both assumptions are just plain wrong as any reader who opens an Iranian newspaper can see immediately.”


The Tehran regime understands the stakes in Iraq very well.


Former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, now a top advisor to the Supreme Leader, told the Iranian Student News Agency in August 2004: “What is happening in Iraq today will affect the whole region. If the Iraqi people resist and finally force the invaders to leave Iraq, that could become a model for the entire world because the Moslems will see that they could defeat the aggressors.”


Conversely, he argued, an American victory in Iraq could be fatal to the Islamic regime in Tehran.


As the insurgency deepened last year, Iranian Majles member Mojtaba Nia noted, “Every car exploded in Iraq will delay a month the American plot against us.”

Now we need to squeeze harder. It’s time for the U.S. Cobra to strike at the heart of the Iranian terror networks in Iraq, and shut down their supply lines once and for all.