New Assault In Baghdad

New Assault In Baghdad

Gates comments as Harry Reid still nowhere to be found in Iraq

BAGHDAD (AP) – The U.S. military, which just days ago completed its latest troop buildup in Iraq, has launched a large offensive operation in several al-Qaida strongholds around Baghdad, the top U.S. commander said Saturday.

(Read More)

Trent Lott enters dangerous territory

A strike against Sanctuary Nation

Case Closed – Government Documents Reveal CAIR Is Hamas

Case Closed – Government Documents Reveal CAIR Is Hamas

Council On American Islamic Relations [CAIR] Named As Unindicted Co-Conspirator In Holy Land Foundation Case

June 5, 2007 – San Francisco, CA – – In a disclosure that will have significant impact on the way the public perceives radical American Islamist organizations who feign moderation, the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the government’s upcoming prosecution of those associated with the Holy Land Foundation.

Court documents name the Council on American Islamic Relations, CAIR as being among “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.”

In a precedent setting revelation, the government’s trial brief sets forth in great detail incontestable evidence linking CAIR to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to documents seized from co-conspirator Ismail Elbarrasse, there is a straight line of associations going from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and terminating with the Islamic Association for Palestine, CAIR’s immediate antecedent.

“the Muslim Brotherhood directed its Palestinian Committees throughout the world, including the United States, to carry out the mandate of assisting Sheik Yassin’s newly-formed Hamas. In accordance with that mandate, the Palestinian Committee in the United States, which included the defendants Elashi, Baker and El-Mezain, created a number of organizations charged with varying missions calculated to comprehensively address Hamas’ needs. These organizations included the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) (“think tank”), the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) (propaganda and information) and the Occupied Land Fund (OLF) (money), later to become the defendant HLF. The defendant Shukri Abu Baker was in charge of the HLF and, along with the defendants El-Mezain and Elashi, set out to establish what would become the highest grossing Islamic charity in the United States.…The IAP, which involved the defendant Ghassan Elashi as an original incorporator and bank account signatory, was designed as a propaganda facility, responsible for Intifada festivals (involving the defendant HLF), pro-Hamas publications, and the general rallying of support within the American Palestinian community. The IAP was the first organization to publish an English version of the Hamas charter, which, as previously explained, vows to replace Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza with an Islamic state. Further, during their existence, unindicted co-conspirator and Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into the three organizations (UASR, IAP, OLF/HLF) during a time when he was an unemployed graduate student.”

The IAP was involved in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas.

“the United States-based Muslim Brotherhood and its sub-group the Palestinian Committee); organizations established by the Palestinian Committee, such as the defendant Holy Land Foundation (HLF), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), as well as other organizations. See Superceding Indictment, pp. 6-7. Each of the above organizations, as well as its members, representatives and supporters were participants in the same joint venture or conspiracy — the conspiracy to support Hamas.”

As noted in our December 5, 2006 piece Ghassan Elashi’s Sentencing Proves CAIR’s Terror Ties Ghassan Elashi is the pivotal figure in this chain of association. He was the founder of Texas Chapter of CAIR and the individual who was responsible for incorporating the IAP, he was also present at the Philadelphia Hamas funding meeting detailed later on in this piece. Elashi was recently sentenced in the InfoCom terror funding case and is a key defendant in U.S. v Holy Land Foundation case.

Elashi worked to aid the Muslim Brotherhood through its agent the Palestinian Committee in creating the IAP. Those associated with Elashi also worked to create other Islamist organizations [United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) and the Occupied Land Fund (OLF) later to become the Holy Land Foundation] with the intent of building support for the terrorist group Hamas and its primary goal, the destruction of the State of Israel.

“For Hamas, the Oslo Accords were a threat to its survival and in direct confrontation with its most valued tenet – the destruction of the State of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in all of what is today Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.”

As noted by terror expert Matthew Epstein, CAIR’s future senior leadership participated in a pivotal meeting to fund Hamas that was held in Philadelphia.

“CAIR actively raised money for [Holy Land Foundation] HLF via their mailing list. In 2001, HLF’s assets were frozen by the Treasury Department, which found the organization to be a Hamas conduit. The Texas chapter of CAIR and HLF share a common founder in Ghassan Elashi. As stated above, Elashi himself was present at the 1993 Philadelphia meeting that planned Hamas fundraising in the United States. This meeting shows that future leadership of CAIR participated in meetings with senior Hamas leaders and discussed Hamas fundraising in the United States.”

This meeting was deemed so critical in understanding Hamas’ American operation that the FBI obtained a warrant through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [FISA] Court, to monitor it.

“The FBI learned of the Philadelphia meeting through the Ashqar investigation and, as a result, the FBI obtained a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the meeting,”

Mr. Epstein quotes from a page, since removed from the CAIR website in which CAIR’s current Executive Director Nihad Awad describes his work at the IAP with his associate Omar Ahmad, now CAIR’s Chairman of the Board.

“After the Gulf War was over, I was offered a job with the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) as their public relations director…In this effort I worked closely with IAP president Omar Ahmad…Omar suggested to me that we leave the IAP and concentrate on combating anti-Muslim discrimination…In June 1994, we used a modest donation as a starting budget to open the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington, D.C.”

IAP events incited anti-American hate and barely concealed threats of violence. Below, Mr. Epstein quotes a Hamas supporter at a post Gulf War IAP conference.

“Dear brothers and sisters, we used to cross swords with America and with imperialism in a sportive way, by means of culture clash, by critique and writing in newspapers and journals and in debates. But the confrontation has reached a point of no return. All veils have fallen. All barriers have broken down. And today, America is right here at your doorstep, in everybody’s house…The marines, dear brothers, are stealing the doors of your houses, and the doors of your mosques, in obstinate and open provocation. They are at our doors. Their plan is to penetrate the flesh of our girls. And our honor, and our values, in order to turn our society into a pervert nation.”

Understanding the pivotal role of CAIR within the constellation of American Islamist group is key to unlocking how radical Muslims seek to impose their will. For the most part American institutions have accepted at face value, self-promoting foreign funded supporters of terrorism who claim moderation while working clandestinely to promote the butchers at Hamas.

Christian and Jewish religious groups, local and federal law enforcement officials and politicians at every level have conducted fraudulent “faith sharing” and/or “Muslim sensitivity” public relations exercises with groups like CAIR because they lack the moral courage necessary to adequately vet them.

Such excuses will no longer pass muster, the court documents and evidentiary materials that have been amassed for use in the Holy Land Foundation case now prove beyond all doubt that CAIR is Hamas.

The evidence developed by Federal law enforcement places CAIR within a top down hierarchical arrangement of terror supporters:

Muslim Brotherhood ==> Hamas ==> Palestinian Committee ==> the Islamic Association of Palestine ==> CAIR.

From this point onward it is indefensible for individuals and organizations to associate with CAIR.

This organization constitutes a clear a present danger to national security. A full-scale Federal law enforcement investigation is long overdue with the intent of adding it to Executive Order 12947 [Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations list] alongside its ideological parent, Hamas.

©1999-2007 LLC, all rights reserved.




“We are now in the middle of the third great battle with totalitarianism in living memory. As with the struggles against fascism and communism, this conflict can only be won by a mobilization of Western resources and resolve. What has happened in the Gaza Strip is a lost battle in that process. There is not room for too many more of these defeats.”

by Barry Rubin, The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2007

The seizure of the Gaza Strip by Hamas opens a new period in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East. A new Islamist state is being established and it doesn’t bode well for the West or regional stability.

And yet we can hope that something will be learned from this experience. Israel’s left-leaning Ha’aretz expresses the lesson with what some would call British understatement: “Anyone in Israel still contemplating the question of a Palestinian partner might also need to do some rethinking. In Gaza, at least, it seems there is nobody left for Israel to talk to.”

In 2000, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat turned down President Bill Clinton’s offer of an independent Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem and an opening offer of $23 billion in aid. Ever since then it has been clear that there is no diplomatic solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arafat’s renewal of terrorist violence only reinforced this point.

The problem was not just Arafat, but the overall strategy of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian movement. Since the peace process began in 1993 with the Oslo Accords, that leadership made hardly a single effort to move Palestinian society toward peace and moderation. Fatah did have an attractive alternative it could have offered: We will get a state, return the refugees to live in it, develop our economy and culture and enjoy large-scale international aid in exchange for ending the conflict.

Instead it continued to glorify violence, spread hatred of Israel and America, and raise a new generation with a belief in eventual “total” victory and the extinction of Israel. After Arafat died, Fatah remained incompetent and corrupt but lacked a strong leader. Unable to obtain a state, unwilling to make peace and uninterested in governing well, Fatah dug its own grave. Why should anyone be surprised that Hamas replaced it? At most, Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and American pressure to hold fair elections only accelerated this process.

There has been another important lesson in this recent history: Most of the Arab states and movements need the conflict to continue. After all, what would mismanaging dictatorial regimes do without having Israel as a scapegoat? If, for example, Syria made peace with Israel in exchange for getting back the Golan Heights, it would be the beginning of the end for that regime. Within weeks, its people would be demanding human rights and free-enterprise economic reforms. The regime could not use anti-Israel and anti-American demons as an excuse to continue the dictatorship, deprive its people of rights and material well-being, and mobilize support. The same applies to radical Islamist movements seeking to gain power.

So let’s get this straight: There is no near-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no Palestinian side with which a compromise agreement can be negotiated. Many Arab states seek to exploit the conflict. Others would like to make peace but are too scared, and it is to the West’s discredit that such states don’t believe that it can or will protect them.

There are several key policy conclusions to be drawn from the Hamas triumph. First, Western and especially U.S. policy must get beyond an obsession with solving this conflict. It is going to go on for decades. Peace plans will go nowhere. Hamas will not be persuaded to moderate — why should it when it expects victory at home and appeasement from Europe? Hamas is the enemy, just as much as al Qaeda, because it is part of the radical Islamist effort to seize control of the region, overthrow anything even vaguely moderate, and expel any Western influence.

Second, since Palestinian politics have clearly returned to a pre-1993 status, so must Western and U.S. policy. This means no Western aid and no diplomatic support until their leaders change policies. The Palestinian movement can only earn financial help and political backing on the very distant day when it accepts Israel’s right to exist, stops endorsing and using terrorism, and is serious about negotiating a real two-state solution.

Third, it is time to support Israel proudly and fully. Israel has done everything possible for peace, taking great risks to do so. But the idea that evenhanded, confidence-building behavior can broker peace is regrettably dead.

There are wider strategic implications for U.S. and Western interests in this dramatic yet predictable development. The radical forces have gained a major new asset that will encourage the recruitment of new cadre. Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will grow more confident and aggressive.

We are now in the middle of the third great battle with totalitarianism in living memory. As with the struggles against fascism and communism, this conflict can only be won by a mobilization of Western resources and resolve. What has happened in the Gaza Strip is a lost battle in that process. There is not room for too many more of these defeats.

Mr. Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and the author of “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007).

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 4:50 pm |

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

   The year is 1907, one hundred years ago……

  “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
 here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he
 shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an
 outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or
 birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming
 in every facet an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no
 divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but
 else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the
 American flag.. We have room for but one language here, and that is the
 English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is
 a loyalty to the American people.”

  Theodore Roosevelt 1907

  Every American citizen needs to read this!

Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking

Fred Thompson and Plain Speaking

By Ray Robison

Fred Thompson is a small town guy who made it from the agricultural communes of south-central Tennessee to Capitol Hill and our TV sets. And while we admire the accomplishments of this distinguished lawyer, Senator and actor, we admire the man even more for seeming to remain grounded to his roots.

Faced with a media establishment that has heightened its opposition to presenting news that makes Republicans look good, Fred Thompson has that rare and invaluable quality of speaking directly to ordinary Americans, saying what needs to be said.
He has ties to Hollywood but is not of Hollywood, which adds legitimacy to his insider knowledge of our media based culture. He is giving voice to that which vexes many of us, that liberal politicians and media elitists increase the risk to this country by downplaying the tyrannical and terrorist enemy in order to win political power. Pointing this out is a talent that has long failed President Bush.   
Can anybody imagine President Bush saying what Fred Thompson did a few days ago?

“I listen to the Democratic congressional leaders and I hear them talking about how many (House and Senate) seats they’re going to pick up because of this war…. I listened to one of their presidential candidates talk about that this is a phony war, the war on terror. This is what passes for policy today in the Democratic Party.”

Can anybody imagine President Bush telling Michael Moore so publicly that the political system he admires in Cuba is nothing but a brutal tyranny? Thompson talked about Castro’s abysmal treatment of Cuban journalists, a direct shot at the hypocrisy of the “video-journalist” Moore. The fact that Moore had no memorable response says it all; Thompson scored a direct hit and everybody knew it.
Many of us who loathe Michael Moore cheered silently. Thompson has slyly asserted himself as the easy going but tough guy of the right who also happens to be media savvy, more John Wayne than Reagan. And oddly enough in American politics, it all strikes many of us as genuine.
We never hear this type of trench fighting from the Bush administration anymore, unless it is to imply its’ own supporters are haters for wanting to stop an egregiously flawed immigration bill. The same can be said for McCain who used to straight talk us, but for some time has talked only straight to the liberal media talking points in a vain attempt to curry favor. As Fred might say, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would know that the media was going to use and abuse McCain as soon as it got what it wanted from him, an anti-Republican stance.
We want a President who will play take on, or better yet make irrelevant the liberal media and its’ anti-American leanings. Defeat it, rather than to win it over, an impossible task for any Republican.
Many of us have not sat idly while major American news misrepresents everything from our war efforts to a make-believe plot to out a “covert” CIA agent. Again and again this administration has failed to support those who support it by defending itself. Instead it gives up and accommodates its opponents.
In the war of ideas, this White House long ago cut and run. Why didn’t Powell, a former team member, identify Armitage as the leaker and stop the entire Plame non-scandal before it got started? Didn’t President Bush have the same information? Why did they let this lie go unchallenged day after day?
What many of us see in Thompson is a man who will stand by his principles, someone we hope won’t pull the rug out from under his supporters’ feet to support Ted Kennedy. We see in Thompson a man who understands that public perception matters even as he knows that reality matters more. He understands that the Islamic extremist enemy knows how to use our own values against us. He knows the bulk of American media is all too happy to provide a conduit for that propaganda if it supports the success of liberals over conservatives.
Some believe that Thompson’s conservative credentials are damaged by his support of McCain-Feingold. Maybe so, but in this era of Jack Abramoff, tighter control on political money is not an entirely discredited notion. In truth, both Thompson and McCain acknowledged the dangers for corruption before the scandals that cost the GOP so much ion the past election.
George is coy about a statement Thompson made that is clearly a reference to suicide bombers like the 9/11 attackers which is part of a broader statement about illegal immigration. While Will just can’t quite figure it out (so he warns you not to try this at home) it is really not a complicated position. Keeping out all illegal immigrants will reduce the chances of terrorists operating in this country.
Some critics say Thomson, who hasn’t even declared yet, is devoid of ideas. Winning in Iraq is a good idea that doesn’t need to be proposed, but does need constant reinforcement with the American public. Maybe we need a President who will flood the media with subject matter experts directly involved in the war effort (God forbid we are still suffering such losses by the next Presidency) instead of giving the most biased liberal reporters special access to the military’s secret programs.
Do we really need a big idea for immigration or do we need to just enforce the laws we have? Many of the economic policies of the President have had spectacular success and just need some one to protect them against a socialist onslaught.
Fred Thompson doesn’t need big ideas; he only has to have the courage to reap the ones that President Bush planted in rugged, arid, cold ground and which he failed to protect from a biased media culture.
Ray Robison is a former army officer, a former member of the ISG, and co-author of the new ebook Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the Global Islamic Jihad Movement and International Terrorism