Vote Keep America Alive 

Vote Keep America Alive    
Monday, 14 January 2008
America is a nation and an ideal, birthed by a group of visionaries that gave it the Constitution to nurture it and protect it. What makes America, America the Beautiful, more than just a blessed land is our legacy, the Constitution. Sadly, the Constitution also makes for America the Vulnerable by enshrining freedom that enables the malevolent to subvert and destroy America from within. You, the voter, are the guardian of the Constitution. Your vote determines the health and survival of America.America is defined by the last phrase of our national anthem: The land of the free and the home of the brave. Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy, which this nation has bravely fought many wars on many fronts to preserve against the unceasing assaults of totalitarianism of all stripes. Time and again, the flowers of our nation bravely sacrificed their lives to protect freedom and liberty.

In the not too long ago past, we fought and defeated Nazism and Fascism in Europe and Imperialism in the Far East. Before the nation could have a respite, the flame of international Communism raged, consumed many parts of the world in its wake, and posed a great threat of scorching our land. Yet, we did not waiver, did not appease, and did not surrender. We stood and fought the scourge of Communism on multiple fronts. Once again, the forces of freedom succeeded in reducing the Communist menace to little more than a nuisance.

Now, we are faced with the insidious, multifaceted, and most deadly threat of Islamism. Since Islam has been around for centuries, there is a tendency to ignore or even deny the threat it poses to humanity. Various concessions are made, some of them as good faith offerings and some in the hope of placating the Islamists. Yet, concessions to threats are appeasements. And appeasements have never solved any problems. They only whet the appetite of the aggressor, give it more power, and make it even more dangerous.

And appeasement comes in many forms. When our leaders, for instance, call Islam a great religion, they are appeasing, if not lying outright. We the people elect our leaders and we hold them accountable to be honorable: using their voice to call a great religion a most deadly threat to everything we cherish as a great religion legitimizes Islamofascism, on the one hand, and infuses the rest of us with a false belief.

Go by the facts on the ground and not by rhetoric: Islam is not a great religion. It is a dangerous cult of hate and violence, intent at ruling the world under the Ummeh with its barbaric shariah laws.

Calling Islam a great religion and misrepresenting it is not simply a harmless gesture of goodwill and peacemaking. This is flaming the fire that has every intention of consuming us. Therefore, it is imperative that we choose the chief custodian of our constitution, the President, with great care. We must entrust the helm of our nation to the hands of a person of impeccable integrity who is unconditionally loyal to the constitution, who does not sacrifice principles and truth at the altar of expediency, and who is not shirking from what he must do to ensure our nation’s survival in the face of internal and external assaults.

In a democracy called America, citizens exercise their power through the ballot box. Hence, when you vote for America, you vote for our freedom as well as for the aspiration of all people who yearn to free themselves from the yoke of secular or religious totalitarianism.

Once again, it is the election season. Once again, the slick easy-answers politicians are doing all they can to get our votes. The Democrats promise us everything and more. They will bring the troops home and will give us a raft of goodies, so they promise. But, when the Barbarians are at the gate, it is suicidal to run and hide in the cellar. That’s what Obama and his ilk tripping over each other, promise us. Islamists are not at the gate. They already have breached the fortress America in significant numbers. They are waiting for the opportunity to open the gate fully to their co-cultists and make the land of the free a graveyard of Islamic slavery.

First things first. Our highest priority is the preservation of this nation of the free. We have done what it took in the past and we must do what it takes now and in the future to safeguard liberty. Defeating the encroaching Islamism is this generation of Americans greatest challenge. We must meet the threat and defeat it. The alternative is to suffer the fate of the Europeans, many of whom are voting with their feet: fleeing to other lands and abandoning their ancestral homes to the Islamists.

Don’t be fooled by the accusations that the incurably sick leftists at home and America’s ill-wishers abroad level at this country. America is not perfect. Yet, it is the very best hope for a humanity struggling to find its humanness. America is worth defending. Vote for the candidate who is not going to cut and run in the face of Islamic Jihadists.


My family, my killers – Islamic Honor Killings

My family, my killers

February 2, 2008

The grainy video, taken on a mobile phone and played in a British court last year, shows a young woman lying on a bed, telling how her father had tried to kill her that day. She says he gave her some brandy, pulled the curtains and asked her to turn around, at which point she fled the house. It sounds far-fetched, but Banaz Mahmod knew what she was talking about. Within a month, the 19-year-old was dead.Mahmod, an Iraqi Kurd whose family arrived in Britain as asylum seekers when she was 10, had been forced to marry a Kurdish man from the Midlands. But the marriage was a disaster and Mahmod fled to the family home in south London, saying her husband had raped her.

Back in London she fell in love with another man, Rahmat Sulemani, an Iranian Kurd who her family said was not a good enough Muslim. One day she kissed him on a street. A Kurdish bystander photographed the kiss on a mobile phone and showed it to her uncle, Ari Mahmod. He called a family meeting where it was decided the couple would be murdered.

Three months after she disappeared, Mahmod’s naked body was found in a case buried in a Birmingham backyard. The gang of young men her uncle had recruited to kill her had also raped and tortured her, and left the bootlace they used to strangle her around her neck.

Sentencing Mahmod’s uncle, father and one of the killers to a collective 60 years in jail, the judge told them Banaz had been an admirable woman who had made one mistake: she fell in love “with an accomplished man that you and you family thought was unsuitable. So to restore your family honour you decided that she should die.” The men’s standing in their community, the judge said, had been “more important than the happiness of your flesh and blood”.

The Banaz Mahmod case horrified Britain. It also showed how far the country has come in fighting the extraordinary phenomenon of honour killings – and how far it has to go.

Police say 12 or 13 Britons – mainly women but very occasionally men – are the victims of honour killings each year. Activists say the figure dramatically understates the true number, and police agree: they are reviewing 117 cases of women who died in mysterious circumstances over the previous 15 years, many of which are thought to have been honour killings. (Police and activists dislike the term honour killings because it appears to excuse the crime, but it remains official use.)

The fact that young British Asian women (from Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi backgrounds) kill themselves at three times the national average for women of their age is also being studied. Could some of these deaths be hidden murders, or suicides imposed on a woman to restore her family’s honour?

Women are killed by husbands in about half of all cases, but also by fathers, uncles and younger brothers ordered to do so by relatives. One in nine deaths is carried out by hired killers. One in five British perpetrators is a woman.Rukhsana Naz, a 19-year old Pakistani Briton, was strangled in 1998 by her mother and brother after she had conceived a child to a man who was not her husband. When another brother came upon the murder scene, his mother said, “Be strong, my son,” and ordered him to help dispose of the body.

While precise figures do not exist for the perpetrators’ cultural backgrounds, Diana Nammi of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation says about two-thirds are Muslim. Yet they can also be Hindu, Sikh and even eastern European.

The issue is acutely sensitive among British Muslims, already feeling embattled since the September 11, 2001, and July 7, 2005, terrorist attacks. Reported levels of domestic violence in British Asian communities are lower than the national average, according to The Guardian. But for a small minority of families, the British judge Marilyn Mornington has said: “Honour rests with the chastity and obedience of women in the community. If that is transgressed then the woman must be punished, ultimately unto death.”

Britain is not alone: 47 Muslim women were killed in Germany between 2000 and 2006. The UN estimates that 5000 women and girls are victims of honour killings each year. But the British example illustrates how a culturally relativist form of multiculturalism can clash with women’s rights and how honour crimes, far from disappearing as migrants settle over generations into new countries, may even be on the rise.

In 2006 one in 10 of 500 young British Asians told the BBC that honour killings could be justified. Nazir Afzal of the Crown Prosecution Service and a leading prosecutor of honour crimes says that when he began work on such cases, “I thought it was an imported practice that would die out when the elder generation [of a migrant community] died. But many of the young people tell me shocking things.”

For example, a young Sikh man told Afzal: “A man is a piece of gold and a woman is a piece of silk. If you drop a piece of gold into the mud you can polish it clean. If you drop a piece of silk into mud it is stained forever.”

Nammi has heard worse: she and her volunteers have had many phone threats in their small east London office. But their main callers are frightened women. Nammi takes them to the police. She has 285 clients, 46 of whom are thought to be at high risk and are in hiding. The youngest is a 13-year-old girl hiding from her father, who believed she was chatting to boys on a mobile phone.

A Kurdish asylum seeker from north-west Iran, Nammi came to Britain 10 years ago. At a school for her young daughter in north London, she met Sobhia Nader, a Kurdish interpreter who Nammi remembers as bright and kind and eager to help. But Nader failed to turn up for their third appointment. Nammi heard she had gone back to her home in Iraq.What Nammi found later, she says, was that Nader’s husband had taken her back to Iraq because he suspected his wife of flirting at work. In Kurdistan Nader was shot on two separate occasions, the second time fatally. The two men who stopped her car before killing her did not harm her husband, and Nammi believes they were his relatives. No one has been prosecuted in Britain or Iraq.

At that time attitudes to forced marriages and honour killings were more negligent than they are today. Only one in five homicide cases led to a conviction for murder; the rest for manslaughter. But in 2000, a spate of high-profile forced marriage cases led the Blair government minister Mike O’Brien to say “multicultural sensitivity is no excuse for moral blindness”. Then came the murder of Heshu Yones.

She was a 16-year old Kurdish girl in London, whose father hated her Western dress and Lebanese Christian boyfriend. For 15 minutes, Abdullah Yones chased his daughter from room to room with a kitchen knife, stabbing her repeatedly and finally slitting her throat over the bath.

The judge sentenced Yones to a minimum 14 years but appeared to mitigate the crime’s savagery by calling it “a tragic story arising out of irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of Western society”. It was arguable, he added, that “Heshu’s conduct provoked her father”.

Sitting in court, Nammi felt angry. “So-called cultural sensitivity is a way of letting women down,” she says. “Why should any woman not have the same rights as a British woman? Murder is murder.”

Afzal also cites the judge’s comments and the fact that Yones was jailed for only 14 years, as evidence that reforms were needed. Now, judges are imposing terms of 25 to 27 years, he says. “In the past six years there has been a sea change in the way all of us – judges, prosecutors and investigators – approach the crime.”

Nammi agrees the law has improved, but says police must change more. Banaz Mahmoud approached them several times and even provided an accurate list of who would murder her. Police offered her access to a refuge but made the mistake, Nammi says, of visiting her in her home, where she could not speak.

Nammi says the women she represents “are very brave. They make a huge decision to stand against their community. They know they have brought shame on their family, but they still stand up for their rights. They have fallen in love”.A Muslim by birth but an atheist since she was young, Nammi says the rise of extremist and fundamentalist Islam has been dire for women. She points to the revival of stoning of alleged female adulterers in Iran. Another malign effect of the Iraq war, she says, is that violence against women has increased there.

Both in Muslim countries and diasporas, as communities feel under pressure and want to protect their identities in the face of modernisation, traditional views of women are revived.

But Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, of the Muslim Parliament of Britain, says the issue is “not about Islam but about a tribal, rural mindset that says women belong to men and men must at all costs be obeyed”.

Afzal, a practising Muslim from a Pakistani family, agrees, saying nothing in the Koran supports honour crimes: “It’s the exact opposite”. But he says some families will use Islam to justify their authority, telling a daughter that having a boyfriend is un-Islamic.

Britain’s response to honour crimes may be evidence of a maturing multiculturalism, in which no cultural practice is tolerated or swept aside simply because it comes from a disadvantaged ethnic group. Afzal says more people are reporting crimes, extraditions of suspected perpetrators who flee the country are being pursued, some community leaders have become “champions” of change.

Yet the killings go on. Just last month a coroner ruled that 17-year-old Shafilea Ahmed of Cheshire had been murdered after she had defied her parents. They wanted her to marry a man in Pakistan; she wanted to study law. Just three days ago, Nammi received a text message that said: “I am an Iranian woman who needs confidential information. Please help me.”

Afzal says communities must respond to such calls. “I have heard people say to me, ‘Don’t talk about this stuff because we are under attack. Don’t wash our dirty linen in public.’ But I have talked to loads of Muslim women and I can tell you that the greatest fear they have is not Islamophobia or being attacked by racists or being arrested on suspicion of terrorism. It is from within their own family.”

This story was found at:

Candidates Accused of ‘Linking Islam with Terrorism’

February 5, 2008

Spencer: Candidates Accused of ‘Linking Islam with Terrorism’

Venomous Islamophobes who link Islam with violence

In Human Events today I discuss more obfuscation from Islamic apologists and their allies about the connection between Islam and terrorism.

Last week, a reporter of the Kuwait News Agency accused Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee of “linking Islam with terrorism as a tool to scare up support among US voters, an election style experts describe as ‘shameful.” But in her story, Heather Yamour invokes only one “expert” — a Far-Left professor.Shameful style? Yes, if measured by Islamic standards and not those of American politics and free speech. Last Monday it was reported that the British government has drawn up a new handbook for government officials that forbids them to use phrases like “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist” — instead, police and others must refer to “violent extremism” and “criminal murderers or thugs,” so as to avoid giving the impression that anything Islamic is involved in, er, Islamic terrorism.

But over on this side of the pond, some of the presidential candidates haven’t gotten the message. They somehow still think their First Amendment rights exist.

Mitt Romney has referred to “jihadism” and “violent, radical Islamic fundamentalism” as “this century’s nightmare,” and has warned that the jihadists want to “unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate.” Yamour took exception to Mike Huckabee’s (“an ordained Baptist minister”!) statement that Islamo-fascism was “the greatest threat this country has ever faced.” She even bristled at John McCain’s declaration that “I’m not interested in trading with Al-Qaeda.” Apparently the PC police, eager as they are to accommodate easily wounded Muslim sensibilities, will soon have us referring to Osama bin Laden’s network as the “anti-Islamic group,” in the spirit of UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s recent designation of, uh, Islamic terrorism as “anti-Islamic.” Continued Sponsored Links:* Barack Obama Exposed! A Human Events Special Report
* Newt Gingrich Weekly: Winning the Future
* China Stock Update: Free Special Report on global emerging markets
* Over 1,500 Failing Mutual Funds to Dump Right Now!

So why would Romney, Huckabee and McCain buck “expert” opinion on this? Are they that desperate for votes, that they would recklessly demonize an entire innocent population? Yamour thinks so: Republicans, she fulminates, are “fiercely attacking Islam as a religion interwoven with terrorism,” and are “targeting evangelical churches and conservative Americans seeking to preserve the strict Christian faith in the government and fear the possibility that the future president may open the door wider for Muslims to enter mainstream society.”

Horror of horrors! But it’s worth asking: where did the candidates get this idea in the first place? Where could these desperate, cynical men have gotten the idea that Islam had anything to do with terrorism? Let’s see. Could it have been from Osama bin Laden, who has praised Allah for the Qur’an’s “Verse of the Sword” (9:5), which instructs Muslims to “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”? Or maybe it was from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, who once thundered: “Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you!…There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Maybe it was from the British Muslim Omar Brooks, who said in 2005 that it was imperative for Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.” Or maybe it was from the Qur’an itself, which tells Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). Maybe it was from the perpetrators of the 10,000-plus terror attacks committed in the name of Islam since 9/11.

But for the Leftist professor Juan Cole, none of that is relevant. He says that to suggest a connection between Islam and terrorism is not just “shameful,” but “alarming,” because, says Yamour, “it presumes the essence of Islam and generalized Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them, as being related to terrorism.” Cole explains: “There are Muslim, Christian, and other terrorists. But the term ‘Islamic terrorist’ suggests there is something about Islam…If you put two things together in one word like ‘Islamo-fascism’ it implies that Islam is essentially fascist, but nobody talks about Christo-fascism, as they shouldn’t.”

What’s shameful and alarming is that Juan Cole peddles this sort of thinking and anyone takes him seriously. The quotes from Osama and Khomeini above illustrate that many Muslims around the world believe that there is “something about Islam.” And the term “Islamic terrorism” doesn’t suggest that “Muslims, all 1.5 billion of them” are “related to terrorism” any more than the term “Italian fascist” suggests that all Italians are fascists, or than the European designation “Christian Democrat” suggests that no Christians are monarchists. Cole’s implication here is contradicted by simple English usage and every compound term that has ever been used since the beginning of time. Try it at home, kids! Try to think of any compound term that implies that everyone in the first part of the term is part of the second part. Green coffee mugs: does that imply that all coffee mugs are green? Nope. Cute babies — all babies are cute? Sorry. Clear-thinking professors — all professors are clear thinking? Well, Juan Cole is a professor.

“Islamo-” in “Islamo-fascism” is a simple modifier referring to the fact that those terrorists are operating, by their own account, in the name of Islam and in accord with Islamic teachings. They are, after all, the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11, and have wrought so much havoc around the world. If the people who were doing these things were Christians who quoted the Bible to justify their acts of violence, it would be perfectly legitimate to call them Christian terrorists. But they are Muslims who quote the Qur’an to justify their acts of violence, and it is therefore perfectly legitimate for the presidential candidates — and everyone else — to call them Islamic terrorists.

Radical Muslims for Obama

Radical Muslims for Obama

By Joe Kaufman | 2/5/2008

With its similarity to popular online sites such as Facebook and MySpace and its links to a network of grassroots blogs, Barack Obama’s campaign website has been hailed as a testament to the candidate’s transformative politics. But at least part of the senator’s online outreach, “Muslim Americans for Obama ’08,” proposes installing Muslim prayer areas in public places and giving Muslims time off for prayer and has denounced Obama’s colleagues in the U.S. Senate who happen to be Jewish. This segment of Obama’s online outreach also has ties to unindicted co-conspirators in terror trials and has recruited Obama supporters from among the ranks of fundamentalist Muslim extremists.

On the blog, which is attached to, viewers can read about “the Senate pro-Israeli zionist hawk Joe Lieberman,” as well as criticism aimed at Obama himself for getting too cozy with the Israeli lobby. As stated on the blog, that last part was derived from information found on Electronic Intifada (EI), a terror apologist website based in Chicago, Illinois, Obama’s hometown. According to the site’s co-founder, Ali Abunimah, Senator Obama once told him, regarding Abunimah’s anti-American and anti-Israel writings, to “Keep up the good work!

While the Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 blog is hosted by Obama’s website, it is actually part of another site that goes by the same name, located at The registered agent for the site is Zakiyah Omar, a women’s costume designer from Jacksonville, Florida. Omar has been involved in the Obama campaign since December 2006 (She has had the site since February ’07). She too has her own blog hosted by the official Obama website.

On the Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 site, one will find a list of upcoming events, issues and solutions, details on how to join, a links section to sites of interest, and of course, a link to the blog. There’s even a toll-free number to call for more information.

Within the events section, a number of the listings pertain to conferences and conventions being sponsored by organizations that have a number of troubling ties. One is the 44th Annual ISNA National Convention, held in Rosemont, Illinois.

ISNA or the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was recently named an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” for a Dallas trial that dealt with the funding of millions of dollars to Hamas. Beginning in December 2003, ISNA was the subject of a Senate investigation into the financing of terror groups overseas. The group currently uses its website to propagate violent hatred against Jews and Christians.

Another of the events listed is the 32nd ICNA-MAS Convention, held in Hartford, Connecticut. ICNA or the Islamic Circle of North America, in August 2006, was the top donor to a Pakistani charity that, at the time, had given $99,000 to the head of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal. Four people associated with the ICNA-related ‘Houston Taliban’ were arrested and charged with jihad training with firearms, for the purpose of joining the Taliban to attack Americans overseas.

MAS or the Muslim American Society, like ISNA, uses the web to spread violent hatred against non-Muslims. In April 2004, MAS’s Communications Director, Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his activities within the ‘Virginia Jihad Network,’ a group that was conspiring with Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT) to attack Americans and Indians abroad.

Yet another event listing is the 2007 MANA National Convention, held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. MANA or the Muslim Alliance in North America was founded in May of 2000, in response to the arrest of cop killer H. Rap Brown, a.k.a. Jamil Al-Amin. The President (Amir) of the organization is Siraj Wahhaj, an individual that was named by the U.S. government an “Unindicted Co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

According to Muslim Americans for Obama ’08, it took part in “VOTER REGISTRATION/INFORMATION BOOTHS,” at each of the above venues. Taking that into consideration, since Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 is officially part of the Barack Obama for President team – or as the campaign puts it, “Community” – one can conclude that Senator Obama and/or his campaign had sanctioned its attendance at these events.

Further troubling are the following “Issues & Solutions” on the site:

  • Institute a Law to allow Muslim Employees to take an hour off from work for Friday Jummah Prayer.
  • Make the 2 Eid’s recognized National Holidays on Calendars with days off from work.
  • Provide prayer areas suitable for Salah and Jummah, in public and private facilities. (i.e. Malls, Airports, Universities and government buildings.)

Found on the right side of the website’s homepage are a series of links, most of which deal with information about Senator Obama and the campaign. One of them, though, is a link to Aswat Al-Islam, a radical Islamic multimedia outlet. Muslim Americans for Obama ’08 lists it as “Quran (Audio) English Translation.”

Aswat Al-Islam features the works of such Islamist luminaries as: “Uninidicted Co-conspirators” of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Siraj Wahhaj and Bilal Philips; anti-Christian bigot, Ahmed Deedat; pro-wife beating author, Jamal Badawi; suicide bombing supporter, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi; and the chief cleric of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who has called for the murders of Jews, Christians and Americans and has described Jews as “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets, and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs,” Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais.

According to Muslim Americans for Obama ’08, Senator Barack Obama “is the BEST candidate for the job in 2008.” But being the best candidate should have as a requisite keeping company that is worthy of respect. Recently, Obama has been cited for having a racist and anti-Israel pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and a campaign advisor that has expressed sympathy for Hamas and Hezbollah, Robert Malley.

If Sen. Obama truly is worthy of the presidency of the United States, he should publicly distance himself from these extremist groups and individuals. And if he does not want his campaign to be seen as hospitable to radical voices, he should sever his ties with the blog that provides credible evidence for this charge.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative.