A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., ...

AP Fri Jun 20, 4:07 PM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks during a meeting of Democratic Governors at the Chicago History Museum in Chicago Friday, June 20, 2008. A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama’s says ‘Vero possumus’, rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States’, Obama’s Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Fifth Generation Warfare

The Fifth Generation Warfare

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/20/2008



[From Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency; Edited by Jeffrey Norwitz; U.S. Naval War College, June 2008, chapter 28.] 


The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari’a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel “Islamic” financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.1


Shari’a finance is a new weapon in the arsenal of what might be termed fifth-generation warfare (5GW).2 The perpetrators include both states and organizations, advancing a global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion. The end goal is to impose that ideology worldwide, making the Islamic “nation,” or ummah, supreme.3


Rising oil prices and the West’s dependency on Middle East oil, combined with willful blindness and political correctness, provide a surge of petrodollars, making financial and economic jihad so much easier to carry out. Moreover, according to shari’a, Muslims hold all property in trust for Allah.4 Therefore, under the shari’a, all current and historic Muslim acquisitions everywhere, including the United States, belong to the ummah, in trust for Allah.


Shari’a is the crucial source and ultimate authority dictating the actions of practicing individuals and radical Muslim states and movements alike. Failing to understand the political use of shari’a hampers the U.S. ability to mount effective policies, plans, and strategies to successfully counter this fast-growing totalitarian threat.


This ignorance is illustrated by the statements of Massachusetts representative Barney Frank and Utah senator Bob Bennett. Responding to opponents of Bourse Dubai’s then-proposed acquisition of 20 percent of NASDAQ in September 2007, Frank quipped, “In the ports deal, the concern was smuggling something or someone dangerous. . . . What are we talking about here”–smuggling someone onto a stock exchange? 5 Similarly, Bennett said, “Dubai is making a purchase on the open market of an asset that’s for sale. What’s wrong with that?”


Although Senator Bennett is correct—buying portions or all of NASDAQ is legal, and NASDAQ regulations could not be changed without Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approval—Bourse Dubai’s shari’a influence in the heart of the U.S. markets and economy should have been of grave concern.


Shari’a is the set of Islamic laws established by Muslim jurists, based on the Qur’an and deeds of the prophet Muhammad, as recorded beginning more than 1,200 years ago. Its end goal, for all time, is establishing a world ruled entirely by Islam and the harsh shari’a laws. These laws govern every aspect of daily life and prohibit individual, political, and religious freedoms.




Funding the jihad, i.e., financial jihad, or Al Jihad bi-al-Mal, is mandated by many verses in the Qur’an, such as chapter 61, verses 10.11: “you . . . should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives,” and chapter 49, verse 15: “The [true] believers are only those who . . . strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah.” This has been reiterated throughout Islamic history and in recent times. “Financial Jihad [is] . . . more important . . . than self-sacrificing,” according to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) spiritual leader Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi.6


Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most prominent Sunni scholars in the world today, reiterated the legal justification for “financial jihad [Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal]” in a lecture he gave on 4 May 2002 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to him, “collecting money for the mujahideen (jihad fighters . . . ) was not a donation or a gift but a duty necessitated by the sacrifices they made for the Muslim nation.” 7




The origins of the modern financial jihad infrastructure, including all Islamic economic and financial regulatory organizations like the 1991-Bahrain-registered and -based Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), date back to the 1920s and were an invention of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. He designed political, economic, and financial foundations to enable Muslims to fulfill a key form of jihad mandated by the Qur’an—financial jihad.8


He viewed finance as a critical weapon to undermine the infidels—and “work towards establishing an Islamic rule on earth.” 9 He was first to understand that to achieve world domination, Muslims needed an independent Islamic financial system to parallel and later supersede the Western economy. Al-Banna’s contemporaries and successors (such as the late Sayed Qutb and current Yusuf al-Qaradawi) set his theories and practices into motion, developing shari’a-based terminology and mechanisms to advance the financial jihad— “Islamic economics,” finance, and banking.10


Early 1930s MB attempts to establish Islamic banking in India failed. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser shut down the second attempt, in 1964, after only one year, later arresting and expelling the Muslim Brotherhood for attempts to kill him.11


But Saudi Arabia welcomed this new wave of Egyptian dissidents, as did King Saud bin Abdel Aziz earlier waves in 1954 and 1961.12 Their ideas so appealed to him and his clerics that in 1961, Saud funded the MB’s establishment of the Islamic University in Medina to proselytize its fundamentalist Islamic ideology, especially to foreign students.13 In 1962, the MB convinced the king to launch a global financial joint venture, which became the cornerstone and engine to spread Islam worldwide. This venture created charitable foundations, which the MB oversees and from which most Islamic terrorist groups benefit.14


The first were the Muslim World League (MWL) and Rabitta al-Alam al-Islami, uniting Islamic radicals from 22 nations and spinning a web of many other charities with hundreds of offices worldwide.15 In 1978, the kingdom backed another MB initiative, the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), which, with all these “charities,” is implicated for funding al Qaeda, the 9/11 attacks, Hamas, and others.16 These “charities” are used to advance the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi political agenda, namely empowering the ummah and imposing worldwide shari’a. “I don’t like this word ‘donations’,”. al-Qaradawi told BBC Panorama on 30 July 2006. “I like to call it Jihad with money, because God has ordered us to fight enemies with our lives and our money.”17


In 1969, the Saudis convened Arab and Muslim states to unify the “struggle for Islam,” and have ever since been the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s (OIC’s) major sponsor. The 56 OIC members include Iran, Sudan, and Syria. The Jidda-based, “pending the liberation of Jerusalem,” OIC’s charter mandates and coordinates “support [of] the struggle of the Palestinian people, . . . recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.” 18 The OIC charter includes all the MB principles. Its first international undertaking in 1973 was to establish the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) “in accordance with the principles of the shariah,”19 as prescribed by the MB—and to launch the fast-growing petrodollar-based Islamic financing market. The IDB, more a development than commercial bank, was established largely “to promote Islamic banking worldwide.” 20 “[A]n Islamic organization must serve God… and ultimately sustain …the growth and advancement of the Islamic way of life,” writes Nasser M. Suleiman in “Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking.”21


And the IDB has done just that. Between 1975 to 2005, the IDB approved over $50 billion in funding to Muslim countries,22 ostensibly to develop their economic and educational infrastructures, but effected little regional economic impact. Its educational efforts, however, paid huge yields—via the rapid and significant spread of radical Islam worldwide. Moreover, in 2001 alone, the IDB transferred $538 million23 raised publicly by Saudi and Gulf royal telethons to support the Palestinian intifada and families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IDB has also channeled UN funds to Hamas, as documented by bank records discovered in the West Bank and Gaza. Yet, the IDB received UN observer status in 2007.24


According to a 1991 U.S. Library of Congress report on Sudan, the IDB also supported Faisal Islamic Bank, established in 1977 under Sudan’s Faisal Islamic Bank Act by Saudi prince Muhammad ibn Faisal Al Saud and managed by local Muslim Brotherhood members and their party, the National Islamic Front. Soon other political groups and parties formed their own Islamic banks. Together, Sudanese Islamic banks then acquired 20 percent of the country’s deposits “providing the financial basis to turn Sudan into an Islamic state in 1983, and promoting the Islamic governmental policies to date.”25 Sudan Islamized its banking in 1989. However, Pakistan was the first country to officially Islamize its banking practices, in 1979.


Rising oil revenues encouraged MB leaders to formalize al-Banna’s vision. In 1977 and 1982, they convened in Lugano, Switzerland, to chart a master plan to co-opt Western economic “foundations, capitalism and democracy” in a treatise entitled “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy,” also known as The Project. MB spiritual leader al-Qaradawi wrote the explicit document, dated 1 December 1982.26 The 12-point strategy includes diktats to establish the Islamic state and gradual, parallel work to control local power centers . . . using institutional work as means to this end. This requires “special Islamic economic, social and other institutions,” and “the necessary economic institutions to provide financial support” to spread fundamentalist Islam.27


Consequently, the IDB founded the AAOIFI in 1990. AAOIFI members include the Saudi Dallah al Baraka Group, al-Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation, and Kuwait Finance House28—all implicated in funding al Qaeda and other MB offspring, according to Richard Clarke, the former national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism.29 The 18 AAOIFI members also include Iran and Sudan, both on the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list; Iran is a U.S. State Department-designated terror-sponsoring state, too. UAE banks wired most of the funding for the 9/11 attacks.30


In addition, the “de facto Islamic Central Bank,” the Islamic Financial Services Board (IFSB),31 was established in 2002 in Kuala Lumpur “to absorb the 11 September shock and reinforce the stability of Islamic finance.” Chairing the organizers’ meeting, then Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamed Mahathir stated, “A universal Islamic banking system is a jihad worth pursuing to abolish this slavery [to the West].” IFSB members include the central banks of Iran, Sudan, and Syria (all designated state sponsors of terrorism) and the Palestinian Monetary Authority (PMA), which is widely documented since its inception to be a terror funder.32


According to Dallah al Baraka Group and Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI) president Saleh Kamel,33 more than 400 Islamic financial institutions34 currently operate in 75 countries.35 They now hold more than $800 billion in assets 36 growing 15 percent annually. HSBC, UBS, J.P. Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Lloyds TSB, and BNP Paribas are but a few that offer Islamic banking and shari’a-based products to their Western clients—and promote them as “ethical investments.”


Billionaire Sheikh Saleh Abdullah Kamel and his family, like other wealthy Saudis, have built their terror-funding-affiliated $3.5 billion Dallah al Baraka Group to service the shari’a.37 Its business, finance, and media sectors incorporate agriculture, communication, health care, real estate, tourism, trade, transportation, and finance companies—including 10 banks and many leasing and finance firms, Arab Radio & Television and Arab Digital Distribution, and the International Information & Trading Service Co., producing the Top 1000 Saudi Companies Directory, among other publications.


Rapidly rising oil prices fill the coffers of Islamic banks, fuel the expansion of shari’a economics and financial jihad—and threaten the United States and the entire non-Muslim world, in real time. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden called on Muslims “to concentrate on hitting the U.S. economy through all possible means. . . . Look for the key pillars of the U.S. economy. Strike the key pillars of the enemy again and again and they will fall as one.” 38


The NASDAQ acquisition, purchases of over 52 percent of the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and 47.6 percent of OMX (Nordic exchange), and vigorous expansion of shari’a finance all steadily implement al-Banna.s plan to spread and ultimately impose shari’a worldwide.


Bourse Dubai in December 2006 loudly proclaimed its new conversion to “shari’a compliance and accounting practices.”39 Yet, responding to a specific inquiry on the Islamic nature of Bourse Dubai from the Partnership for New York City on 22 October 2007, Bourse Dubai denied being an Islamic exchange.40 Still unaware of the implications of importing shari’a finance, however, hoards of Westerners eagerly attend such pricey events as the October 2007 Islamic Finance Summit in New York,41 which focused on the “innovations in shari’a compliant finance.” According to an eyewitness, when one participant timidly inquired, “What is shari’a law?” a leading Islamic scholar responded from the podium: “It’s good for you.”


Lost on the attendees was the inescapable fact that shari’a calls for the supremacy of

Islam, thus negating the U.S. Constitution.42




Zakat, we are told, is to help the needy. But as Janine A. Clark’s excellent 2004 study

shows, zakat is used to support the middle class, to strengthen its loyalty to the rulers, and

to back their radical ideology’43


Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi decrees, “Declaring holy war . . . is an Islamic duty, and fighting . . . is the Way of Allah for which Zakat must be spent.” In his 1999 publication, Fiqh azZakat, al-Qaradawi adds, “The most important form of jihad today is serious, purposefully organized work to rebuild Islamic society and state and to implement the Islamic way of life in the political, cultural and economic domains. This is certainly most deserving of Zakat.” 44 And as previously demonstrated time and again, Muslim jihadist-terror organizations are indeed prominent zakat recipients.


The use of charities to fund jihad, however, is not limited to radical Sunnis. On Jerusalem Day, 5 October 2007, Al-Manar TV broadcasted Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s cantankerous speech giving religious, moral, and political justification in support of “the armed Palestinian resistance” and calling for financial support to the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Nasrallah “gave Khomeini’s fatwa [45] . . . allowing charity funds . . . and the tax of 1/5 (khums)[46] to be transferred to the Palestinian terrorist organizations . . . to pay for their campaign.”47


The definition of zakat in The Encyclopedia of Islam includes in “category 7” of eligible recipients “volunteers engaged in jihad,” for whom the zakat covers “living expenses and the expenses of their military service (animals, weapons).” 48


Millard Burr and Robert Collins’s compelling study Alms for Jihad documents that when zakat, which is obligatory to all Muslims, is given “in the path of Allah,” it is given to fund jihad. There are seven broad categories of eligible recipients: the poor, converts, wayfarers, those in bondage or in debt, those committed to Allah for the spread and triumph of Islam, newcomers whose faith is weak, and new converts to Islam “whose hearts have been [recently] reconciled [to truth].” Moreover, zakat may be used to support those who administer it.49


In a 2006 federal case, alleged al Qaeda supporters Emadeddin Z. Muntasser and Muhammed Mubayyid were charged with soliciting and spending “funds to support and promote the mujahideen and jihad, including the distribution of pro-jihad publications,” through their now-defunct “charity” and front organization, Care International. The Boston-based organization published, among other things, the English version of al Qaeda cofounder and key Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdullah Azzam’s “Join the Caravan.”


It states, “The individually obligatory nature of jihad remains in effect until the lands are purified from the pollution of the disbelievers.”50 They collected more than $1.3 million in contributions. In their defense, Muntasser and Mubayyid claimed to merely have exercised their religious freedom and obligation to give zakat as part of their constitutionally protected freedoms. Their motion for dismissal (which the court denied) cited chapter 9, verse 60, of the Qur’an, describing “those entitled to receive zakat.”


Incredibly, the suspects’ attorneys also argued that such charitable giving, to support jihad and mujahideen, is rightfully tax exempt under the U.S. constitutional protection of religious freedom.51 Court records show Care International deposited checks “with handwritten notes such as ‘for jihad only,’ ‘Bosnia Jihad fund,’ and ‘Chechen Muslim Fighters’.” The U.S. Constitution provides protections for religious freedom, but most certainly was never intended to protect religiously sanctioned or encouraged war in or

against America.


The First Amendment bars Congress from enacting laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” However, the Constitution offers no protection to any group or religion supporting “holy war” against the United States or its citizens.




Saudi Arabia


In 2007, Saudi Arabia collected $18 billion in zakat52 —which includes the 20 percent flat corporation tax from foreign companies. The Saudis claim that the money collected develops their infrastructure. However, two-thirds of Saudi men are unemployed and the infrastructure is crumbling.53


Illustrating how funds are used, Saudi Arabia’s secretary-general of the official Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission stated on Iqra TV, on 29 August 2005, “The Prophet said: ‘He who equips a fighter…it is as if he himself fought.’ You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege.”54


Since the 1970s, the Saudi government has spent more than $100 billion 55 to build thousands of mosques, Islamic centers, and Islamic studies programs in universities worldwide to advance the ummah‘s power and undermine Western economic, political, cultural, educational, and legal structures and replace them with the shari’a.56 In the last 13 years alone, the Saudis gave at least $459 million to British universities for Islamic study centers, according to Professor Anthony Glees, of Brunel University.57


The worldwide Muslim riots following the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in Denmark’s largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, began only after Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark; after Sheikh Osama Khayyat, imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, praised on national Saudi television the Saudi government for its action; and after Sheikh Ali Al-Hudaify, imam of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, called “upon governments, organizations and scholars in the Islamic world to extend support for

campaigns protesting the sacrilegious attacks on the Prophet.”58 Saudi-controlled OIC initiated and coordinated Muslim rioting worldwide after the Danish Muhammad cartoon publications.59


Moreover, to wield more control over Muslim communities worldwide, better orchestrate “spontaneous demonstrations,” and better allocate funds for them, the Saudi-backed OIC established the clerical International Commission for Zakat (ICZ) on 30 April 2007. Previously, there were more than 20,000 organizations that collected zakat. Now, however, the Islamic clerics’ centralized “expert committee” based in Malaysia also supervises and distributes zakat funds globally. The new committee distributed

roughly $2 billion collected over Ramadan 2007 to Muslim “charities”.60


In a show of unity, the Shiite Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah argued, “If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so.”61


The Saudi role in terror financing is no secret. Yet, the U.S. administration keeps telling us that the Saudis are our allies. On 10 December 2002, criticizing the Joint Inquiry Staff (JIS) report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), Senators Jon Kyl and Pat Roberts stated, “The pervasiveness in Saudi Arabia of Wahhabism, a radical, anti-American variant of Islam, was well known before 9/11. The JIS should have inquired why the country of Saudi Arabia was given such preferential treatment by the State Department and whether the intelligence agencies were complicit in the policy.”62


In early 2008, however, U.S. government officials publicly noted that the Saudis continue the financing of radical Islamic groups.63 United Arab Emirates64 Like every Muslim country, the UAE collects mandatory Islamic charity (zakat. the Third Pillar of Islam—an annual wealth tax), of 2.5 percent to 20 percent from Muslim institutions and companies. Being non-Muslims, foreign banks and oil companies theoretically don’t pay zakat. But foreign banks and oil companies do pay at least 20 percent

of their profits in the form of a mandatory tax rather than zakat. In 2003, the UAE established an independent federal agency collecting zakat on government tax revenues from “companies listed on the Dubai Financial Market and Abu Dhabi Securities Market . . . oil-producing companies and branches of foreign banks.” In 2007 these revenues were estimated at $13.5 billion.65


Although presenting itself to the West as a moderate. ally, the UAE has consistently supported the. peaceful. and violent advancement of shari’a and terrorism worldwide. In 2006, to support suicide bombing, the UAE gave $100 million to the Palestinian Authority to build a new town named Sheikh Khalifa City, in honor of the UAE president. The city houses families of “shahids and prisoners” andprisoners.and was built on the ruins of Morag, one of the evacuated Israeli settlements in Gaza.66


On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for [its] “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support . . . that contributed more to consolidating our people’s resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation.”


The HAMAS statement continued: “the sisterly UAE had . . . never hesitated in providing

aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF. . . .

The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable



Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (CSS),68 Hamas charitable societies are known as integral parts of the Hamas infrastructure, and are outlawed by the United States and Israel.


Hamas also included a special tribute, promising to “never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan [al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi],”69 the current UAE president’s father. The multibillionaire was an early PLO patron and, from the 1970s until his 2004 death, contributed millions of dollars to the PLO’s terror agenda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.70


Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan was the first Arab ruler to understand the strategic importance of economic jihad71 against the West. He was first to use oil as a political weapon after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.72 He was also the major sponsor of the first international Islamic bank, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The bank was created to serve as .the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.”73 BCCI, which was shut down in July 1991 by New York City district attorney Robert Morgenthau, 74 funded and otherwise facilitated terrorist organizations and states, including the Sandinistas, Hezbollah, abu Nidal, the PLO, al Qaeda, Syria, Libya, Iran’s Islamic revolution—as well as Pakistan’s nuclear program, to create the “Islamic Bomb.”75


Immediately before the 1991 Gulf War, Sheikh Zayed branded the United States the Muslims” “number two enemy” after Israel. As of this writing, the UAE votes against the United States 70 percent of the time in the UN.76


Human Appeal International (HAI), a UAE government-run “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president,77 continues to fund Hamas and other Palestinian organizations, .martyrs,. and Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI modus operandi includes transferring funds to the Palestinian Red Crescent, whose West Bank and Gaza branches Hamas runs. Hamas, in turn, distributes the money to Hamas “charities.” The Toronto, Canada, Orient Research Center reports that the UAE compensation. plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shahid, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, and $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, the families of terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000. Also in 2001, the UAE held two telethons to support the “martyrs’” families. One entitled “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and another called “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.


On 15 February 2005, the Hamas Web site reported on funds transferred from HAI to two West Bank Hamas front organizations, IQRA and Rifdah, outlawed in Israel.78 On 22 March 2005, the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to Hamas “charities” for 3,158 terrorists. orphans.79


A detailed 25 March 2005 report, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, noted that the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem to distribute to families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians, and others.


And in July 2005, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Gaza’s Khan Younis was arrested while returning from the UAE80 for often transferring as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza branch of Hamas.


Continuing UAE support for Hamas follows the agenda of the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think tank,81 was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan82 and Roger Garaudy83 and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the Iraq war on “radical Zionist and right-wing Christian” influence.


In October 2000, shortly after the beginning of the last Palestinian intifada against Israel, Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi established the “Union of Good,”84 operated through the London-based Muslim organization Interpal. The Union of Good is an umbrella organization composed of 50 Islamic “charities,” including Hamas- and Hezbollah-affiliated organizations. It was supposed to raise funds for only 101 days, but its initial success led the founders, mostly Hamas members, to maintain its operations to date. Millions of dollars generated in Europe and elsewhere through the Union of Good-participating Muslim “charities” fuel all Palestinian terror organizations. Interpal was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States in August 2003, but remains free to operate in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Al-Qaradawi, who established and leads the Department of Islamic Law (shari’a) at the University of Qatar and the Institute for Sunnah Research there, is also on the board of directors of the Al-Taqwa Bank, designated by the United States as a terrorist-funding organization in November 2001. In August 2004, al-Qaradawi issued a fatwa saying, “All the Americans in Iraq are soldiers, there is no difference between enlisted soldiers and civilians, and they must be fought because American citizens came to Iraq to serve the occupation. The kidnapping and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [Muslim religious] obligation to force them to leave the country immediately.”85


UAE foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the emirates were and remain a. strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism.; continuing UAE support of Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations proves otherwise. This raises legitimate concerns for the West about trusting UAE banks, shari’a finance institutions, or government tax or zakat collection agencies. Furthermore, it raises alarms about giving the UAE legal control or influence over Western investment houses, banks, or markets.86 The same applies to every other Islamic financial institution or state.


Bourse Dubai began operating as the world’s first fully shari’a-compliant stock exchange in December 2006.87 shari’a compliance requires companies traded to also be shari’a-compliant and establishes a special tax on all the others to. Purify them. The Islamic “purity” (tazkiya) of Bourse Dubai was approved by the shari’a Board of the AAOIFI.88 The AAOIFI laid the groundwork for the global Islamic financial network and regulates all Islamic financial organizations and products, including Bourse Dubai.



The adversary’s skill at manipulating media and public opinion cannot be underestimated. The propaganda offensive is so successful that even Colonel Thomas X. Hammes’ description of what led to the Second Intifada is a rehash of the Saudi-sponsored Palestinian fabrication and propaganda. Ham mes claims that the Palestinian Authority named the new intifada “the al Asa Intifada” to suggest that the Palestinian violent reaction was a direct result of then Liked party leader Ariel Sharon’s visit to the al-Asa Mosque. Moreover, Hammes’ speculation that Sharon knowingly sparked Palestinian violence using his own fourth-generation warfare strategy suggests a deliberate disregard for thousands of dead Israelis and Palestinians in the resulting mayhem.


The fact of the matter is, Sharon never entered the al-Asa Mosque but rather visited the Jewish holy site of the Temple Mount. Moreover, careful study of the Palestinian modus operandi makes it clear that naming violent outbreaks is done in an opportunistic fashion and this one was preplanned. Mad Al-Hifalutin, then Palestinian Authority communications minister, stated on several occasions: “The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of President Yasser Arafat.”89


The United States is now drawing new military and defense doctrines to win the fourth-generation warfare. In addition to improving technologies, the focus seems to be on the development of lighter and more flexible armies, and a greater understanding of the individual characteristics of our enemies. Writing about strategies needed to win the next war, Colonel Thomas X. Hammes states that the “most powerful [U.S.] message” to the world is that “we treasure the individual.”90


But a measure of the enemy’s success is our reluctance to identify the shari’a for what it is. Its adherents value only the ummah, and they enslave the individual to achieve their goal—global domination. As long as the enemy—shari’a—has not been acknowledged and understood, we stand no chance. Exposing shari’a and all its adherents, be they states, organizations, or individuals, is crucial to our ability to defend ourselves. It will also enable us to undermine sharia’s global structure, turning its adherents against it, the way we did with communism.



1. The failure to understand the role of shari’a financing and Islamic banking in the global effort for Islamic domination is illustrated in a monograph by Major Wesley J. L. Anderson, “Disrupting Threat Finances: Utilization of Financial Information to Disrupt Terrorist Organizations in the Twenty-first Century” (Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, June 2007). “Islamic banking. is mentioned in passing as an alternative vehicle to fund Islamic terrorists”

2. Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (Zenith Press, 2006).

3. Ummah, in Arabic, means the “Community of the Believers” (summary al-mu’minin)—the Muslim world.

4. Qur’an 57:2: “To Him belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: It is He Who gives Life and

Death; and He has Power over all things.” Also see Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 53, no. 392: Narrated Abu

Huraira: “[The Prophet said to the Jews], ‘If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle….”

5. Stephen Labaton and Julia Werdigier, “Mild Reaction in Capitol on Dubai NASDAQ Acquisition,” New York Times, 20 September 2007, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/business/worldbusiness/21exchange

.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (accessed 17 October 2007).

6. “Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi is a prominent and influential Saudi scholar. His students included a number of important Saudi religious leaders, including the current grand mufti. Al-Shuaibi published religious edicts supporting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, including the destruction of the Hindu statues, as part of jihad against the infidels. He religiously justified al-Qaeda’s attack on the U.S. in September 2001 and gave religious legitimacy to the suicide attacks against Israel carried out by Palestinians. In October 2001, bin Laden cited al-Shuaibi when he spoke of his justification for killing Jews and Christians.” Jonathan D. Halevi, “What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing? Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal. Financial Jihad against the Infidels,” Jerusalem Viewpoints, no. 531, 1 June 2005, http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp531.htm (accessed 24 October 2007).

7. “Appendix G: Profile of Sheikh Dr. Yussuf al-Qardawi, Chairman of the Board of the Union of Good,” Intelligence and Terrorism Center at the Center for Special Studies, http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/2_05/funds_g.htm.

8. Halevi, “What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing?”

9. Yousef Al-Qaradawi, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy” [a.k.a. The Project], full translation obtained from Swiss authorities by authors. See also Patrick Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood Project,” FrontPage Magazine, 11 May 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID=61829F93-7A81-4654

-A2E8-F0A5E6DD3DC4 (accessed 8 September 2007).

10. Timur Kuran, Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism (Princeton University Press, 2004), x, 3.14: “Islamic economics itself exemplifies what has been called an ‘invented tradition’…; Neither classical nor medieval Islamic civilization featured banks in the modern sense, let alone “Islamic” banks. . . . Medieval Islamic civilization produced no organizations that could pool thousands of peoples. funds, administer them collectively, and then survive the death of their managers. The financial rules of Islam remained frozen up to modern times, precluding the formation, except outside Islamic law, of durable partnerships involving large numbers of individuals. It was the Europeans who . . . developed a complex financial system centered on banks.”

11. “Past and Present of Political Islam,” Al Ahram, 10.18 January 2006, available at weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/

777/op2.htm (accessed 9 October 2007); .Muslim Brotherhood,. Encyclopedia of the Orient, i-cias.com/e.o/mus_br_egypt.htm (accessed 9 October 2007); “Muslim Brothers,” Federation of American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mb.htm (accessed 9 October 2007).

12. Lorenzo Vidino, “The Muslim Brotherhood’s Conquest of Europe” Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2005, available at http://www.meforum.org/article/687 (accessed 9 October 2007).

13. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Ban the Brotherhood,” FrontPage Magazine, 27 December 2005, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2CE8EF64-FA27-435C-8699-1433C788BDDB (accessed 9 October 2007).

14. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Tithing for Terrorists,” National Review Online, 12 October 2007, article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEwMDg1ZThjM2FmYzU1MTU5Y2Q3MTBhY2I2YjM5NTc= (accessed 24 October 2007).

15. Ibid.

16. “Profile: International Islamic Relief Organization,” Cooperative Research History Commons, www

.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=international_islamic_relief_organization (accessed 24 October

2007); “U.S. District Court Rules Saudi Charity to Remain in 9/11 Terrorist Lawsuit,” PRNewsire, 22 September 2005, prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-22-2005/

0004113679&EDATE= (accessed 24 October 2007).

17. BBC Press Office, “Panorama: Faith, Hate and Charity,” British Broadcasting Corporation, press release, 30 July 2006, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/07_july/30/panorama.shtml (accessed 8 October 2007).

18. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “The Egyptian Roots of Hatred,” Washington Times, 6 July 2007, available at http://www.acdemocracy.org/article/invent_index.php?id=380 (accessed 24 October 2007).

19. .Islamic Development Bank,. Organization of the Islamic Conference, http://www.oicun.org/articles/22/1/

Islamic-Development-Bank/1.htm (accessed 8 October 2007).

20. Prof. Rodney Wilson, “The Evolution of the Islamic Financial System,” available at http://www.sc.com.my/eng/html/iaffairs/ioscoislamicpdf/AAEuromoneych2.pdf (accessed 8 October 2007).

21. Nasser M. Suleiman “Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking,” Al-Bab, http://www.al-bab.com/arab/econ/nsbanks.htm (accessed 8 October 2007).

22. “IDB Launches $10b Fund to Tackle Poverty in Islamic World,” Gulf News, 24 October 2007, available at http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidGN_24102007_10162319/secIndustries/pagIslamic%20Finance; “IDB Concludes Its 32nd Annual Meeting in Senegal,” Business Life, 30 May 2007, available at http://www.thebusinesslife.com/finance.htm (accessed 24 October 2007).

23. Muhammad Saman, “Almost All Intifada Funds by Arab Donors Has Arrived,” Arab News, 26 August 2001, available at http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=4976&d=26&m=8&y=2001 (accessed 8 October 2007).

24. Ehrenfeld and Lappen, “Tithing for Terrorists.”

25. Helen Chapin Metz, ed. “Finance,” in Sudan: A Country Study (Washington: GPO, 1991), available at

countrystudies.us/sudan/62.htm (accessed 8 October 2007); see also “an-Nimeiri, Gafar Mohammad,” Encyclopedia of the Orient, lexicorient.com/e.o/nimeiri_g.htm.

26. Al-Qaradawi, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy.” See also Poole, “The Muslim Brotherhood Project.”

27. Al-Qaradawi, “Towards a Worldwide Strategy for Islamic Policy.”

28. “AAOIFI Board of Trustees,” Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions, http://www.aaoifi.com/board-trustees.html (accessed 8 October 2007).

29. Richard A. Clarke, statement before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, 108th Cong., 1st sess., 22 October 2003, available at http://www.senate.gov/~banking/_files/clarke.pdf (accessed 8 October 2007).

30. “Financing of the 9/11 plot,” National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, available at http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrFin_App.pdf.

31. “A Financial Jihad,” Al-Ahram, 21.27 November 2002, available at weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/613/ec2.htm (accessed 8 October 2007).

32. James Bennet, “Israelis, in Raid on Arab Banks, Seize Reputed Terrorist Funds,” New York Times, 26 February 2004, available at query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03EEDA133CF935A15751C0A9629C8B63

&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (accessed 8 October 2007); Farah Stockman, “Palestinian Authority’s U.S. Assets Are Frozen,” Boston Globe, 30 August 2005, available at http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/08/30/palestinian_authoritys_us_assets_are_frozen/ (accessed 8 October 2007).

33. “Shift to shari’ah Based Financial Products,” , 20 May 2006, available at http://www.menafn.com/

qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093113527 (accessed 8 September 2007); “Message of His Excellency Sheikh Saleh bin Abdullah Kamel,” Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry, http://www.icci-oic.org/ic/1.htm (accessed 8 October 2007).

34. “Shift to shari’ah Based Financial Products.”

35. Mohammed El Qorchi, “Islamic Finance Gears Up,” Finance and Development: A Quarterly Magazine of the IMF 42, no. 4 (December 2005), available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/12/qorchi.htm (accessed 8 September 2007).

36. Landon Thomas, Jr., “Muslim Financiers Fight Suspicion in U.S.,” International Herald Tribune, 8 August 2007; “Islamic Finance Prospers, Backed by Non-Muslims,” Agence France-Presse, September 2006, available at findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmafp/is_200609/ai_n16929131 (accessed 8 September 2007).

37. Clarke, statement before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee; “The World’s Billionaires,” Forbes, 8 March 2007, available at http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/10/07billionaires_The-Worlds-Billionaires_CountryOfCitizen_16.html (accessed 26 October 2007).

38. Osama bin Laden, quoted in Geoff Shaw, “Knowledge Based Authentication: Is It Quantifiable?” (presentation, NIST-GSA Symposium, Gaithersburg, MD, 9 February 2004), csrc.nist.gov/archive/kba/

Presentations/Day%201/Shaw.pdf (accessed 8 September 2007).

39. “Dubai Financial Market Sharia Board to Set Standards for Classifying Listed Companies,” AME Info, 24 June 2007, http://www.ameinfo.com/124491.html (accessed 24 October 2007).

40. Kathryn S. Wylde (president and CEO of Partnership for New York City), interview, Fox Business Network, 22 October 2007.

41. “Islamic Finance Summit,” Financial Research Associates, http://www.frallc.com/conference.aspx?ccode=b525 (accessed 8 October 2007).

42. Commenting on the creeping shari’a in the West, Judge Michael Mukasey, in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: “We live in this country under one system of laws. And whatever may be the religious requirements of any group, we don’t create enclaves where a different law applies, a different law governs and people don’t have the rights that everybody else has outside that enclave. I would resist that very firmly…the creation of any such enclave.” “Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing for Nomination of Judge Mukasey as Attorney General,” Washingtonpost.com, 17 October 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/attorney_general_hearing_101707.html.

43. Janine A. Clark, Islam, Charity, and Activism: Middle-Class Networks and Social Welfare in Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2004).

44 Douglas Farah, “Zakat and Jihad from the Words of the Master,” Douglas Farah, posted 1 November 2006, http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/119/zakat-and-jihad-from-the-words-of-the-master#comment (accessed 8 October 2007); Ahmed Makhdoom, .Zakat for Education,. Makhdoom.s Quality Quest, pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~makhdoom/zakat2.html (accessed 8 October 2007); Douglas Farah, “Zakat and Jihad from the Words of the Master,” Thoughts of a Conservative Christian, posted 2 November 2006, bsimmons.wordpress.com/2006/11/02/zakat-and-jihad-from-the-words-of-the-master-2/.

45. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa “for transferring charity funds to support the armed Palestinian campaign against Israel. He thus paved the way for charitable societies operating in the Arab-Muslim world and the West to finance the activities of the Islamic terrorist organizations.” “Iranian-Sponsored World Jerusalem Day Was Marked in Iran, Some Countries in the Arab-Muslim World, and Western Countries Such as Britain and Canada,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC), http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/eng/eng_n/jerusalem_d07e.htm.

46. Khums is another tax every Muslim merchant has to pay once a year. The money allegedly goes for public needs, and since jihad is on the march, Muslim religious leaders use the money for their own purposes. See ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Aron Zysow, “Zakat,” The Encyclopedia of Islam, new ed., vol. 11, 406.22, discussed in United States v. Mubayyid, 476 F.Supp.2d 46, n17 (D. Mass. 2007), available at http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=133601.

49. J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 12.13. The book was pulped in 2007, in capitulation to mere threats of an expensive libel suit in the United Kingdom against the publisher by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, who chose British libel laws as a vehicle for financial jihad, successfully silencing the Western media from exposing terror financiers. For more information about the case, see Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Fighting Financial Jihad,” Pajamas Media, posted 23 September 2007, pajamasmedia.com/blog/financial_jihad_vs_the_first_a/.

50. Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Yusuf Azzam, “Join the Caravan,” 10, available at http://www.worldofislam.info/ebooks/joincaravan.pdf, accessed from “Update on Care International Trial in Boston/ ‘Seas of Blood for Jihad’.” Miss Kelly, posted 1 December 2007, misskelly.typepad.com/miss_kelly_/2007/12/update-on-care.html.

51. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Jihadists and Jews,” Washington Times, 16 October 2006, available at http://www.acdemocracy.org/article/invent_index.php?id=133 (accessed 25 October 2007).

52. Talal Malik, “GCC Can Rake Billions in Zakat, Income Tax,” ArabianBusiness.com, 12 September 2007, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/500208-gcc-can-rake-billions-in-zakat-income-tax-?ln=en (accessed 8 October 2007).

53. Jonathan Schanzer, “Saudi Squander,” National Review Online, 3 October 2007, article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGVhMmViODM0OGJlYzk1NmU0ZmQ1OGVhMmEwM2M4ZTU= (accessed 8 October 2007).

54. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “The Cure for the Wahabbi Virus,” FrontPage Magazine, 17 October 2005, frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=29BC8889-AFC0-4A2C-877F-ABE26D80DB25 (accessed 25 October 2007).

55. Amir Taheri, “Culture of Hate,” Islam Review, 22 June 2004, http://www.islamreview.com/articles/cultureofhate .shtml (accessed 8 October 2007).

56. Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Saudi Dollars and Jihad,” FrontPage Magazine, 24 October 2005, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=%7B0F477FDA-9DC5-46E1-BBFB-627CAC95BB1B%7D (accessed 8 October 2007).

57. Ben Leach, “Extremism—Fear over Islam Studies Donations,” The Telegraph, 14 April 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/13/nislam113.xml.

58. P. K. Abdul Ghafour, “Imams Back Call for Danish Boycott in Cartoons Row,” CBS News, 28 January 2006, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/27/ap/world/mainD8FCO6K01.shtml (accessed 26 October 2007); “The Clash to End All Clashes?” National Review Online, 6 February 2006, http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/symposium/symposium200602070754.asp (accessed 26 October 2007).

59. “Statement of the OIC Ambassadorial Plenary Meeting,” Organization of the Islamic Conference, 14 February 2006, http://www.oic-oci.org/press/english/2006/February%202006/joint-statment.htm (accessed 8 September 2007; Nat Hentoff, “The Cartoons Conspiracy,” Village Voice, 20 February 2006, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0608,hentoff,72237,6.html (accessed 8 October 2007); Pete Baumgartner, “East: Islamic Officials, Journalists Reflect on Publication of Muhammad Cartoons,” Radio Free Europe, 3 February 2006, http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/02/5d6e1728-e305-4dc7-b9d0-8350f35ed375.html (accessed 8 October 2007); Gil Kaufman, “Muslim Fury over Danish Cartoons Spurs Riots across the Globe.Why?” MTV, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1523891/20060207/id_0.jhtml (accessed 8 September 2007).

60. P. K. Abdul Ghafour, “Kingdom, 20 OIC Partners Support Global Zakah Fund,” Arab News, 30 April 2007, available at http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=95581&d=30&m=4&y=2007 (accessed 8 October 2007).

61. “Hezbollah: Rushdie Death Would Stop Prophet Insults,” Yahoo News, 2 February 2006, http://www.natashatynes.com/newswire/2006/02/hezbollah_killi.html (accessed 26 October 2007).

62. Senator John Kyl and Senator Pat Roberts, “Joint Inquiry Staff Report: Additional Views,” Federation of American Scientists, available at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/kyl-roberts.html (accessed 26 October 2007).

63. Josh Meyer, “Saudi Arabia Is Prime Source of Terror Funds, U.S. Says,” Los Angeles Times, 2 April 2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror2apr02,1,1851447.story.

64. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, .United Arab Emirates,. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2006, available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2006/78865.htm. The government’s respect for human rights remained problematic, and significant human rights problems reported included: no citizens. right to change the government and no popularly elected representatives of any kind; flogging as judicially sanctioned punishment; arbitrary detention and incommunicado detention, both permitted by law; questionable independence of the judiciary; restrictions on civil liberties, freedom of speech and of the press (including the Internet), and assembly; restrictions on right of association; restrictions on religious freedom; domestic abuse of women, sometimes enabled by police; trafficking in women and children; legal and societal discrimination against women and noncitizens; corruption and lack of government transparency; common abuse of foreign domestic servants; and severe restrictions on and abuses of workers. rights.

65. Malik, “GCC Can Rake Billions in Zakat, Income Tax.”

66. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “The U.N. Gives Hamas a Raise,” FrontPage Magazine, 6 January 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E4DE77B2-B0DC-4DC6-B5EC-7D07661F5EF6 (accessed 26 October 2007).

67. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, “Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports,” FrontPage Magazine, 24 February 2006, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=8DE1557E-ECFC-4447-BB8C

-C800D6D9EDAA (accessed 26 October 2007).

68. “Spotlight on a Hamas Dawah Institution in the West Bank,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, http://www.terrorisminfo.org.il/malam_multimedia/ENGLISH/MARKETING

%20TERRORISM/PDF/JAN22_05.PDF (accessed 26 October 2007).

69. “Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan Sheik, United Arab Emirates 1966.2004,” NameBase, http://www.namebase.org/main4/Sheik-Zayed-bin-sultan-al_2Dnahyan.html (accessed 26 October 2007).

70. Ibid.

71. Rachel Ehrenfeld, “Saudi Interest in America,” Washington Times, 15 January 2006, http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060115-103622-3038r.htm.

72. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Evil Money (HarperBusiness, 1992), 164, 169.70.

73. Ibid., 169.

74. Ibid., 165.

75. Ibid, 163.210.

76. The UAE is no “ally” of the United States. See annual reports on voting patterns in the United States Department of State and United Nations records.

77. “Board Members of Human Appeal International,” ArabDecision.org, http://www.arabdecision.org/list_cvs_3_12_8_1_3_4825.htm (accessed 26 October 2007.)

78. Item on Hamas Web site, http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/palestoday/dailynews/2005/feb05/12_2/details6.htm, in the author.s possession.

79. Article in Al-Ayyam, 22 March 2005, http://www.al-ayyam.com/znews/site/default.aspx (accessed 26 October 2007), in the author.s possession.

80. Ehrenfeld and Lappen, “Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports.”

81. “ADL Backgrounder: The Zayed Center,” Anti-defamation League, 15 September 2003, available at http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/zayed_center.asp (accessed 26 October 2007).

82. “Media’s Take on the News 6-2-03 to 7-14-03,” History News Network, hnn.us/articles/1601.html (accessed 26 October 2007).

83. Jonathan Jaffit, “Fighting Sheikh Zaeyd’s Funding of Islamic Studies at Harvard Divinity School: A Case Study,” Maccabean Online, January 2006, http://www.freeman.org/MOL/pages/january-2006.php (accessed 26 October 2007).

84. Rachel Ehrenfeld, “The ‘Union of Good’ and the Lost Peace,” FrontPage Magazine, 7 March 2005, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={B01DD54B-AEA5-4A10-881E-649249DDBD42}.

85. “Appendix G.”

86. Ehrenfeld and Lappen, “Welcoming Terror to U.S. Ports.”

87. Sohall Zubair, “Islamic Conversion Boosted DFM IPO,” Gulf News, 2 December 2006, available at archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/12/02/10086533.html (accessed 8 October 2007).

88. Ibid.

89. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone, 119. Regarding this particular incident, Imad Al-Faluji has said, “The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of President Yasser Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the Palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Sharon’s visit to Al-Haram Al-Qudsi [Temple Mount].” Moreover, “The Intifada was no surprise for the Palestinian leadership. . . . The PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada.. See “PA Minister: The Intifada Was Planned from the Day Arafat Returned from Camp David; Special Dispatch Series No. 194, March 21, 2001,” Middle East Media Research Institute, available at http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sd&ID=SP19401.

90. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone, 291.


Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy (www.acdemocracy.org)


Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the American Center for Democracy (ACD)

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. She is director of the American Center for Democracy and member of the Committee on the Present Danger. Alyssa A. Lappen, Senior Fellow at the ACD, is a former editor for Forbes, Corporate Finance, Working Woman and Institutional Investor.

Jihad Against Freedom of Speech at the United Nations

Jihad Against Freedom of Speech at the United


By Jeffrey Imm


The United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has no problem with its members suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job” perpetrated by the United States on itself. The human rights of America’s 9/11 victims are not a priority for UNHRC’s Richard Falk, the special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who engages in 9/11 conspiracy propaganda, while working for an organization headquartered in New York City funded by U.S. tax dollars. This is Richard Falk’s protected freedom of speech.

Denying the role of Jihadists in the 9/11 attacks is apparently perfectly acceptable freedom of speech for the UNHRC, but criticizing Sharia law is another story.

On June 16, 2008, UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea announced that criticism of Sharia law will not be tolerated by the UNHRC, based on the complaints and pressure by Islamist delegates to the UNHRC. In effect, the Islamist nations represented at the UNHRC have effected a Jihad against freedom of speech at the United Nations when it comes to criticizing Sharia or Islamic supremacist (aka Islamist) theocratic ideologies that threaten the freedom and lives of innocents around the world. This again demonstrates the key imperative of control for Islamists – in this case in terms of controlling ideas, thoughts, and words of an international organization intended to promote human rights. Outgoing UNHRC Commissioner Louise Arbour subsequently raised concerns about debates on Sharia becoming “taboo” within the United Nations group, stating that it “should be, among other things, the guardian of freedom of expression.”

The UNHRC ban on debate regarding Sharia came as a result of a three minute joint statement by the Association for World Education with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) to the Human Rights Council on women’s rights and the impact of Sharia law. These NGOs sought to address international issues of violence against women, specifically, the stoning of women, “honor killings” of women, and female genital mutilation, as a result of Sharia law.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Arab Republic of Egypt vehemently criticized this attempted NGO message, interrupting it via “16 points of order”, for an hour and twenty-five minutes per the IEHU. Jihad Watch provides a full transcript of the debate. The Egyptian UNHRC delegate claimed that silencing these NGOs was necessary to ensure “that Islam will not be crucified in this Council,” but the fact is that Islamist forces seek to silence any debate on Sharia at all – anywhere, any time.

Ongoing Efforts to Silence Debate on Sharia

This is not the first time that efforts have been made by such pro-Islamist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) member nations to influence the United Nations. In my article “Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations,” I addressed the efforts of OIC member nations to reword a UNHRC resolution on religious freedom so that it would not respect the right of individuals to change their religion, as this would be in conflict with Sharia law. The OIC continues global efforts to influence the United Nations and worldwide organization to silence any debate on Sharia by painting such debate as “Islamophobia.”

In the war of ideas, the debate over Sharia’s influence on Jihad (or “Islamist terrorism” per the 9/11 Commission Report), continues to remain under the radar for many analysts. Yet in the ongoing battles by the Taliban in Pakistan, a primary stated objective of the Taliban is enforcing Sharia law throughout the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a sentiment that nearly 75 percent of Pakistanis agree with. (I address this issue in my article “Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State.”)

Two days after this silencing of debate on Sharia at the UNHRC, a man was sentenced to death for “blasphemy” in Pakistan by a Sharia court. This is the same Pakistan, whose government seeks to export the death penalty for “blasphemy” against Islam on a global basis, that now has successfully achieved the silencing of debate on Sharia in the United Nations. Moreover, when the Danish Embassy was attacked by terrorists in Pakistan recently, the Pakistan ambassador suggested that this was deserved due to the “blasphemous” cartoons published in Danish newspapers — the Pakistan ambassador to Norway further stated to the press that “blasphemous” cartoons are “an act of terrorism.”

The challenge of Sharia’s impact on Jihad is so completely beyond the thought processes of counterterrorism analysts that Sharia is not even mentioned in the latest “terror lexicon” publications by the DHS and NCTC warning government officials not to use terms like “jihad,” “Islamist,” “caliphate,” “mujahedeen.” Yet Sharia is a fundamental component of what western political scientists call “Islamism” or “political Islam.” The 9/11 Commission Report specifically states that “Islamist terrorism” is based on “Islamism.”

Nevertheless, as the U.S. and the United Kingdom governments seek to end dialogue on jihad, Islamism, etc., the United Nations now seeks to end debate on Sharia. The war of ideas seems to be ending before it is even begun.

News media publications cannot be relied upon to address this vacuum in ideological debate either. Most refuse to address Islamic supremacist ideologies, including the impact of Sharia law on human rights and freedoms. The Wall Street Journal even employs specialists on Sharia law to help promote Sharia-based financial instruments.
Silence on Supremacist Ideologies Not Consistent With History or Democracy

The gross illogical nature of such an approach is seen by looking at another form of supremacist political ideology that the United States government, the United Nations, and other nations have aggressively debated and have enforced change in their governments and their people to remove.

If the issue was a racial supremacist ideology, would such objections exist?

Can one imagine the United Nations refusing to debate “white supremacism” due to fears of insulting “whites,” or refusing to debate “apartheid”?

Can one imagine the U.S. government refusing to use terms such as “white supremacism” in dealing with fighting the Ku Klux Klan, or in refusing to consider the influences of white supremacist ideology when guaranteeing civil rights for all of its citizens, and in creating laws to effectively ban white supremacist influences in schools, businesses, and public places?

Most of all, in fighting white supremacist terror groups as the Ku Klux Klan, would the FBI have consulted “non-violent” white supremacists for ideological guidance? Would the FBI and the federal government have stated that it could not be involved in the “war of ideas” against white supremacism?

With the context of history, such questions are obviously absurd. That is precisely the point regarding the unwillingness to address the challenges of Islamic supremacist ideologies.

History shows that, in fact, none of this happened, and that the United Nations, the U.S government, and federal U.S. law enforcement all took action against such supremacist ideologies and publicly, aggressively, debated these in a war of ideas that would change the world and the nation. For the United States, the history of such federal action against such supremacist ideologies goes back nearly 140 years.

Therefore, such deliberate silence and denial regarding Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies is completely inconsistent with the history of such organizations and with America’s democratic values. I will be addressing this in more detail in a future article to be entitled “Jihad and Supremacist Ideologies.”

UNHRC president Doru Romulus Costea silenced debate on Sharia due to his fears of pursuing a “slippery slope” in such discussions.

Yet it is precisely such a “slippery slope” of denial on Islamic supremacist ideologies that the world is facing in the debate over Jihad, or in the words of Osama Bin Laden “the greater state of Islam from the ocean to the ocean, Allah permitting.”

On a national and global level, the combination of denial and refusal to address the impact of Sharia and Islamic supremacist ideologies in providing an ideological basis for global Jihadist activity is truly a “slippery slope” for the safety of the entire world.
Sources and Related Documents:

June 19, 2008 – FOX News: Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 ‘Inside Job’ Theories

June 19, 2008 – Pakistan Daily Times: Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

June 19, 2008 – JihadWatch: UN Human Rights Council: Any mention of the word “sharia” is now taboo

June 18, 2008 – AFP: UN Rts Head Concerned At Council “Taboos” After Sharia Row

June 18, 2008 – Reuters: UN’s Arbour opposes “taboos” in human rights body

June 17, 2008 – International Humanist and Ethical Union: Human Rights Council President: “We are on a slippery slope”

June 18, 2008 – AP: Muslim man in Pakistan sentenced to death for blasphemy

February 29, 2008 – OIC Statement on Islamophobia

February 1, 2008 – Jihad, Islamism, and the United Nations – Counterterrorism Blog – by Jeffrey Imm

February 29, 2008 – Jihad, Islamism, and U.S. Envoy to OIC – Counterterrorism Blog – by Jeffrey Imm

November 14, 2007 – Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing – Counterterrorism Blog – by Jeffrey Imm

June 10, 2008 – Pakistan and the Growing Threat of a Sharia Mini-State – Counterterrorism Blog – by Jeffrey Imm

UN Watch Blog

UN Watch Home Page

Michelle Obama’s pander

Michelle Obama’s pander

Clarice Feldman
James Taranto calls out  Michelle Obama for appalling pandering to the lie that the government deliberately injected black men with syphilis in the notorious Tuskegee Study. Yesterday, a  New York Times article about her noted that she had killed a research project on the human papillomavirus, because of sensitivity to the widespread mistaken belief in the black community that that such research abuses happen to blacks.  

“The Times’s account suggests that girls in Chicago were denied potentially lifesaving vaccinations because Michelle Obama pandered to racial paranoia instead of standing up for the truth. Is that why they pay her the big bucks?”
It is a widely held belief in the fantasy land of victimology that the famous Tuskegeee experiments saw the government inject blacks with syphilis. Usually this urban myth is cited to assert that it is reasonable to believe that the government created AIDS as a targeted disease. The reach of this lie goes far beyond the black community.


Barack Obama promises to heal us, and getting the truth out about Tuskegee is important to America’s racial healing. Belief in the lie that whites deliberately infected blacks to study them eats away at the soul’s desire for reconciliation.  Only those with a vested interest in racial grievances would have a desire to allow this resentment-generating falsehood to go unchallenged, it seems to me.


Barack and Michelle Obama’s longtime Pastor Jeremiah Wright has openly proclaimed his belief in the Tuskegee lie, and in the government AIDS conspiracy as well.


But when Barack Obama gave his famous race speech on March 18, he elided this falsity. The closest he came to a rebuke was,


“The church contains in full the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance…that make up the black experience in America.”


The truth about the experiment is far more complicated and less tinged with government or white animosity to blacks than the Wright version would have it. But since the matter seemed to have passed with the Obama soft shoe about race and an occasional media account  that attempted clarification, I let it pass
Until yesterday, that is, when that New York Times revealed, in a mostly complimentary article  about Michelle Obama, that she seems to have indulged the Tuskegee myth while working at a senior level for one of the world’s great centers of medical learning. If anything, the Times seemed impressed:


She also altered the hospital’s research agenda. When the human papillomavirus vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer, became available, researchers proposed approaching local school principals about enlisting black teenage girls as research subjects.

Mrs. Obama stopped that. The prospect of white doctors performing a trial with black teenage girls summoned the specter of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment of the mid-20th century, when white doctors let hundreds of black men go untreated to study the disease.


Think about it. Michelle gets over $300,000 per year (how many distinguished professors make that much?) from a university hospital to “outreach” with the community and one of the things her defenders point to, in order to justify this munificent salary, is that she stopped a legitimate trial of a vaccine which could save the lives of young black girls in her community.


When black people decline to participate in medical studies out of fear, then medical research is less able to address their health needs correctly. Black distrust of the medical system, fanned by the Tuskegee fantasy, is probably a factor discouraging prenatal and preventative care among some black Americans. This are not a good thing for blacks.


Yet we are somehow supposed to be favorably impressed that Michelle Obama killed a research study at a center of learning to avoid reaching out with the truth to the black community around her hospital. Instead of spreading learning to those who need it –supposedly the mission of a university and its teaching hospital — Michelle Obama seems to have pandered to ignorance.


Perhaps she avoided trouble for the hospital. It wasn’t an issue worth fighting about, and fighting it would have required a lot of time and energy.


But isn’t that what community leaders — and leaders of all kinds — are supposed to do? Serve and empower people by giving them the truth, perhaps?


*The Obamas seem to have no interest in the truth of Tuskegee, but in the hope that you do, here is a quick outline.


The experiment began in 1932 and ran until 1972 in which poor black sharecroppers were denied treatment for syphilis. When it began it was with the beneficent end of determining whether the subjects were better off not being treated with the then-existing treatment methods, which were themselves often toxic. But by 1947 penicillin had become the standard treatment for syphilis. At that point Tuskegee could have treated all the men with penicillin or broken off some as a control group and treated the others. The failure of the program and the reason why the government conceded error and paid the survivors and their families was in denying the subjects knowledge of and treatment with penicillin, NOT in injecting them with syphilis.


Further, the failed experiment led to a significant review and reappraisal of biomedical ethics respecting clinical trials, which surely the University of Chicago medical school fellows know, and which Michelle should know about before blocking trials that could benefit the very community she claims to serve.



Obama Fights Phantom 527 Groups

Obama Fights Phantom 527 Groups

Rick Moran
The main reason Barack Obama has given for eschewing public financing of his campaign was based on a lie:

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

“Millions and millions of dollars” from GOP 527 groups? This is a lie as Obama well knows. Jonathan Martin exposes Obama:

Obama’s alarmist prophecy – a bit of typical campaign rhetoric meant to scare his own donors into reaching for their credit cards – is wildly at odds with the flatlined state of conservative third-party efforts.

The truth is that, less than five months before Election Day, there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group.

Conversations with more than a dozen Republican strategists find near unanimity in the belief that, at some point, there will be a real third-party effort aimed at Obama.

But not one knows who will run it, who will pay for it, what shape it will eventually take or when such a group may form.

More worrisome for Republicans who believe such an outside attack apparatus is essential to defeating Obama, some key individuals and groups who were being looked to for help say they won’t be involved.

In short, there are presently no 527 groups with prospects dim for the formation of one. Obama is fully aware of this which makes his self serving statement about refusing federal financing the height of cynical lying.

This is certainly change that we can lie about.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky


Obama seen as a Muslim overseas

Obama seen as a Muslim overseas

Thomas Lifson
The Obama campaign faces a burgeoning problem: the tendency of certain highly-placed  Muslims overseas to declare that he is of their faith.  The latest to do so is Libya’s Qadhafi, in remarks made marking the anniversary of the U.S. air raid on Libya. MEMRI provides this transcript (hat tip: Big Dog)  

There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama. All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency.
We still hope that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs.


Americans believe that Barack Obama has every right to become a Christian as an adult and proclaim his faith in Jesus Christ. Americans understand that true religious identity depends on the faith one accepts. But we deceive ourselves if we believe the rest of the world thinks this way.


The Muslim world sees it differently. A baby born to a Muslim father is a Muslim. One who leaves Islam for another faith is an apostate. It’s scriptural.


Facts are stubborn things.


The fact that many in the Muslim world would see a hypothetical President Obama as one of them, or possibly as an apostate, has to affect his ability to be effective. Maybe it would be an advantage, but who knows? It is hard for Westerner to imagine all the complexities this situation would create if Barack Obama occupies the Oval office.


This subject is a legitimate topic of discussion for the presidential campaign. How does the biographical fact of a Muslim father (and step-father) influence the candidate’s ability to be effective as president? I would like to hear many Musl,im voices on this question, as well as Senator Obama’s views on the varying concept of religion, and what he might say to a Muslin religious authroity, if he ever discusses the question of his faith, perhaps when he has his promised meeting with Muslim states at the Organization of the Islamic Conference.


The campaign has so far been rather effective at suppressing discussion of any of the complexities of Barack Obama’s connection to the faith of his father. To even broach the subject is to be branded a smear artist, to have “emails” invoked as cyber boogeymen,  and to be an “Islamophobe.”


Obama has been celebrated as a man who repair America’s image overseas. But images are tricky things, and managing them overseas may be impossible.


Hat tip: Larwyn

Putting Obama and the Dems on the Defensive

Putting Obama and the Dems on the Defensive

Patrick Casey
Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats find themselves in a no-win situation.

We awoke this morning to the reports that a compromise has been reached between the Bush Administration and Congress on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The best reporting that I’ve seen on this so far is from the Wall Street Journal’s Siobhan Gorman (Deal Set on Domestic Spy Powers). The best (and most humorous) analysis that I’ve see is at RedState by Moe Lane (The FISA Controversy, in tedious Question and Answer form).


It really is a win for the Bush Administration, and a loss for the Democrats, including Barack Obama. The Dems have been screaming for years about this illegal domestic spying program — this bill puts the lie to that theme. It acknowledges that FISA warrants were never before required for eavesdropping suspects overseas, but that with new systems that routes world-wide communications through the United States, it was time to allow for FISA to be updated to reflect the realities of the latest technologies.


The government will be allowed, in circumstances that dictate it, immediate authority to commence wiretaps as long as they notify the FISA Court within 7 days. The Court would then have 30 days to approve a warrant, during which time the surveillance can continue. The FISA bill also offers retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who assisted the federal government post-9/11. The current lawsuits by liberal groups will be allowed to go forward, but will be dismissed upon the production of evidence that the companies were complying with the request of the federal government and the President.


As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the problem all along was the liberal base of the Democratic Party, and their minions in Congress:


The outcome was driven largely by the realities of election-year politics. Democrats, particularly more conservative ones, in vulnerable re-election races couldn’t afford to appear to be dodging a big national-security issue. And many believed the law needed to be updated before surveillance orders expired in August. House Democratic leaders struggled for months to find a proposal their entire party could support but couldn’t overcome splits between conservative and liberal Democrats — some of whom are reacting angrily to the deal.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama will have to decide whether to support it and risk the wrath of his party’s left wing, or vote against it and risk losing support from independents. One top Democratic lawmaker said the Democrats delayed the announcement by a couple of days, in part to give the presumptive nominee time to assess his position.


Note that last section: “One top Democratic lawmaker said the Democrats delayed the announcement by a couple of days, in part to give the presumptive nominee time to assess his position”. Barack Obama is a man who wants to be President. Being President means that you have to be able to make split second decisions, yet Obama needed a few days to figure out what his position was! Talk about not ready for prime time…


Perhaps Obama is worried about statements of his like this from January, posted by Jane Hamsher on Firedoglake.com:


I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens — and set an example to the world — that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
I’m not sure why Obama needed to figure out his position; he’s consistently voted against the revision of FISA for years. So I guess that means that Obama will be voting against this bill. Which would put him at odds with the vast majority of Americans, who supported this so-called “domestic spying” — even after the New York Times first exposed it. In fact, Americans were supporting the Bush Administration on this issue even in the New York Times‘ own poll conducted shortly after their ‘expose’.


Oh wait, since this particular wiretapping issue polls well with the American voters, perhaps he’ll flip-flop and vote for the revision this time, saying something along the lines of “this revision isn’t the revision that I thought I knew”, or some such nonsense. If so,


This would be the type of flip-flopping on an issue dear to the Left’s cold hearts, along with the Democrats’ soon-to-be total capitulation on Iraq war funding, that would enrage their base. And as their base works more on emotion than intellect, they could carry this grudge all the way to election day. That will probably be true on both a Presidential and Congressional level.


So Obama and the Democrats are in a no-win situation, no matter how their mainstream media parses it. If they vote against it, they appear even weaker on national security than they already are. If they vote for it, their words and rhetoric are once again proven to be meaningless.


As for the Independents on whom it appears Election 2008 will hinge, words matter. Promises matter. And it’s becoming more and more apparent that the words and the promises of the Democrats’, and in particular Barack Obama’s, mean nothing.


Obama’s Bundler, Osama’s Enabler

Obama’s Bundler, Osama’s Enabler

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 6/20/2008

SHOULD A MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, WHO HAS PLEDGED HIS SUPPORT FOR OUR TROOPS, REJECT THE MONEY AND SUPPORT of an anti-American extremist who thinks Osama bin Laden had a “valid” argument on 9/11 and says she is currently acting “to undermine the war effort”? Barack Obama should be forced to make that decision about the ample funds he has received from Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

According to Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, Evans has “raised at least $50,000” for the Obama campaign. As long ago as February 2007, the Code Pink co-founder and pampered divorcee co-hosted a Hollywood fundraiser for Obama with her ex-husband (financier Max Palevsky) and Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen of DreamWorks studios. [1]

Rare Candor (Read: Undisguised Hatred) from the Left

Evans capped off a lifetime of yeoman service to the leftist fringe this June 3, when she told Kansas talk show host Paul A. Ibbetson al-Qaeda may have had a point on 9/11. On Ibbetson’s “Conscience of Kansas” radio program, Evans declared:

Evans: We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia. That was the message of Osama, was that, because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.


Ibbetson: Do you think that’s a valid argument?


Evans: Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally violated the rights of that, that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East? [2]

The Code Pinko revealed, with unusually cold-blooded frankness, the reason Code Pink targeted military recruiters – and U.S. soldiers:

Ibbetson: I understand the activism and the protesting of George W. Bush and Cheney…What is this protesting and work against the military recruitment…in Berkeley?


Evans: As an antiwar activist, one of the things you try to do is you try to find the pillars that keep us at war and try to undermine those pillars. And one of the things: You can’t go to war if you don’t have soldiers.

When pressed to clarify the “pillars” her deeds “undermined,” the Obama bundler removed all doubt she aimed at our uniformed men and women themselves:

Ibbetson: You said you want to undermine the pillars of the war effort, and part of those pillars of that effort is the military, complex or whatever. Would you –


Evans: Well, the soldiers that fight the war. If you don’t have soldiers, you won’t be at war.

She didn’t sound very convincing in denying, “Code Pink sees the military as the enemy.” (“N-n-n-n-no,” she eventually stammered out.) She then likened Military Recruiting Centers to “liquor stores and porn shops.”

Finally, Evans affirmed of Code Pink’s travels to Iraq: “You’re right! We were trying to undermine the war effort!”  

More Than Words

Evans’ revealing performance could serve as light radio comedy – (e.g., she later blurted out, in earnest, “Why is being a Communist anti-American?”) – if it did not mask a long history of actions designed to demoralize soldiers in harm’s way, vilify the military (and the United States as a whole), provide monetary and military support to jihadists, and popularize the views of Islamic radicals who believe terrorists who kill U.S. troops are “guaranteed Paradise.”

Her statement that “you can’t go to war if you don’t have any soldiers,” dovetails with her work to break the morale of soldiers fighting in Iraq. In July 2003, Jodie Evans joined the Advisory Board of Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW) as a founding member. Castroites Medea Benjamin and Leslie Cagan established IOW in Baghdad to convince American soldiers serving in Iraq to obtain “conscientious objector” status and get sent home. As part of this process, they recycled anti-American news stories to the troops in Iraq, and spread “first-hand” accounts of mythical U.S. “atrocities” back home. At least one fellow Advisory Board member called for the murder of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Tiring of rhetoric, Code Pink tended to the material needs of those who killed U.S. troops or tended to the “insurgents.” In December 2004, Evans and Code Pink delivered $600,000 in cash and supplies to “the other side” in Fallujah, a recent battlefield and terrorist stronghold infamous for killing American soldiers.

That summer, Evans disclosed, in blunt fashion, that she had little concern over troops being killed, because she viewed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death squads as our moral superiors:

We must begin by really standing with the Iraqi people and defending their right to resist. I can remain myself against all forms of violence, and yet I cannot judge what someone has to do when pushed to the wall to protect all they love. The Iraqi people are fighting for their country, to protect their families and to preserve all they love. They are fighting for their lives, and we are fighting for lies. [3]

Before long, she and Code Pink would seek to join forces with the terrorists’ leaders once again. In August 2006, she joined 11 other far-leftists in a Code Pink-sponsored trip to meet Iraqi “political leaders” such as:

  • Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi, who once pronounced foreign-born jihadists killing U.S. soldiers “very brave.” He added, “These Mujahideen are guaranteed Paradise.” He is said to have given militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr $50 million.
  • Saleh al-Mutlaq, the trip’s prime sponsor, chided Americans for trying “to brand as terrorists the honorable national resistance movements.” He concluded, “We cannot give peace.”

Code Pink announced after this trip, “We left this historic meeting with a commitment to make sure that the voices of these Iraqi parliamentarians are heard here in the U.S.” Indeed, one delegation member, a DailyKos blogger who ran for Congress in 2006, blogged, “if justice is to ever come to the people of Iraq, the people we call insurgents will have to be recognized as the ones who are actually defending their homeland.” As I noted at the time, Medea Benjamin laid out her full plan to coordinate anti-American events with foreigners in her essay “Toward a Global Movement,” published in April 2003 in Nation magazine.

Evans was “present at the creation” of this subversive agenda. And now she sees her savior in Barack – and Michelle – Obama.

Her official page on Barack Obama’s campaign website states, “I am impressed with his ideas and ideals and that he has an amazing wife and listens to her.” Discussing Michelle Obama may be “low class” for her detractors, but evidently it is a selling point to radicals like Jodie Evans.

Not Just Obama: Code Pink’s Growing Influence in the Party of Defeat

As David Horowitz and I point out in our new book, Party of Defeat, this pathology extends far beyond Barack Obama. The Hate America ideology Code Pink represents – once at-odds with Democratic leaders like Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Sam Nunn, and the young Al Gore – now represents the will of its McGovernite base. Increasingly, when the Radical Left talks, the Democratic leadership listens – whether by attending the Take Back America Conference, the Yearly Kos, or inviting hate-spewing bloggers into the halls of power.

Code Pink has not been left out of this arrangement – and an increasing number of lawmakers are singing the group’s praises. Sen. Russ Feingold, declared: “People try to marginalize them as being ‘left,’ But they serve as a reminder to (lawmakers) of the broader concern in the country over the war.” Even one of the group’s targets, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, courted their support last month, saying, “Instead of fighting us – which is your right to do – let’s all work together to end the war and bring the troops home.” Rep. Lyn Woolsey, a California radical Democrat and co-founder of the Progressive Caucus, admitted, “If it weren’t for Code Pink and groups like Code Pink, we’d be a lot farther away from resolving the situation in Iraq.” And according to CP (which stands for “Code Pink,” not “Communist Party”) activists, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, signed the letter to get them into Fallujah to exercise their jihadist philanthropy.

Similarly, Code Pink activists know they have the Democratic Party’s ear (or other appropriate part of the anatomy). Founding member Gael Murphy told the San Francisco Chronicle, “We’ve gotten to a place now where Hillary and Obama are falling all over each other to be the leading peace candidate.”

They did, indeed, court the radical Left – even as the media lauded them for standing up to it – and this has led them to turn their backs on a war they supported, and to seek the defeat of the soldiers they put into harm’s way. As Jodie Evans smiles.

Show Me the Money…Being Returned

Barack Obama now faces a question, not of experience, ideology, or judgment, but of decency. Will he return the money raised by someone so self-evidently opposed, not merely to victory in Iraq (they have that in common), but to our soldiers themselves? Anyone seeking to be a credible commander-in-chief of those forces, anyone deserving of their respect and sacrifice, must return her funds, renounce her organization, and refuse any support Code Pink might seek to offer his campaign.

Yet while he has been prompt to throw other longtime associates under a bus when problematic statements crop up, he has not yet lifted a finger in regards to Jodie Evans. Perhaps this is because, unlike Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, Michael Pfleger, or Jim Johnson, Evans offered more than rhetorical support.

Compare his reticence against the Texas Republican Party. The Lone Star GOP recently divested itself of $1,500, because it came from a vendor who sold a racist button asking, “If Obama is president …will we still call it The White House?” Texas Republicans swiftly donated the money to a charity benefiting Midwestern flood victims. Party spokesman Hans Klingler told AP: “This vendor need not apply to another Texas GOP state convention. We will neither tolerate nor profit from bigotry.”

Shouldn’t Barack Obama make the same pledge about hatemongers who justify 9/11?


1. Evans also said she had donated to Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Ron Paul. This bipartisan (or, if you count Paul’s Libertarian background, tripartisan) coalition should also return these funds and any others she generated or delivered.

2. You can listen to the entire interview in the program’s audio archives, or watch relevant clips here and here.

3. A sanitized version of this statement now appears on the Code Pink website.

Party of Defeat is available from the FrontPage Magazine Bookstore for $15, a 30 percent discount and less than Amazon.com. Autographed and personalized copies are also available; details are on the Bookstore webpage. Please call your local bookstores and ask them to stock the new book Party of Defeat by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, if they don’t already have it in stock.

Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving.