Harry Reid’s Dirty Deeds

Harry Reid’s Dirty Deeds

November 12th, 2009

 

By Steve Baldwin, Western Center for Journalism

 

 

Harry Reid has a history of corruption… read the full report to see for yourself

 

Senator Harry Reid claims to be an ethical politician and he often employs his Mormon religion in order to demonstrate his alleged immaculacy. However, the reality is that he is, in fact, one of the most ethically challenged politicians in office today. This report will review his alliances with corrupt individuals, his support of ACORN, his ties with organized crime figures and his chronic failure to comply with campaign finance laws.

 

Harry Reid’s Alliance with Jack Abramoff: Soon after the Jack Abramoff scandal broke, Reid took the lead in attacking Republicans for fostering a “culture of corruption.”

 

But shortly after making these comments, it was reported that Reid took almost $68,000 from Abramoff’s firm, its PAC and its Indian casino clients.

 

Reid then tried to distance himself from Abramoff, stating, “[D]on’t lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal. Don’t try to give any of it to me.”

 

Here’s the key passage: Harry Reid wrote at least four letters helpful in Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff, and Reid’s staff had frequent contact with the disgraced lobbyist’s team about legislation….Reid collected nearly $68,000 in political donations from Abramoff’s firm, lobbying partners and clients…Abramoff’s firm also hired one of Reid’s top legislative aides as a lobbyist.

 

Read the full Report:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options

Official: Obama Rejects All Afghan War Options

November 12th, 2009

AP

 Obama still can’t make up his mind

President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official.

In strongly worded classified cables to Washington, Eikenberry said he had misgivings about sending in new troops while there are still so many questions about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Obama is still close to announcing his revamped war strategy — most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

But the president raised questions at a war council meeting Wednesday that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s thinking.

Read More:

Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-Western jihadist hate

Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-Western jihadist hate

It isn’t as if we haven’t seen this coming. For years now I have pointed out the shallowness and flimsiness of condemnations of terror by American Islamic groups, and noted that American mosques and schools have no programs to teach against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, as one might have expected them to institute after 9/11 if they really stood where they claimed they stood.

And in 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified before a State Department open forum that eighty percent of American mosques had extremist leadership. And then there was the January 2005 report from the Center for Religious Freedom, “Saudi publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” (pdf here).

“Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism,” from WorldNetDaily (thanks to TCS):

An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.

“So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist,” an official familiar with the project said.

Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.

Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that “the vast majority” are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.

The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:

* Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.

* Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim’s duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called “martyrs” are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.

* Solicitation of financial support for jihad.

* Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.

Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.

It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called “jihad qital,” which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.

Dar al-Hijrah’s ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.

Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.

Even with such radical mosques operating in its backyard, the U.S. government has not undertaken its own systematic investigation of U.S. mosques….

 

Which is an ongoing scandal.

Does Islam Breed Violence?

Does Islam Breed Violence?

By Amil Imani

There is a division of the house. On one side are the politically correct in government, the leftist mainstream media, and a raft of Islamist apologists. One and all are tripping over each other in reassuring us the mass murderers such as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and suicide-bombers who detonate their explosive vests in crowded marketplaces and even mosques are individual anomalies and Islam is not responsible for what they do.

On the other side are those fed up with the innumerable daily horrific acts throughout the world that are clearly committed under the banner of Islam. In all fairness, there needs to be a distinction. Numerous criminal acts are also committed on a daily basis by non-Muslims. The critical difference is that non-Muslim criminals do not hoist a religious banner to justify their misdeeds, while the Muslims proudly claim that they commit their heinous acts in obedience to the dictates of their religious faith.
Would someone please explain what motivated Nidal Hasan, who at taxpayers’ expense was educated from college all the way through medical school and post medical-school training, to turn his deadly weapons against the nation that gave him everything he had?
If Islam had nothing to do with what Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan did, then why:
* did he repeatedly preach the ascendancy of Islam over the U.S. Constitution?
* did he publicly support Islamic suicide-bombing?
* did he proclaim his highest loyalty to Islam?
* was he in contact with violent anti-U.S. Islamists and a virulent Yemeni Imam?
* did he distribute copies of the Quran to people the morning of his bloody attack?
* did he keep screaming “Allahu akbar” as he heartlessly sprayed over a hundred bullets, killing thirteen and injuring some thirty innocent men and women?
Here is the truth, as bitter as it may be: Islam is the culprit. Islam is anything but a religion of peace. Violence is at the very core of Islam. Violence is institutionalized in the Muslims’ holy book, the Quran, in many suras:
Quran 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s cause; they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”
8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding.”
9:38 “Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah’s Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place.”
47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
And the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word-for-word literal edicts of their god, Allah.
Right from the start, violence served as the engine of Islam under the command and supervision of Muhammad himself. For one, the Prophet’s son-in-law cousin, Ali, was titled the Commander of the Faithful for his unsurpassed feats of butchery. With the assistance of one or two of his thugs, Ali beheaded some seven hundred captives, most of them Jews, in only one day. This man, highly esteemed by the prophet of Allah, carried a sword that had its own name — Zolfaghar. Ali’s portrait, holding the menacing sword, adorns the homes and shops throughout Shiite lands. And Ali is revered by the Shiites at the same level as Muhammad.
On the Sunni side, Muhammad’s co-revered is Umar, another unabashed killer of untold numbers. And of course, the choice weapon of these champions of the religion of peace was the sword. To this day, a sword adorns the flag of Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the religion of peace.
And Islam, by the very nature of its doctrine, appeals to man’s base nature. It promotes intolerance, hatred, discrimination, and much more:
Quran 61:2 “O Muslims, why say one thing and do another? Grievously odious and hateful is it in the sight of Allah that you say that which you do not. Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in a battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”
In reality, Islam is like a deadly, contagious disease. Once it invades the mind of its victim, it is capable of transforming him to a helpless pawn that has no choice but to execute what he is directed to do.
Of the reported 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, millions are already trapped in the terminal stages of this affliction, while millions of others are rapidly joining them. The people enslaved with the extreme cases of Islamic mental disease are highly infectious. They actively work to transmit the disease to others, while they themselves engage in horrific acts of mayhem and violence to demonstrate their unconditional obedience to the dictates of the Islamic cult.
The savagery and variety of the actions of these Islamic captives are seen daily around the globe. Many of these acts, committed under the banner of Islam, have become so commonplace that the world has come to view them as part and parcel of a troubled humanity. And, from time to time, the world is shocked into a passing and momentary realization of the evil deeds these Islamist robots commit. However, people quickly get over it, and they do nothing to seriously address this affliction.
The recent and dastardly mass murder at Fort Hood, committed by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, will be forgotten by the public before long. Life will continue on its deadly course, pushed along in a variety of ways by Islamists, the agents of death. Only the families who lost their loved ones and those who survived the bullets have to live the rest of their lives with incapacitating injuries. They likely won’t be able to put the episode behind them.
The mass-murderer Hasan did not riddle people with bullets under the pressure of momentary insanity. The insanity — ironic in a man who was trained to help people with sanity — was introduced in him from the moment of birth and from the very early years when he prostrated himself five times daily toward Mecca in expression of total submission to the dogma of hate called Islam.
A true Muslim does not and cannot believe in freedom of choice. In the religion of Islam — “submission” — everything is up to Allah, as clearly and repeatedly stipulated in the Quran. The raison d’être for the Muslim is unconditional submission to the will and dictates of Allah. Everything that a “good” Muslim does is contingent upon the will and decree of Allah, in which the Muslim is indoctrinated to believe.
Humanity is facing a deeply troubling dilemma. On the one hand is the desire of enlightened people to forge a diverse world into one society ruled by peace and justice, while on the other hand, Islamists are hellbent on imposing their stone-age system on everyone. Tellingly, the Muslims themselves are at one another’s throats regarding which of dozens of Islamic sects’ dogma should rule.
For now, Islam is busy with what it did from the time of its birth: fighting the non-Muslims, and infighting.
Truth be told, violence is the animating force of Islam. Islam is a religion born through violence, raised by violence, which thrives on violence, and which dies without violence.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/does_islam_breed_violence.html at November 12, 2009 – 03:01:47 PM EST

It Isn’t Political Correctness, It’s Shariah

It Isn’t Political Correctness, It’s Shariah

By Pamela Geller

In surveying the cultural carnage in the wake of the worst terrorist attack on a military installation in US history, it bears noting that there have been seismic shifts in America. When America was free of the shackles of Islam, say, fifty years ago, the current response to such an attack by an enemy faction would have been unthinkable.

I have watched in abject horror the stunning reaction of elites in this country to this act of war.  The denial, the submission, the excuses, the dodging, the self-flagellation, the shame, the deceiving of the American people by the media, the military, society, law enforcement, authorities and politicians, all the way up to and including the White House, amounts to the enforcement of Shariah law.

Shariah law forbids criticism of Islam. And here we are.
We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah law. We will not insult Islam. That is Shariah law. We self censor. That is Shariah law. We disrespect ourselves, our nation, so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude. We should be raging. We should be outraged. We should be strategizing for this worldwide conflict. We should be debating about which leader will best handle Islam’s war on the West. And yet we have not one leader who begins to understand the conflict — that’s how feared the subject matter is. Not one leader.
Recently there was an interesting debate at National Review Online between soft conservatives who soft-pedal Islam and those who stand for reality of Islamic doctrine, conservative principles and the essential truth. By and large, the conservatives have dropped the ball on Islamic jihad. This has been made painfully clear by the lack of a leader (any leader) on the right who speaks to and takes up the fight against the sweeping Islamization of America. America has no Geert Wilders.
The conservatives are not really as bad as the Left is on Islam, but they only get real when there is jihadi “intervention” that invades and destroys the delusion of their narrative.
It is interesting to me that the hierarchy of the conservative movement (take CPAC, for example) stays far away from the counter-jihad forces (i.e., Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, myself) except at moments like these. Last year there was not one speaker, one event at CPAC that spoke to the greatest threat this nation faces — which is why I staged the Geert Wilders event at the Omni Hotel, during CPAC (but not a CPAC event) last year. 
When the reality of war, Islamic doctrine and bloodshed lays bare the nature of the enemy and the battle we are in, the door creaks open and Robert Spencer starts getting invited to appear on radio shows, and NRO finally runs pieces by Bostom and Spencer that show up the soft conservative narrative on Islam, which is soft and fuzzy and stupid (i.e., “Islamist” vs “Islamic”). Of course, we bad boys will be put back in our boxes until the next terrible time the jihad comes calling.
It pains me to say it, but expect to see us more frequently in the coming months and years. For the giant con job on the American psyche continues apace: He was a crazy! It was “vicarious” Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder! It was “Pre-Traumatic” Stress Disorder! It was radical extremism! It was part of a tiny fringe! It doesn’t represent Islam!
All lies. He was devout. He was a jihadist. Period. And many Muslims admire what he did. The Left worries about Muslim backlash. How about Muslim backlash against the infidels? Every “Soldier of Allah” who goes jihad is an enemy combatant. Every devout Muslim who believes in the word of the Quran has his or her duty to Islam, his call to jihad. Hence this terrible act of war, the 14,363 Islamic attacks across the world since 911, and all of the relentless plots, plans and to take down America in the past month alone. Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?
I am writing this on Veterans Day. I call upon all Americans to step back, consider the unfathomable loss at Fort Hood, the ensuing apologia, and the tragic consequences of such behavior. This is a call to action. You’re either with us or against us.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/it_isnt_political_correctness.html at November 12, 2009 – 02:20:59 PM EST

It’s Time to Surrender in Afghanistan

It’s Time to Surrender in Afghanistan

By Michael Filozof

It’s time to surrender in Afghanistan. Yep, that’s right. Surrender.
Let’s sign a document of surrender, apologize for our “aggression,” withdraw the troops, and let Osama and the Taliban have a ticker-tape parade in the streets of Kabul before they force women back into their burkas, outlaw education for girls, and start executing homosexuals and Christians again.
It might sound a bit odd for me to make such an outrageous proposal. After all, I’m a hawkish, pro-military conservative, and I’ve been a lifelong adherent of the “nuke ’em ’til they glow” school of foreign policy. But I say we should surrender because the facts are plain: we have already surrendered in deed, if not in name.
On December 7, 1941, we were attacked by a fanatical, suicidal, non-democratic, non-Western enemy who had a disciplined, motivated, state-of-the art military. The attack killed some 2,000 uniformed military personnel on what was then a territorial outpost.
Our response was to conscript 12 million people into our armed forces, detain all members of the enemy’s race for the duration of the war, defeat the enemy in less than four years by using nuclear weapons against his cities, and maintain a military presence in the enemy’s nation for the next 65 years after his defeat.
On September 11, 2001, we were again attacked by a fanatical, suicidal, non-democratic, non-Western enemy. The enemy had no disciplined military. He employed only improvised and primitive methods of war. The Islamist militants killed 3,000 people, mostly civilians, in New York and Washington, the economic and political capitals of our nation. We identified stone-age Afghanistan as the origin of the attacks.
Our response was to send a few thousand volunteers to Afghanistan. Eight years later, we have failed to defeat Afghan militants that are largely illiterate and have no uniforms, no tanks, no ships, no aircraft, no satellites, and no armored vehicles. They are equipped only with Communist-designed rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and improvised explosives.
Our problem is not tactical inferiority, but a lack of political will and a surfeit of political correctness. Following the 9/11 attack, President Bush declared that “Islam is a religion of peace.” Try to imagine for a moment that FDR held a press conference on Dec. 8, 1941, to declare that “Japan is a nation of peace.” You can’t.
At this point it’s not even true that Afghanistan is the still the primary locus of Islamic terrorism. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for years. Pakistan — already armed with nuclear weapons, and probably harboring Osama bin Laden — could become unglued at any moment.
Yet our political pusillanimity has only gotten worse in the eight years since 9/11. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t outdo ourselves in craven groveling and self-debasement before the enemy.
One of President Obama’s first acts in office was to ban the phrase “war on terror” in favor of “overseas contingency operations” in government usage. He then traveled to Cairo, declared that he had “known Islam on three continents,” and falsely claimed that Muslims had “enriched the United States” since its founding and that Islam has a “proud tradition of tolerance.” (Perhaps he might ask the folks at Cantor Fitzgerald and United Airlines about Islamic “enrichment” and “tolerance.”) He then apologized for American involvement in a coup against Iranian socialist Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 (a brilliant masterstroke of American foreign policy that kept both the Soviets and the Islamists out of Iran for 26 years), yet stood idly by while the Iranian theocrats rigged their own election this summer. It’s now evident that Obama will not prevent the Islamic Revolutionary State from getting nuclear weapons. There will be no military action — and no sanctions, either. Iran will get the bomb.
In October, only a week after Islamist militants stormed the headquarters of the Pakistani military, Secretary of State Clinton traveled to Pakistan. The radical Yale-educated feminist donned a headscarf in submission — and the Islamist fanatics responded to her visit by killing hundreds in suicide attacks.
We have reached a point in Afghanistan that the Soviet Union reached in the 1980s: we no longer believe our own propaganda. The Soviets claimed that they lived in a workers’ paradise and they were merely bringing the great benefits of communism to Afghanistan. But they knew it was a lie.
Similarly, we say that we’re going to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan. Maybe we could, of course — if we wanted to. But we don’t. That would require remaking Afghan society the way we remade Japanese society. And President Obama campaigned on the promise of remaking America — not Afghanistan.
This summer, the president stated that he’s “not comfortable” using the term “victory” in Afghanistan. How can he possibly ask troops to risk life and limb in that country after saying that? His subsequent three-month indecision with regard to the Army’s request for 40,000 more troops further betrays the fact that we’re simply not committed to victory. One can scarcely comprehend FDR openly debating, in full view of Hitler and the world, a request for reinforcements during the Battle of the Bulge.
The assassination of thirteen American troops at Ft. Hood by a Muslim officer in the U.S. Army is the last straw. Despite the overwhelming evidence, our political and military leaders refuse to acknowledge that Maj. Hasan was motivated by militant Islamist ideology. President Obama believes that Hasan just “snapped” from the stress of military life. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano told an Arab audience that she hopes the assassinations at Ft. Hood don’t lead to reprisals against Muslims in the U.S.
And Gen. George Casey — unbelievably — actually said that if “diversity” in the military were to suffer, it would be an even greater tragedy than the Ft. Hood murders.
If political correctness makes us unwilling or unable to defeat militant Islam from within the officer corps of the U.S. Army at Ft. Hood, Texas, then it’s perfectly evident that we’re not going to defeat militant Islam in Afghanistan after eight years of trying.
The enemy has not defeated us in battle. They can’t. But the Ft. Hood assassinations show that we’ve already surrendered. There’s no sense putting our troops in harm’s way in the field if we won’t protect them in Texas.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/its_time_to_surrender_in_afgha_1.html at November 12, 2009 – 02:17:42 PM EST