You Can’t Fuel All of the People All of the Time

The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?

The Saudis: Which Side Are They On?

Saudi officials announced Monday that they had arrested 56 members of Al-Qaeda, who were at an “advanced stage” of planning jihad terror attacks within the Kingdom.

This would seem to support President Bush’s statement from last October, when in order to free up aid from the Saudis he declared: “I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort.” As jarring as it may be to contemplate the notion that the United States is providing aid to the oil-rich House of Saud, these arrests indicate that at least it seems to be paying off.

Yet nagging questions remain. Last September, Stuart Levey, the Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, noted that the Saudis had not prosecuted even a single individual who has been identified by the U.S. or the U.N. as a bankroller of jihad terror. “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country,” Levey said, “it would be Saudi Arabia.”

What’s more, an undercover reconnaissance survey of mosques and Islamic schools all over the United States has found that as many as seventy-five percent of mosques and Islamic schools in this country preach jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, according to a World Net Daily report, “confirmed that ‘the vast majority’ are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.”

The Saudis fund a significant number of the mosques in this country. Warith Deen Muhammad, a prominent American Muslim leader and the son of Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad, explained what’s wrong with the Saudi influence in American mosques: “In Saudi Arabia it’s the Wahhabi school of thought…and they say, ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to…prefer our school of thought.” That’s in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached.”

But why would the Saudis be encouraging jihadist sensibilities among Muslims in the United States while arresting Al-Qaeda operatives inside the Kingdom? Abu Zubaydah, a captured Al-Qaeda operative, claimed that the House of Saud had made a deal with Al-Qaeda: financing for the jihad around the world, in exchange for immunity from jihadi attacks within Saudi Arabia itself.

The Saudis have denied this, and in any case the deal seems to be off. There have been several jihad attacks inside Saudi Arabia in recent years, but Stuart Levey is not out in left field in thinking that the Saudis continue to support terror in an enthusiastic — and effective — manner. Secret files revealed in Britain several weeks ago show Saudi officials threatening British investigators with another jihad attack on the scale of the July 7, 2005 bombings in London if they didn’t drop inquiries into corruption in their arms deals. Who is supposed to have made these threats? Prince Bandar, head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council and son of its crown prince.
 
In light of all this, it is likely that the 56 freshly-arrested members of Al-Qaeda are guilty in the eyes of the House of Saud not of waging jihad warfare as such, but simply of waging jihad warfare in the wrong place: inside the Kingdom. And given the Kingdom’s notoriously spotty human rights record, it is also likely that these suspects will not be offered the amenities of the Guantanamo camp about which Saudi authorities have issued complaints. And their arrests should not prevent American officials from asking tough questions about where the Saudis really stand, and what we can realistically expect from their alliance with the United States. When the Saudis refused to cut America a break on oil prices during President Bush’s trip to Riyadh in January, it should have been a wake-up call for anyone who still considered the Saudis a reliable ally in the war on terror. And this latest arrest of Al-Qaeda operatives shouldn’t lead anyone to go back to sleep, either.

Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics Over John Edwards ‘Faggot’ Barb

Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics Over John Edwards ‘Faggot’ Barb

By FoxNews.com
Tuesday , March 06, 2007
Ann Coulter fired back at critics who demanded the conservative columnist apologize for comments she made during a speech in which she referred to Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards as a “faggot.”

“‘Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays,” Coulter said on “Hannity and Colmes” Monday night. “It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss,’ and unless you’re telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person.”

Coulter came under fire after delivering a speech Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C.

VIDEO: Ann Coulter Fires Back at Critics

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,'” Coulter said.

The slur caused a firestorm of controversy over the weekend and earned condemnation from both the right and the left. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean demanded that the “Godless” author apologize for her “hate-filled and bigoted” remarks. The Edwards camp tried to capitalize on the hullabaloo by asking supporters to donate $100,000 in “Coulter Cash” to “show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire.”

Republican presidential hopefuls Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani publicly denounced the remarks.

Coulter called the whole controversy another example of the mainstream media’s “speech totalitarianism” and says she sees no reason to apologize for a joking comment that was taken out of context.

Follow the horserace for the presidency in FOXNews.com’s You Decide 2008 Center.

“What I was saying right there was for conservatives to not let the mainstream media describe us as anti gay and oppose Mitt Romney’s policies for being pro-gay,” Coulter said.

Coulter didn’t spare the GOP hopefuls, either.

“Apparently our top three Republican nominees aren’t that smart,” Coulter said. “And by the way, if they’re going to start apologizing for everything I say, they better keep that statement handy cause there’s going to be a lot more in the next year.”

/**/

Coulter vesus Maher

Coulter vesus Maher

Jerome Schmitt
In the uproar over Ann Coulter’s tasteless “joke” at the CPAC Conference, Bill Maher’s much more egregious call for Dick Cheney’s assassination and the applause of his audience have been ignored, as Newsbusters showed

As for Maher, I conclude that by lamenting that the assassination attempt failed — because he concluded it would “save lives” — Maher is indeed calling for further attempts.  But contrarily, if one were inclined to invert Maher’s twisted logic, one could propose that those who are not wholeheartedly in step with the war-effort are showing America’s disunity which only emboldens the Islamic terrorists to commit more car bombings etc.; thus the death of such an American anti-war advocate would “save lives”. 

Fortunately, I cannot remember seeing conservatives calling for assassination of America’s liberal politicians.
Do Liberals really want to invite a return of political violence to America?  Aren’t the lessons from the assassinations of Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK, and attempts on Ford and Reagan yet learned by the Left? 
Coulter comment was almost immediately denounced by leading Republicans including most of the presidential candidates.  It will be illuminating to see the response if any of Democrats to Maher’s awful comments, beginning with Barney Frank who was on Maher’s show.

Jonathan Livingston Obama By Ann Coulter

The Democratic Party: A Vast Sleeper-Cell

The Democratic Party: A Vast Sleeper-Cell
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 4, 2007

Fortunately for leftists, the Iraqis executed Saddam Hussein the exact same week that former President Ford died, so it didn’t seem strange that Nancy Pelosi’s flag was at half-staff. Also, Saddam’s death made it less of a snub when Harry Reid skipped Ford’s funeral. The passing of Gerald Ford should remind Americans that Democrats are always lying in wait, ready to force a humiliating defeat on America.

More troops, fewer troops, different troops, “redeployment” – all the Democrats’ peculiar little talking points are just a way of sounding busy. Who are they kidding? Democrats want to cut and run as fast as possible from Iraq, betraying the Iraqis who supported us and rewarding our enemies – exactly as they did to the South Vietnamese under Ford.

Leftists spent the Vietnam War rooting for the enemy and clamoring for America’s defeat, a tradition they have brought back for the Iraq war.

They insisted on calling the Soviet-backed Vietcong “the National Liberation Front of Vietnam,” just as they call Islamic fascists killing Americans in Iraq “insurgents.” Ho Chi Minh was hailed as a “Jeffersonian Democrat,” just as Michael Moore compares the Islamic fascists in Iraq to the Minutemen.

During the Vietnam War, New York Times scion Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger told his father that if an American soldier ran into a North Vietnamese soldier, he would prefer for the American to get shot. “It’s the other guy’s country,” he explained.

Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers.

After a half-dozen years of Democrat presidents creating a looming disaster in Vietnam – with Kennedy ordering the assassination of our own ally in the middle of the war and Johnson ham-handedly choosing bombing targets from the Oval Office – in 1969, Nixon became president and the world was safe again.

Nixon began a phased withdrawal of American ground troops, while protecting the South Vietnamese by increasing the bombings of the North, mining North Vietnamese harbors and attacking North Vietnamese military supplies in Cambodia – all actions hysterically denounced by American leftists, eager for the Communists to defeat America.

Despite the massive anti-war protests staged by the Worst Generation, their takeovers of university buildings and their bombings of federal property to protest the bombing of North Vietnamese property, Nixon’s Vietnam policy was apparently popular with normal Americans. In 1972, he won re-election against “peace” candidate George McGovern in a 49-state landslide.

In January 1973, the United States signed the Paris Peace accords, which would have ended the war with honor. In order to achieve a cease-fire, Nixon jammed lousy terms down South Vietnam’s throat, such as allowing Vietcong troops to remain in the South. But in return, we promised South Vietnam that we would resume bombing missions and provide military aid if the North attacked.

It would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented “Watergate,” the corpus delicti of which wouldn’t have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office. (How’s Sandy Berger weathering that tough wrist-slap?)

Three months after Nixon was gone, we got the Watergate Congress and with it, the new Democratic Party. In lieu of the old Democratic Party, which lost wars out of incompetence and naivete, the new Democratic Party would lose wars on purpose.

Just one month after the Watergate Congress was elected, North Vietnam attacked the South.

Even milquetoast, pro-abortion, detente-loving Gerald R. Ford knew America had to defend South Vietnam or America’s word would be worth nothing. As Ford said, “American unwillingness to provide adequate assistance to allies fighting for their lives could seriously affect our credibility throughout the world as an ally.” He pleaded repeatedly with the Democratic Congress simply to authorize aid to South Vietnam – no troops, just money.

But the Democrats turned their backs on South Vietnam, betrayed an ally and trashed America’s word. Within a month of Ford’s last appeal to Congress to help South Vietnam, Saigon fell.

The entire world watched as American personnel desperately scrambled into helicopters from embassy rooftops in Saigon while beating back our own allies, to whom we could offer no means of escape. It was the most demeaning image of America ever witnessed, until Britney Spears came along.

Southeast Asia was promptly consumed in a maelstrom of violence that seems to occur whenever these “Jeffersonian Democrats” come to power. Communist totalitarians swept through Laos, Cambodia and all of Vietnam. They staged gruesome massacres so vast that none other than Sen. George McGovern called for military intervention to stop a “clear case of genocide” in Cambodia.

Five years after that, Islamic lunatics in Iran felt no compunction about storming the embassy of what was once the greatest superpower on Earth and taking American citizens hostage for 14 months. To this day, al-Qaeda boosts the flagging morale of its jihadists by reminding them of America’s humiliating retreat from Vietnam.

In addition to being wrong about Ford’s pardon of Nixon, leftists were wrong about a few other things from that era. Democrats haven’t admitted error in rejecting Ford’s pleas on behalf of South Vietnam because there are still

Coulter Gets Results

Coulter Gets Results
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 30, 2006

The six imams removed from a US Airways flight last week have apparently adopted my suggestion that if they really want to protest the airline, instead of boycotting US Airways, they should start flying it frequently. The spokesman for the imams – or as I believe it’s phrased in their culture, “designated liar” – Omar Shahin, staged a protest at Reagan Washington National Airport on Monday, after which, according to the Associated Press, “he and other religious leaders boarded a US Airways flight to demonstrate their determination to continue praying and flying.”

The original six imams removed from the flight last week first attracted attention when they said prayers to Allah on traditional Muslim prayer rugs in the boarding area. After boarding, they changed seats, spreading themselves throughout the plane. They were also overheard spouting anti-American rhetoric. Witnesses said the six men appeared to be either Islamic fanatics or U.S. Army chaplains on leave from Guantanamo.

Following the lead of FEMA in keeping Americans safe, the Homeland Security Department’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties is investigating the removal of the imams from the US Airways flight. (Talk about coincidences – I’m currently investigating the removal of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties from the Department of Homeland Security!)

Imam spokesman Shahin is a great example of why airport security ought to be profiling Arabs. Shahin’s predecessor at the Islamic Center in Tucson was Osama bin Laden’s financier and head of logistics – until he was arrested in Saudi Arabia in 2002.

Instead of aggressively distinguishing himself from his terrorist predecessor, judging by news reports, Shahin spent the five years after 9/11 denying that Muslims were behind the attacks and complaining of phony anti-Islamic “hate crimes” – as opposed to the pro-Islamic hate crimes he presumably endorses.

In 2003, for example, Shahin alleged that a woman in Arizona had thrown shoes at children at the mosque.

This is the most transparent hoax I’ve heard since, “If I did it, here’s how I would have done it.” This is like the joke about a speaker at an American communist rally opening with: “Workers and peasants of Brooklyn!” Shahin has so little insight into this country, he can’t even invent a believable hate crime.

It’s Arabs who have a thing about shoes being a sign of disrespect, not Americans. When Iraqis toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein, the crowd immediately pelted it with shoes.

Shahin himself couldn’t get away from this pan-Arabic shoe fetish, adding: “The incidents of Muslims being attacked kind of shocked me in my shoes.” Note to imams trying to fabricate hate crimes against Muslims: Americans don’t share your shoe neurosis.

At Reagan National this week, rabbis joined the Muslims at the prayer protest – though one imagines they did not share this prayer from the Hadith: “And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'” In fairness, they usually save that one for the high holidays, like the “Festival of the Six Dead Jews” or “Honor Killing Week.”

Nor this one, also from the Hadith: “The Prophet said: ‘The Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews. Rejoice! Rejoice in Allah’s victory!'” (Is it just me, or might some fanatic twist those words into an excuse to kill Jews?)

Also strange was that the NAACP has piped in to complain about racial profiling of Muslims. The only reason Americans feel guilty about “racial profiling” against blacks is because of the history of discrimination against blacks in this country.

What did we do to the Arabs? I believe Americans are the victims in that relationship. After the attacks of 9/11, profiling Muslims is more like profiling the Klan.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.