islamic comic books and cartoons are a threat to our children.

This people, is STEALTH JIHAD at it's worst. It is targeted at our children. The mullah in the White House, the first muslim potus is doing all he can to help islamize the United States and has dedicated millions and millions of our tax dollars to islamic organizarions and causes. This is crossing the line and is government sanctioning of religious cartoons. Cartoons aimed at an innocent audience! How much will be 'truth and how much will be taqiyya? Who will monitor these new cartoons? Cair, The MB, MSA, ISNA? From Family Security Matters.


"In the Islamic world, cartoons have a more sinister purpose. In Iran, on Al-Quds Day, Iranian TV schedules are filled with cartoons about evil Israelis with red eyes, shooting and murdering innocent doe-eyed Palestinians. For older kids, the heroes fight back, and even get martyred in the cause of Allah. Al-Quds day, named after the Arab term for Jerusalem and initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983, is a time for Iranian media to reinforce Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic propaganda.


A comic book is something that a child (or adult) elects to read. Pages must be turned, text must be read to make sense of the pictures. Animated cartoons do not require such deliberate behaviour on the part of the viewer. They are there, they move, they have a soundtrack with music, the characters speak, and no-one has to turn the pages.


However, there is now a new development, which will take what is essentially a religious notion and promote it on mainstream Kids’ TV. Hasbro is a toy manufacturer associated with manufacturing dolls and toys related to media products – Star Wars characters, My Little Pony. Hasbro has recently linked up with the Discovery Channel to create a new network that will be premiering soon, operating as a TV network and web platform. Brian Goldner, Hasbro’s President and CEO, said:


“We believe the time is right for Hasbro to take the next step into television through our partnership with Discovery Communications. David Zaslav and his talented team have the experience, track record and ambition necessary to make this joint venture a long-term success as we build this network. We look forward to creating fun, stimulating and educational content that will allow us to deliver all-new brand experiences to the young and ‘young at heart’ – anywhere and anytime they want.”


The new media outlet, called The Hub, will officially start airing on October 11, with veteran broadcaster Margaret Loesch running the schedule. And on the schedule of The Hub network will be an animated series called “The 99”, which will bring to life the Islamic cartoon superheroes. This is the first time that I am aware of where a religious cartoon series has been broadcast and aimed at the general viewing public."

---

Meet the Muslim Superheroes who are Ready to Indoctrinate American Kids


The appeal of animated cartoons can be long-lasting. I grew up in the 1960s, when the era of TV cartoon series was at its height. Until the 1950s, cartoon shorts by Disney and Warner Bros., such as Merry Melodies, Looney Tunes, Silly Symphonies, as well as Tex Avery shorts, had been designed for movie theatres, run before a main presentation. Those were added to kids’ TV schedules but cartoons were soon tailor-made for the medium of TV. William Hanna and Josef Barbera produced their own shows – with characters such as Huckleberry Hound or Yogi Bear voiced by Daws Butler. Countless other cartoon characters chased each other across the small screen, the most memorable being voiced by Mel Blanc. Cartoons were an integral part of growing up for kids around the globe.


Some cartoons from that time were pleasantly silly and some – such as Johnny Quest – tried to add something new with good drawing and ongoing narratives. Cartoons get into a person’s head at a young age, and never leave one. As I grew older, the cartoons presented to the next generation seemed lacking in fun, designed merely to promote cruddy toys, rather than to delight and entertain. Thundercats and He-Man, Transformers, were part of a roster of 1980s commercial cartoons that seemed to exist solely to promote toys.


Some cartoons had wholesome morals, but these were never forced. Wile E. Coyote never got to catch the irritating Road Runner, and his evil designs usually led to him plummeting off a cliff or being scrunched by the same rocks he intended to use as weapons.


In the Islamic world, cartoons have a more sinister purpose. In Iran, on Al-Quds Day, Iranian TV schedules are filled with cartoons about evil Israelis with red eyes, shooting and murdering innocent doe-eyed Palestinians. For older kids, the heroes fight back, and even get martyred in the cause of Allah. Al-Quds day, named after the Arab term for Jerusalem and initiated by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1983, is a time for Iranian media to reinforce Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic propaganda.


Muslims comprise only one and a half percent of the American population, but be prepared for the latest exercise in Muslim propaganda and toy promotion – “The Ninety-Nine”. This began life as a series of printed comic “super-hero” characters, each one representing one of the Ninety-Nine names of Allah.


The Ninety-Nine featured in printed monthly comic books, originally produced by Teshkeel Comics in Kuwait. This company had deals to publish Arabic versions of Marvel, DC and Archie comics. Now, the Ninety-Nine is on sale in North America, distributed by Diamond.

Continue reading here.

Link to original article is here.

Farms are still being stolen in Zimbabwe

This is a really sad story and one that is still going on today in Zimbabwe. We seldom hear or read about the crimes and thuggery still going on in Zimbabwe, mainly against the white folks who still live there. Before any of you out there jump all over me, remember this; there are two sides to every story and the LSM will do all it can to cover up reports like this. This came to me by way of a friend in South Africa. Jan has lived through some horrible times and seen alot of events and violence that once again, does not get reported on much here in the west. You think these lands will ever be farmed productively again? The likleyhood of that is extremely small. This is posted exactley as I received this.

---

Who in their right mind would dream of investing in Zimbabwe
By Cathy Buckle.


Date Posted: Friday 24-Sep-2010
[Thanks to Lars, who is a regular reader in San Francisco for this one. Jan]


My son was 8 years old when we were forced off our Marondera farm by war veterans and Zanu PF youths in September 2000. Richard does not remember those very traumatic months that we lived alongside the men who had invaded our farm. Men who were far too young to have been veterans of war; youths who were almost always drunk, drugged, abusive and threatening. Camped in a paddock within sight of our house, a rabble took over our lives, claimed the farm field by field, destroyed our business, livelihood and pension and finally chased us out of our home. For a long time I have been very glad that Richard does not remember that frightening, horrible time but that all changed this week when I phoned him one morning. Richie said he couldn t talk just then because he was on his way to help a friend who was being evicted from his farm and had been given until 3 that afternoon to get out.


My heart was in my mouth at the thought of another family going through the devastating anguish of being forced out of their home. With just hours in which to pack and move a home and business of a lifetime, I knew that this Mother and her son would need all the help they could get. Before long, like Richard, I was rushing to help and it took me back in time to that bad place that holds only fear and painful memories. Just a few kilometres out of Marondera town, down a bumpy, winding, dust road through the most magnificent Msasa woodland adorned in glorious spring leaves, I followed my son s vehicle. We travelled for a dozen kilometres and saw no one and nothing: no ploughed fields, no sheep or cattle, no crops or greenhouses. A line of fence posts caught my eye: standing in a perfectly straight line they had once been a paddock or a boundary but the wire was all gone and the poles stood as lonely sentinels watching over these deserted, seized farms.


Arriving at the farm of my son's friend, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up as soon as I stepped out of my vehicle. Sitting on stumps and broken plastic chairs under a covered carport a few metres from the house were the land invaders. A tatty rabble they were. Half a dozen of them, mostly youngsters and openly drinking at 11 in the morning; one swigging from a $4 bottle of Vladinoff Vodka, others drinking beer out of cut off plastic bottles. One was drumming and they were singing crude versions of Chimurenga songs whose lyrics had been changed to: They are coming to move you out. By 3 this afternoon this will be our house. We are happy you are going. We are getting our land.


I recognized one of the men, a scruffy layabout with dreadlocks who hangs around car parks. And these were to be our farmers, I thought with contempt. I did not meet their eyes or respond to their begging calls for cigarettes.


I hugged the woman who was losing her home today but we did not talk, there are no words. All day we worked removing curtains and pictures, emptying drawers and cupboards, loading our vehicles with another destroyed life. Eight years ago half this farm was given to the Zimbabwe government but bit by bit they took more and now this bunch outside wanted it all. Wearing broken green plastic flip flops and woolly hats even in the 25 degree heat, they were determined they were going to have this house, and they were going to have it today.


The Police did not come, would not come, because this, they said, was political, not criminal. As 3pm came and went, tempers flared and the invaders moved into the garden and then some even into the living room. The farmer s dogs, chained under a shady tree whined and whimpered as they couldn't protect their owners. A beautiful brown and white cat lay on the floor in the bedroom surrounded by boxes, piles, suitcases, coat hangers.


As the shadows lengthened and with the red setting sun in our eyes I followed my son s vehicle away from his friend s farm for the last time. The dust was thick and choking and I felt tears burning my eyes. How can this be? 10 years after it happened to us, it is still going on. Nothing has changed; no attempt to stop the destruction of agriculture; no response from the Police; no respect for Title Deeds, property rights or even a family's private home.


Who in their right mind would dream of investing in Zimbabwe when a bunch of arbitrary drunken thugs can get away with something like this because it is political. Is this Zanu PF politics or Unity Government politics.

Source Url: http://www.cathybuckle.com/index.php?id=8


Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception

Hat tip: Jan Lamprecht

AfricanCrisis

There is no such thing as an Islamic Extremist? The truth about islamic jihad and beyond. Part Two

Here is part two of the post about islamic jihad.

Please note at the end of this there is a statement othose who believe in the message of Christ, and his love for all of us. As radical and tilted as I soundat times, there is not one day that goes by where I pray numerous times for the muslims of the world, enslaved by the chains of islam, to be freed from these bonds through Christ. Some of you may not agreewith this or take offense to this. I DO NOT mean to offend, but to educate, awaken as many as possible to the dangers inherenetly built into islam and sharia law. This as I mentioned in part one, was sent to me by a very good friend. The format translated out quite broken and mixed up. I have attempted to re-assemble this as well as I could. Thanks for your patience!

---

The truth about islamic jihad and beyond. Part two

The Qur’an (Richard Bailey’s analysis)

o Four stages of Jihad found in the Qur’an

o Stage One, Muhammad in Mecca: No retaliation. Muhammad had few followers, little
military and political clout.

o Sura 73:10-11 – Be patient and bear with those who deny the truth

o Sura 52:45-48 – Leave them alone and wait for the Lord to punish them

o Sura 20:129-130 – be patient with evil things said by evil people

o Sura 23:96 – It is best not to retaliate evil for evil

o Sura 16:125-26 – Invite to the way of God only with gracious preaching and
arguments

o Stage Two  Late Mecca (pre-hijra): Defensive fighting permitted. Meccans retaliate
for Muhammad’s caravan raids. Muslims fight defensively.

o Sura 22:39-41 – Permission is given to go to war to defend themselves.

o Sura 22:58 – Rewards given for those who die in jihad.

o Stage Three Medina: Defensive fighting commanded and obligatory.

o Sura 2:190-194 (summarized) – Fight [imperative] defensively against an
attack from fellow Arab Meccan opponents until persecution is stopped and
Islam is established.

o Sura 8:12-18 (summarized) – Cut the necks and fingers of those who oppose
God and Muhammad and never turn your backs

o Sura 8:67-69 (summarized) – Keep killing and do not take prisoners until the
land is subdued. You should not fight to get material goods, but Allah
forgives your mistake this time.

o Sura 47:4-6, 15 – Cut their necks, subdue them, then be generous. Martyrs
will receive paradise where there are rivers of water, milk, wine, and honey,
plus abundant fruit.

o Stage Four Later Medina: Offensive Fighting commanded. Muhammad strong both
politically and militarily. All out offensive launched to invade and force convert others
to Islam.

o Sura 9:19-22 – Jihad is greater than any other service, and of the highest
rank in the sight of God

o Sura 9:29-31 – Fight against Christians and Jews until they are subdued,
because God’s curse in on them

o Sura 9:38, 39, 41 – Don’t avoid fighting, but fight with whatever you have.
Otherwise God will punish you with serious punishment.

o Sura 9:81-96 – Those who are able to fight but do not want to fight are
rejected of God. Those unable are forgiven.

o Sura 9:123 – Fight the unbelievers around you

o Sura 5:36-38 – Death or torture to those who oppose the Apostle.

Criticisms of Jihad

• Historically, Christianity has undergone considerable scrutiny and been the
subject of numerous critical analyses.

• Critical analysis of Islam is a recent development. Historically, little critical
thought has been devoted to the claims of the Qur’an, Hadith, Islamic law, and
other aspects of Islam.

• When examined critically, Jihad is incoherent: it just doesn’t make sense, and the
arguments put forth by those who try to defend jihad fail critical thought.
Comparison to Christian Crusades

o Muslim: “You Christians have no grounds on which to criticize the Jihad. After all,
you have your Crusades.”

o Paul Fregosi: “History has largely bypassed the Muslim attacks on and
invasions of Europe that lasted from the seventh to the twentieth
centuries, but has remained transfixed on the Christian Crusades to the
Holy Land that lasted only from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries.
We could say that the historical perspective here is gravely out of focus.”

o Muslim: “You Americans are nothing but land-grabbing Imperialists, intent on
“Westernizing” the world.”

o Fregosi: “When accusing the West of imperialism, Muslims are obsessed
with the Christian Crusades but have forgotten their own, much grander
Jihad. In fact, they often denounce the Crusades as the cause and
starting point of the antagonism between Christianity and Islam. They are
putting the cart before the horse.”

o Bat Ye’or: “Analysts deliberately mislead the public by using the Crusades
in order to create a sense of moral equivalency between Christianity and
Islam and to calm European concerns about jihad. They ignore, of course,
that jihad, as an ideology and a praxis, was unremittingly active in Asia,
Africa, and Europe four centuries before the Crusades.”

o Scope of Jihad vs. Crusades:

Crusades – limited response (~200 years) to recapture land taken by Muslims which was previously occupied by Christians. Jihad – ongoing offensive to occupy and take lands not previously the domain of Islam.

o Fregosi: “The Jihad has affected and engulfed far more countries than the
Palestine-bound Crusades. The Crusades, eight in number, were
concentrated in the Holy Land and all took place between the years 1096
and 1270, not quite two hundred years in all. The Crusaders wanted to
establish themselves in the Holy Land, formerly Christian. Islam’s motives,
through Jihad, were far grander.”

o Any attempt to compare Jihad and the Crusades must also include a legitimate
and honest look at the example set by the founders of each religion: Muhammad
and Jesus Christ. Does the behavior of each man reflect the teaching of each
religion?

o Jesus taught a message of love, tolerance for sinners, patience with the
impatient, sympathy for those who would scorn him and ridicule him.

o Jesus was never violent, never advocated the murder of anyone,
especially those who opposed him.

o In light of Jesus’ teaching and his example, the Crusades are an anomaly—
they do not fit within the framework of the Biblical teaching of how one is
to treat one’s adversary.

o Muhammad taught hate and contempt for one’s adversaries.
Example after example can be found in his biographies where he
ordered the murder of those who dared insult him through poetry,
or sing songs which derided him.  Anger, vengeance, and hatred for
one’s enemies were part and parcel of Muhammad’s words and his
example. We find the teaching and example of Muhammad to be
perfectly in line with jihad.

Fregosi: “Muslims who kill are following the commands of Muhammad, but
Christians who kill—and there are many—are ignoring the words of Christ.
Therein perhaps lies one of the basic philosophical differences between
Islam and Christianity.”

Bat Ye’or: Numerous “conquests took place within the framework of the
common ideology of jihad and the administrative and juridical apparatus
of the shari’a.” In other words, jihad is woven into and made a component
part of Islamic law; in contrast, the Crusades of Christianity were outside
the norms of Christian teaching.

Abrogation of Qur’an

o Sura 2:106 – “Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten,
we bring one better or the like thereof.” Earlier revelation can be overruled, or
abrogated, by later revelation.

o This is important to understand, because moderate Muslims contend Islam is
“religion of peace” based on Sura 2:256: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

o This verse was revealed when Muhammad signed a peace treaty with the Jews of
Medina, shortly after migrating there. It was a mutual non-aggression and
assistance treaty. Remember, Muhammad had little political and military clout.

o In 9 A.H., after gaining nearly complete political control and an aggressive military
force, Muhammad received a “new” revelation outlawing polytheism and
abrogating the prior revelation, permitting him to break the prior treaty.

o Sura 9 coincides with this new, abrogated revelation. Thus, Sura 2:256 (Let there
be no compulsion in religion) is abrogated by:

o Sura 9:5 – “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them”

o Sura 9:14 – “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands.”

o Sura 9:29 – “Fight those who believe not in Allah.”

o Sura 9:75 – “O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the
Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell.”

o Sura 9:123 – “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you
about, and let them find firmness in you.”

Conclusion:

Although the concept of no compulsion in religion was true in
Islam at one point, it has since been abrogated and is no longer
applicable. Since Sura 9 was the last Sura to be revealed to Muhammad,
and it abrogates all other earlier revelations, it is the last and current
revelation for how Muslims are to treat those who do not believe in Allah.

Concluding remarks

• The Challenge Statement reviewed: Remember, I made the radical statement,
which goes against common wisdom, that there is no such thing as an Islamic
extremist.

- There is no concept of "Fundamentalism" in Islam. The western media has
coined this term to brand those Muslims who wish to return to the basic
fundamental principles of Islam and mould their lives accordingly… a
practicing God fearing Muslim can neither be a fanatic nor an extremist.
(source: www.islamicinvitationcentre.com)

• I believe the case has been made, and the evidence is convincing.

- The Qur’an and Hadith teach jihad almost exclusively as warfare against
unbelievers.

- The idea of jihad as a spiritual struggle has no support in Islamic canonical
literature, and is only spoken of in the context of a Western audience.

- Muhammad provided the example of jihad to his followers by personally
participating in numerous battles to “convert” unbelievers to Islam.

Although Islam at one time allowed other religions to coexist, as in Sura
2:256, this has been abrogated. It is no longer acceptable for religions
other than Islam to exist, and the goal of Islam is to make Islam the
dominant religion worldwide.  The so-called extremists, then, are not
extremists at all. They are simply following the final revelation of Muhammad
and fulfilling the goal of the spread of Islam around the world, in Allah’s holy war.

• Paul Fregosi: “Muhammad, unlike Christ, was a man of violence; he bore arms, was
wounded in battle and preached holy war—Jihad—against those who defied the
will of God as revealed to him. This description of the Prophet may be
psychologically unacceptable to many devout Muslims but it is in line with
historical reality. Killing became part of the routine of the life of Muhammad the
warrior after he moved from Mecca to Medina in 622 and became a fighter in the
cause of Allah.

These things I have spoken to you, that
you should not be made to stumble. They
will put you out of the synagogues; yes,
the time is coming that whoever kills you
will think that he offers God service. And
these things they will do to you because
they have not known the Father nor Me.
- John 16:1-3

The Fear Factor

• Many Christians are intimidated the first time they try to speak with a Muslim,
particularly due to the violence seen committed against Christians by devout
Muslims who follow the example of Muhammad.

• No fear: 2 Tim. 1:7 For God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power and love
and a sound mind (lit: self-control). We have no need to fear. This must be the
first hurdle to clear.

• If God does not give us a spirit of fear, then where in the 'hell' does it come
from?

Four considerations:

• Our God is infinitely more powerful than their God. I have no need to fear

• Jesus promised to be with me always, and His promises are sure. I have no need
to fear.

• I know for certain that my God will not take me home to be with Him until my
work for Him on this earth is completed. I have no need to fear.

• When my work here is done and it’s time for me to go home, why would I want to
stay around here any longer! I have no need to fear.

We have the answer to jihad. It is only through the love of Jesus that this so-called “waron terror” can be won; it is a spiritual battle requiring a spiritual response. Quite possiblyfor the sake of our world’s future, Muslims need to hear of Jesus and come to know himas their personal savior. It’s not our battle; the battle belongs to the Lord, but he asksus to participate as foot soldiers to bring the gospel of true peace to the world. Won’t you join me?

There is no such thing as an Islamic Extremist? The truth about islamic jihad and beyond. Part One

This was sent to me by a friend and is a great explanation of islamic jihad and the falsehoods that are often speard about jihad, how it is not harmful or is a 'peaceful inner journey.' This will be in two parts. Part two will follow part one to have continuity for you, the reader.

---

Jihad
CHALLENGE STATEMENT: There is no such thing as an Islamic Extremist


Jihad Defined

• The word ‘jihad’ has a somewhat broad lexical meaning.
Struggle, striving

• At the most basic level the word ‘jihad’ means to strive or struggle, particularly
as it applies to the desire of Muslims to please Allah. Jihad is most often defined
as striving in the way of Allah, struggling to do that which pleases Allah, or
exerting oneself with regard to one’s religion.

• The Encyclopedia of Islam says of jihad that “In law, according to general doctrine
and in historical tradition, the jihad consists of military action with the object of
the expansion of Islam and, if need be, its defense.”

• Jihad is defined as “warfare authorized by a legitimate representative of the
Muslim community for the sake of an issue that is universally, or nearly
universally, acknowledged to be of critical importance for the entire community
against an admitted enemy of Islam.”

• One common understanding of jihad is defined as an internal struggle, or a
struggle against the inner self or inner desires. This definition is one preferred by
moderate Muslims as well as those in the media and academia who would have us
believe that Islam has no historical connection at all to violence and is purely a
religion of peace. The beginnings of a demilitarized, or peaceful, concept of Jihad
in ancient Islamic literature can be traced to the eighth and ninth centuries, long
after the death of Muhammad.

• Jihad as a spiritual struggle lacks any support in the Islamic canonical literature.
For example, in Bukhari, of the 72 times the word “Jihad” is used, it always
speaks of fighting a war in the cause of Allah.

• Scholars who study and analyze Middle East culture note that spiritual jihad is
merely a façade, created in an attempt to disguise the truth of jihad hiding
behind the façade to those of us in the West. Jihad as a spiritual struggle is
presented only to Western audiences. “Few Muslim scholars or even apologists
writing in non-European languages have ever made the exaggerated claims (re:
spiritual struggle)…those who write in Arabic or other Muslim languages realize
that it is pointless to present Jihad as anything other than militant warfare”
(David Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 43).

• Bukhari also includes the possibility of martyrdom as a consequence of jihad.
Becoming a martyr is an odd concept if Jihad is limited to an internal struggle alone.


Warfare


• One aspect of external jihad involves the concept of direct warfare. The Reliance
of the Traveller, a manual on Islamic law, defines jihad as the “means to war
against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from mujahada, signifying
warfare to establish the religion.

• A footnote in the English translation of Bukhari’s Hadith collection notes “Al-Jihad
(Holy Fighting) in Allah’s cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry), is
given the utmost importance in Islam, and is one of the pillars (on which it
stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior, and His
religion (Islam) is propagated.”

• Over 160 verses in Qur’an speak of jihad as fighting. A sample:

o Sura 2:216 – Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you
(Muslims)…

o Sura 4:74 -- …whoso fights in the cause of Allah, and is killed or
gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.

o Sura 8:39 – Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief
and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the
religion (worship) will be for Allah alone.

o Sura 9:29 – Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2)
nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden
by Allah and His Messenger, (4) and those who acknowledge not
the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture
(Jews and Christians)…

o Sura 47:4 – So, when you meet (in fight—Jihad in Allah’s
cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you
have killed and wounded many of them…

• The Hadith also speak extensively of jihad as warfare and nothing else:

o When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for Jihad (holy fighting in
Allah’s cause) go forth immediately. (Bukhari 2783, 2825)

o When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for Jihad (holy fighting in
Allah’s cause) go forth immediately. (Bukhari 2790)

• Note, however, that in many cases, warfare was preceded by a call to Islam. The
target person or people group were first given an opportunity to embrace Islam.

o “It is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having
invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy
attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or
paying the poll tax, short of which war will be declared against them” (Ibn
Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, quoted in Bat Ye’or, Decline of Eastern Christianity, 295).

Terrorism

• Definition: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

• Terror is a weapon that had its origins in the first struggling years of Islam (Paul
Fregosi, Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries, 44).

• It is distinct from outright-armed conflict, in that often terrorism involves no
physical contact at all. Yet physical violence is not necessarily precluded by
definition. Examples from the Qur’an:

o Sura 3:151 - We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve
because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been
revealed.

o Sura 8:12 - Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I
am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the
hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their
finger-tips off them.”

o Sura 8:60 - Against them make ready your strength to the utmost
of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the
hearts of) the enemies…

Martyrdom

o Qur’an says little about martyrs, but Hadith speaks extensively about becoming a
martyr.

o Associated with spiritual prestige. To become a martyr in Islam is to make the
ultimate sacrifice for Allah. It also brings enormous honor to the family left
behind. We Americans do not understand Asian cultures, where shame and honor
play significant roles in the shaping of society. To bring honor to one’s family is
the highest goal.

o Becoming a martyr in Islam, particularly a martyr in the jihad, has enormous
benefits. A martyr gains immediate entry into Paradise, is allowed to partake of
things forbidden to a Muslim during earthy life, has 72 virgins awaiting him,
brings fame and honor to the family, and has the ability to intercede on behalf of
other Muslims in heaven. (David Cook, Understanding Jihad, p. 28).

o Sura 57:19 - And those who believe in Allah and His messengers, they are
the loyal, and the martyrs are with their Lord; they have their reward and
their light.

o Sura 9:20-22 – Those who believed (in the Oneness of Allah—Islamic
Monotheism) and emigrated and strove hard and fought in Allah’s cause
with their wealth and their lives are far higher in degree with Allah. They
are the successful. Their Lord gives them glad tidings of Mercy from Him,
and His being pleased (with them), and of Gardens (Paradise) for them
wherein are everlasting delights. They will dwell therein forever.

o “Nobody who enters Paradise likes to return to this world even if he got
everything on the earth, except a martyr who wishes to return to the
world so that he may be martyred ten times because of the honor and
dignity he receives (from Allah)” (Bukhari 2817).

Dawah, inviting others to Islam

o To invite; to give an invitation to, particularly with respect to Islam; inviting an
unbeliever to Islam

o Sura 16:125 – “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful
preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”

o Sura 28:87 – “invite (men) to thy Lord, and be not of the company of those who join
gods with Allah.”

o These two ayat seem to define dawah as an intellectual, apologetic approach used to
convince and persuade others of the truth of Islam in the absence of fear and
intimidation.

 Reality: dawah is quite often inseparable from jihad.

o (Ibn Ishaq) Muhammad’s Uncle Hamza to Abu Jahl: “All we did was to enjoin
chastity and justice and call them to Islam, but they received it not, and they
treated it as a joke, they ceased not so until I volunteered to attack them.”

o (Ibn Ishaq) Muhammad sent one of his men to a group of polytheists and
“ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If
they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he
was to fight them…so the men accepted Islam as they were invited.”

o (Dawud) “When you meet the polytheists, summon them to Islam, and if they
accept, refrain from further hostilities toward them.”

o Ibn Kathir: the purpose of jihad is, “…so that the religion of Allah becomes dominant
above all others.”

o Osama bin Laden: invitation to Islam: Bush, the American people Requirement for Jihad

o Required of all able-bodied men. Exceptions made for the blind, the physically unfit,
the mentally unstable, and the very elderly.

The Qur’an contains over 40 verses that explicitly define the absolute requirement for
participation in Jihad, with severe penalties for failure to participate. Here is just a short
sample.

• Sura 2:216 states, “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you
(Muslims) though you dislike it…”

• Sura 4:77 - "Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands
from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting
were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah.
They say: 'Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made
war compulsory?'"

• Sura 9:38 - "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to
march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e., Jihad) you cling to the earth? Do you
prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and
punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot
harm Him in the least."

• Sura 9:41 is even more direct, commanding Muslims to, “March forth, whether
you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old, and
poor) and strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah.”

• Sura 9:81-84 - "Those who stayed behind rejoiced in their inaction behind the
back of the Messenger. They hated to strive and fight with their goods and lives
in the Cause of Allah. They said, 'Go not forth in the heat.' Say, 'The fire of Hell is
fiercer in heat.' If only they could understand! So let them laugh a little, for they
will weep much as a reward for what they did. … Do not pray for any of them
that die, nor stand at his grave. They rejected Allah and disbelieved His Messenger.
They died in a state of perverse rebellion."

• Sura 9:93-94 - "The (complaint) is against those who claim exemption [from
fighting] while they are rich. They prefer to stay with the (women) who remain
behind (at home). Allah has sealed their hearts. They are content to be useless.
Say: 'Present no excuses: we shall not believe you.' It is your actions that Allah
and His Messenger will observe. They will swear to you by Allah, when you return
hoping that you might leave them alone. So turn away from them, for they are
unclean, an abomination, and Hell is their dwelling-place, a fitting recompense for
them."

• Sura 48:11 - "What is the matter with you that you are divided about the
Hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (causing their disbelief). Would you guide
those whom Allah has thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah has thrown
aside and led astray, never shall they find the Way."

• Sura 48:17 - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is it a sin for the lame, nor on
one ill if he joins not in the fighting. But he who retreats, (Allah) will punish him
with a painful doom."

o Shafi’i: “these communications mean that the jihad, and rising up in arms in
particular, is obligatory for all able-bodied believers…and no one is able to perform
the duty for another.”

o Women not required to participate but may do so voluntarily.

Purpose of Jihad

Rid world of polytheists, unbelievers, hypocrites

o The Qur’an, Hadith, and Islamic law speak extensively of the need to eliminate those
who worship multiple gods or no god at all. Allowing these to continue living is an
affront to Allah.

o Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Sura 9:30 notes, “fighting Jews and Christians is
legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers…who utter lies against Allah.”

o Sura 4:89 – “They wish that you should reject the faith as they do…seize them and
slay them wherever you find them.”

o Muslims who war against polytheists and unbelievers are accorded a special reward
from Allah. According to Shafi’i, “Those who perform it in the war against the
polytheists will fulfill the duty and receive the supererogatory merit.”

Spread Islam

o World domination of Islam is the goal.

o “Islam is the religion that will dominate over all other religions” (Ibn Kathir).

o Imam Muslim comments that the Umma (Islamic nation or community) will
extend from the east to the west and will include all ethnic groups. Races
belonging to different colors will all embrace Islam.

o Options available to those who refuse to accept Islam are severely limited: resist until
death, submit to Islamic rule, or for Christians and Jews, pay jizya (protection tax)
and become a dhimmi.

o In obedience to Allah, “the caliph [or Muslim ruler] makes war upon Jews,
Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-
Muslim poll tax” (Reliance of the Traveller).

o (Dawud) “The Apostle of Allah said ‘I am commanded to fight with men till they
testify that there is no god but Allah; when they do that they will keep their life and
their property safe from me.’'

Test the true followers of Allah

o Sura 3:142 – “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of
you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”

o Sura 9:16 – “Do you think that you shall be left alone while Allah has not yet tested
those among you who have striven hard and fought…”

o The purpose Allah revealing this aya was to distinguish “between those who
obey him and those who disobey him (Ibn Kathir).

o Sura 47:4 – “So, when you meet (in fight—Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who
disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…
if it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them
(without you). But (He lets you fight) in order to test some of you with
others.”

Obtain booty

o During the first eighteen months after the Hijra, [Muhammad] carried out seven raids
on merchant caravans as they were making their way to Mecca. This was an attempt
to build up the wealth and prestige of his followers, who had lost their livelihood as a
result of their move to Medina, and to weaken Mecca’s economic life. (Karsh)

o The Qur’an and Hadith specify that the booty was to be divided between Muhammad
and the warriors participating in the raid, and optionally to women.

o The Qur’an justifies the taking of booty and at times even encourages it.

o Sura 48:20 – “Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture,
and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from
you: that it may be a sign for the believers”

o Some of the most revered booty consisted of the captives themselves. Women and
children captives were shared out among the soldiers after setting aside a fifth for
Muhammad or the current Caliph.

Assure one’s place in paradise

o Entrance into heaven or paradise is not assured for Muslims. On the Day of
Judgment, Allah will weigh one’s good deeds against the bad deeds, using a set of
scales (Sura 23:102-103, 101:6-11). One’s destiny depends on which side of the
scale is heavier, with the final decision left to Allah and his will alone.

o However, Muslim warriors, or mujahidin, are exempt from the Day of Judgment and
gain immediate entrance into paradise if they are killed during jihad (Sura 3:195; 9:111).
 Sura 3:169-171 provides the foundation for many of the traditions concerning the fate of martyrs.
(169) Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay,
they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision.

(170) They rejoice in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His Bounty
and rejoice for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are
left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall
they grieve.

(171) They rejoice in a Grace and a Bounty from Allah, and that Allah will
not waste the reward of the believers.

 Numerous Hadith traditions also support this idea:

o (Bukhari, 2787) Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause
into Paradise if he is killed.

o (Bukhari, 2801) Jibril (Gabriel) informed the Prophet that they (i.e.
the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made
them pleased.

o (Bukhari, 2818) Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords
(Jihad in Allah’s cause).

o (Sunan Abu Dawud, 2489) An infidel and the one who killed him will
never be brought together in Hell, meaning that a person who kills
an infidel while fighting in Allah’s cause has his sins forgiven and goes to Paradise.

o The guarantee of immediate entrance to Paradise, described as a veritable
garden of pleasure, motivated Muhammad’s early warriors to fight with all
they had. After all, what was there to loose? A win-win proposition: booty
and riches, or Paradise!


Methods of Jihad

Taking disbelievers captive

o Killing disbelievers was not unilaterally required. Taking captives was permitted if this
would benefit Islam or it was likely the captive would convert.

o Sura 47:4 – “So, when you meet (in fight—Jihad in Allah’s Cause) those who
disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of
them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)…Thus
you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the
disbelievers till they embrace Islam and are saved from the punishment
in the Hell-fire”

o Ibn Kathir addresses the disposition of the idolaters and notes the allowance
for “executing some and keeping some as prisoners” in his commentary on Sura 9:5.

Killing disbelievers

o The exhortation for the Muslim to kill or slay Allah’s enemies either openly or while
waiting in ambush is found extensively in both the Qur’an and Hadith, as well as in
the manuals of Islamic law accepted by the majority of Muslims today from the
earliest Islamic jurists.

o Muwatta of Imam Malik – “Make your raids in the name of Allah in the way of Allah.
Fight whoever denies Allah.”

o Sura 8:57: “So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in
order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson”
o Ibn Kathir – “This verse “commands punishing them harshly and inflicting
casualties on them.”

o Sura 9:5 – “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters
wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare
for them each ambush”

o Ibn Kathir – “This verse means to fight the idolaters ‘on the earth in
general, executing some and keeping some as prisoners. Do not wait until
you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts…they
will have no choice but to die or embrace Islam.’”

Jihad in history

o Although the Qur’an and Hadith seem to command jihad, and although Muhammad
taught his followers to “slay the infidels,” is there any evidence from history that
Muslims actually engaged in such practices?

o Bat Ye’or – “According to the juridical concept of jihad, war was the normal state of
relations between Muslims and Christians. All trade and other treaties between
Muslims and Christians were called ‘truce treaties’ or, in effect, declarations of
peace.”

o Peace treaty. Sound familiar? Nothing has changed in 1400+ years.

Muhammad’s biography

o Muhammad personally participated in 27 campaigns, and assisted or oversaw some
59 others. Average 9/year.

o David Cook: “A number of Muhammad’s early biographers refer to his last ten years
of life as al-maghazi (the raids).

o One of Muhammad’s followers, writing in poetry regarding a raid planned on a nearby
pagan tribe: If they do not quickly repent of their error, A valiant band will descend upon them
Which will leave their women husbandless.

It will leave dead men, with vultures wheeling round o Muhammad’s warrior – “All we did was to enjoin chastity and justice and call them to Islam but they received it not, and they treated it as a joke. The ceased not so until I volunteered to attack them where they dwelt.”

o Battle of Badr – 624 A.D. (2 A.H.)
o Began as a raid on a Meccan caravan for its loot. Was one of the richest
caravans that year. Muhammad assembled 300 men to capture the caravan

o The Quraish heard of Muhammad’s plans and had 1,000 warriors to protect
the caravan

o The outnumbered Muslims were ultimately successful. Caravan captured,
Quraish polytheists killed, Muhammad gained significant political clout.

o Biographers record scenes in bloody detail: men’s arms and legs cut off, some
beheaded and the heads presented to Muhammad, who then praised Allah, etc.

o First recorded account where Muhammad promised Paradise for a martyr.

o Battle of the Trench – 627 A.D. (5 A.H.)

o One of the bloodiest during Muhammad’s lifetime

o Army of Jews and pagan Arabs from Mecca plot to attack Medina to kill
Muhammad; end caravan raids.

o Jewish population inside Medina (Qurayza) agrees to assist Meccan coalition;
form two-pronged attack, from both the south and north.

o Meccans stopped by large trench dug around the unfortified section of
Medina. Return to Mecca, their plan having failed.

o Jewish Qurayza tribe in Medina confessed to conspiring with Meccan
contingent; sentence pronounced after they refused to convert to Islam.
 Muhammad personally beheaded 600-800 Jews in one night, throwing their
bodies into the trench.

o Bukhari records: On the day of the battle of the ditch, the Ansar used to say,
‘We are those who have given the pledge to Muhamamd for Jihad (holy
fighting) as long as we live.”

o Invasion of Mecca. Abu Sufyan, tribal leader, forced to “convert” to Islam or loose his
head. He converted.

o Numerous other “convert or die” incidents recorded in the biographies
.
o Final comment by Ibn Ishaq: “God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for
it until men accepted it voluntarily or by force.”

End of Part one

Civil Rights and Hate Crimes

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


The revelations about how the Justice Department dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party over the incident that occurred in front of a Philadelphia voting station leads to a discussion of the entire issue of how to enforce civil rights law, which in turn, leads to a discussion on hate crimes. This also corresponds to a report issued this week by an Orange County agency named the OC Human Relations Commission. Don't ask me what they do. All I know is that they are led by an empty suit named Rusty Kennedy. As I have previously written, I wrote to Kennedy in 2008 complaining about anti-Semitism on the UCI campus, and all I got back was a nastygram because I had also criticized what I considered the lack of an effective response by the university. Anyway, here is the link to the OC Register article on the study on hate crimes in 2009 in Orange County followed by the report itself.


http://www.ocregister.com/news/crimes-267593-hate-report.html


http://egov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/Human%20Relations/Docs/2009_Hate_Crime_Report.pdf


Note: If you go to the above website, you are going to wind up someplace else, so I suggest you go to the OCHRC main site below, see all the happy faces, read all the puff, and then click on the report, which is on the right.


http://egov.ocgov.com/portal/site/ocgov/menuitem.b7b68f4fe8d642ea6a624410100000f7/?vgnextoid=98a2ea093e054110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD&vgnextfmt=default/


So what are we to make of the situation in Orange County, which has evolved into a multi-ethnic county? As for the OC Register article, it is completely centered on hate against Muslims. Note the title and the statements from CAIR. Interestingly, it features as its lead photo, a shot of Muslim Student Union members at UC-Irvine as they were disrupting the speech of the Israeli ambassador to the US last February. I wonder if that incident was included in the stats. Eleven arrests would have had some kind of impact on the OCHRC results, would it not?


If you really look at this study, you are talking about 77 reported instances in 2009, most of which were vandalism and committed by unknown persons. There were only a handful of cases of serious violence. Not a bad record, but one case is one case too many.


First of all, is insulting someone and referring to their ethnicity or religion a crime? Two such incidents are mentioned in the OC Register article in which Muslims were insulted. I do not condone that action, but is it a crime absent a threat? (The boy in the restroom was, in fact, threatened. That is a crime.)

The article mentions that over half of the incidents involve graffiti or vandalism. That is a crime-and especially despicable if in occurs on a religious building, such as a mosque or synagogue. The question I have is whether legally, the offense should be enhanced because of the "hate" aspect. I still have a problem with charging people for what they think as opposed to what they do. Is the motive for a crime not an element of proof rather than part of the charge? For example, if I kill you because I want to rob you or I am a hired killer carrying out a contract, is that any more or less than if I kill you for racial or religious reasons? Of course, self-defense, temporary insanity etc are considered mitigating factors. If I kill you because I just saw you kill my daughter, that would also be a mitigating factor.


Some would argue, quite reasonably, that to assault someone because of their religion or race has implications far greater for society than just the individuals involved. Yet, I think there are some legal issues involved including whether they are applied equally as to who the victims and perpetrators are.


Back to the study. From reading this study, it would appear that non-white, non-Christian minorities are the chief victims. Keep in mind, there were 77 reported incidents. Do we know who the perpetrators are? Or do we just assume they are the old boogey man-whites? For example, who is attacking who? The best this study can tell us is that out of 77 reported cases, the majority of offenders are unknown, but that among known offenders, the majority are white -just as nationwide they add. The numbers on the screen are tiny, but by my adding, it looks like 16 out of 33 known offenders were white (offense not specified), but who's quibbling? They also came up with a figure of 75 cases of unknown perpetrators so it gets rather confusing to a simple guy like me. My conclusion is, since I follow the news, is that the vast majority of incidents in Orange County involve defacing or destruction of religious property (synagogues and mosques) and that the perps are unknown. All in all, we have a pretty good county when it comes to this issue. I wonder how much money this bunch gets paid to put out these statistics based on 77 incidents in a single year. Is it significant to say attacks against a certain group tripled during the year-from 2 to 7? Just nitpicking.


In Los Angeles (not in Orange County), the most serious attacks (deadly) against African-Americans are generally carried out by Hispanics-and vis-versa-due to the gang wars. Drop into any California state prison some time and see how the blacks and the Hispanics get along. Hell, the Hispanics are divided against each other according to whether they are Nortenos or Surenos (North or South-sorry, I can't get the diacritical marks down on my blog).


Another questionable aspect of this study is that the lowest victim group is......whites, of course. Strange since we live in a society where you can pretty much say anything you want about whites and get away with it. Are you telling me that the OCHRC couldn't find a white guy who had never been insulted as a "white so and so"? Maybe they found two, but then again, insulting is not a crime unless it involves a terroristic threat (of violence). Surely, a few have been punched in the nose the past year by a minority.


Let me get a little more daring and lay out this scenario. Suppose I (a white guy) decided one night to take a drive to South Central LA and try out the nightlife. You know, hit a few bars, nightclubs, maybe hit on a few black ladies, maybe get lucky. What do you think is going to happen within the first hour or two?


If you guessed hate crime, you WIN!


Now I know there are still some places and bars in the US where a black guy would be ill-advised to spend the same kind of evening. Yet, the places I have frequented my whole adult life (and they are many) are not like that. The point is that it is all wrong. Expressions of hate toward another group is wrong. Civil rights in the US are supposed to be for all-even the group that historically discriminated against others. What we learned from Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was that everyone should be treated equally. His message was not that only certain groups should be protected, but all groups.


That leads us to the mess in the DOJ and Eric Holder's little fiefdom. It is being alleged that current DOJ policy is to not pursue cases in which minorities commit an act against whites. Unless you believe in the principle of "pay-back" (which has no legal standing), these laws must be applied equally. We now have strong reason to believe that DOJ is not doing that.


Of course, political correctness tells us that society is divided into certain "victim" groups and "oppressor" groups, and that the victim groups deserve special protection. Yes, they deserve protection and a guarantee that we will never go back to "Jim Crow", but at the same time, everyone deserves the same protection. Let's not forget that many "hate crimes" or hateful statements are being made both to minorities and whites by.......other minority groups. If you don't believe me, you need to listen more to the words of the New Black Panthers and their spokesman Malik Shabazz. I have also written many times about anti-Semitic expressions made by Muslims though they are much more frequent and open in other parts of the world as opposed to the US.


That leads me to the topic of Islamophobia, however you wish to define it. Is there Islamophobia in the US? Of course. Millions fear Islamic terrorism. Millions still smolder over 9-11. The recent issue of the NY mosque, acts of terror world-wide, and other expressions of radicalism and hate toward others (mostly coming out of the Middle East) have convinced millions of people that Islam is violent, intolerant and bent on taking over the West. These are legitimate concerns and cannot be swept under the rug in the name of political correctness. The dilemma is how to deal with this evil-and it is evil-without harming innocent and peaceful Muslims in our country who simply wish to go about their daily lives, raise their children as best they can and be left alone.


A major part of the Muslim issue is that political correctness has determined that Muslims are now a major "protected group". Thus, if you talk about these issues or protest against a Ground Zero mosque, you are a hater, you are a bigot, and no American wants to be called that. It is also well known that American Muslim groups like CAIR and others are ready to file lawsuits on a moment's notice. Furthermore, we know that perceived "insults" toward Islam will be answered with violent protests in the Islamic world. Our news media will jump to pump up a story about a misguided pastor who wants to burn Korans, but ignore an imam in Lebanon on tape calling for the beheading of Dutch politician Geert Wilders. (His name is Feiz Muhammad.)


The fact is that double standards have no place in American society. We are a multi-ethnic society, and we are still struggling to make the best of it-and we can. However, the laws and the rules must be the same for all. How sad that the man who was going to "bring us together" (President Obama) is dividing us. How sad that the Department of Justice, which I was proud to work for for almost 25 years in several Republican and Democrat administrations, has come down to the point where it is little different than a local Alabama courthouse in the 1950s.


As for the next OCHRC report on 2010- I can hardly wait. Hopefully, there won't be any incidents to report. Wouldn't that be great? Then Orange County can get rid of Rusty Kennedy and his Human Relations Commission.

Race-Based Corruption at DOJ

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Today, Dept of Justice attorney Christopher Coates testified under oath before the US Civil Rights Commission about his department's handling of the New Black Panther Party case. The Fox News report is linked below. If you can read this account and still maintain that this case is no big deal, I want to hear your reasoning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/24/voting-rights-official-calls-black-panther-dismissal-travesty-justice/

Coates is acting courageously because he is testifying against his employers. Because he supported the statements of J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney on the case, he was transferred from Washington to South Carolina and ordered to ignore a subpoena from the Civil Rights Commission. He is relying on "whistle blower" legislation to protect him from further retaliation.


As a retired career employee of the Justice Department, I think I have a pretty good sense of when the integrity of that department has been compromised. Either civil rights protection is for all, or it is for nobody. This department is in dire need of a housecleaning.


"Bull" Conner must be laughing in his grave.

Buy these bulbs up while you can. CFL? Not in our house for many, many years!

200 more American jobs gone, just like that. The GE Winchester light bulb plant is closing for good. Excellent paying jobs with great benefits, gone. Just a wisp of vapor is all that will remain. This is the LAST incandescent light bulb plant in the United States. Note at the end the employee of 35 years thinks out loud about the 'light police' and that is not too far fetched from reality if cap and trade is ever passed. I had to post this before I go lights out for the night. No pun intended. Thanks Mr. Edison!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Heavy politics at work, limited posting until the weekend. I am burnt out!

For a part time job I am in it up to my elbows with bureaucrats and on the job politicizing. I am an Administrative Assistant and assist giving a test that is used in 33 states to assist people find work. It is an extremely useful tool for those who are out of work or wanting to move up or help with changing careers. Living in Central Oregon, this is a really good tool as the economy is severely depressed here. People need every advantage they can get to help them find a job. I have to work with three different government agencies and am now involved in fighting for continued funding for the test program that is now in jeopardy. The funding is there and it is two agencies that cannot step across the line and say "yes", they are so afraid of making a mistake. Mistakes get made and we learn from them and do a better job by fixing the error. To make this the short version, today was testing day plus three meetings and I am burned out. I am now the ONLY one who knows how to administer these tests in our field office and my 'supervisor'(in name only, trust me)cannot find a new job soon enough. I am not a bureaucrat and do not play the work place political game well at all. I say what needs to be said, give my opinions when requested and let the bruising end up where it does. My stock has gone up tremendously in the last month and this all may work out well for me as I was told today by our field office manager and regional manager that they want and need me to stick around. I am blessed to have any work in this region even if the pay is poor, for now. I have been asked to represent the testing program in several meetings next week as I work directly with the Job Seekers and I see the difference this test can make in a person's attitude, outlook and life. I need to very careful and not mention the agencies involved or any names. I am sure you all can understand.


I just got back from urgent care and have been dosed with a ton of narcotics for pain and I am heading for some long overdue rest. I will be back tomorrow night and over the weekend and apologize for the break. Just a dip in the road. I have a bunch of good posts waiting to get posted, and they will. Thanks for understanding.

American Jews still love the NWO; anti-Semtic democratic party

This is from China Confidential and will be the last post for today/tonight. The article is pretty long but I would rather have the complete article here for your convenience. I find this a very sad state of affairs for American Jews.We are friends with some very far left Jews and JINOS who love the far left democratic party of today. Once upon a time the democratic party was one that was the real deal. One that cared about the people of this country, and watching out for us. One of the last great democrats was Henry 'Scoop' Jackson. While no politician or person can ever be perfect or appeal to all of us, Mr. Jackson was about as close as one could get, at least in my view. This was the democratic party of my Mother and most of the family I grew up with. That party is long gone and by the time I turned 21 in 1974, I realized what was happening and started becoming extremely conservative and a Constitutional Conservative. Please read the entire article if you can. It is is very informative! Introduction is from China Confidential.

---

From China Confidential:Incredibly, most Jewish voters in the United States still slavishly cling to the nation's ruling (for the time being) Democratic Party, even though this once-great political organization--the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman and the late U.S. Senator Henry M. "Scoop"Jackson and labor leader George Meany--is increasingly anti-Israel and, shocking as this may seem, anti-Semitic. Yes, downright, openly anti-Semitic.

Hatred of Jews is clearly tolerated (a favorite liberal word) and maybe, even, encouraged by today's left-wing, antidemocratic, Democratic Party activists and ideologues.
--------------------------------------------------

From American Thinker:
The Democratic Party and the Jews
By Ed Lasky

The Democratic Party has been a congenial political home for many American Jews since the era of FDR. The party welcomed them into its ranks (along with many blacks and urban dwellers) and its programs comported well with many values Jews cherish. The Party was also seen as one that had offered help to the doomed Jews of Europe, opposed prejudice, and supported the fledgling state of Israel from enemies that boasted of its plans to destroy the state.

Conversely, the Republican Party was perceived to be a WASP enclave, isolationist in its outlook, and weak on support for Israel (though George C. Marshall under the Truman Administration advocated abandoning Israel to the tender mercies of its Arab neighbors).

However, these views are now anachronistic and need to be revisited.

Developments in the Democratic Party bode ill for the Jewish people and for the state of Israel — home of up to 40% of the world's remaining Jewish population. The rank and file of the Party has become increasingly anti—Semitic and support for Israel has noticeably fallen. Democratic Congressmen have reflected this trend in very visible ways: their votes and actions in Congress reveal that support for Israel has eroded in alarming ways. Furthermore, more than a few Democratic Congressman have openly made statements that are either clearly anti—Semitic or can be fairly construed to be at least, 'anti—Semitic in effect, if not intent'.

These disconcerting trends can be observed by a bottom—up approach: looking at the grassroots base of the Democratic Party, how these views are expressed in Congress, and how the Democratic leadership has responded to these developments. Since the House of Representatives appears to be headed toward a Democratic majority and certain key Chairmanships will fall into the hands of Democrats with anti—Israel histories, these trends will have very serious implications for Jews and for the state of Israel.

Grassroots - The rise of the internet as a political force is a widely heralded phenomena. Political blogs have achieved a high level of influence in the Democratic Party—certainly more so than in the Republican Party. They also provide a very visible means to take the tone of the Democratic electorate and for Jews; this should strike a discordant tone. As several pundits have noted, the blogs have become a hot bed for anti—Semitic sentiments.

In this Wall Street Journal op—ed, Bill Clinton's former Special Counsel, Lanny Davis expressed his distress at the increasing tide of anti—Semitism and vitriol spewing forth from Democratic blogs. Examples he noted:

• "Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an American who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).
• "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).
• On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews [sic] ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).
• "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

Hugh Hewitt has also noted the anti—Semitic feelings lighting up the Democratic blogs.

Cartoons more suitable in Iranian street protests calling for the destruction of Israel, have graced the pages of Daily Kos (the leading, by page views, Democratic blog) . Other greatest hits on Daily Kos include entries extolling the benefit to the world if Israel did not exist, another praising 'the Iranian President' for being 'absolutely right to suggest that Israel cease being a sovereign state as is', and others suggesting Israel commits terrorism on a daily basis.

Lest these commentators be dismissed as a lunatic fringe, national surveys show a very clear decline in support for Israel among all Democrats. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in late July showed a strong gap between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to support for Israel. Among Republicans, an overwhelming 84% say they sympathize more with Israel than Arab states (which 1% of Republicans sympathize with) compared to just 43% of Democrats who do so (12% sympathize with Arab states).

These declines are confirmed by a separate Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll regarding views towards Hezbollah, the genocide preaching terror group that launched yet another attack on Israel two months ago leading to a month—long war between Israel and Hezbollah. Regarding whether America should align itself with Israel, Democrats support neutrality over alignment, 54% to 39%. By comparison, Republicans strongly supported alignment with Israel, 64% to 29%.

While it may be true that netizens within the Democratic Party harbor more extreme views than Democrats, their extremism seems to be shifting the Democratic Party toward their more extreme views. In a superb Weekly Standard article ('Bad Company: Is the left—wing blogosphere a growing political force or an electoral burden?'), Dean Barnett analyzes the dynamics behind this pull on the Democratic Party by bloggers and their activist fan clubs.

Several developments highlight the impact these blogs have had on the Democratic Party. Howard Dean's presidential candidacy was fueled by funds raised from netizens, and when his campaign fizzled he was able to use support from the blogosphere to assume Chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. The yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas has drawn Democratic political leaders and presidential aspirants who come to pay homage to the Kossaks.

Is it a sign of the times, that Kos took pride in sabotaging two campaigns in particular: those of Martin Frost (the moderate — and Jewish — Democrat from Texas who had hoped to become the DNC Chair) and Senator Joe Lieberman — perhaps, America's most widely respected Jewish Senator?

The strength of the bloggers and those who follow them derives from their 'intensity'. When used in the world of politics, intensity refers to the level of activity and devotion that partisans apply to campaigns. Even when relatively small in number, small groups that have high 'intensity' can have a huge impact on politics in America.

The internet, because of its low costs, has allowed the power of small donations, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of donors, to rise within the Democratic Party. Moreover, and more importantly, such extreme partisans can be relied—upon to be the unpaid foot soldiers involved in the crucial get—out—the—vote efforts that are often the deciding factors in campaigns. Perhaps it is not surprising that Democratic leaders and presidential aspirants Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mark Warner, John Kerry have all tried to curry favor with the netizens, a group that seem to be increasingly corrupted by anti—Semitism.

Moreover, the increasing proliferation and importance of so—called 527 groups may play a roll in the increasing anti—Israel attitudes within the Democratic Party base. These are groups that can engage in partisan advocacy campaigns about the 'issues'. While purportedly forbidden from targeting individual candidates, they have in fact been used in this manner.

They are also a useful means to skirt federal laws limiting the amount individuals can give to federal campaigns. However, they can also utilize another loophole: donors to these 527 campaigns do not have to be disclosed and they can also be foreigners. Are anti—Israel governments funding these advocacy groups? Arab oil billionaires have certainly found the means to influence public opinion by purchasing stakes in media properties and paying lavishly for news service feeds to their own networks and publications, endowing universities, and hiring former government officials with a view to influencing current policies. The logical step would be to cover all the bases: including those of the Democratic Party.*

Congress - Politicians are very attuned to public opinion polls and always have a wet finger to the wind to determine which way they should be swayed. Again, political partisans are not only the most likely voters, but also the most energized activists who can be utilized during political campaigns as cheap labor. However, more than a few Democratic Congressmen seem to be ignoring the maxim 'do no harm' and have taken the lead in comments and actions that should be disconcerting to every Jewish person (and every American).

• James Moran (D—Va.) felt free in 2003 to state that the leaders of America's Jewish community sent America into war in Iraq to benefit Israel. These comments were echoed by Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings (now retired) who, on the floor of the Senate, said that Bush had sent the country to war in order to win 'Jewish votes' — this despite the fact that American Jews opposed the war by greater percentages than the rest of America and that they vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is the type of high—level analysis popular on neo—Nazi websites and Arab terror group. Oh, and on leading Democratic blogs, too.
• Cynthia McKinney ran a stridently anti—Semitic campaign in 2002; when she was defeated in that campaign she blamed the Jews for her defeat (her father, who also has a history of anti—Semitism, spelled out publicly who was responsible 'J—E—W—S'). She had also objected to the Bush Administration pull out from the Durban Conference against racism when it became clear it had turned into an anti—Semitic hate—fest. She has also been the recipient of a high level of Arab—American political donations, some linked to terror—supporting groups or individuals.
• McKinney's colleague Alabama Democratic Earl Hilliard had a history of anti—Israel positions and used anti—Semitism to appeal to his constituents. His opponent was Artur Davis. Hilliard's campaign slogan was'Davis and the Jews, bad for the black belt'. Hilliard was defeated a few years ago, as was McKinney. However, McKinney was re—elected in the next cycle. She continued her anti—Israel activities in the current term, but was defeated and will not be serving in the next Congress. One can speculate 'she will be back'.
• Charles Rangel stated, 'the Iraq war was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country just as bad as six million Jews being killed' (Democratic Senator Durbin also made facile and insensitive comparisons of the torture and murder meted out by the Nazis to the actions of a few wayward guards at Abu Ghraib). Rangel has a history of tangling with the Anti—Defamation League but blames his problems with the ADL on their desire to create controversy to raise money.
• Leading Democratic Congressman John Conyers is on the House Judiciary Committee and held a mock impeachment hearing to criticize President Bush. The hearing did much more than that, however. Conyers called 'expert witnesses' who had histories of peddling anti—Semitic conspiracy theories regarding the 'cabal that controls the White House.'
• The meeting was attended by 30 Democratic Congressmen. One of the witnesses, Ray McGovern, declared that the US went to war for 'Oil, Israel, and military bases coveted by neocons so that the US and Israel could dominate that part of the world'.
  
  He also said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was 'doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon', Israel's Prime Minister at the time. The aforementioned James Moran cheered him on, despite (or because of?) McGovern admitted that a former head of the CIA had characterized him as being anti—Semitic. While this inquisition was underway, activists were handing out anti—Semitic leaflets at the Democratic National Campaign headquarters—where the proceedings were being telecast.
• The most senior Democrat from Michigan, John Dingell, declared himself ambivalent about which side he wanted to win in the war between Hezb'allah and Israel. Hezb'allah has in its charter that its goal is a genocide against the Jews (not 'just' the destruction of Israel. Hezb'allah is the number one terror group in the world. It has killed hundreds of innocent Jews in Argentina, hundreds of Americans sent to Lebanon as peace—keepers, and makes clear its desire to continue such 'good works'.
  
  Nevertheless, Dingell states that ' I don't take sides for or against Hezb'allah, or for and against Israel'. He has certainly shown it during his years in Congress, where he has compiled an anti—Israel voting record. Perhaps he is being educated on the issues by the websites that he linked to on his own official website: they included groups support Hezb'allah (when these links were publicized, Dingell took them down).
• Jim McDermott, the Democratic Congressman from Washington, enjoyed his moment in the sun by traveling to Iraq before the war started to support Saddam Hussein. This particular travel junket was paid for by an Arab—American 'charity' group recently raided by the FBI and IRS. The federal government is investigating the group, which it suspects violated sanctions regarding doing business with Iraq.
• The Democratic nominee for Congress in Minnesota's Fifth District is a Black Muslim who has a long history of anti—Semitism that he has tried to obfuscate by a variety of means—including name changes and pseudonyms. He seems to be following the Cynthia McKinney playbook.
• Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic Congressman from Hawaii who takes such pride in his anti—Israel stance that he was the sole 'No' in a Resolution that stated that America should never give foreign aid to a Palestinian government if it is controlled by people calling for Israel's destruction. He also was one of 8 members who voted 'No' on House Resolution 921 that defended Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah. See also 'Neil Abercrombie, D—Hezbollah' - on Front Page Magazine - for a further analysis of his voting record.

Other prominent Democrats who may not currently serve but certainly have sway within the party include such anti—Israel and anti—Semitic luminaries as Jesse Jackson (who described New York City as 'Hymietown' and said he 'was sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust') and the Reverend Al Sharpton who led an anti—Semitic pogrom in Harlem and rails against 'diamond merchants' and 'bloodsuckers' in black communities. Both of these figures flanked Ned Lamont during his speech when he declared victory against Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

Of course, Jimmy Carter is the elder statesman of the Democratic Party. He had pride of place at the Democratic National Convention. His anti—Israel stances are by now widely known through innumerable op—eds and speeches he has given (his new book will be titled 'Palestine: Peace or Apartheid' ) that are basically screeds against Israel. Little—appreciated is that he held these views, and others that can be construed as anti—Semitic, during his Presidency. According to Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, had Carter won a second term he 'would have sold Israel down the river.'

These anecdotes might give a flavor regarding the views of the Democratic Party. However, the plural of anecdote is not data and it would certainly be more probative to look at voting trends among Democratic members of Congress, with the focus on the House of Representatives. Since Senators are voted in to office by statewide votes, they tend to have more moderate voting records because they must appeal to a large variety of people.

Representatives, on the other hand, are elected by voters in their districts and these are often gerrymandered to ensure incumbents' reelections. The unfortunate side effect is that Representatives can become hostages to extreme activist groups within their districts.To be re—elected time and time again they often engage in a type of hyperptrophism: they become more ardent supporters of the views of these groups than they otherwise would be, had they been incumbents in more broadly drawn districts (hence, some of the more anti—Israel Representatives have districts with large Arab—American populations such as around Detroit (in particular Dearborn, which has been nicknamed Dearbornistan), Toledo, and certain areas of California.

Recent voting patterns among Democrats regarding legislation impacting the US—Israel alliance are discouraging.

The Palestinian Anti—Terrorism Act was an attempt to funnel aid to the Palestinians in a way that did not empower terror groups and encouraged peaceful negotiations with Israel. While the House passed it in May of this year, 37 votes were cast against it (because they objected to the restrictions carefully designed to prevent the use of the aid to commit terror attacks). Thirty—one of them were from Democrats (the 'Nos' included Abercrombie, Dingell, Moran, David Obey, Nick Rahall). Of the 9 Representatives who voted present (a weak 'no'), all were Democrats.

The Iran Freedom Support Act was crafted as a way to support the Iranian people in efforts to reform a regime that has promised to 'wipe Israel off the map' (and has an active nuclear program geared to do so). The Act passed the House but with 21 members voting against it—15 of them were Democrats (including Obey, McKinney, Rahall, McDermott, Kucinich).

Most recently, on the other side of the Capitol, the Senate voted on a bill to place restrictions on the use of US—made cluster bombs. These were used by Israel in its efforts to defend itself against Hezb'allah. Both Hezb'allah and the Palestinians have versions of their own cluster munitions: vests and missiles filled with ball bearings and nails designed to shred Israeli civilians. (Even though the Palestinians use these weapons, Congress still insists on giving them foreign aid). The measure was introduced by Senators Leahy (Democrat) and Feinstein (Democrat).

Cluster bombs are in the arsenals of over 50 nations and are acceptable as a way to defend one's people. Nevertheless, the Senate tried to crimp Israel's ability to use the. Who voted to hurt Israel? Thirty Democrats and zero Republicans.

Senate Democrats have also led the campaign to prevent John Bolton from serving as America's Ambassador to the United Nations (he currently serves by virtue of a recess appointment). Bolton has not only served America ably in representing our interests over the years, he has also been a friend to the Jewish people. He single—handedly took it upon himself to have the UN repeal the noxious ' Zionism is Racism' resolution by Herculean efforts (for an inspirational account, see this). He also was instrumental in the creation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, a very effective measure in curbing the spread of the very type of weapons of mass destruction that are an existential threat to Israel (the program helped to uncover and stop Libya's nuclear program). He has been a firm supporter of the American—Israel friendship. He also has the enmity of many in the Democratic Party.

There are those who rejoice at the turn in the Democratic Party. The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs is easily the most anti—Israel publication in America. Based in Washington, D.C., its pages are filled with screeds against Israel and it lobbies for the end of US support for Israel. Anti—Semitism has also appeared in the pages of the magazine. In the current issue, the magazine has published its annual 'Hall of Fame' that honors Congressmen it considers to be anti—Israel. At the top of the list among Senators, is Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat), aformer Ku Klux Klan Kleagle, Democratic baron, and the holder of one of the most anti—Israel records in Congress. In terms of the House, 29 members hold this dubious distinction — all of them Democrats (including Abercrombie, Conyers, David Obey, Jesse Jackson Jr., McDermott).

The implications of a Democrat—majority House - Many pundits have been predicting that the House will have a Democrat majority after the mid—term elections in November (since the Senate seems securely Republican and tends to be more moderate — for the aforementioned districting reasons — this analysis will focus on the House). This would hold perils that are unappreciated.

The majority party controls the naming of Chairmanships of the Committees in the House. These posts usually follow seniority. Several of the most senior Democrats hail from districts that are anti—Israel, particularly the Michigan Congressmen. Chairs are the gateway to legislation. Chairs can control items on the agenda of the committees, table measures they do not support, and bollix up the work of the Committee to such an extent that they become black holes where legislation is never heard from again.

What chairmanships will accrue to them and what acts can they take that would effect American Jews and the state Israel?

John Conyers will assume the Chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. He has made clear his intention to hold an impeachment proceeding against George Bush. Given that his previous 'mock' hearing became a mini—orgy of anti—Semitism, can we look forward to a repeat performance? This inquisition would be much more public as it would occur on the House itself, with all its trappings of power and authority. Will he again enable conspiracy theorist to dredge up anti—Semitic canards, this time to be placed in the Congressional Record and before all of the nation to see and hear? Will that please his base of Arab—Americans back home in Michigan? He is a member of the Hall of Fame of anti—Israel Congressmen.

John Dingell will assume the Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Will he seek to prevent America from becoming more energy self—sufficient and thereby help empower Arab oil—exporting nations? Will he take actions that would upset the Arab—Americans in his community? He is a member of the Hall of Fame of anti—Israel Congressmen.

David Obey will become Chair of the Appropriations Committee. This is the committee responsible for drafting the legislation authorizing spending by the U.S. Government. He will very clearly cut the defense budget wherever possible and direct money to domestic programs. Military Aid is key to Israel's ability to defend itself. Will Obey cut aid to Israel, as he has already voiced a desire to do (over the settlements issue)? Will he try to cut funding for military programs that create high—tech weapons? These are the very defense items that we supply to our ally Israel and that give her a qualitative edge over foes that vastly outnumber her. Will he leave the inventory of America's arsenal so low that there may not be enough weapons to send to Israel if she is attacked? It was the emergency airlift of excess military supplies made available because of the winding down of the war in Vietnam that enabled Israel to avoid destruction in the 1973 War. Obey is a member of the Hall of Fame of anti—Israel Congressman.

Charles Rangel, who has publicly feuded with the Anti—Defamation League for years and compares the Iraq War to the Holocaust, would become Chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. This Committee has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs, and other revenue—raising measures. Anti—Israel Congressmen have periodically threatened the tax—deductibility of charity aid going to Israel. Would he oppose such a measure when 'push came to shove'? Would the Committee enact trade legislation that would harm one of our major trading partners, Israel, as a way to exert pressure? Rangel is a member of the Hall of Fame of anti—Israel Congressmen.

Neil Abercrombie will become Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services. A flourishing and synergistic trade in defense goods exists between Israel and American. Access to the high—tech weapons that America produces helps to offset the advantages Arab nations have in manpower and oil wealth. Yet, Abercrombie is on record as opposing the purchase of Israeli munitions, stating,'by no means, under any circumstances, should a round from Israel be utilized' in Iraq or Afghanistan. While this kowtowing to Arab sensibilities might be justifiable, it has to be seen in the context of a member with one of the worst voting records regarding Israel—American relations in the House. When a member proudly stands as the only member to vote no on a Resolution that merely offered Israel a mild degree of support in its battle against Hezb'allah, one wonders what he might do when he is further empowered. Will he cut the close ties the Israeli military has with the American armed forces? Will he put a halt on the trade in defense goods vital to Israel's security as it faces existential threats to its survival? He is a member of the Hall of Fame of anti—Israel members. Given his record, why wouldn't he be?

Nancy Pelosi, who will become Speaker of the House if the Democrats attain a majority there, has reportedly 'cut a deal' with the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) involving the House Intelligence Committee. Should the Democrats attain a majority in the House, the Chairmanship would normally fall to Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, as the ranking Democrat. Instead, Pelosi hopes to curry favor with the CBC by skipping Harman and rewarding the chair to Congressman Alcee Hastings (D—Fla.). Hastings was formerly a federal judge, but was impeached and convicted 18 years ago on charges of extortion, perjury and falsifying documents. Do we want someone with that background to be the head of one of the most sensitive committees in the House, particularly in an age of terror? The intelligence services of America and Israel have close working relationships. Will Hastings try to disrupt these relationships? Certainly the Congressional Black Caucus has not, in general, been supportive of the America —Israel relationship.

As noted above, Nancy Pelosi may very well become our next Speaker of the House and exercise vast powers of control over the proceedings there. While generally a supporter of the American—Israel friendship, her district is in San Francisco, a hotbed for anti—Israel agitation. Many protests in her district feature signs that mar the beauty of her city with imagery reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Has she denounced these protests? Has she disciplined the members in her party that have expressed anti—Semitism? No.

Recently, her record regarding Israel—American relations has weakened. Two months ago, she refused to support a Resolution expressing support for Israel because she wanted to attach language asking Israel to limit civilian casualties — a nod to extremist in her party who accuse Israel of wantonly killing civilians. Does Israel need to be scolded over the issue of protecting civilians when it has clearly lost its own children in trying to do so?

The loyalty American Jews have shown to the Democratic Party is increasingly not appreciated or reciprocated. As the Jewish population faces demographic decline, the Democratic Party is increasingly beholden to groups for which Israel is of no importance whatsoever (unions, for example). Several groups that form the core of the Democratic Party have anti—Semitism rates that are higher than the American population as a whole. As the party skews to the left, it has increasingly adopted the anti—Israel philosophy and attitudes that animate so many on the left.

Conversely, the Republican Party has never been more welcoming to Jews nor as supportive of Israel. The party has welcomed an increasing number of Jews to its ranks, and its candidates garner an increasing number of votes from Jewish voters. While Democrats demagogue the rise of evangelicals in America (and in the Republican Party) and demonize them as a threat to the Jews, such mythmaking does not reflect the fact that evangelicals cherish the Jewish people, for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with end—of—days scenarios. Indeed, Jews have assumed leadership posts in the Republican Party. While Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean joyously dances with a keffiyah draped over his shoulders, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman waxes nostalgically and publicly about his Bar Mitzvah.

Jews have faced many challenges throughout their history. Iran is one of the most dangerous enemies Israel has ever had: an oil—rich nation with an active nuclear program that has made clear its intention to wipe Israel off the map. A Democratic Party that is increasingly dominated by anti—Israel members, as shown by surveys and Congressional votes, will not be a dependable ally. The fact that more than a few have also expressed , or enabled others to publicly express, anti—Semitism should distress all Americans. However, those contemplating these prospects should do more. Much more.

In an era when over half the world's Jews face the prospect of annihilation, it is time to reconsider old habits and political alignments. The ability of Jews to survive over the ages has depended on the ability to recognize that situations change and people have to adapt. At times, such changes have compelled Jews to move on to 'greener pastures' — to more welcoming and supportive places. This is now such a time— a time for the Jews to reconsider the other side of the aisle.

* George Soros is an admittedly anti—Israel Democrat partisan who has become the chief funder of 527 Groups and other Democratic Party organizations and officials. He is also the principle backer of groups such as the Human Rights Watch, which is notoriously biased against Israel.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker and on "The Democratic Party and the Jews."
Hat tip and thanks to China Confidential