French movie producer Pierre Rehov, in his short film, How to Make a Hamas Hero, quotes clerics, Hamas terrorists, and their moms about the kind of education they have received.
In Seventy Two Virgins he interviews homicide bombers who got before they could blow themselves up. One ,states, “If I died, my mother would have considered it a blessing. I’m basically good because I don’t drink…” The terrorists filmed in 72 Virgins in Paradise claim that had their martyrdom succeeded. they would be guaranteed 72 virgins in Paradise. Proud of suicide bombers, an Arab mother states, “It’s written in the Koran that when a martyr blows himself up, it’s good. He doesn’t feel pain.” Another Arab mother says, “We don’t just fight against occupation. Our goal is to spread Islam everywhere.”
Folks watch these videos--THIS is what we are fighting against:
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Hamas Says It For Me---TONY BLAIR IS STUPID !!!
Tomorrow the Times of London is publishing and Interview with the former British PM who is now the Mid East Envoy For the EU.
As envoy, Blair has been pushing the same nonsense that hasn't worked for forty years: "Land for Peace, Israel is the bad occupier, the terrorists really do want to reform, It's All Israel's fault" and one of his favorites, "Abbas/Arafat has nothing to do with the military wing of Fatah".
The Envoy stayed on script for his interview. He announced that Hamas must be invited to participate in the Middle East "peace" negotiations.
Hamas' reaction was Blair's statement was evidence of his stupidity. OMG...I agree with Hamas ! More Below:
Hamas: Blair's suggestion 'testifies to his stupidity'
Jan. 31, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
After Middle East Quartet envoy to the region Tony Blair said in in an interview to The Times that Hamas must be involved in the peace process, the movement and its leaders issues statements both denouncing Blair and drawing strength from his comments.
Mushir al-Masri, chairman of the Hamas faction in the Palestinian Authority parliament said "Tony Blair's words prove that Europe and the world understand that all attempts to uproot Hamas and erase it from the Palestinian scene have failed, and that today we are the first and foremost power" representing Palestinians.
Echoing Blair, Masri said "the only gate into the Palestinian issue and its transformation into any agreement cannot occur unless through Hamas - a movement that cannot be ignored."
However, in a published statement, Masri said Blair's comments were "utterly foolish and useless." He said the sentiment the Quartet's envoy expressed to the Times was "a return to the same obstacles erected by the West, as an excuse to postpone Palestinian democracy, continuing the siege of the Palestinian people and granting the Zionist enemies the cover to commit their crimes - the last of which was the Gaza war and the refusal to recognize the legitimate parliament and government of the Palestinians."
Masri added that "raising this suggestion [to involve Hamas in the peace process] testifies to Blair's stupidity and the stupidity of those who insist on this idiotic offer."
In an interview published in the Times Saturday, Blair said Hamas must be involved in the peace process in the Middle East.
The former UK prime minister said that in the past, the issue of the Gaza Strip had been neglected in an effort to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Such an effort, he was quoted as saying, "was never going to work and will never work."
"Yes, we do need to show through the change we are making on the West Bank that the Palestinian state could be a reality. The trouble is that if you simply try to push Gaza to one side then eventually what happens is the situation becomes so serious that it erupts and you deliver into the hands of the mass the power to erupt at any point in time," he surmised.
He did add, however, that Hamas must both renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist before it could be included in any talks.
"I do think it is important that we find a way of bringing Hamas into this process, but it can only be done if Hamas are prepared to do it on the right terms," the London-based paper quoted Blair as saying.
Blair warned that any such efforts must be made carefully, saying, "If you do this in the wrong way it can destabilize the very people in Palestine who have been working all through for the moderate cause".
"We do have to find a way of making sure that the choice is put before Hamas and the people of Gaza in a clear, understandable, unambiguous way, for them to choose their future. You have to find a way of communicating that choice to them in their terms. Now exactly what way you choose at the moment, that is an open question," he opined.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Middle East Arguments are "A TRIFLE ONE-SIDED*
A TRIFLE ONE-SIDED*
By Barry Rubin
David Grossman, an Israeli writer, penned an essay entitled “Israel's success in Gaza only proves it is strong, not right.” Aside from the irony of his being Israeli, Grossman’s ideas are the ultimate expression of Western reaction to the terrorist extremist challenge.
To his credit, Grossman notes there have been Palestinian “crimes and mistakes,” that the other side prefers violence, and that ignoring this “would be tantamount to belittling and condescending to them, as if they were not mature adults with minds of their own, responsible for their own decisions and failures.”
But, he concludes, since Israel is stronger, it somehow controls the conflict’s level of violence, able to be “calming it down and even bringing it to an end.” How, he asks, will peace “ever come if we fail to comprehend just how grave is the responsibility that lies on our shoulders” for achieving it?
Grossman is upset that Israelis feel united and confident, complaining about, “Those who have taught us over the years to scoff at belief in peace and any hope for change in our relations with the Arabs. Those who have convinced us that the Arabs understand only force, and therefore that is the only language we can use in our dealings with them.”
He adds, “And because we have spoken to them for so long in that language…we have forgotten that there are other languages for speaking to human beings, even to enemies, even bitter foes like Hamas” not just “the language of planes and tanks.”
The reason why almost everyone in Israel disagrees with Grossman, however, isn’t that they have forgotten anything but that they remember so accurately. It is no accident that Grossman’s article is so vague and ahistorical because for him to cite specific examples must raise the sad fact that “those who have taught us over the years to scoff at belief in peace and any hope for change in our relations with the Arabs,” are the Palestinians themselves.
Why doesn’t he mention the 1993-2000 peace process experience? Why not one word about radical Islamism? Because what undercuts his claims are two realities he won’t face and a psychological crutch that he and some others understandably cannot do without.
The first reality is that Israel remembers the Palestinian and Syrian rejection of peace. From 1993 to 2000, Israel made deep concessions and took great risks. The Palestinian leadership and Syria turned down a plan which included returning the entire Golan Heights and establishing an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.
Grossman and those thinking like him forget that Palestinian rejection of peace makes Israelis conclude logically that Palestinians aren’t ready to make peace. Even Fatah forces in Gaza—the “moderates”—brag not only about firing more than 100 rockets at Israel but also of fighting alongside Islamic Jihad, a group even more extreme than Hamas!
The second reality he ignores is radical Islamism’s rise. Hamas and Hizballah, Iran, Muslim Brotherhoods, and even Islamist impersonator Syria, aren’t persuadable through dialogue. They reject all lessons of the Middle East’s last 60 years. They want to fight for decades; they expect total victory.
Israelis know these forces won’t be moderated by Israeli words or deeds. Grossman’s good will doesn’t interest the other side. Nice well-meaning people who oppose violence, advocate compromise, and offer huge concessions face those wanting to wipe them off the map, rejecting compromise, and interpreting other’s concessions as surrender.
It’s no accident that Grossman and those who talk like him know little of Middle East politics and have less contact with Arabs or Muslims than those disagreeing with them. Hamas has no difficulty believing such people exist because they embody the Islamists’ stereotype of a weak West fearing violence, begging for mercy, and being easily beaten. Indeed, Grossman’s piece has already been translated into Arabic and cited as proof that Israel suffered a defeat in Gaza.
Part of dialogue is to hear what the other side says. Do so with Hamas and Iran; see if you still believe in dialogue. Here is what key Hamas leader Ismail Radwan said in a post-war victory rally: "Gaza is not our goal. The liberation of all of Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea, God willing, will be achieved." Sorry, David, I don’t think you are going to make him change his mind.
That brings us to the psychological crutch: wishful thinking. It’s hard to face a life-long confrontation with evil forces seeking your utter destruction. It’s unpleasant to admit there’s no alternative to waging that struggle.
In contrast, it’s empowering to say: We can solve this with words and sensitivity. That’s why Grossman sounds sensible to outsiders knowing little and irrelevant to those understanding the specific situation:
“We must initiate speech,” says Grossman, “insist on speech, let no one put us off.” It doesn’t matter if “dialogue seems hopeless from the start” because it will protect us far more than “hundreds of planes dropping bombs.” Why is that? Because we will all come to our senses once we understand how much harm we do to each other and how “utterly senseless” is violence.
Talk is cheap. How strange is the assumption that once both sides grasp the horror of killing their enemies they’ll be repelled. But Hamas isn’t repelled it’s thrilled. As for the idea that violence is “senseless,” Hamas thinks it a glorious and sensible means to achieve its goal.
There is, of course, an alternative dialogue with Palestinians and Arabs. Deal with the Palestinian Authority— without illusions—for minimum violence and maximum mutual benefit. Cooperate with Arab states that hate Hamas, the Islamists, and Iran because of their own interests. But this requires intimidating, deterring, weakening, and discrediting Hamas. Which is why the Gaza war was imperative and concessions to Hamas are disastrous.
Beyond strategic considerations is a profound trauma, a bewildering contradiction to everything the Western intellectual, artist or policymaker holds dear. Enlightenment Man meets the Dark Ages’ advocate who sneers at reason; Realpolitik Man meets those indifferent to interests; Materialistic Man meets those repelled by materialism; and Humanistic Man meets those who glory in death and destruction. .
When one talks of such dialogue I think of the U.S. official who, interrogating captured al-Qaida men in Afghanistan in 2003, asked one, “Why did you come here?” The terrorist answered: “To kill you.” And he did. End of dialogue.
* A reference to the film "Casablanca." When Rick wants to speak to a prisoner the Germans have already killed, he is told that you are welcome to speak with him but, says Captain Renard, "I'm afraid you'd find the conversation a trifle one-sided."
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include The Truth About Syria; The Tragedy of the Middle East; and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.
By Barry Rubin
David Grossman, an Israeli writer, penned an essay entitled “Israel's success in Gaza only proves it is strong, not right.” Aside from the irony of his being Israeli, Grossman’s ideas are the ultimate expression of Western reaction to the terrorist extremist challenge.
To his credit, Grossman notes there have been Palestinian “crimes and mistakes,” that the other side prefers violence, and that ignoring this “would be tantamount to belittling and condescending to them, as if they were not mature adults with minds of their own, responsible for their own decisions and failures.”
But, he concludes, since Israel is stronger, it somehow controls the conflict’s level of violence, able to be “calming it down and even bringing it to an end.” How, he asks, will peace “ever come if we fail to comprehend just how grave is the responsibility that lies on our shoulders” for achieving it?
Grossman is upset that Israelis feel united and confident, complaining about, “Those who have taught us over the years to scoff at belief in peace and any hope for change in our relations with the Arabs. Those who have convinced us that the Arabs understand only force, and therefore that is the only language we can use in our dealings with them.”
He adds, “And because we have spoken to them for so long in that language…we have forgotten that there are other languages for speaking to human beings, even to enemies, even bitter foes like Hamas” not just “the language of planes and tanks.”
The reason why almost everyone in Israel disagrees with Grossman, however, isn’t that they have forgotten anything but that they remember so accurately. It is no accident that Grossman’s article is so vague and ahistorical because for him to cite specific examples must raise the sad fact that “those who have taught us over the years to scoff at belief in peace and any hope for change in our relations with the Arabs,” are the Palestinians themselves.
Why doesn’t he mention the 1993-2000 peace process experience? Why not one word about radical Islamism? Because what undercuts his claims are two realities he won’t face and a psychological crutch that he and some others understandably cannot do without.
The first reality is that Israel remembers the Palestinian and Syrian rejection of peace. From 1993 to 2000, Israel made deep concessions and took great risks. The Palestinian leadership and Syria turned down a plan which included returning the entire Golan Heights and establishing an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.
Grossman and those thinking like him forget that Palestinian rejection of peace makes Israelis conclude logically that Palestinians aren’t ready to make peace. Even Fatah forces in Gaza—the “moderates”—brag not only about firing more than 100 rockets at Israel but also of fighting alongside Islamic Jihad, a group even more extreme than Hamas!
The second reality he ignores is radical Islamism’s rise. Hamas and Hizballah, Iran, Muslim Brotherhoods, and even Islamist impersonator Syria, aren’t persuadable through dialogue. They reject all lessons of the Middle East’s last 60 years. They want to fight for decades; they expect total victory.
Israelis know these forces won’t be moderated by Israeli words or deeds. Grossman’s good will doesn’t interest the other side. Nice well-meaning people who oppose violence, advocate compromise, and offer huge concessions face those wanting to wipe them off the map, rejecting compromise, and interpreting other’s concessions as surrender.
It’s no accident that Grossman and those who talk like him know little of Middle East politics and have less contact with Arabs or Muslims than those disagreeing with them. Hamas has no difficulty believing such people exist because they embody the Islamists’ stereotype of a weak West fearing violence, begging for mercy, and being easily beaten. Indeed, Grossman’s piece has already been translated into Arabic and cited as proof that Israel suffered a defeat in Gaza.
Part of dialogue is to hear what the other side says. Do so with Hamas and Iran; see if you still believe in dialogue. Here is what key Hamas leader Ismail Radwan said in a post-war victory rally: "Gaza is not our goal. The liberation of all of Palestine, from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea, God willing, will be achieved." Sorry, David, I don’t think you are going to make him change his mind.
That brings us to the psychological crutch: wishful thinking. It’s hard to face a life-long confrontation with evil forces seeking your utter destruction. It’s unpleasant to admit there’s no alternative to waging that struggle.
In contrast, it’s empowering to say: We can solve this with words and sensitivity. That’s why Grossman sounds sensible to outsiders knowing little and irrelevant to those understanding the specific situation:
“We must initiate speech,” says Grossman, “insist on speech, let no one put us off.” It doesn’t matter if “dialogue seems hopeless from the start” because it will protect us far more than “hundreds of planes dropping bombs.” Why is that? Because we will all come to our senses once we understand how much harm we do to each other and how “utterly senseless” is violence.
Talk is cheap. How strange is the assumption that once both sides grasp the horror of killing their enemies they’ll be repelled. But Hamas isn’t repelled it’s thrilled. As for the idea that violence is “senseless,” Hamas thinks it a glorious and sensible means to achieve its goal.
There is, of course, an alternative dialogue with Palestinians and Arabs. Deal with the Palestinian Authority— without illusions—for minimum violence and maximum mutual benefit. Cooperate with Arab states that hate Hamas, the Islamists, and Iran because of their own interests. But this requires intimidating, deterring, weakening, and discrediting Hamas. Which is why the Gaza war was imperative and concessions to Hamas are disastrous.
Beyond strategic considerations is a profound trauma, a bewildering contradiction to everything the Western intellectual, artist or policymaker holds dear. Enlightenment Man meets the Dark Ages’ advocate who sneers at reason; Realpolitik Man meets those indifferent to interests; Materialistic Man meets those repelled by materialism; and Humanistic Man meets those who glory in death and destruction. .
When one talks of such dialogue I think of the U.S. official who, interrogating captured al-Qaida men in Afghanistan in 2003, asked one, “Why did you come here?” The terrorist answered: “To kill you.” And he did. End of dialogue.
* A reference to the film "Casablanca." When Rick wants to speak to a prisoner the Germans have already killed, he is told that you are welcome to speak with him but, says Captain Renard, "I'm afraid you'd find the conversation a trifle one-sided."
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include The Truth About Syria; The Tragedy of the Middle East; and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.
AP Coverage: Abandon All Hope of Fairness, Ye Who Enter There
AP Coverage: Abandon All Hope of Fairness, Ye Who Enter There
By Barry Rubin
In recent weeks, I have written that the AP has become more balanced and a number of articles could be used to show that trend. At the same time, though, there are common themes which continue—sometimes subtle, sometimes blaring and glaring—to be ridiculously biased. Sometimes they are a few lines or even words in an article; at other times, the pieces read like propaganda tracts.
Alas, such is the case of the article I am about to discuss. But I want to introduce it before telling you AP’s title for it. The January 25, 2009, article supposedly deals with how children in the Gaza Strip are reacting to war, violence, and instability.
Now, are you ready for AP’s title? Here it is:
Israeli war against Hamas scars Gaza's children by Karin Laub.
Yahoo shows 124,000 mentions of this article. Think of that. 124,000 different reprints of this article. Here’s one: <http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6727236>.
Now if I were to stop here, this is a clear example of the abandonment of journalistic standards. After all, the headline could easily have been: War Scars Gaza’s Children. Or even, if they wanted to do so: Israel-Hamas War Scars Gaza’s Children or, if they were really honest: Hama’s Attacks and Israel’s Retaliation Scar Gaza’s Children.
But right here, an editor should have looked at this title, seen it as absurdly biased and changed it. I’d like to think that 10 or 20 or 30 years ago that would have happened.
We know, however, what the article would say: Israel is terrible because by going to war it is hurting all these children. Bad Israel! Down with Israel. Israeli War Criminal Aggressive Haters.
Yet if it had not been for Hamas’s continually attacking Israel and then rejecting the ceasefire, there would be no war.
Beyond that, there would be no sanctions.
And, beyond that, what about children being subjected to Islamist law, indoctrination to become terrorists, systematic hatred being taught toward Jews and Christians?
Even if there had been a war, how about Hamas using civilians as human shields? How about it calling up young children to shield Hamas soldiers? To stand in a schoolyard right next to a mortar firing at Israel?
Doesn’t all this scar children? The war has ended, doesn’t the leadership of Hamas continue to scar children and intensify the damage? Won’t there be another war---it is absolutely predictable—within two years?
None of this penetrates the AP’s—and here’s a terrible contemporary word—“narrative.” There was a time when newspaper articles didn’t have a “narrative,” they had reporting.
Of course, the lead is intended to elicit certain emotions from the reader:
Certainly, these are logical things to draw but remember this is also the indoctrination of Hamas that has been going on for two years. If there had been no war, they would be drawing the same things, not to mention the glories of being a suicide bomber and killing the Jews—oh, excuse me, Israelis (but they usually do say Jews, don’t they?
And who is quoted? Palestinian—Hamas supporting?—psychologists and an UNRWA official who never criticizes Hamas.
There is not one word—not one word!—in the article about any of the points being raised above.
It is all about Palestinians and children being victims of Israel, not of Hamas, not of Hamas’s policies.
Does one feel sorry for these children? Of course. But the issue is why one feels sorry for him and to what one attributes their problems and sufferings.
We have reached the point where we don’t have to cope with articles biased against Israel: 80-20, 70-30, 60-40. Rather, the articles are 100 percent anti-Israel. Nothing to balance, not even the merest pretense for show. Not a single sentence from an Israeli psychologist; not some passing mention of Hamas’s responsibility.
And this is what is scary: the journalist has no fear of being punished professionally for violating what used to be called journalistic ethics. The editor has no desire to change anything, and no fear of paying a price for it.
What is the difference between the text below and a Hamas press release? And what is its similarity to proper journalism? Everything in the first case; nothing in the second case.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include The Truth About Syria; The Tragedy of the Middle East; and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.
By Barry Rubin
In recent weeks, I have written that the AP has become more balanced and a number of articles could be used to show that trend. At the same time, though, there are common themes which continue—sometimes subtle, sometimes blaring and glaring—to be ridiculously biased. Sometimes they are a few lines or even words in an article; at other times, the pieces read like propaganda tracts.
Alas, such is the case of the article I am about to discuss. But I want to introduce it before telling you AP’s title for it. The January 25, 2009, article supposedly deals with how children in the Gaza Strip are reacting to war, violence, and instability.
Now, are you ready for AP’s title? Here it is:
Israeli war against Hamas scars Gaza's children by Karin Laub.
Yahoo shows 124,000 mentions of this article. Think of that. 124,000 different reprints of this article. Here’s one: <http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=6727236>.
Now if I were to stop here, this is a clear example of the abandonment of journalistic standards. After all, the headline could easily have been: War Scars Gaza’s Children. Or even, if they wanted to do so: Israel-Hamas War Scars Gaza’s Children or, if they were really honest: Hama’s Attacks and Israel’s Retaliation Scar Gaza’s Children.
But right here, an editor should have looked at this title, seen it as absurdly biased and changed it. I’d like to think that 10 or 20 or 30 years ago that would have happened.
We know, however, what the article would say: Israel is terrible because by going to war it is hurting all these children. Bad Israel! Down with Israel. Israeli War Criminal Aggressive Haters.
Yet if it had not been for Hamas’s continually attacking Israel and then rejecting the ceasefire, there would be no war.
Beyond that, there would be no sanctions.
And, beyond that, what about children being subjected to Islamist law, indoctrination to become terrorists, systematic hatred being taught toward Jews and Christians?
Even if there had been a war, how about Hamas using civilians as human shields? How about it calling up young children to shield Hamas soldiers? To stand in a schoolyard right next to a mortar firing at Israel?
Doesn’t all this scar children? The war has ended, doesn’t the leadership of Hamas continue to scar children and intensify the damage? Won’t there be another war---it is absolutely predictable—within two years?
None of this penetrates the AP’s—and here’s a terrible contemporary word—“narrative.” There was a time when newspaper articles didn’t have a “narrative,” they had reporting.
Of course, the lead is intended to elicit certain emotions from the reader:
“JEBALIYA, Gaza Strip - Surrounded by mountains of rubble that were once their homes, two dozen children sat on a rainbow-colored blanket and drew with crayons.They quickly filled the pages passed around by trauma counselors with pictures of Israeli tanks, dead bodies and Palestinians firing assault rifles , scenes they saw when Israel's war on Hamas came into their neighborhood.”
Certainly, these are logical things to draw but remember this is also the indoctrination of Hamas that has been going on for two years. If there had been no war, they would be drawing the same things, not to mention the glories of being a suicide bomber and killing the Jews—oh, excuse me, Israelis (but they usually do say Jews, don’t they?
And who is quoted? Palestinian—Hamas supporting?—psychologists and an UNRWA official who never criticizes Hamas.
There is not one word—not one word!—in the article about any of the points being raised above.
It is all about Palestinians and children being victims of Israel, not of Hamas, not of Hamas’s policies.
Does one feel sorry for these children? Of course. But the issue is why one feels sorry for him and to what one attributes their problems and sufferings.
We have reached the point where we don’t have to cope with articles biased against Israel: 80-20, 70-30, 60-40. Rather, the articles are 100 percent anti-Israel. Nothing to balance, not even the merest pretense for show. Not a single sentence from an Israeli psychologist; not some passing mention of Hamas’s responsibility.
And this is what is scary: the journalist has no fear of being punished professionally for violating what used to be called journalistic ethics. The editor has no desire to change anything, and no fear of paying a price for it.
What is the difference between the text below and a Hamas press release? And what is its similarity to proper journalism? Everything in the first case; nothing in the second case.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center in Herzliya, Israel, and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include The Truth About Syria; The Tragedy of the Middle East; and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East.
Immigration Raid Brings Charges of Racial Profiling
Too many people on the liberal side of the fence argue that illegal immigration is a racial issue. They believe that those of us who want to protect the US boarders are inspired by racism, trying to keep out Hispanics. Recent cases such as the Hezbollah Mole in the CIA case (Nada Nadim Prouty) and the terrorists targeting Army base after sneaking over the borders, highlight the reasons the United States true immigration reform without amnesty. How many others are out there-not to gather information but to launch terror attacks when the time is right. It is more difficult to launch an attack when you can't get in the country
The liberals don't understand that, so every time there is a raid on immigrants in the United States the screams begin--Racial Profiling!
Like this case in Baltimore, where federal ICE agents Arrested 24 people in front of a 7-11 suspected of being in the country illegally, despite all of the whining--most of them were here illegally. Watch the video above and the report below and decide for yourself:
The liberals don't understand that, so every time there is a raid on immigrants in the United States the screams begin--Racial Profiling!
Like this case in Baltimore, where federal ICE agents Arrested 24 people in front of a 7-11 suspected of being in the country illegally, despite all of the whining--most of them were here illegally. Watch the video above and the report below and decide for yourself:
7-Eleven video said to show racial profiling
By Scott Calvert
Immigrant advocates released video footage yesterday that they say shows federal agents unfairly targeted Latinos in January 2007 outside a 7-Eleven in Southeast Baltimore.
The video, taken from store cameras, captured U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rounding up 24 men suspected of being illegal immigrants. Most have since been deported or left the country voluntarily.
In the video, agents can be seen ignoring black store patrons while focusing on Latino men. Advocates say a white man who had hired three Latinos for day labor was allowed to drive his pickup truck away from the 7-Eleven, while the three workers were taken into custody.
In addition, the advocates say, the video shows agents detaining a number of Latinos who had been waiting at a bus stop across the street from the 7-Eleven, a common hiring spot for day laborers.
"Today, with this video, we're fighting back," said Jessica Alvarez, chairwoman of the National Capital Immigration Coalition. "Today, we are showing everyone exactly what our community has been telling us about the abuses, about the racial profiling."
Alvarez spoke at a late-morning news conference at a Fells Point church a few blocks from the 7-Eleven on South Broadway.
Richard Rocha, a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said he had not seen the footage. But he denied that agents engaged in racial profiling. "These allegations were thoroughly investigated in 2007 and were deemed to be unsubstantiated," he said.
CASA de Maryland, a Silver Spring-based immigrant advocacy group with a Baltimore office, released the footage. The group announced that it had filed a federal lawsuit last month against the Department of Homeland Security seeking internal documents on the roundup.
The group has received a partially blacked-out report by Homeland Security's Office of Professional Responsibility. The report is redacted after a statement noting that "some of the circumstances surrounding the presence of the officers at the 7-Eleven have come into question."
CASA also said it had filed wrongful-arrest claims for three of the detained men. One has since voluntarily returned to El Salvador. The two others are free on bond in Baltimore while fighting government attempts to deport them. The men are seeking $500,000 apiece.
CASA obtained the footage in 2007 but did not release it earlier because of pending immigration cases, said staff attorney Justin Cox. It also wanted to give the government a "fair shot" to investigate, but an independent accounting has not occurred, Cox said.
Rocha, of ICE, called the roundup proper. "In this case, our officers used their training and experience to respond to a developing situation as it unfolded. They were approached by individuals asking if they needed workers. Those workers were questioned, and ultimately it was determined they were in the country illegally."
The footage shows several Latinos approaching a car as it pulls into the 7-Eleven parking lot. But Cox said agents in that vehicle did not identify themselves and instead posed as contractors. The roundup began moments later as additional ICE agents arrived.
Why The FBI Says it Doesn't CAIR Anymore
I am sure that they will start screaming "racial" profiling any second now. IPT reported yesterday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network. The cut off was made quietly last summer as prosecuters ramped up for second trial Holy Land Foundation terrorism funding trial.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is "child" of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization, it is good that the FBI cut off relations, but they are not the only ones who need to disassociate itself from the group. Beyond usual suspects, Andre Carson, Andre (D-IN) and Keith Ellison, Keith (D-MN, there are members of congress on both side of the Aisle involve with CAIR for example Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) who expressed his wholehearted support for CAIR at a CAIR-Seattle Banquet:
CAIR's True Colors --IPT
Though it represents itself to be a Muslim civil rights organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) devoted most of its resources earlier this month to mobilizing opposition to Israel's attempt to neutralize Hamas militarily. It organized petition drives and bus caravans from chapters across the country to a protest held January 10th in Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that the FBI has cut off contact with CAIR due to unanswered questions about the organization's roots in a Hamas-support network. Earlier this month, the IPT showed how CAIR officials dutifully avoid mentioning Hamas by name when discussing the conflict. Yet no major media outlet or political figure is challenging CAIR's positions or tactics.
That may be because CAIR has cultivated sympathetic coverage in everything from local newspapers to the New York Times, nurtured alliances with members of Congress, including Democrats Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, all of whom have spoken at CAIR events.
In the past six months the mayors of Houston and Tampa have issued proclamations designating "Council on American Islamic Relations day" in their cities. Not bad for a group labeled as a front group by an FBI agent during sworn testimony in a successful terror-finance prosecution in which CAIR is an un-indicted co-conspirator.
The following report shows the consistent support CAIR officials have shown for Hamas, Hizballah and other radicals and their refusal to condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings by those groups.
In their own words: The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
I. In Support of Hamas and Hizballah
CAIR incorporator and current executive director Nihad Awad has publicly expressed his support for Hamas. At a symposium at Barry University in Florida on March 22, 1994, he said:
"After I researched the situation inside and outside of Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement."[1] [emphasis added]
Again, on CBS' 60 Minutes in November 1994, when Mike Wallace asked him what he thought "of the military undertakings of Hamas," Awad responded, "Well, I think that's – that's for the people to judge," avoiding the question. He then spoke in support of Hamas and armed resistance:
"the United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."[2]
Awad has sought to justify these clear statements of support for Hamas in terms of their timing. In Senate testimony, he wrote, "You will never find a CAIR statement supporting Hamas after the commencement of suicide bombings and United States government's designation of them as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) on January 24, 1995."[3] Similarly, Awad commented on the context of his Barry University remarks, "It [Hamas] has not attacked civilians then, and it was not designated by the United States government as a terrorist organization."[4]
However, CAIR officials have gone back on Awad's statements, criticizing the U.S. government for listing Hamas as a FTO. At the 2007 ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, then CAIR-National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed defended Hamas and Hezbollah by criticizing those who refuse to separate their roles as terrorist organizations and their roles as parts of democratic governments:
"Hamas and Hezbollah are both on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. But Hamas and Hezbollah are also part of their democratic governments. They're elected representatives of their own people. So this presents a problem. And the challenges that often the detractors, who have a vested interest in perpetuating a situation of conflict in the Middle East try to use simple language and simple broad brush to lump them into the same category. And I call this 'Islamic exceptionalism.' In other words that while the discourse among people of influence, people of knowledge, are able to distinguish between the subtleties of different things for other groups, that subtlety of differences are not applied towards Muslims."[5] [emphasis added]
In a May 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Ahmed encouraged cooperation with Hamas, painting the organization as a legitimate and benevolent entity:
"Our posture of diplomacy, our policies have to be significantly altered from where we are today so that we address all issues. If we look at the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, it lists many groups that are part of political processes, like Hamas and Hezbollah. They're part of the political processes in their societies, just like the IRA was part of political process in their society. And part of Al Qaeda's rage come from the un-interest or the lack of progress towards peace in the Middle East."[6]
Mustafa Carroll of the Dallas Fort Worth Chapter of CAIR said the following in support of Hamas in response to the late 2008, early 2009 Gaza crisis:
"I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we've heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas."[7]
CAIR has also come out in support of Hamas by vocally protesting the killing of Hamas leaders.
On March 22, 2004, Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,"[8] the organization announced in a press release that day. It criticized Israel for killing a "wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader."[9] Similarly, after an Israeli missile killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Yassin's replacement as head of Hamas,[10] CAIR issued an April 17, 2004 press release blasting Israel for killing a "political leader."[11]
CAIR's 1997 report, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States," characterized the failure of the U.S. government to respond to pressure by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to investigate and "to seek justice" for the death of Ahmed Hamida, an Arab-American terrorist killed in Jerusalem, as an act of discrimination.[12] In its description of the incident, CAIR depicted Ahmed as an innocent "Palestinian-American Muslim" visitor "gunned down by armed Israelis." [13] CAIR also implied that the shooting was committed in retaliation for a Tel Aviv bus bombing that occurred a day prior to Hamida's killing.[14]
CAIR failed to mention that Hamida was shot by civilians while attempting to flee after deliberately driving his car into a group of Israelis waiting at a Jerusalem bus stop.[15] In the attack, he killed a mother of two and injured 22 other Israelis.[16] The subsequent investigation left no doubt that the car crash was not an accident, but rather a terrorist attack. Eyewitnesses heard Hamida yell "Allahu Akbar!" as he jumped out of his car.[17] Also, he had indicated to friends on the morning before the attack that they would see him on television that night.[18] Hamas later took credit for the attack.[19]
Also of note is the fact that in 1994, IAP posted a CAIR press release that closely mirrored language in Hamas' Covenant. The press release, which discussed the Hussein-Rabin Summit, was quickly modified to remove this text.[20] The covenant says Hamas "believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [endowment] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."[21]
CAIR's original release described the Cairo and Oslo peace agreements as a chance "for all those who met secretly with the Zionists behind the scenes to come out in public and take their masks off."
"We have affirmed repeatedly the danger of such agreements lies in abandoning the basic legitimate Palestinian rights, and it is a way to penetrate economically, politically, and culturally the ME region where Arab states are in their worst conditions. Thus, we affirm the followings:
1. Palestine is an Islamic and Arabic land which no one has the right to trade, sell, or give up
2. The current situation of the Arab states is at a weakness stage that must end sooner or later, and rights can't be lost with signing agreements."
Also notable in talking about CAIR support of Hamas is that Hamas has itself posted CAIR information and activities updates on its official web site (http://www.palestine-info.net), including a June 5, 2001 article in which Nihad Awad called for a demonstration at the U.S. State Department to protest American support for Israel.[22]
II. Refusing to condemn by name, when asked, Hamas or Hizballah
An October 27, 2001 National Journal article reported, "Asked to describe CAIR's view of Hamas, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment."[23] A November 18, 2001 Washington Post article quoted Hooper as saying, in response to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) request to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by name:
"It's not our job to go around denouncing, that when they say jump, we say how high."[24] [emphasis added]
Asked by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002 to condemn Hamas, Hooper called such questions a "game" and declared, "We're not in the business of condemning."[25]
Asked in a May 27, 2003 deposition, "Do you support Hamas," CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad responded, "It depends. Qualify ‘support.'"[26] Similarly, he was asked whether he had "ever taken a position with respect to… [Hamas'] ‘martyrdom attacks.'" Ahmad responded, "No."[27]
In 2007, CAIR-Chicago's Ahmed Rehab pulled the conversation in another direction when asked if he "condemned organizations which use terrorism as an action." Rehab, instead of addressing the question, turned the question around to blame Israel for killing innocent civilians:
"then you would condemn the IDF and the Israeli army... because they also use..[speaking over other guests] civilians."[28]
Following the example Hooper set years earlier, CAIR national legislative affairs director Corey Saylor refused to directly respond to a challenge to condemn Hamas when pressed to do so during an August 2008 interview with Fox News:
Reporter David Lee Miller:
"Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me- CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?"
Corey Saylor:
"I'm telling you in a very clear fashion – CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them."
David Lee Miller:
"That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah."
Corey Saylor:
"Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question."
David Lee Miller:
"It's not no, it's not whether I like it or dislike it. I was asking whether or not you can sit here now and say- CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is." [emphasis added]
Corey Saylor:
"The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens." [29]
In an interview following the Gaza Crisis which began at the end of 2008, CAIR spokesman Hooper avoided commenting on whether the Palestinian people would like Hamas to lose power in the region:
Newscaster:
"In your view tending to the aspiration desires of the Palestinian people, does that also include making Hamas irrelevant in the region?" [emphasis added]
Hooper:
"Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It's outrageous, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto."[30]
As reported in October 2008 by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin, Ibrahim Hooper once again refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah when asked in an interview. According to the report, Hooper asserted that CAIR has always condemned acts of terrorism, but then "would not answer whether CAIR condemns those designated terrorist groups themselves." The report then quotes Hooper as having ended the conversation saying, "I've already answered your questions."[31]
III. In support of armed resistance and refusing to condemn suicide bombings
CAIR officials often speak out in support of armed resistance in response to occupation and, in doing so, justify and excuse the occurrence of suicide bombings.
Speaking at a 2001 event at the New York Interfaith Center, Ghazi Khankan, who served as executive director of CAIR-NY from at least April 2001[32] through September 2004,[33] said:
"The people of Hamas who direct their attacks on the Israeli military are in the correct position."[34]
When pressed on his definition of a "civilian," Khankan revealed his view that anyone over 18 was a legitimate target:
"Who is a soldier in Israel and who is not? Anyone over eighteen is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked."[35]
Also in 2001, Nihad Awad made a strong statement in support of armed resistance against Israel during a press conference and sit-in outside the State Department:
"We are not shy to support the Palestinian resistance against the occupation. It is a legitimate God-given right."[36]
Awad continued on during this 2001 press conference to advocate the reduction of violence only if it aids the Palestinian cause or in his words if it "produces a result."
"What we urge, we urge the reduction of violence if it produces a result. But we should not pressure and blame the victims for resisting the occupation. Remember, it is the Israeli forces who come to the Palestinian neighborhoods and Palestinian towns and cities, and they provoke response… The aggression is coming from the Israeli side, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are only responding to the root cause of the issue, which is the occupation."[37]
In August of 2006, Nihad Awad excused suicide bombings as legitimate results of occupations and attempts to fight injustice during a C-SPAN Program while quoting Hamas apologist University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape:
"[Robert Pape] found out that [suicide terrorism] has more to do with occupations and fighting injustice than religion. And he pointed out that most of these suicide bombings have been done at the hands of the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka than by Muslims. I have not fully read that book, but whatever I have read from it I found very interesting and it really responds to the myth and the known notion now that has been used by several commentators and some politicians.."[38]
At ISNA's 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois in 2007, then CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed justified "suicide terrorism" as a response to occupation:
"Another problem when talking about this question of suicide terrorism, suicide bombings, especially in the Middle East, especially in the occupied territories, you know people use a circular logic. It was not the suicide terrorism led to occupation; it was occupation led to suicide terrorism."[39]
At a CAIR Dallas Banquet in 2007, Mustafa Carroll of CAIR- Dallas/Fort Worth excused terrorism as a result of oppression:
"..look at the true cause of the terrorism. It's not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qu'ran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Qu'ran told me to blow this up. I'm gonna blow it up.' The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression."[40] [emphasis added]
In January 2004, at a Muslim Students Association of UCLA Islamic Awareness Week event in Los Angeles, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush affirmed the
"legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation."[41]
The Cleveland Plain Dealer summarized the attitude of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's chief spokesman like this in 2003:
"While the Islamic council says it has denounced suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper yesterday would not criticize suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers. Instead, he spoke of Palestinians exercising ‘the right to resist military occupation.'"[42]
At the National Press Club in Washington D.C. in May of 2008 then-CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed downplayed the motivations behind suicide bombings:
"Suicide bombings are the product of modern political violence. Suicide bombings by Muslims are not the result of any Islamic ideology, but rather they are the result of social political conditions of occupations."[43]
This wasn't Ahmed's first attempt at suicide bombing apologetics. At an event at the Islamic Center at NYU in October of 2007 Ahmed said:
"Our going to Iraq caused terrorism the same way terrorism by some Palestinians is not the reason Israel keeps Palestine occupied. But it is the occupation that breeds resentment and enables terrorism to fester."[44]
One of the most significant ways in which CAIR has supported suicide bombings is in its support of Yusuf Qaradawi.
IV. Defending Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Qaradawi is a prominent and vehemently anti-Semitic leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood is an 80-year-old Egyptian religious movement that seeks the global spread of Islam and establishment of a Shariah, or religious law, in nations with Muslim populations. It is the ideological underpinning for all modern Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Al Qaeda.[45]
In his award-winning 1994 documentary Jihad in America, Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson showed Qaradawi at a 1989 conference in Kansas City predicting "On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." CAIR claimed that Qaradawi actually had "often spoken out against religious extremism."[46]However -- as documented below -- Qaradawi defends suicide bombings, is hostile to Jews, and has called for attacks on U.S. civilians in Iraq.
In January 1998, the Associated Press quoted Qaradawi as writing, "There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords."[47][emphasis added] And in April 2001, commenting on suicide bombings, he said, "They are not suicide operations…These are heroic martyrdom operations."[48][emphasis added]
In September 2004, Qaradawi ruled it a religious duty for Muslims to fight Americans in Iraq, including U.S. civilians.[49]
And yet, at the 2002 Orange County CAIR fundraiser, Hussam Ayloush referred to Qaradawi as a "scholar:"
"Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West."[50]
On July 26, 2005, in an interview on MSNBC,[51] CAIR's legal director Arsalan Iftikhar said:
"For example, if you look at Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the -- one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt, he has said unequivocally that people who commit suicide bombings and -- and acts of terror are completely outside the bounds of Islam."[emphasis added]
In 2006 Nihad Awad mentioned Qaradawi as a "prominent and known scholar" in condemning the Jill Carroll kidnapping:
"Even the prominent and known scholar who always appears on Al-Jazeera, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he conveyed the same message."[52]
V. In denying the legitimacy of Israel
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad also echoed Hamas' absolute rejection of Israel's legitimacy. In an April 1994 letter to the editor of The Message, an American-Muslim publication, he criticized the magazine for using the term "Israel."
"I hope," he wrote, "that the use of ‘Israel' in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional...Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology ‘Occupied Palestine' to refer to that Holy Land."[53] [emphasis added]
At a Right of Return rally in front of the White House on September 16, 2000, Awad rejected coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, stating:
"they [the Jews] have been saying ‘next year to Jerusalem,' we say ‘next year to all Palestine.'"[54]
During CAIR's 13th Annual Banquet in San Jose, California in 2007, Awad denied the legitimacy of Israel by saying that the U.S. is wrong in supporting Israel:
"..our government is blindly, unlimitly and unconsciously supporting the state of Israel, oppressing the Palestinian people. This is wrong, and we have to stand up and we have to tell our government, ‘Enough is enough.'"[55]
In March of 2008 Hussam Ayloush, Secretary of CAIR-California, characterized Israel with the aim of delegitimizing it and condemned the United States for "act[ing]" like a terrorist state:
"It's a struggle for an America that respects and humanizes religion. It's an America that if free to act on its values and not on the interests of any foreign lobby. It's an America that rejects all forms of collective punishment on the Palestinians of Gaza and West Bank, an America that genuinely supports justice, peace and democracy in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Somalia and all over the world, rather than supporting occupation, instability, the interests of defense and war companies and the corrupt allies and puppet regimes that we keep supporting…an America that can defeat terrorists without having to act like one."[56] [emphasis added]
Awad made a similar statement, calling Israel an occupational state, in August of 2008, during an American Muslim Association (AMA) Civil Rights Forum:
"America should take care of its own interests and should not prosecute case on behalf of the state of Israel, because it is an occupational state."[57][emphasis added]
A December 2008 Associated Press article quoted CAIR Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid downplaying the danger of the more than 5000 Hamas rockets fired at Israel in attempting to delegitimize Israel's defensive attacks:
"Today's attack - which amounts to a massacre - was definitely a disproportionate response to a few cheap, homemade, makeshift rockets being fired across the border."
CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad echoed this same sentiment as quoted in a CNN article:
"We demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population."[58]
[1] "Conference on the Middle East – The Road to Peace: The Challenge of the Middle East," Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, March 22, 1994.
[2]"60 Minutes," CBS, November 13, 1994.
[3] Supplemental Testimony of Nihad Awad Before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Terrorism: Two Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots, September 10, 2003, at 5.
[4]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Nihad Awad," 58 (E.D. October 22, 2003).
[5] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.
[6]Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C. May 6, 2008.
[7] Mustafa Carroll interview, Fox News Dallas, January 5, 2009.
[8]"CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).
[9] "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).
[10]"Abdel Aziz Rantisi," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 18, 2004, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Abdel+Aziz+Rantisi.htm?DisplayMode=print (accessed July 8, 2004).
[11] "Muslims will see Bush ‘Green Light' for Assassination," CAIR Press Release, April 17, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1066&page=NR (accessed July 7, 2004).
[12]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[13]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[14]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[15]Bill Hutman, "Police: J'lem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996.
[16] "Police: Jerusalem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996
[17] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.
[18] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.
[19] "HAMAS Claims Bus Stop Killing in Jerusalem," Agence France Presse, February 28, 1996.
[20] http://web.archive.org/web/20010429224537/http://www.iap.org/politics/peace/cair-jr.html (accessed July 11, 2004).
[21] Hamas Charter 1988, Part III, Strategies and Methods, http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html (accessed July 5, 2006).
[22] http://www.palestine-info.net, June 5, 2001.
[23]Neil Munro, "Wild Ride for US Muslim Community," National Journal, October 27, 2001.
[24]Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslims Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.
[25]Rachel Smolkin, "Muslim Lobbies Fully Mobilized Since Sept. 11," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 10, 2002.
[26]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).
[27]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).
[28] Ahmed Rehab, Panel Discussion moderated by John Hockenberry, "Islam vs. Islamists," July 30, 2007.
[29]Corey Saylor, Interview by David Lee Miller, "Where Are the Moderate Muslims in America?" Fox News Live Desk, Fox News, August 8, 2008.
[30] Interview of Ibrahim Hooper on CNN. "Protesting the War," January 2, 2009.
[31] Jim Popkin, "Obama concedes mistake over Muslim outreach meeting," MSNBC News, October 9, 2008 http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/09/1525564.aspx?p=1.
[32]CAIR NY Staff, Webarchive of CAIR NY http://web.archive.org/web/20010312005942/www.cair-ny.com/about.shtml (accessed July 5, 2007).
[33]Webarchive of CAIR-NY citing article on fundraising dinner where Executive Director of CAIR NY, Ghazi Khankan was quoted, http://web.archive.org/web/20040523184107/http:/www.cair-ny.com/ (accessed July 5, 2007).
[34] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001. Note: The Washington Post cited The Jewish Week piece. See: Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslim Groups Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.
[35] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001.
[36] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.
[37] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.
[38] Nihad Awad, Interview by Peter Slein, "Arab Americans and Law Enforcement," Washington Journal, C-SPAN, August 19, 2006.
[39] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.
[40] Mustafa Carroll, CAIR-Dallas Banquet, Renaissance Dallas Hotel, August 18, 2007.
[41]MSA-UCLA Islamic Awareness Week, Los Angeles, California, January 28, 2004.
[42]Stephen Koff, "Kucinich Now Plans to Return Hamas Supporter's Gift," Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 3, 2003.
[43] Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C., May 6, 2008.
[44] Parvez Ahmed, "Islamophobia: Institutionalized Racism?" The Islamic Center at NYU, October 21, 2007.
[45] Richard Clarke, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, October 22, 2003.
[46] CAIR Press Release, "`Jihad in America' Not Worthy of PBS Sponsorship," November 22, 1994.
[47] "Leading Muslim Cleric Under Fire for Meeting Israeli Chief Rabbi," AP Worldstream, January 7, 1998, quoting a January 6, 1998, article by Qaradawi in the Arab newspaper Al-Shaab.
[48] Al Raya, April 2001, quoted in Michael Slackman, "Islamic Debate Surrounds Mideast Suicide Bombers," The Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2001.
[49] "Prominent Muslim Cleric Says Fighting American Civilians In Iraq Is A Duty For Muslims," Associated Press, September 2, 2004.
[50] CAIR Fundraiser, Orange County, California, October 19, 2002.
[51] MSNBC, "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," July 26, 2005, transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8728122/ (accessed July 27, 2005).
[52] Nihad Awad, Arab Voices radio interview, January 25, 2006, http://www.arabvoices.net/archives/av-012506-awad.mp3.
[53]Nihad Awad, Letter to the Editor, The Message, April 1994.
[54] Palestinian Right of Return Rally, Washington, D.C., September 16, 2000.
[55] Nihad Awad, CAIR San Francisco Bay Area 13th Annual Banquet, "American Muslims: Shaping Our Future," San Jose, CA, November 11, 2007.
[56] Hussam Ayloush, CAIR- 2nd Annual Banquet, "Let the Conversation Begin," San Diego, CA, March 15, 2008.
[57] Nihad Awad, AMA Civil Rights Forum: The Case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, Historical Society of Washington, D.C. August 12, 2008.
[58] Jonathan Helman, "Muslim coalition requests more inclusion in new administration," CNN, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/29/muslim-coalition-requests-more-inclusion-in-new-administration/.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is "child" of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization, it is good that the FBI cut off relations, but they are not the only ones who need to disassociate itself from the group. Beyond usual suspects, Andre Carson, Andre (D-IN) and Keith Ellison, Keith (D-MN, there are members of congress on both side of the Aisle involve with CAIR for example Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA) who expressed his wholehearted support for CAIR at a CAIR-Seattle Banquet:
"I always enjoy being with people like CAIR because you inspire me really to keep fighting… And I think that's why this kind of an organization is so important for people to understand that you have a right in America to say whatever you believe. And I think you ought to exercise that. That's being a real American.Real American? CAIR is only real American, if you believe that Supporting Terror is as American as apple pie. Read the below for evidence of CAIR's True Colors:
CAIR's True Colors --IPT
Though it represents itself to be a Muslim civil rights organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) devoted most of its resources earlier this month to mobilizing opposition to Israel's attempt to neutralize Hamas militarily. It organized petition drives and bus caravans from chapters across the country to a protest held January 10th in Washington, D.C.
On Thursday, the Investigative Project on Terrorism reported that the FBI has cut off contact with CAIR due to unanswered questions about the organization's roots in a Hamas-support network. Earlier this month, the IPT showed how CAIR officials dutifully avoid mentioning Hamas by name when discussing the conflict. Yet no major media outlet or political figure is challenging CAIR's positions or tactics.
That may be because CAIR has cultivated sympathetic coverage in everything from local newspapers to the New York Times, nurtured alliances with members of Congress, including Democrats Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, all of whom have spoken at CAIR events.
In the past six months the mayors of Houston and Tampa have issued proclamations designating "Council on American Islamic Relations day" in their cities. Not bad for a group labeled as a front group by an FBI agent during sworn testimony in a successful terror-finance prosecution in which CAIR is an un-indicted co-conspirator.
The following report shows the consistent support CAIR officials have shown for Hamas, Hizballah and other radicals and their refusal to condemn terrorist attacks and suicide bombings by those groups.
In their own words: The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)
I. In Support of Hamas and Hizballah
CAIR incorporator and current executive director Nihad Awad has publicly expressed his support for Hamas. At a symposium at Barry University in Florida on March 22, 1994, he said:
"After I researched the situation inside and outside of Palestine, I am in support of the Hamas movement."[1] [emphasis added]
Again, on CBS' 60 Minutes in November 1994, when Mike Wallace asked him what he thought "of the military undertakings of Hamas," Awad responded, "Well, I think that's – that's for the people to judge," avoiding the question. He then spoke in support of Hamas and armed resistance:
"the United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."[2]
Awad has sought to justify these clear statements of support for Hamas in terms of their timing. In Senate testimony, he wrote, "You will never find a CAIR statement supporting Hamas after the commencement of suicide bombings and United States government's designation of them as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) on January 24, 1995."[3] Similarly, Awad commented on the context of his Barry University remarks, "It [Hamas] has not attacked civilians then, and it was not designated by the United States government as a terrorist organization."[4]
However, CAIR officials have gone back on Awad's statements, criticizing the U.S. government for listing Hamas as a FTO. At the 2007 ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, then CAIR-National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed defended Hamas and Hezbollah by criticizing those who refuse to separate their roles as terrorist organizations and their roles as parts of democratic governments:
"Hamas and Hezbollah are both on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. But Hamas and Hezbollah are also part of their democratic governments. They're elected representatives of their own people. So this presents a problem. And the challenges that often the detractors, who have a vested interest in perpetuating a situation of conflict in the Middle East try to use simple language and simple broad brush to lump them into the same category. And I call this 'Islamic exceptionalism.' In other words that while the discourse among people of influence, people of knowledge, are able to distinguish between the subtleties of different things for other groups, that subtlety of differences are not applied towards Muslims."[5] [emphasis added]
In a May 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Ahmed encouraged cooperation with Hamas, painting the organization as a legitimate and benevolent entity:
"Our posture of diplomacy, our policies have to be significantly altered from where we are today so that we address all issues. If we look at the State Department's list of terrorist organizations, it lists many groups that are part of political processes, like Hamas and Hezbollah. They're part of the political processes in their societies, just like the IRA was part of political process in their society. And part of Al Qaeda's rage come from the un-interest or the lack of progress towards peace in the Middle East."[6]
Mustafa Carroll of the Dallas Fort Worth Chapter of CAIR said the following in support of Hamas in response to the late 2008, early 2009 Gaza crisis:
"I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we've heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas."[7]
CAIR has also come out in support of Hamas by vocally protesting the killing of Hamas leaders.
On March 22, 2004, Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader,"[8] the organization announced in a press release that day. It criticized Israel for killing a "wheelchair-bound Palestinian Muslim religious leader."[9] Similarly, after an Israeli missile killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Yassin's replacement as head of Hamas,[10] CAIR issued an April 17, 2004 press release blasting Israel for killing a "political leader."[11]
CAIR's 1997 report, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States," characterized the failure of the U.S. government to respond to pressure by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) to investigate and "to seek justice" for the death of Ahmed Hamida, an Arab-American terrorist killed in Jerusalem, as an act of discrimination.[12] In its description of the incident, CAIR depicted Ahmed as an innocent "Palestinian-American Muslim" visitor "gunned down by armed Israelis." [13] CAIR also implied that the shooting was committed in retaliation for a Tel Aviv bus bombing that occurred a day prior to Hamida's killing.[14]
CAIR failed to mention that Hamida was shot by civilians while attempting to flee after deliberately driving his car into a group of Israelis waiting at a Jerusalem bus stop.[15] In the attack, he killed a mother of two and injured 22 other Israelis.[16] The subsequent investigation left no doubt that the car crash was not an accident, but rather a terrorist attack. Eyewitnesses heard Hamida yell "Allahu Akbar!" as he jumped out of his car.[17] Also, he had indicated to friends on the morning before the attack that they would see him on television that night.[18] Hamas later took credit for the attack.[19]
Also of note is the fact that in 1994, IAP posted a CAIR press release that closely mirrored language in Hamas' Covenant. The press release, which discussed the Hussein-Rabin Summit, was quickly modified to remove this text.[20] The covenant says Hamas "believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf [endowment] throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."[21]
CAIR's original release described the Cairo and Oslo peace agreements as a chance "for all those who met secretly with the Zionists behind the scenes to come out in public and take their masks off."
"We have affirmed repeatedly the danger of such agreements lies in abandoning the basic legitimate Palestinian rights, and it is a way to penetrate economically, politically, and culturally the ME region where Arab states are in their worst conditions. Thus, we affirm the followings:
1. Palestine is an Islamic and Arabic land which no one has the right to trade, sell, or give up
2. The current situation of the Arab states is at a weakness stage that must end sooner or later, and rights can't be lost with signing agreements."
Also notable in talking about CAIR support of Hamas is that Hamas has itself posted CAIR information and activities updates on its official web site (http://www.palestine-info.net), including a June 5, 2001 article in which Nihad Awad called for a demonstration at the U.S. State Department to protest American support for Israel.[22]
II. Refusing to condemn by name, when asked, Hamas or Hizballah
An October 27, 2001 National Journal article reported, "Asked to describe CAIR's view of Hamas, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment."[23] A November 18, 2001 Washington Post article quoted Hooper as saying, in response to an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) request to condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad by name:
"It's not our job to go around denouncing, that when they say jump, we say how high."[24] [emphasis added]
Asked by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in February 2002 to condemn Hamas, Hooper called such questions a "game" and declared, "We're not in the business of condemning."[25]
Asked in a May 27, 2003 deposition, "Do you support Hamas," CAIR co-founder and Chairman Emeritus Omar Ahmad responded, "It depends. Qualify ‘support.'"[26] Similarly, he was asked whether he had "ever taken a position with respect to… [Hamas'] ‘martyrdom attacks.'" Ahmad responded, "No."[27]
In 2007, CAIR-Chicago's Ahmed Rehab pulled the conversation in another direction when asked if he "condemned organizations which use terrorism as an action." Rehab, instead of addressing the question, turned the question around to blame Israel for killing innocent civilians:
"then you would condemn the IDF and the Israeli army... because they also use..[speaking over other guests] civilians."[28]
Following the example Hooper set years earlier, CAIR national legislative affairs director Corey Saylor refused to directly respond to a challenge to condemn Hamas when pressed to do so during an August 2008 interview with Fox News:
Reporter David Lee Miller:
"Can you sit here now and in just one sentence tell me- CAIR condemns Hamas and CAIR condemns Hezbollah?"
Corey Saylor:
"I'm telling you in a very clear fashion – CAIR condemns terrorist acts, whoever commits them, wherever they commit them, whenever they commit them."
David Lee Miller:
"That's not the same thing as saying you condemn Hamas and you condemn Hezbollah."
Corey Saylor:
"Well I recognize that you don't like my answer to the question, but that's the answer to the question."
David Lee Miller:
"It's not no, it's not whether I like it or dislike it. I was asking whether or not you can sit here now and say- CAIR condemns Hamas or Hezbollah. If you don't want to, just say that. If that is a position your group doesn't take, I certainly accept that. I just want to understand what your answer is." [emphasis added]
Corey Saylor:
"The position that my group takes is that we condemn terrorism on a consistent, persistent basis, wherever it happens, whenever it happens." [29]
In an interview following the Gaza Crisis which began at the end of 2008, CAIR spokesman Hooper avoided commenting on whether the Palestinian people would like Hamas to lose power in the region:
Newscaster:
"In your view tending to the aspiration desires of the Palestinian people, does that also include making Hamas irrelevant in the region?" [emphasis added]
Hooper:
"Well what you want to do is give the Palestinians an idea that their future can be better. That their children can actually eat. Can you imagine right now, in the twenty first century, that we have a situation where there is a blockade keeping children from eating in any part of the world and America is supporting that blockade. It's outrageous, it's illegal, it's immoral and it's against international law. At a minimum we have to end the siege of the Gaza ghetto."[30]
As reported in October 2008 by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin, Ibrahim Hooper once again refused to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah when asked in an interview. According to the report, Hooper asserted that CAIR has always condemned acts of terrorism, but then "would not answer whether CAIR condemns those designated terrorist groups themselves." The report then quotes Hooper as having ended the conversation saying, "I've already answered your questions."[31]
III. In support of armed resistance and refusing to condemn suicide bombings
CAIR officials often speak out in support of armed resistance in response to occupation and, in doing so, justify and excuse the occurrence of suicide bombings.
Speaking at a 2001 event at the New York Interfaith Center, Ghazi Khankan, who served as executive director of CAIR-NY from at least April 2001[32] through September 2004,[33] said:
"The people of Hamas who direct their attacks on the Israeli military are in the correct position."[34]
When pressed on his definition of a "civilian," Khankan revealed his view that anyone over 18 was a legitimate target:
"Who is a soldier in Israel and who is not? Anyone over eighteen is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves. Therefore, Hamas in my opinion looks at them as part of the military. Those who are below 18 should not be attacked."[35]
Also in 2001, Nihad Awad made a strong statement in support of armed resistance against Israel during a press conference and sit-in outside the State Department:
"We are not shy to support the Palestinian resistance against the occupation. It is a legitimate God-given right."[36]
Awad continued on during this 2001 press conference to advocate the reduction of violence only if it aids the Palestinian cause or in his words if it "produces a result."
"What we urge, we urge the reduction of violence if it produces a result. But we should not pressure and blame the victims for resisting the occupation. Remember, it is the Israeli forces who come to the Palestinian neighborhoods and Palestinian towns and cities, and they provoke response… The aggression is coming from the Israeli side, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are only responding to the root cause of the issue, which is the occupation."[37]
In August of 2006, Nihad Awad excused suicide bombings as legitimate results of occupations and attempts to fight injustice during a C-SPAN Program while quoting Hamas apologist University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape:
"[Robert Pape] found out that [suicide terrorism] has more to do with occupations and fighting injustice than religion. And he pointed out that most of these suicide bombings have been done at the hands of the Tamil Tiger in Sri Lanka than by Muslims. I have not fully read that book, but whatever I have read from it I found very interesting and it really responds to the myth and the known notion now that has been used by several commentators and some politicians.."[38]
At ISNA's 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois in 2007, then CAIR National Board Chairman Parvez Ahmed justified "suicide terrorism" as a response to occupation:
"Another problem when talking about this question of suicide terrorism, suicide bombings, especially in the Middle East, especially in the occupied territories, you know people use a circular logic. It was not the suicide terrorism led to occupation; it was occupation led to suicide terrorism."[39]
At a CAIR Dallas Banquet in 2007, Mustafa Carroll of CAIR- Dallas/Fort Worth excused terrorism as a result of oppression:
"..look at the true cause of the terrorism. It's not somebody is reading a book, reading a Qu'ran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Qu'ran told me to blow this up. I'm gonna blow it up.' The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression."[40] [emphasis added]
In January 2004, at a Muslim Students Association of UCLA Islamic Awareness Week event in Los Angeles, CAIR-Southern California Executive Director Hussam Ayloush affirmed the
"legitimate right of the Palestinians to defend themselves against the Israeli occupation."[41]
The Cleveland Plain Dealer summarized the attitude of Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR's chief spokesman like this in 2003:
"While the Islamic council says it has denounced suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper yesterday would not criticize suicide attacks against Israeli soldiers. Instead, he spoke of Palestinians exercising ‘the right to resist military occupation.'"[42]
At the National Press Club in Washington D.C. in May of 2008 then-CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed downplayed the motivations behind suicide bombings:
"Suicide bombings are the product of modern political violence. Suicide bombings by Muslims are not the result of any Islamic ideology, but rather they are the result of social political conditions of occupations."[43]
This wasn't Ahmed's first attempt at suicide bombing apologetics. At an event at the Islamic Center at NYU in October of 2007 Ahmed said:
"Our going to Iraq caused terrorism the same way terrorism by some Palestinians is not the reason Israel keeps Palestine occupied. But it is the occupation that breeds resentment and enables terrorism to fester."[44]
One of the most significant ways in which CAIR has supported suicide bombings is in its support of Yusuf Qaradawi.
IV. Defending Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Qaradawi is a prominent and vehemently anti-Semitic leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood is an 80-year-old Egyptian religious movement that seeks the global spread of Islam and establishment of a Shariah, or religious law, in nations with Muslim populations. It is the ideological underpinning for all modern Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Al Qaeda.[45]
In his award-winning 1994 documentary Jihad in America, Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson showed Qaradawi at a 1989 conference in Kansas City predicting "On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them." CAIR claimed that Qaradawi actually had "often spoken out against religious extremism."[46]However -- as documented below -- Qaradawi defends suicide bombings, is hostile to Jews, and has called for attacks on U.S. civilians in Iraq.
In January 1998, the Associated Press quoted Qaradawi as writing, "There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords."[47][emphasis added] And in April 2001, commenting on suicide bombings, he said, "They are not suicide operations…These are heroic martyrdom operations."[48][emphasis added]
In September 2004, Qaradawi ruled it a religious duty for Muslims to fight Americans in Iraq, including U.S. civilians.[49]
And yet, at the 2002 Orange County CAIR fundraiser, Hussam Ayloush referred to Qaradawi as a "scholar:"
"Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West."[50]
On July 26, 2005, in an interview on MSNBC,[51] CAIR's legal director Arsalan Iftikhar said:
"For example, if you look at Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the -- one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt, he has said unequivocally that people who commit suicide bombings and -- and acts of terror are completely outside the bounds of Islam."[emphasis added]
In 2006 Nihad Awad mentioned Qaradawi as a "prominent and known scholar" in condemning the Jill Carroll kidnapping:
"Even the prominent and known scholar who always appears on Al-Jazeera, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he conveyed the same message."[52]
V. In denying the legitimacy of Israel
CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad also echoed Hamas' absolute rejection of Israel's legitimacy. In an April 1994 letter to the editor of The Message, an American-Muslim publication, he criticized the magazine for using the term "Israel."
"I hope," he wrote, "that the use of ‘Israel' in your news briefs was the result of an oversight and not intentional...Furthermore I hope you will return to the terminology ‘Occupied Palestine' to refer to that Holy Land."[53] [emphasis added]
At a Right of Return rally in front of the White House on September 16, 2000, Awad rejected coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, stating:
"they [the Jews] have been saying ‘next year to Jerusalem,' we say ‘next year to all Palestine.'"[54]
During CAIR's 13th Annual Banquet in San Jose, California in 2007, Awad denied the legitimacy of Israel by saying that the U.S. is wrong in supporting Israel:
"..our government is blindly, unlimitly and unconsciously supporting the state of Israel, oppressing the Palestinian people. This is wrong, and we have to stand up and we have to tell our government, ‘Enough is enough.'"[55]
In March of 2008 Hussam Ayloush, Secretary of CAIR-California, characterized Israel with the aim of delegitimizing it and condemned the United States for "act[ing]" like a terrorist state:
"It's a struggle for an America that respects and humanizes religion. It's an America that if free to act on its values and not on the interests of any foreign lobby. It's an America that rejects all forms of collective punishment on the Palestinians of Gaza and West Bank, an America that genuinely supports justice, peace and democracy in Palestine, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Lebanon, in Somalia and all over the world, rather than supporting occupation, instability, the interests of defense and war companies and the corrupt allies and puppet regimes that we keep supporting…an America that can defeat terrorists without having to act like one."[56] [emphasis added]
Awad made a similar statement, calling Israel an occupational state, in August of 2008, during an American Muslim Association (AMA) Civil Rights Forum:
"America should take care of its own interests and should not prosecute case on behalf of the state of Israel, because it is an occupational state."[57][emphasis added]
A December 2008 Associated Press article quoted CAIR Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid downplaying the danger of the more than 5000 Hamas rockets fired at Israel in attempting to delegitimize Israel's defensive attacks:
"Today's attack - which amounts to a massacre - was definitely a disproportionate response to a few cheap, homemade, makeshift rockets being fired across the border."
CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad echoed this same sentiment as quoted in a CNN article:
"We demand that our government, the U.S. government, take immediate steps to end the immoral and illegal Israeli bombardment of Gaza and its population."[58]
[1] "Conference on the Middle East – The Road to Peace: The Challenge of the Middle East," Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, March 22, 1994.
[2]"60 Minutes," CBS, November 13, 1994.
[3] Supplemental Testimony of Nihad Awad Before the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, Terrorism: Two Years After 9/11, Connecting the Dots, September 10, 2003, at 5.
[4]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Nihad Awad," 58 (E.D. October 22, 2003).
[5] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.
[6]Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C. May 6, 2008.
[7] Mustafa Carroll interview, Fox News Dallas, January 5, 2009.
[8]"CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).
[9] "CAIR Condemns Israeli Assassination of Religious Leader," CAIR Press Release, March 22, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1051&page=NR (accessed July 6, 2007).
[10]"Abdel Aziz Rantisi," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, April 18, 2004, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terror+Groups/Abdel+Aziz+Rantisi.htm?DisplayMode=print (accessed July 8, 2004).
[11] "Muslims will see Bush ‘Green Light' for Assassination," CAIR Press Release, April 17, 2004, http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?id=1066&page=NR (accessed July 7, 2004).
[12]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[13]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[14]The Status Of Muslim Civil Rights In The United States: Unveiling Prejudice, Council on American-Islamic Relations, 1997, 48.
[15]Bill Hutman, "Police: J'lem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996.
[16] "Police: Jerusalem Crash Almost Certainly A Terror Attack," Jerusalem Post, February 28, 1996
[17] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.
[18] "The Truth Must Be Told," Jerusalem Post, March 3, 1996.
[19] "HAMAS Claims Bus Stop Killing in Jerusalem," Agence France Presse, February 28, 1996.
[20] http://web.archive.org/web/20010429224537/http://www.iap.org/politics/peace/cair-jr.html (accessed July 11, 2004).
[21] Hamas Charter 1988, Part III, Strategies and Methods, http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html (accessed July 5, 2006).
[22] http://www.palestine-info.net, June 5, 2001.
[23]Neil Munro, "Wild Ride for US Muslim Community," National Journal, October 27, 2001.
[24]Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslims Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.
[25]Rachel Smolkin, "Muslim Lobbies Fully Mobilized Since Sept. 11," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 10, 2002.
[26]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).
[27]Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, CA 00C-2905, "Deposition of Omar Ahmad," 267 (E.D. May 27, 2003).
[28] Ahmed Rehab, Panel Discussion moderated by John Hockenberry, "Islam vs. Islamists," July 30, 2007.
[29]Corey Saylor, Interview by David Lee Miller, "Where Are the Moderate Muslims in America?" Fox News Live Desk, Fox News, August 8, 2008.
[30] Interview of Ibrahim Hooper on CNN. "Protesting the War," January 2, 2009.
[31] Jim Popkin, "Obama concedes mistake over Muslim outreach meeting," MSNBC News, October 9, 2008 http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/09/1525564.aspx?p=1.
[32]CAIR NY Staff, Webarchive of CAIR NY http://web.archive.org/web/20010312005942/www.cair-ny.com/about.shtml (accessed July 5, 2007).
[33]Webarchive of CAIR-NY citing article on fundraising dinner where Executive Director of CAIR NY, Ghazi Khankan was quoted, http://web.archive.org/web/20040523184107/http:/www.cair-ny.com/ (accessed July 5, 2007).
[34] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001. Note: The Washington Post cited The Jewish Week piece. See: Hanna Rosin and Thomas Edsall, "Bush's Courting of Some Muslim Groups Criticized," The Washington Post, November 18, 2001.
[35] Walter Ruby, "Keeping Up a Hard Line," The Jewish Week, October 12, 2001.
[36] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.
[37] Nihad Awad, "Press Conference and Sit-In Outside State Department," Washington, D.C., June 5, 2001.
[38] Nihad Awad, Interview by Peter Slein, "Arab Americans and Law Enforcement," Washington Journal, C-SPAN, August 19, 2006.
[39] Parvez Ahmed, ISNA 44th Annual Conference in Rosemont, Illinois, Aug. 31 - Sep. 3, 2007.
[40] Mustafa Carroll, CAIR-Dallas Banquet, Renaissance Dallas Hotel, August 18, 2007.
[41]MSA-UCLA Islamic Awareness Week, Los Angeles, California, January 28, 2004.
[42]Stephen Koff, "Kucinich Now Plans to Return Hamas Supporter's Gift," Cleveland Plain Dealer, October 3, 2003.
[43] Parvez Ahmed, "Separating Religion From Terror: Implications for U.S. Policy," National Press Club, Washington, D.C., May 6, 2008.
[44] Parvez Ahmed, "Islamophobia: Institutionalized Racism?" The Islamic Center at NYU, October 21, 2007.
[45] Richard Clarke, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, October 22, 2003.
[46] CAIR Press Release, "`Jihad in America' Not Worthy of PBS Sponsorship," November 22, 1994.
[47] "Leading Muslim Cleric Under Fire for Meeting Israeli Chief Rabbi," AP Worldstream, January 7, 1998, quoting a January 6, 1998, article by Qaradawi in the Arab newspaper Al-Shaab.
[48] Al Raya, April 2001, quoted in Michael Slackman, "Islamic Debate Surrounds Mideast Suicide Bombers," The Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2001.
[49] "Prominent Muslim Cleric Says Fighting American Civilians In Iraq Is A Duty For Muslims," Associated Press, September 2, 2004.
[50] CAIR Fundraiser, Orange County, California, October 19, 2002.
[51] MSNBC, "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," July 26, 2005, transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8728122/ (accessed July 27, 2005).
[52] Nihad Awad, Arab Voices radio interview, January 25, 2006, http://www.arabvoices.net/archives/av-012506-awad.mp3.
[53]Nihad Awad, Letter to the Editor, The Message, April 1994.
[54] Palestinian Right of Return Rally, Washington, D.C., September 16, 2000.
[55] Nihad Awad, CAIR San Francisco Bay Area 13th Annual Banquet, "American Muslims: Shaping Our Future," San Jose, CA, November 11, 2007.
[56] Hussam Ayloush, CAIR- 2nd Annual Banquet, "Let the Conversation Begin," San Diego, CA, March 15, 2008.
[57] Nihad Awad, AMA Civil Rights Forum: The Case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, Historical Society of Washington, D.C. August 12, 2008.
[58] Jonathan Helman, "Muslim coalition requests more inclusion in new administration," CNN, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/29/muslim-coalition-requests-more-inclusion-in-new-administration/.
Barack Obama's Weimar Republic
Hyperinflation was first systematically documented in Germany.The currency above is from the Weinmar Republic. It was a 1,000 Mark currency note. because of inflation, it was re-stamped to make it 1,000,000 Marks, inflation was happening so fast there was not enough to print new money.
The famous Economist, John Maynard Keynes described the situation in The Economic Consequences of the Peace: "The inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded to extraordinary lengths. The various belligerent Governments, unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the resources they required, have printed notes for the balance. In English, Keynes said, they couldn't pay their bills so they printed MORE money. Sound familiar?
Now watch this:
Kind of looks like Al Gore's Hockey stick doesn't it. You ever wonder what the famous Mr. Keynes would say about the stimulus plan? Well maybe this will give you an idea:
Barack Obama’s Keynesian mistake
By Ike Brannon and Chris Edwards
Federal policymakers are moving ahead with a huge $800-billion stimulus plan to return the U.S. economy to growth. Will it work? Decades of macroeconomic research suggest that it won’t. Indeed, the revival of old-fashioned Keynesianism to fight the recession seems to stem more from political expediency than modern economic theory or historical experience.
The idea of using fiscal policy to boost the economy during a downturn was championed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. Keynes argued that market economies can get stuck in a deep rut and that only large infusions of government stimulus can revive growth. He posited that high unemployment in the Great Depression was due to “sticky wages” and other market problems that prevented the return of full-employment equilibrium. Interestingly, Keynes did not offer any evidence that sticky wages were a serious problem, and later research indicated that wages actually fell substantially during the 1930s. Instead, one needs to look at a range of government interventions to explain why the downturn lasted so long.
Despite the flaws in Keynes’ analysis, his prescription of fiscal stimulus to increase aggregate demand during recessions became widely accepted. Governments came to believe that by manipulating spending or temporary tax breaks they could scientifically manage the economy and smooth out business cycles. Many economists thought that there was a trade-off between inflation and unemployment that could be exploited by skilled policymakers. If unemployment was rising, the government could stimulate aggregate demand to reduce it, but with the side-effect of somewhat higher inflation.
Keynesians thought that fiscal stimulus would work by counteracting the problem of sticky wages. Workers would be fooled into accepting lower real wages as price levels rose. Rising nominal wages would spur added work efforts and increased hiring by businesses. However, later analysis revealed that the government can’t routinely fool private markets, because people have foresight and they are generally rational. Keynes erred in ignoring the actual microeconomic behaviour of individuals and businesses.
The dominance of Keynesianism ended in the 1970s. Government spending and deficits ballooned, but the result was higher inflation, not lower unemployment. These events, and the rise in monetarism led by Milton Friedman, ended the belief in an unemployment-inflation trade-off. Keynesianism was flawed and its prescription of active fiscal intervention was misguided. Indeed, Friedman’s research showed that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of government monetary policy, not a failure of private markets, as Keynes had claimed.
Even if a government stimulus were a good idea, policymakers probably wouldn’t implement it the way Keynesian theory would suggest. To fix a downturn, policymakers would need to recognize the problem early and then enact a counter-cyclical strategy quickly and efficiently. But U.S. history reveals that past stimulus actions have been too ill-timed or ill-suited to have actually helped. Further, many policymakers are driven by motives at odds with the Keynesian assumption that they will diligently pursue the public interest.
The end of simplistic Keynesianism in the 1970s created a void in macroeconomics that was filled by “rational expectations” theory developed by John Muth, Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro and others. By the 1980s, old-fashioned Keynesian was dead, at least among the new leaders of macroeconomics.
Rational expectations theorists held that people make reasoned economic decisions based on their expectations of the future. They cannot be systematically fooled by the government into taking actions that leave them worse off. For example, people know that a Keynesian-style stimulus might lead to higher inflation, and so they will adjust their behaviour accordingly, which has the effect of nullifying the stimulus plan. A spending stimulus will put the government further into debt, but it will not increase real output or income on a sustained basis.
It is difficult to find a macroeconomics textbook these days that discusses Keynesian fiscal stimulus as a policy tool without serious flaws, which is why the current $800-billion proposal has taken many macroeconomists by surprise. John Cochrane of the University of Chicago recently noted that the idea of fiscal stimulus is “taught only for its fallacies” in university courses these days. Thomas Sargent of New York University noted that “the calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research.”
It is true that Keynesian theory has been updated in recent decades, and it now incorporates ideas from newer schools of thought. But the Obama administration’s claim that its stimulus package will create up to four million jobs is outlandish. Certainly, many top macroeconomists are critical of the plan including Harvard University’s Greg Mankiw and Stanford University’s John Taylor, who have been leaders in reworking the Keynesian model. Taylor noted that “the theory that a short-run government spending stimulus will jump-start the economy is based on old-fashioned, largely static Keynesian theories.”
One result of the rational expectations revolution has been that many economists have changed their focus from studying how to manipulate short-run business cycles to researching the causes of long-run growth. It is on long-run growth that economists can provide the most useful advice to policymakers, on issues such as tax reform, regulation and trade.
While many economists have turned their attention to long-run growth, politicians unfortunately have shorter time horizons. They often combine little knowledge of economics with a large appetite for providing quick fixes to crises and recessions. Their demand for solutions is often matched by the supply of dubious proposals by overeager economists. Many prominent economists pushed for the passage of the $170-billion stimulus act in early 2008, but that stimulus turned out to be a flop. The lesson is that politicians should be more skeptical of economists claiming to know how to solve recessions with various grand schemes. Economists know much more about the factors that generate long-run growth, and that should be the main policy focus for government reform efforts.
The current stimulus plan would impose a large debt burden on young Americans, but would do little, if anything, to help the economy grow. Indeed, it could have similar effects as New Deal programs, which Milton Friedman concluded “hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government.” A precedent will be created with this plan, and policymakers need to decide whether they want to continue mortgaging the future or letting the economy adjust and return to growth by itself, as it has always done in the past.
Unfortunately, President Obama has proposed no long-run fiscal reforms, and like his predecessor seems to have a short-run Keynesian outlook. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were generally sold as temporary stimulus measures and President Bush hailed the 2008 tax rebates as providing a “booster shot” for the economy. It is not clear whether Keynesian beliefs or political factors are the main driver for the $800-billion stimulus plan. But as Harvard University’s Robert Barro noted in disapproval of the stimulus plan, just because the economy is in crisis, it does “not invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936.”
The Real Story of the Global Warming Hoax
President Obama and his fellow Dems are preparing to try and get us out of our economic slump by reproducing one of the key factors that DROVE US INTO the recession--Raising Gas Prices. They still wont commit to tapping the United States' vast petroleum reserves, the truth is they want to Keep it in the ground. Before they go ahead and legislate an even deeper recession I would like to bring up one salient point, ITS FREAKING COLD OUTSIDE !
Yesterday former Vice President Al Gore braved a major Ice storm to discuss global warming with congress. Maybe the ice storm was a message from Heaven "Hey Al, Enough of this Nonsense !"
After all, for most of the United States and much of the world, this has been one of the colder autumns in well over a decade, with reports of unseasonable snowfalls and plummeting temperatures from the American Great Plains to the Alps of Europe and into the inner reaches of Asia. Even China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever" in October. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. In fact, it's likely that 2008 will go down as the coldest year since in the United States since 1997.
So what am I missing here. The world's average temperature is LOWER today than it was ten years ago Even the UN has admitted this, but the Environazis are ignoring the real truth.
Ever wonder how the Global Warming Hoax Got Started? How Fake Science began to drive government decisions? Well, it all started with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle...
Yesterday former Vice President Al Gore braved a major Ice storm to discuss global warming with congress. Maybe the ice storm was a message from Heaven "Hey Al, Enough of this Nonsense !"
After all, for most of the United States and much of the world, this has been one of the colder autumns in well over a decade, with reports of unseasonable snowfalls and plummeting temperatures from the American Great Plains to the Alps of Europe and into the inner reaches of Asia. Even China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever" in October. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years. In fact, it's likely that 2008 will go down as the coldest year since in the United States since 1997.
So what am I missing here. The world's average temperature is LOWER today than it was ten years ago Even the UN has admitted this, but the Environazis are ignoring the real truth.
Ever wonder how the Global Warming Hoax Got Started? How Fake Science began to drive government decisions? Well, it all started with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle...
The Amazing Story Behind The Global Warming Scam
By John Coleman
January 28, 2009
The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.
How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?
The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.
Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.
These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.
Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.
But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.
The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about .41 hundredths of one percent.
Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.
Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation’s bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting.
Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations, a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But, he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was not a pure climate study scientific organization, as we have been lead to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
At the same time, that Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950’s as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.
He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students to become a major global warming activist. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming," That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book Earth in the Balance, published in 1992.
So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing. The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.
But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."
And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.
Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.
Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.
Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.
So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.
We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.
And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.
Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.
Chris Dodd's little "Honesty Problem,.
Last summer it was disclosed the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Chris Dodd Received TWO VIP Loans from Sub-Prime Lender Countrywide Inc. The Loans were at favorable interest rates. the Connecticut Senator, who has been Critical of the types of loans given by Countrywide Financial group, reportedly recieved "preferential" interest rates from Countrywide because was a "friends" of the company's chairman and chief executive, Angelo Mozilo.
But that day still hasn't come. Ironically the senator that spends much of his time bashing backs and Wall Street for their "lack of transparency, has a little transparency problem of his his own:
When a Portfolio investigation [2] reported how Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) got friendly treatment from a major player in the mortgage industry he oversees, he promised to release mortgage documents [3] to put the controversy to rest. "There ain't much to the story," he told the Hartford Courant.
Back in 2003, Sen. Dodd took part in a VIP program called “Friends of Angelo”reportedly saved about $75,000 [4] on the life of two loans.
Dodd acknowledged he knew he had VIP status [5] but didn’t believe it was because he was a U.S. Senator or on the Senate committee that oversees the mortgage industry.
According to OpenSecrets.org [6], Dodd has collected $20,000 in campaign contributions from Countrywide since 1989.
The countdown begins with Dodd’s July 24, 2008 promise [3] to the Hartford Courant that he would release his mortgage documents to the public. Since then, Dodd has said repeatedly that [7] he’ll get around to it, apparently someday.
But that day still hasn't come. Ironically the senator that spends much of his time bashing backs and Wall Street for their "lack of transparency, has a little transparency problem of his his own:
Dodd of Indignation
Wall Street bonuses and sweetheart mortgages: Compare and discuss.
Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd has been in typically indignant form this week, opining on the financial crisis. Before his Tuesday hearing on Bernard Madoff, he demanded that regulators get to the bottom of any crime: "American investors deserve an explanation and the responsible parties must be held accountable!" And yesterday the Connecticut Senator denounced Wall Street bonuses and said, "I am urging -- in fact, not urging, demanding -- that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back."
We refer to his promise to release mortgage documents for the two properties that he and his wife refinanced with Countrywide Financial in 2003. In June a former Countrywide loan officer charged that Mr. Dodd received preferential rates and had fees waived on those loans as part of a VIP program the company had for "friends" of the company's then-CEO Angelo Mozilo. Mr. Dodd first issued a denial and then, days later, acknowledged that he was a "VIP" with Countrywide but said he thought it was "more of a courtesy." In late June he pledged to make all pertinent documents public "at some point." We're still waiting.
Dodd Bedfellows
Dodd and Countrywide 10/10/2008 – The Senator should take the witness stand.
Mortgage VIPs 06/25/2008 – Sweetheart deals are just a phone call away.
Angelo's Angel 06/19/2008 – The senate bailout for Countrywide needs more scrutiny.
Congress and the Countrywide Scandal 06/18/2008 – Some senators want a bailout for big political donors. What a surprise.
Beltwaywide Financial 06/16/2008 – The new ARMs: Angelo-rated mortgages for senators.
Increasing accountability is critical to rebuilding public trust in the financial system, as the Senator keeps telling us. Countrywide was one of the most irresponsible lenders in the subprime frenzy but it did not act alone. One reason it could pump out so much bad paper is because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were around to buy it and then resell it with a taxpayer guarantee. Messrs. Dodd and Mozilo were two of Fan and Fred's biggest supporters, with Mr. Dodd playing a role in pushing the companies to take on "affordable housing" loans from outfits like Countrywide.
Perhaps Connecticut's longest serving Senator was bamboozled by Mr. Mozilo and used bad judgment in backing the reckless lender. But loan officer Robert Feinberg, who oversaw Countrywide's VIP program, says Mr. Dodd knew he was getting favors from Mr. Mozilo. Mr. Feinberg says his job was to remind beneficiaries at every step of the process that they were getting a special deal because they were "Friends of Angelo." If true, it would mean that the Senator had a clear conflict of interest as a legislator promoting the business of a company doing him personal favors. Recall the Ted Stevens precedent.
The way to clear this up is to see all the documents and get Mr. Dodd to explain what happened, preferably under oath. But Mr. Dodd has been stonewalling. In July he said he would release the documents after President Bush signed the first housing bailout bill. Nothing. Then in October he said he wanted to wait until the Senate Ethics Committee completed its investigation.
That could take a while. On July 28 Ethics Chairman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Vice Chairman John Cornyn (R. Texas) issued a press release that explained "it has been the long-standing policy of the committee to defer investigation into matters where there is an active and ongoing criminal investigation and proceeding so as not to interfere in that process."
Earlier this month, Mr. Dodd's office confirmed that the law firm Perkins Coie has provided "ethics advice" to him, and we can't help but wonder what that entailed. The delay at the Ethics Committee in no way impedes Mr. Dodd from honoring his disclosure pledge. It's in his political interest to do so, assuming he has nothing to hide. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed his approval rating down to an all-time low of 47%. Rare is the politician who could clear his name overnight and chooses not to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)