Saturday, October 03, 2009
It seems my options are to delete some of the 2000 labels, keep browsing Blogger Help for a solution, stop posting at SlantRight blogger or create a new SlantRight blogger.
I have decided to go with a combination of stop posting at SlantRight blogger and create a new SlantRight blogger.
So those few wise fellow bloggers following SlantRight blogger, mosey on over to SlantRight 2.0. Those that visit here you can also mosey on over. J
The Liberty Council has successfully spanked the best funded Leftist legal organization in America – the ACLU. The Liberty Council is asking for donations because the ACLU is not used to losing cases that protects the rights of Christian Believers in America.
Here are the details from the Liberty Council on their victory and the urgent reason they need to re-stock their financial legal coffers to meet the counter-attack of the ACLU.
ACLU fires back to criminalize Christianity
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Email Sent: October 2, 2009 5:04:42 PM
The ACLU has launched a potent counter-offensive against our victory in Santa Rosa County. Please see below. –Mat
A few weeks ago, your support helped Liberty Counsel gain a
stunning victory against the ACLU in their effort to
criminalize the mealtime prayers of school officials in
Santa Rosa County, Florida.
With the help of many friends like you, we met the ACLU's
challenge head-on and won a resounding victory for Principal
Frank Lay, Athletic Director Robert Freeman, Administrative
Assistant Michele Winkler, their families and the God-fearing
people of their community.
Praise God for His faithfulness and His answer to so many prayers!
Apparently, we got under the ACLU's skin, because they have
launched a massive legal counterattack that threatens to further
silence Santa Rosa School District and similar systems all
across the Nation.
+ + How the ACLU has expanded its attack
Despite our victory on behalf of the school employees, the
outrageous ACLU-inspired court order still hangs over this
school system. In fact, the ACLU is actively soliciting
"informants" while continuing to intimidate employees and
students and confusing them about their God-given,
inalienable rights as Americans.
Even worse, the ACLU's team is trying to further manipulate
the legal process in their attempt to renew their attack. We knew the ACLU desperately wanted their way in this case when they assigned 6 (six!) of their seasoned attorneys to bludgeon this small school district in Florida's panhandle region.
That's why I'm writing to you today. Liberty Counsel has already raised a Constitutional challenge against the underlying "consent decree" that the ACLU is using to bully and intimidate this school system and, by extension, schools across the Nation.
A hearing has been set for later this year. I need your help or we face giving up precious ground to the ACLU.
+ + Why we are vulnerable to the ACLU's attack right now
As every military commander knows, forces are most exposed
and at risk immediately after taking new ground. That's because so much energy and so many resources must be expended to take any strategic position, and it takes time to "dig in."
That's why the first order of business immediately after a victory must always be to solidify one's position against a counterattack.
The same holds true in legal maneuverings, especially when one's adversary is the ACLU. As you know, the ACLU has virtually unlimited resources, along with a long-term strategy to destroy the rights of believers. That's why they redoubled their efforts in Santa Rosa County when they failed to make their outrageous criminal charges against our clients stick.
Which leaves me with a difficult challenge...
Liberty Counsel has already poured substantial resources into this fight to ensure the best possibility for victory on behalf of our clients. And we won the early battles! But now I must increase our efforts to prevent the ACLU from turning this into a devastating defeat for religious liberties that they can replicate in school districts across the nation.
John, would you prayerfully consider making a special gift right now to Liberty Counsel so we can fight the ACLU's oppressive anti-faith consent decree and continue other vital efforts? Go here:
Also, please continue to be in prayer for our team. We know we are "David" fighting the "Goliath" of the ACLU. And we know our "five smooth stones" can take down this giant. But like David, we dare not trust in our own wisdom or strength!
Thank you once again for partnering with us, and may God bless you.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman
PS We recommend Psalm 20 as a prayer focus for this conflict... please continue to keep our staff in your prayers! As David the psalmist concluded long ago, God will "answer from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand." Again, thank you for your support!
Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C., is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.
Liberty Counsel . PO Box 540774 . Orlando, FL 32854 .
Friday, October 02, 2009
Evidently I have had my head in the sand since my budget had to downsize my cable ability to watch the FOX News channel. (I almost cringe to watch the big three network news shows.) Evidently around September 20th or so some big dog Conservative pundits chased after a liberal bone tossed from the Mainstream Media (MSM) pertaining comments made by Glen Beck about Senator McCain’s run for President. Once the bone was out there the Conservative big dogs began some backbiting.
I actually became aware of this from an Our Country Deserves Better (OCBD)e-newsletter. It seems the Beck controversy has crept in other ways within the Tea Party Movement. Apparently there is some Tea Party Movement back biting and OCDB sent the e-newsletter to set their position about the back biting and to extol the Tea Party Movement with a call for unity.
Conservatives Must Avoid Circular Firing Squads
Our Country Deserves Better E-Newsletter
10/02/2009 03:10:27 am
The past week has seen some intense behind-the-scenes discussions in various quarters of the conservative movement over a series of comments on cable TV news shows regarding Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Joe Scarborough.
Scarborough, who has a morning news show on MSNBC, had put a call out for every potential Republican presidential candidate to denounce conservative radio and TV host, Glenn Beck.
Soon all sorts of pundits and commentators from Kathleen Parker to David Brooks were weighing in with their views about the matter, including sharing their thoughts on comments Beck had made in an interview with CBS's Katie Couric.
Amidst all the noise, we felt our heads begin to spin. And we also felt a case of déjà vu setting in. Hadn't we seen this taken from the media's playbook once before? Oh yes, we had and it was Katie Couric once again stirring up trouble for another prominent conservative, Gov. Sarah Palin - and watching with glee the conservative in-fighting that commenced thereafter.
The liberal media continues to enjoy their role in sparking a dust-up in the conservative community. Whether a deliberate effort to distract from the failings of Barack Obama and Congress (under Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), or just for the fun of attempting to injure the conservative movement, it doesn't matter the reason.
The point is the media got their wish. The left-wing media spin group, Media Matters, even produced a video showing all of the shots being fired in the conservative circular firing squad. You can watch it - HERE.
Normally we wouldn't even be giving attention to any of the misleading propaganda produced by Media Matters. But we wanted you to watch it so you can see how this game is played by the media and the Left. We want you to be aware of the fact that this is how they define and control the news cycle - again, especially when things aren't going so well for their political idols in the White House and Congress.
Like we said, the feeling was one of deja vu for us this week. Our minds took us back to early March when RNC Chairman Michael Steele made a series of denigrating comments about conservative radio talk giant, Rush Limbaugh.
The media tried to turn the back-and-forth exchange of comments into a giant firestorm of debate on the news shows. At that time we made the same plea to fellow conservatives as we are doing now - don't fall for the media's trap! Here's what we wrote on March 2, 2009 regarding that dust up:
The bottom line is this: Rush Limbaugh is right when he rallies conservatives to fight for their principles and oppose policies and ideologies that we believe are harmful to the nation and that go against the sacred trust of individual liberty and freedom.
The Republican Party is searching for its soul right now, when it should be easy for it to find its voice in opposing taxpayer bailouts, trillions of dollars in spending when our nation is already in debt, and opposing higher taxes.
That the Republican leadership are not doing this loudly, succinctly and uniformly is what has so many conservatives concerned.
Michael Steele and Eric Cantor have fallen for the Democrats' trap. They want to see Republicans fighting each other instead of their liberal agenda.
And if that wasn't enough, this week's infighting even extended into the tea party movement.
In the days leading up to the August 28th launch of the Tea Party Express (which the Our Country Deserves Better Committee organized in conjunction with several other conservative organizations and local tea party groups across the country), an aggressive activist in the tea party movement then attempted to convince local tea party groups not to cooperate with the Tea Party Express. This individual thought that he should decide what takes place in the tea party movement and did everything he could to defame the Tea Party Express.
Thankfully, he failed!
Nonetheless, he accused us of being shills for the GOP, which if you read our comments about the Michael Steele-Rush Limbaugh dust-up as printed above, you know is quite laughable. We're conservatives first, and will speak up for those who support these principles, and we will speak out against those who don't - even if they are Republicans.
During our launch event for the Tea Party Express this individual's wife kept harassing speakers and urging them to not even mention the Tea Party Express. Finally she went so far as to push and kick one of the rally organizers in an attempt to stop one of our tour's singers, Diana Nagy, from performing her beautiful song, "Where Freedom Flies" prompting the Capitol police to escort this tea party activist's wife away.
This is no way for people to work together to advance shared causes, friends. Kicking people to keep them from singing because your own ego resents attention being given to a patriotic singer? Telling people which tea party events they should and shouldn't go to?
Now that same individual is out again emailing people and telling them they shouldn't support the Tea Party Express - yet again, as he feels he should decide what happens within the tea party movement. His actions even got a liberal alternative newspaper to write up a blog entry that was headlined "Discord in the Tea Parties?" The report was written by a writer who has described the tea party movement as "fringe" and derided Fox News Channel's coverage of the tea party movement.
When this liberal reporter showed his ignorance of our efforts in the tea party movement we eagerly set the record straight - HERE.
The tea party movement is a grass roots movement of the people. There is no one leader. We certainly are not that leader. Instead, like you, we are just one part of this massive coalition and growing movement.
Infighting by conservative commentators or among tea party activsits (sic) is not helpful, friends. We simply must make sure that ego and ambition do not undermine our conservative movement.
The same self-determination, drive and ambition that is part of our free society, and that compels us to do the best we can to provide for our families, achieve success at the workplace, and personal gratification for excelling at our hobbies and interests, can sometimes also have a dark side: ego and jealousy. It's part of human nature, and it is understandable. But our conservative movement must not allow these feelings to be played like instruments by a waiting and willing media and left-wing political machine that is just itching to turn us all against one another.
It is for that reason that we've never told you about some of the behind-the-scenes drama in the leadup of the Tea Party Express, and why we won't print this hostile individual's name here now, either. We're not out looking to perpetuate the differences of opinions and hand ammunition to our ideological enemies. In fact, when one of our principal's at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee vented on his blog about this matter we even asked him to take down his post, which he promptly did. Not because it wasn't tempting to tell the truth of what happened, but because it wouldn't serve to help anyone but our political adversaries on the Left.
We here at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee have great appreciation for the contributions made to the conservative cause by a whole host of people, groups, leaders, spokespersons and radio talk hosts. We believe this conservative movement must have a place for voices like Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Michael Reagan, Lars Larson, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Praeger, and many others.
Each of these folks reaches people in their own ways - and they each serve a valuable role in helping to encourage the advancement of conservative thoughts and principles. We won't tell you who YOU should or shouldn't listen to, and we will always stand resolute against people like Katie Couric or the folks at Media Matters when they cook up their stunts to compel conservative figures to fight one another as a means to advance their own liberal cause.
We have a nation to fight for, friends. America faces the gravest threat from left-wing policies that she has in decades. This administration and Congress are attempting to reshape America into a very different country than our Founding Fathers envisioned.
They are pushing forward in an effort to enact a redistribution of wealth, socialistic economic policies, massive deficits and a giant growth of government power and influence. They want to control your health care, what kind of car you can drive, what kind of energy you can use to heat or cool your house, and on and on.
This fight will require a strong, united conservative opposition. We are proud to join you in this fight, and we are proud to work in tandem with dozens of other conservative organizations in this effort.
Let us all be dilligent to never fall for the media's trap and lose focus on what unites us, instead of what small differences we might have with one another at times - either be they based on tactics or personality.
Here's what we can accomplish when we work together - it's a Fox News report on the Tea Party Express, that was LIVE from our Flagstaff, AZ rally. Please take a moment to watch it [SlantRight Editor: I am unsure how long the link will last], as it is a testament to what we can do when we all work together, instead of against one another:
WATCH FOX NEWS REPORT ON TEA PARTY EXPRESS - HERE
Now, onwards to the fight ahead, good friends! We'll be posting updates over the coming week on the "Tea Party Express: Countdown to Judgment Day" at the Tea Party Express website: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/
If you are a normal American that believes the moral relativity of the Left (e.g. the Obama Administration: Gay Rights supporter but pro-DOMA), Secular Humanism and the Homosexual Agenda (including NAMBLA) will change the social structure of America then you need to call your Senator or Congressman pronto!
Kerry Jacoby writing in the American Thinker provides the eloquent precise reasons for calling your Senator or Congressman.
JRH 10/2/09 (Hat Tip: Tsumura’s Corner)
Thursday, October 01, 2009
I wonder what American Leftists would do if President Barack Hussein Obama went before Congress requiring a nationally televised broadcast and praised Christianity and its influence through out American history.
I can dream can't I?
John R. Houk
© October 1, 2009
When you hear of gay or homosexual rights or activists claiming there should be no discrimination against their hedonistic debauchery then think of about the four men busted recently for child pornography. These men were busted by the FBI for involvement in a pedophile ring. It has been insinuated NAMBLA which stands for North American Man/Boy Love Association was probably an influence on the four homosexual pedophile purveyors of child pornography.
NAMBLA is in the mainstream of the Gay Rights movement. Or at least NAMBLA makes that claim. The pedophile organization is not some fringe homosexual group outside the scope of mainstream homosexuality. This is a group that is actively lobbying for State and Federal laws to allow grown men to have sex with boys.
One of the early supporters of NAMBLA is considered such an honored activist in gay rights history his writings have been enshrined in the taxpayer supported Smithsonian Institute. That person is Frank Kameny.
NAMBLA officially does not condone forced sex (i.e. rape) with boys; however it does teach its pedophile network how to persuade impressionable aged boys into sex acts with the molesting pedophile. In my book preying on unsuspecting boys is still a heinous crime. It could change the future of the boy into a Chester the Molester or psychologically scar his conscience for the rest of his life.
Now I have to be honest that some homosexual activist organizations have condemned NAMBLA. The condemnation has been relatively recent as NAMBLA has been historically linked in an umbrella of homosexual rights groups. The impression I have received from homosexuals condemning NAMBLA is not because pedophilia is morally wrong, rather the impression I have is the condemnation was more out of a concern for hampering the mainstreaming of homosexuality into a heterosexual culture. If homosexuals are linked to child molestation even the Leftists may have a difficult time defending the homosexual agenda.
Here is an example of the reason homosexual rights organizations are attempting to sever a connection to NAMBLA:
The FBI today announced child-pornography charges against four men from Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana, accusing them of operating a ring that distributed pornographic images and videos and referred to themselves by the name “Boy Lovers.”
Charged are Jose Carlos Garcia, 22, of Schererville, Ind.; Neal Maschke, 40, of West Chicago; Corey Stinefast, 27, of Kenosha, Wis.; and Mark McGill, 24, of Crest Hill.
According to the complaints, the FBI began investigating the men in June after arresting one in their group. That man admitted to “possession, receipt, distribution and manufacture of child pornography,” the complaint said. The man “also stated he had contacts with many other child pornography enthusiasts, some of whom were molesting children.”
The man became a cooperating witness and may still face federal child-exploitation charges himself, according to the complaints. (AFTAH)
The AFTAH version of this story begins by insinuating that because these pedophiles who called themselves the “Boy Lovers,” there must be at least a NAMBLA influence. Apparently “Boy Lovers” is common terminology among the NAMBLA activists.
This is sick demented stuff!
JRH 10/1/09 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
John R. Houk
© September 30, 2009
The American Revolution found that 13 British colonies on the North American Continent agreed on at least one issue. Via the propertied elite the colonies had become weary of British management of North American colonial affairs. The American colonies felt themselves just as much as British citizens as those back in merry ol’ England. When the American colonialists began experiencing taxation and commerce management that benefitted Mother England and caused economic hardship in the colonies, resistance to British law crept from disgruntlement to outright rebellion by 1775.
By 1776 the British colonies in America declared themselves independent from British rule. American government from 1777 to 1788 was under the loose authority of the American Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation became the unanimous rule of law by March 1781 when Maryland became the 13th sovereign State to get on board with the new American government.
The new United States of America for all purposes were free of British control when Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington at Yorktown in 1781.
The Brits made USA sovereignty official ending the American Revolution in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.
From 1781 to 1788 13 sovereign American States used the Articles of Confederation making the Continental Congress the Head of State. The loose unity of 13 States became an Inter-State problem with enforcing a national rule of law. Each State regarded each other as an independent entity with the Articles of Confederation as a symbol more than as an American government. Americans at this time would call themselves a citizen of their particular State before calling themselves an American.
The elite leaders of the Revolutionary War eventually banded together to institute an interesting experiment of combining a central government along side sovereign Statehood linking the USA to an enforceable rule of law. Thus the Constitutional Convention convened with delegates from most of the 13 States with General George Washington as its moderating President.
It was no easy task of a group of men from sovereign States discussing a means for a central federal government yet maintaining State sovereignty. After a lot of debate and compromises a Constitutional document was written with James Madison as the primary architect.
The Constitutional Convention merely presented a document for the sovereign States to ratify before it became the rule of law for the USA. The next step was selling the Constitution to the 13 States who more than likely would ratify or not according to the State legislature rather than a direct voting plebiscite.
The architect for the Constitution – James Madison – was joined by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay writing a series of essays to convince States to ratify the Constitution. These essays grouped together became known as the Federalist Papers. There were a group of people very much against the Constitution’s implication of removing some of each State’s sovereignty and against the implication of national taxation outside the loop of sovereign States. This group of men became known as the Anti-Federalists. It is less well known that there are some Anti-Federalists writings to counter the Federalist Papers.
By June 21, 1788 the U.S. Constitution became ratified as the new government and the law of the land when New Hampshire became the ninth State voting for ratification. Here is a list of the States which were hold-outs to ratification yet eventually followed through:
- • Virginia – June 25, 1788
• New York – July 26 1788
• North Carolina – November 21, 1789
• Rhode Island – May 29, 1790
Hence began a national struggle of power sharing between the Federal government and each State of the Union of the USA. This struggle came to a head when several southern States did not want the Federal government to have its tentacles into their laws and lifestyle culture. Citing the principles of the Revolutionary War these States decided to secede from the Union of States in the USA governed by the U.S. Constitution. The secession began with South Carolina in December 1860 and culminated with Tennessee June 8, 1861. Eleven States in all seceded to form the Confederate States of America with the issue of States Rights in mind if not more so than the issue of anti-slavery sentiment of the Northern States.
- • South Carolina – December 20, 1860
• Mississippi – January 9, 1861
• Florida – January 10, 1861
• Alabama – January 11, 1861
• Georgia – January 19, 1861
• Louisiana – January 26, 1861
• Texas – February 1, 1861
• Virginia – April 17, 1861
• Arkansas - May 6, 1861
• North Carolina – May 20, 1861
• Tennessee – June 8, 1861
As a Yankee from Washington State I learned that the war was called the Civil War. It had other names depending on where you are from such as the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression.
The North won the war roughly with the surrender of Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse, VA. Although it was definitely unneeded formality Confederate President Jefferson Davis assembled his Cabinet (or what was left of it) for the last time on May 5, 1865 at Washington, GA. The Confederacy was dissolved and five days later the Union Army caught up with a fleeing Davis at Irwinville, GA.
In my humble opinion the Union victory began an incremental lack of capacity for American States to assert State sovereignty over law issues the U.S. Constitution reserved for State authority. The “federalism” of a constitutionally instituted federalist republic has slowly become the absolute hegemony of centralized national government over the federalist sovereignty of State government.
The erosion of State sovereignty has actually led to the popularization of secessionist movements in individual States. Most of the secessionist movements are slanted Right politically however some of the secessionist movements are slanted Left. The one commonality in the political spectrum is the distrust to the disgust of the operation of the national Federal government inserted into the lives and local cultures of various States in which secessionism has evolved to a more noticeable profile than mere fringe politics.
I found an interesting article about American secessionist movements. The article is fascinating because it is an illustration of the early American Colonialist dissatisfaction with British meddling in the Colonies’ well being via arrogance, taxation and regulation. As the American colonialists viewed British oversight from an ocean away as contemptible, so also in the present American secessionist movements are becoming dissatisfied with the meddling of the national Federal government in the social, cultural and economic lives of State citizens.
Take a gander at the article I found at the Jewish World Review for a little more definition of American secessionist movements.
Secession movement moves well beyond Texas
By Anna M. Tinsley
Jewish World Review
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ (MCT) AUSTIN, Texas — As head of the Texas Nationalist Movement, Daniel Miller of Nederland believes it's time for the Lone Star State to sever its bond with the United States and return to the days when Texas was an independent republic.
"Independence. In our lifetime," Miller's organization proclaims on its Web site.
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested that some Texans might want to secede from the Union because they are fed up with the federal government, the remarks drew nationwide news coverage and became fodder for late-night comedians.
But to Texas separatists like Miller and Republican gubernatorial candidate Larry Kilgore of Mansfield, secession is no laughing matter. Nor is it exclusive to the nation's second-largest state.
Fanned by angry contempt for Washington, secession movements have sprouted up in perhaps more than a dozen states in recent years. In Vermont, retired economics professor Thomas Naylor leads the Second Vermont Republic, a self-styled citizens network dedicated to extracting the sparsely populated New England state from "the American Empire."
And on the other side of the continent, Northwestern separatists envision a "Republic of Cascadia" carved out of Oregon, Washington and the Canadian province of British Columbia.
While most Americans dismiss the breakaway sentiments, sociologists and political experts say they are part of a larger anti-Washington wave that is rapidly spreading across the country.
More commonplace are states' rights movements to directly challenge federal laws, a citizen revolt that one scholar says is unparalleled in modern times. Among the actions in which states are thumbing their nose at Washington:
—Montana and Tennessee have enacted legislation declaring that firearms made and kept within those states are beyond the authority of the federal government. Similar versions of the law, known as the Firearms Freedom Act, have been introduced in at least four other states.
—Arizona lawmakers will let voters decide a proposed state constitutional amendment that would opt the state out of federal health care mandates under consideration in Congress. The amendment will be placed on the November 2010 ballot. Republican state Rep. Nancy Barto said five other states considered similar versions of the amendment this year and at least nine others are expected to do so next year.
—Nearly two dozen states have approved resolutions refusing to participate in the Real ID Act of 2005, which requires that driver's licenses and state ID cards conform to federal standards.
—A campaign called "Bring the Guard Home" is pushing legislation in 23 states that would empower governors to recall state National Guard units from Iraq on the premise that the federal law authorizing such deployments has expired. "It's gaining momentum, to say the least," said Jim Draeger, program manager for Peace Action Wisconsin. He said the initiative has a respectable chance of passing the Legislature in his state.
Rising public anger over the way Washington does business has produced a growing outcry for state sovereignty and strict adherence to the 10th Amendment, which says powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states.
Texas was an epicenter for this year's "tea party" protests, in which thousands of Americans displayed their contempt for rising taxes and federal intrusion.
Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles, a think tank that monitors states' rights activity, said defiance of federal policy is "unprecedented" and cuts across the philosophical spectrum, ranging from staunch conservatives to anti-war activists to civil libertarians. Legislatures in 37 states, he said, have introduced state sovereignty resolutions and at least seven have passed.
Perry, who faces a hard-fought Republican primary challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, has made state sovereignty one of his signature themes. During the 2009 Legislature, he endorsed an unsuccessful resolution supporting the 10th Amendment, asserting that "our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state."
After a tea party rally in April, Perry told reporters that secession might be on the minds of some Texans disgusted with the federal government. He later stressed that he wasn't advocating secession, telling the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "America is a great country, and Texas wants to stay in that union and help our way out of" the nation's economic downturn.
But others are advocating secession.
In a poll of 1,209 respondents conducted by Zogby International last year, 22 percent said they believed that "any state or region" has the right to secede and become an independent republic, and 18 percent said they would support a secessionist movement in their state. Conversely, more than 70 percent expressed opposition to secession.
Kirk Sale of Mount Pleasant, S.C., formed the Middlebury Institute in 2004 for the study of "separatism, secession and self-determination." The institute conducted the Third North American Secessionist Convention in New Hampshire in 2008, drawing delegates from about two dozen secessionist organizations in the United States and Canada.
Secessionist organizations are operating at various levels of activity in Texas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Alaska and Hawaii. Breakaway sentiments and anger at Washington also run high within the Southern National Congress, a 14-state organization to "express Southern grievances and promote Southern interests."
Chairman Tom Moore, who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwest Virginia, says the group is "not explicitly a secessionist organization," although "most of our people probably do favor that option."
For many, the mention of secession brings to mind the most turbulent years in American history, when 13 Southern states broke away from the Union in 1860 and '61, plunging the country into a Civil War that claimed at least 618,000 lives but put an end to slavery. In contrast, modern-day secessionists stress that they advocate a peaceful departure and emphatically dismiss criticism that their organizations embrace racism and white supremacy.
"We maintain an open-door policy," said Miller, who began forming the Texas Nationalist Movement early in the decade from the remnants of an earlier Texas independence movement. "If you're about freedom — individual freedom — and liberty and Texas independence, we call you brother or sister."
Miller says the group includes Hispanics, African-Americans, women, lifelong Democrats and union members. "We don't argue race; we don't argue Democrat or Republican," he said. The movement also "predates Obama," he said, pointing out that his organization started well before the president took office in January.
Miller, 35, said his involvement comes from a deep-rooted civic responsibility that began when he would accompany his father, a union ironworker, on the picket line. When Miller was 18, he made an unsuccessful run for mayor of White Oak, a small community outside Longview in East Texas. His call for Texas independence, he said, stems from a belief that Washington's failures are dragging down the Lone Star State. Texas, which outpaces most other states in mineral wealth, agriculture, technology and other sectors, would be far better off as a separate country, he said.
"We currently have one of the strongest economies in the world," said Miller, a Web-based radio entrepreneur who lives in deep Southeast Texas. "We've got everything we need to be, not just a viable nation, but a thriving, prosperous nation, except for one thing — independence from the United States."
Kilgore, a telecommunications consultant in Mansfield, has made secession a high-profile theme of his Republican campaign for governor. Though overshadowed by the two dominant Republicans in the race — Perry and Hutchison — Kilgore believes his candidacy is stoking interest in secession, and vice versa. He said he gets at least a half-dozen calls and 15 e-mails each day on the issue, in addition to "all kinds of Facebook hits."
"A lot of people have given up on the federal government," Kilgore said.
If he becomes governor, he said, he would call a constitutional convention to create a nation of Texas, with voters asked to approve a constitutional amendment to cement the process. Texas emissaries would negotiate with Washington for separation, he said, predicting that the United States and Texas could "still be friends after we split."
From his home in Charlotte, Vt., Naylor said he also believes that his small New England state would fare much better outside what he derisively calls the "empire."
Vermont, which, like Texas, was a republic before achieving statehood, has a population of 625,000, is the nation's leading supplier of maple syrup and has a vibrant tourism industry. "We would not only survive, we would thrive," he said.
Naylor, who describes himself as "a professional troublemaker," grew up in Mississippi and taught economics at Duke University in North Carolina for 30 years.
During his years in the South, he said, he was "pretty much a vehement anti-secessionist" and refused to stand whenever Dixie was played. But, after moving to Vermont, he said, he began to rally against the "tyranny" of corporate America and the federal government, although he acknowledges the perceived "absurdity" of tiny Vermont rising up against the most powerful nation in the world.
"The empire has lost its moral authority. It's unsustainable, ungovernable and unfixable," he said. "We want out."
Are the Early Stages of a New American Revolution Arising?
John R. Houk
© September 30, 2009
Secession movement moves well beyond Texas
© 2009, Fort Worth Star-Telegram Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The theme of the essay is a “New Realism.” The foreign policy concept is supposed to be middle ground between allowing everything including the kitchen sink without preconditions and Right Wing Realism. The former uses Jimmy – Hamas – Carter as an example. The latter uses Neoconservatives as an example.
The New Realism’s (A Conservative’s View) primary advocates seem to be Dennis Ross (Profile from Left oriented Right Web) and Robert Baer. Johnson’s essay is kind of a critique of an article written in the Washington Post by Fareed Zakaria.
I’ll probably have to read Johnson’s essay a few times in an attempt to digest all the implications of the New Realism. Upon first glance (well maybe second glance) Zakaria appears to be a proponent of the New Realism.
Now here is the foundation of the New Realism in foreign policy: The acceptance of Iran as a Middle Eastern hegemon while using a combination of Saudi clout, European economic strength and American power in a carrot and stick scenario to counteract Middle Eastern Iranian hegemony. It sounds like a new Cold War scenario in which the West tries to fence in the Iranian National Agenda with both overt and covert agents. Russia and China will play the switch and bait game to placate their National Interests meaning sometimes supporting the West and sometimes supporting Iran. For Russia and China the bait and switch of support will be founded upon that which benefits the respective the global sub-hegemonic powers (i.e. assuming that America is still THE global hegemon).
Below is Johnson’s very loaded with geopolitical information essay.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Yes it may be an odd title to find on a political blog. As you read it you should contemplate a few things.
The post is primarily evangelistic, yet there is enough of a hint of politics that should get you to contemplate your faith in today’s current political occurrences and leanings.
Also note that the evangelistic message is eschatological without any reference of converting or the sword of God will slice your living flesh and send it to hell to burn with the infidel. The message is all about choice rather than force.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Here is a story in which I am clueless about its actual age for I have seen it on two different blogs. I do know it happened. AND I do know it is something that Western readers, especially American readers need to comprehend about Islam.
The story is about Hamas the Islamic terrorist organization hosting multiple marriages of child brides (AND I DO MEAN CHILD!) to young adult Muslim men.
Ah, you say, that is merely a Middle Eastern cultural thing in which that society does not find such reprobate deeds reprehensible.
Come on friends, Leftists and Muslim apologists: the movement of Muslim organizations and Mosques in the West (even America) are funded by Wahhabist Saudi wealth or the Muslim Brotherhood directly or indirectly. Hello Westerners – These guys wish to institute Sharia Law according to the most conservative Muslims religious schools of thought. That means the Muslims in the West demanding Sharia Law zones in the West would be sanctioning Muslim child marriages.
Think of that as read this essay entitled, “HAMAS PLAYS HOST TO PEDOPHILIA.” We are talking 450 child brides age 10 or younger to 450 Muslim grooms.
JRH 9/27/09 (Hat Tip: The Conservative Monster)
I am certain there are acts of violence perpetrated by the independent Jewish militias that eventually merged into the Israel Defense Force (IDF). The fight for independence and Israel’s desire for a sovereign State for Jews to live in which the government’s policy does not even have a hint of anti-Semitism undoubtedly led to some bad decisions. One has to wonder: How did the Jewish desire for a Jewish State for Jews differ from the Islamic hatred spread in propaganda by Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini calling for the extermination of Jews in the British Palestine Mandate. Jewish militias only began to utilize violence when it became obvious the Brits were determined to leave the Palestine Mandate. The Brit determination to leave was matched by the desire for the British Empire to have good standing with Middle Eastern Muslims. The Arab violence began as a result of al-Husseini Jew-hatred and the belief the Brits and America would befriend Arab nations to counter Soviet expansionist dreams at the end of WWII.
Anyway … further your Israeli historical education which Israpundit insinuates is the American plan for the Middle East – at the expense of Jews.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a Twelver Shi’ite sermon to the U.N. General Assembly. The sermon praised the oneness of God (no doubt Allah before the translator gave the English version), the human prophets from Adam to Mohammed (including Jesus as a mere human), truth, democracy, and every other principle that a kafir would laugh concerning the Iranian hypocrisy.
The next day President Barack Hussein Obama gave his America can do better and siding with Arabs that Palestine has a right to exist as a sovereign nation. The pro-Palestine speech effectively is the first time an American President has called Israel an occupier of foreign land. BHO’s ignorance is displayed by the fact that the land had Jewish settlers before 1948, it is Biblically Jewish and the land was won as a result of a failed invasion of Israel by multiple Arab nations in 1967. The other Arab State was supposed to be Transjordan (Jordan) until the British set up the Hashemite Kingdom up as a sovereign nation before a Palestine Two-State creation was implemented in the British Mandate. The Jordanian effort in invading Israel in 1948 and 1967 was not to repatriate Arabs by destroying Israel. The Jordanian design was to get its piece of the pie in dividing destroyed Israel. Jordan partially achieved their goal in 1948 by stalemating Israel Defense Forces outside of what became known to Westerners as the West Bank. At this time Arabs left over from the old Palestine Mandate could have declared a separate Arab State in that West Bank. That did not happen! Jordan asserted sovereignty over the acquired Palestine Mandate land which included what became known as East Jerusalem.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his U.N. speech on September 24. Netanyahu’s speech was not a reprisal of President BHO’s speech encouraging the usurpation of Jewish land under the appeasement delusion a Palestinian State will bring peace to the Middle East. Rather the Israeli Prime Minister used the world stage of the U.N. General Assembly to castigate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial with photos and documents demonstrating that Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite Shi’ite liar.
Read the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) e-newsletter of Netanyahu verbally slapping Ahmadinejad like a red-headed stepchild.
Friday, September 25, 2009
I found a couple of essays on the geopolitical reality of the mythical rights of Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Both are posted by Ted Belman of Israpundit yet the latter is a post of a reaction by Rev. Fumio Taku to Belman’s previous post.
The only reason refugees called Palestinians exist in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza (Gazastan or Hamastan) is because those poor generations of poor Arab refugees were actually created by Arab invaders who needed a perpetual reason to stay in conflict with Israel.
If President Obama had any real concern about Justice he force the descendants of Arab invaders to matriculate the Arab refugees left behind back into those various nations of today’s Arab generations.
Here are the Essays:
John R. Houk
© September 25, 2009
Bret Baier’s Special Report on FOX News had an interview with Polish President Lech Kaczynski last night (9/24). The theme of the interview was President Barack Hussein Obama’s decision to scrap the East European Missile Defense Shield (MDS). The crux of the MDS was centered in Poland and the Czech Republic.
I had mentioned in an earlier post that appeaser President Obama’s decision was bending to the will of Russia’s National Interests rather than America’s. Also the Appeaser’s decision continues the Eastern Europe sell-out mode that has occurred since the end of WWII.
Poland’s President Kaczynski is careful to not politically insult Russia but is still expressing his displeasure of the future lack of protection from Russian wiles. Listen to the interview HERE.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. writing for United Against Islamic Supremacism has sent what can be considered the third chapter of Engaged. At SlantRight.com you can read chapters one and two HERE and HERE.
When the “Engaged” chapters are complete, Johnson is considering entitling the book form “The Elemental Struggle.” Of course the title is not etched in stone but it is something to look forward to when the Johnson/Carter engaging makes it to book form.
Here is an article exposing the hypocrisy of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). The same council mandated to be a watch dog of human rights with members that are despotic nations without human rights.
JRH 9/24/09 (Hat Tip: ICJS Research)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
ACT! For America sent out an e-newsletter on September 21. The e-newsletter is congruent with ACT! For America’s “Stop Shariah Now” campaign in America.
The information highlights a print version of an Andrew Bostom article published on September 21 in the American Thinker. ACT then proceeds to tell its readers to pay attention to the ACT highlighted areas of Bostom’s article.
Go ACT! For America! Read the highlighted version at SlantRight or go to the American Thinker to read the original the way Bostom published it.
Apostasy, Human Rights, and Rifqa Bary
ACT! For America E-newsletter
Sent: September 21, 2009 11:32:52 AM
Andrew Bostom’s commentary below on the Islamic view of apostasy is revealing for several reasons.
First, it raises the obvious question: How can shariah Islamic law ever be regarded as compatible with Western pluralistic representative government?
Second, the highlighted sections reveal what all 57 Muslim states consider to be the appropriate relationship between shariah Islamic law and the state. There should be no misunderstanding: the Muslim states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference maintain that “human rights” are defined solely within the context of shariah law.
And third, for those in America, including those in government and law enforcement, who don’t understand why Rifqa Bary is afraid that her father will in fact have her killed for converting to Christianity, as Bostom notes, “shame” on them for ignoring this this context. It’s not as if this information is hidden from view or difficult to find.
Last week ACT! for America launched its “Stop Shariah Now!” project. To find out more about shariah law, log on to:
STOP SHARIAH NOW
Apostasy and the Islamic Nations
By Andrew G. Bostom
September 21, 2009
The 1990 Cairo Declaration, or so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam", was drafted and subsequently ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Now a 57 state collective which includes every Islamic nation on earth, the OIC, currently headed by Turkey's Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, thus represents the entire Muslim umma (or global community of individual Muslims), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations (UN).
Both the preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC's Cairo Declaration is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The opening of the preamble to the Cairo Declaration repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110; "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men...you believe in Allah"), and states,
"Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation..."
The preamble continues,
"Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible -- and the Ummah collectively responsible -- for their safeguard."
In its concluding articles 24 and 25, the Cairo Declaration maintains, [article 24], "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'a"; and [article 25] "The Islamic Shari'a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration."
These statements capture the indelible influence of the Islamic religious law Shari'a -- the Cairo Declaration claiming supremacy based on "divine revelation," which renders sacred and permanent the notion of inequality between the community of Allah, and the infidels. Thus we can see clearly the differences between the Cairo Declaration, which sanctions the gross inequalities inherent in the Shari'a, and its Western human rights counterparts (the US Bill of Rights; the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights), which do not refer to any specific religion or to the superiority of any group over another, and stress the absolute equality of all human beings.
Enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights is the guarantee that laws may not be made that interfere with religion "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.". Absent the right to freedom of thought, or conscience, other rights such as the right to freedom of speech are rendered meaningless. US Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo reasoned elegantly in Palko v. Connecticut (1937) that,
"Freedom of thought... is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom. With rare aberrations a pervasive recognition of this truth can be traced in our history, political and legal."
This principle of freedom of conscience is also upheld in article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which further makes explicit the fundamental right to change one's religion,
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The gravely negative implications of the OIC's Shari'a-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims:"Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism."
Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam:
"[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari'a."
"[22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a.
[22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.
[22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.".
Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in Islam's foundational texts -- both the Koran (verses such as , 4:89, and their classical exegesis by renowned Koranic commentators such as Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion," in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy:"An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."
The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."
This doctrinal and historical legitimacy of Shari'a-mandated killing of apostates from Islam is affirmed by Heffening in his scholarly review for the authoritative, mainstream academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Islam:"In Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) , there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death...A woman, on the other hand, is imprisoned...until she again adopts Islam, ..[or] she also is put to death." [Heffening, W. "Murtadd." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs.]
As noted by historian David Littman, writing in early 1999, Adama Dieng, then a prominent Muslim Senegalese jurist, alerted the international community to the Cairo Declaration's profoundly dangerous impact. Dieng, speaking for the International Commission of Jurists and the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights at the Commission on Human Rights in February, 1992, decried the Cairo Declaration, which under the rubric of Shari'a, deliberately restricted certain fundamental freedoms and rights -- most notably, freedom of conscience. He also argued that the Cairo Declaration introduced "in the name of defense of human rights," unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of heinous practices -- Shari'a-compliant punishments (from corporal punishments, to mutilation, and stoning) -- "which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being."
Pew Survey data published just this past August 13, 2009 reflect, starkly, the depth and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for these hideous views -- sanctioned by their theo-political Islamic leadership within the OIC -- and antithetical to our foundational Western freedoms. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims, there is"...broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers."
These hard data provide a clear, irrefragable global context for any rational, objective consideration of the ongoing plight of apostates from Islam, such as 17 year-old, Rifqa Bary.
Shame on all those in our government, law enforcement, and chattering classes who willfully ignore this context.
Apostasy, Human Rights, and Rifqa Bary
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Apostasy and the Islamic Nations
© American Thinker 2009
SlantRight Editor: Some links were repetitive and were withdrawn.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
John R. Houk
© September 21, 2009
I found a Steve Emerson post at Faith Freedom International detailing the stupidity of the State Department pandering to Radical Islamic (aka Islamist) elements and organizations in America. I mean we are talking organizations with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood which advocates a global Caliphate to rule the world and impose Sharia Law. Many of these organizations and elements also have direct ties to murdering Islamic terrorists like Hamas.
I would normally cross post an awesome exposé such as Emerson’s; however my main website at SlantRight.com does not tolerate the many source links the Emerson article utilizes to back up his statements. So I am cross posting at the Blogger SlantRight which is also easier because I do not have to type in the html myself.
I operate SlantRight.com and Blogger SlantRight together for this very reason. As you may know Blogger may at anytime pull my plug because of the controversial content of much of the anti-Islamist/anti-Jihadist posts. Hence the ownership of the SlantRight.com domain hosted via the servers StevenCopley.com enables an ultimate freedom that Blogger cannot touch.
I highly encourage the reading of the Emerson post exposing the complicity of the Obama Administration sucking up to American-Islamist organizations to the harm of the American Way in the name of Politically Correct multicultural/diverse tolerance.
In case you do not get it, that tolerance is heaped on the Muslims that would see America destroyed and replaced by intolerant and anti-Liberty Sharia Law.
State Department Website Panders To Radical Islamists
By Steve Emerson
September 19, 2009
Faith Freedom International
The United States government’s stepped-up courting of Islamist groups is on display at the State Department web portal http://www.fsmarchives.org/fckeditor/editor/dialog/www.america.gov. The site bills itself as a place to “meet the people” and “explore the values and ideas that define the character of the United States.” But when it comes to American Muslim organizations, that often means providing a U.S. government stamp of approval to organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) or apologists like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).
A September 4th podcast about President Obama’s Community Service Initiative illustrates how the federal government gives free and favorable publicity to Brotherhood-linked Islamists. America.gov noted the contribution of Dalia Mogahed (a protégé of terror-apologist John Esposito) to the president’s initiative. Mogahed and Esposito work together at the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. The two collaborated in writing a book. Read a favorable review here.
The podcast added that Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a member of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, had launched http://www.muslimserve.org/, “a Web site that identifies a national goal of 1,000 service projects for Muslim Americans.” It quoted at length from a speech Mogahed delivered to ISNA’s national convention setting out principles for the president’s initiative.
During the Cold War, government bureaus like the United States Information Agency worked to counter disinformation by driving home the point that freedom and democracy are superior to communism and tyranny. But Zuhdi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says that in today’s struggle with radical Islam, the United States government is doing something very different – even perverse.
It is aiding and abetting the efforts of groups like CAIR and ISNA to anoint themselves representatives of all American Muslims – even though many Muslims want nothing to do with the Islamists.
At a July 20th meeting on Capitol Hill with Farah Pandith, head of the State Department’s new office of representative to Muslim communities, Jasser criticized the 64-page booklet “Being Muslim in America” as an example of what is wrong. The publication is “like Pravda. It’s all about how Muslims in America are motherhood and apple pie,” Jasser said he told Pandith. “It’s like the Muslim community has no warts” or divisions.
Nothing could be further from the truth, says Jasser. In presenting this monolithic, idyllic picture of Muslims, the State Department is ignoring inconvenient facts like the intra-Muslim debate over imposition of Sharia and Muslims’ larger relationship with non-Muslims, Jasser told IPT News.
At the meeting, organized by Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus founder Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Pandith reacted defensively when Jasser (accompanied by representatives of non-Islamist Muslim groups like the World Organization for Resource Development & Education and the Islamic Supreme Council of America) criticized the State Department for letting Islamists monopolize the debate.
In interviews, Jasser and Khalim Massoud, head of Muslims Against Sharia (who did not attend the meeting organized by Myrick) emphasized that the State Department continues to assist anti-freedom elements in the Muslim community. As examples of what is wrong, they pointed to a number of items that that appeared on the http://www.america.gov/ site in recent weeks:
- An August 26th story by Carla Higgins entitled “Muslim Americans Mourn Death of Sen. Edward Kennedy” consisted almost entirely of an ISNA statement praising the late Massachusetts senator.
- An August 26th story by Ahmed Mohamed (”Muslim Americans Launch Community Service Initiative”) which reported that “Muslim Americans are showing their support for Obama’s community service appeal by launching the Muslim Americans Answer the Call Campaign.”
- Like the September 4th podcast quoted above, Mohamed’s story noted that the campaign is led by Mogahed and quoted at length from her ISNA national convention speech in July. The article also included a list of seven bullet points outlining CAIR’s contribution to the President’s community service initiative. It quoted CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad praising the initiative as “a unique opportunity to tell their story through service to others.”
- An August 20th story also by Ahmed Mohamed (”New Documentary Film Explores Muslim Experience in America”) that reads like a press release for “Journey into America,” a movie which premiered July 4th at ISNA’s convention. In making the film, a research team traveled to numerous American mosques. The story quotes ISNA President Ingrid Mattson praising the film as one that would allay Americans’ fears of “what might be going on behind the doors of these mosques.”
- Producers of the ISNA-endorsed documentary linked to Mohamed’s August 20th article on their blog. They wrote that the story “not only gives our documentary an immense amount of publicity in the global arena of politics and international relations” but “also proves that high ranking American officials have endorsed the message which we communicated.”
- An August 19th story by Howard Cincotta entitled “Muslim Americans Find Their Voice Through Advocacy, Engagement: Muslim organizations bringing message of inclusiveness, involvement.” Salam al-Marayati, executive director of MPAC, was quoted extensively in the story, and his picture appears in it. The story linked to the websites of CAIR, ISNA and MPAC. MPAC its officials have a history of defending terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and anti-Israel slanders, including al-Marayati’s suggestion that Israel may have been behind the September 11th attacks. (See here and here).
ISNA President Mattson was also quoted in the article, which notes that Valerie Jarrett, one of President Obama’s top advisers, spoke at ISNA’s July convention. The piece links to the to the websites of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, a Saudi-funded institution headed by Esposito, and the Fiqh Council of North America.
- An August 11th story by Ahmed Mohamed reads like a press release for ISNA’s “interfaith dialogue” efforts.
- An August 3rd story by Ahmed Mohamed entitled “American Muslims Urged to Increase Community Activism” reads like a press release for ISNA’s national convention. The story consists of quotes from Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and other convention speakers dispensing platitudes about the need to reform health care and the importance of things like “peace,” “dignity,” “serving humanity” and being a “good citizen” and “good neighbor.” The story said nothing about ISNA’s radical background, in particular its Muslim Brotherhood links.
- A July 9th story by Mohamed was entitled “Islamic Society of North America Promotes Community Service” was a veritable infomercial for ISNA’s 2009 national convention. Like the other stories about the ISNA convention noted above, it made no mention of the hate speech or defenses of Hezbollah that occurred there.
The above-mentioned items are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the State Department’s promotion of Muslim Brotherhood-tied groups and other radicals. The site includes a video depicting the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. as a model of harmony and diversity, despite a longstanding history of connections between the mosque, its leadership and radicalism. Read more about Dar Al Hijrah here.
Under its International Visitor Leadership Program, the State Department continues to partner with Islamist groups linked to the Brotherhood such as the Muslim American Society. Read more about that here.
The State Department’s efforts to court radical Islamists did not begin with the Obama Administration. Read IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson’s testimony about the Bush Administration’s performance here.
U.S. Muslim outreach since September 11th has been plagued by a bias in favor of “Saudi-funded or -supported groups with the biggest publicity machines,” said Nina Shea, a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and senior fellow with the Hudson Institute. “All too often, the ones getting covered are the ones with grievances against the United States. Those who are pro-freedom like Zuhdi Jasser are excluded.”
The U.S. government’s discrimination in favor of “Sunni beneficiaries of Gulf funding” in Muslim outreach efforts establishes them “as spokesmen for the Arab Muslim community,” Shea replied when asked about the government’s tilt in favor of CAIR, ISNA and other Islamist groups. “This has the effect of squeezing out other voices and not giving recognition to Muslim-Americans with initiative that are trying to start organizations rooted in American values.”
Shea said this discrimination was particularly evident at the recent White House Iftar dinner. Virtually all of the Muslims in attendance were Sunnis like ISNA’s Mattson and ambassadors from nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Pakistan, while Shi’ites, political dissidents and Sunni foes of Wahhabism were absent.
“It would be extremely uncomfortable for these dictatorships and monarchies to be in the same room with dissidents,” Shea told IPT News.
The U.S. government’s actions “raise constitutional questions,” added Shea, a veteran attorney who has been appointed to serve as a delegate to the main United Nations human-rights body by Democratic and Republican administrations. “For the United States to freeze out the Shia or the Sufis or pro-American Muslims, people who are pro-freedom, pro-human rights, is almost an infringement on the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment.”
According to Shea, “showering benefits” on Islamists is a “dangerous game” that undercuts major U.S. interests like encouraging respect for human rights and democratization in the Muslim world.
“Without the support from the government, radical Muslim groups would have remained a fringe,” adds Massoud of Muslims against Sharia. “That’s how extremists who suggest that Israel is responsible for 9/11 [MPAC’s Marayati) become friends of the Progressive Jewish Alliance and radicals who would like to replace the Constitution with the Koran get to represent American Muslims on TV.”
According to Jasser, the America.gov site spotlights the wrong kind of “diversity.”
“Just showing a bunch of Muslims living in different environments, doing different things, doesn’t help us,” Jasser said.
The State Department is ignoring the importance of political diversity – failing to acknowledge the reality that American Muslims are ideologically diverse. It highlights the work of organizations like CAIR and ISNA,” who focus on victimization issues – profiling, women not being able to wear the hijab, you’re playing into that. Psychiatrically, you’re creating an inferiority complex,” according to Jasser.
Favoring the Muslim Brotherhood-related groups “weakens U.S. interests in terms of diversity,” says Walid Phares, a scholar with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who helped organize the July 20th meeting in Myrick’s office. The more radical organizations “have been working on this for over 20 years” thanks to grants “provided by the U.S. government and the Saudis,” Phares adds.
“It is like the U.S. government is shooting itself in the foot.”
Emerson Exposes State Dept. Pandering to Islamist Organizations
John R. Houk
© September 21, 2009
State Department Website Panders To Radical Islamists
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Steven Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project on Terrorism. This article originally appeared on the Hudson Institute website.
© 2009 Faith Freedom International