Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here
I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:
Deuteronomy Chapter 5

16.  Thou shalt not murder.
Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

Another Take on the Garden Grove Mosque Townhall

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Red County (Colony Rabble)

Steve Amundson, who also attended the town hall at the Islamic Center of Orange County on February 19, has written his own account of the event in Red County.


I heartily concur with Steve's description of the event. It was disgraceful.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Don't Attack Iran! I'll Lose The Election!

Is the cry coming from the Obama Regime Administration.  If Israel attacks Iran before October the US economy will collapse and Obama will lose the election in November.
A military strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities has emerged as one of the biggest threats to the U.S. economic recovery and could roil the November elections.

The Obama administration and economic experts have warned a pre-emptive attack by Israel could send the economy into a slump, which would change the trajectory of campaigns for the White House and Congress.

Economic and energy experts say an attack could cause an oil shock, which sent the United States into recession in the late 1970s. In the early '90s, a similar shock occurred when the OPEC oil embargo and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait sent prices soaring.

“If Iran is to retaliate against Israel or other U.S. targets, it’s really unpredictable. It’s safe to say there would be a big shock to oil prices,” said Adam Hersh, an economist at the Center for American Progress.

“The oil price shock and domestic politics in the United States are my biggest concerns for disrupting the economic recovery we’ve been seeing,” he said.

Tensions with Iran will serve as a backdrop for the emerging battle over energy policy between the White House and congressional Republicans, who are seizing on high gas prices to build political momentum.

Read it all here.
If there ever was a rational for Binaymin Netanyahu to go it alone, this is it.  No longer would President Obama have to deal with Netanyahu.  In fact President Obama would have more time for golf.  A lot more time.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Thursday, February 23, 2012

My Letter to the US Attorney in Los Angeles

Gary Fouse

Below is the text of a letter I have written to Mr. Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. The letter concerns a townhall last Sunday at the Islamic Center of Orange County, in which Mr. Birotte spoke.

Dear Mr Birotte,

I appreciate your taking the time to chat with me and listen to my concerns last Sunday at the Islamic Center of Orange County in Garden Grove. As promised, I am sending you the information I talked about regarding Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, his past words, as well as his past and present associations. In preparing this, I found it easier to retrieve the information from my own blog postings, which refer to the appropriate sources. The below links are in chronological order, past to most recent. The final link is my own posting and summary on the Garden Grove event.












The point of these links is to show that Imam Siddiqi is not what he represents himself to be and what our leaders have thought him to be. I have met Mr Siddiqi, and I know he comes across as a soft-spoken gentleman. He speaks of equality, tolerance and peace. The above links, however, show that there is much more to his persona.

One of the themes of the event Sunday was that there is a climate of hate against American Muslims. While there is some truth to that, it does not speak for the people who are sincerely concerned about what is happening all over the world and here in America. It does not speak for those that I work with. I do not hate Muslims. The Muslims I know love this country and appreciate the freedoms they enjoy here-freedoms they didn't enjoy in their countries of origin. I do not wish to  see innocent Muslims labeled as terrorists or extremists and  targeted for  discrimination or attack. With certain exceptions, I think Americans have done well in that regard in not holding all American Muslims responsible for what terrorists and jihadists are doing. In fact, speaking as a Christian, I have come to the belief that the group most vulnerable to hate in this country and the world now is Jews. I have seen it first hand while working the past 14 years as an adjunct teacher at UC Irvine. It is what led me to become an activist. To me, it is not a question of practicing hate and intolerance. It is a question of fighting hate and intolerance. That is the direction from which I come.

Yet, there is a problem that we cannot ignore. Aside from terrorist attacks, non-Muslim minorities are subject to hate and violence in Muslim nations like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and many others. At the same time, there is a subversive movement afoot among some Muslims in America, including organizations like CAIR who pose as "moderates".  They use the label, "Islamophobia" as a weapon to try and silence their critics. Honest and open discussion of what is happening here and around the world is not "Islamophobia", however one wants to define that tricky term. The issue of Islam can be discussed without resorting to hate against Muslims themselves. At the same time, our freedom of speech to discuss these issues cannot be trampled upon.

As for the much-discussed Sharia law, there is no way that it can be called compatible with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We must recognize that Islam is more than just a religion; it is also a political ideology-a totalitarian one at that. Its legal tool is Sharia. For Siddiqi to state that Sharia is compatible with the US Constitution is to say the Earth is flat. No code that calls for death to homosexuals or apostates can be compatible with our laws and rights. As you well know, these horrors are actually being committed in many Muslim lands as we speak. Last Sunday, Imam Siddiqi read the statement from the Fiqh Council of North America, of which he is the director. I would encourage you to read the complete  statement-carefully- and note how craftily
it is worded.

I would never begrudge Muslims their right to worship. I believe in freedom of religion for all. Nor am I against immigrants. I am married to one and have myself lived in three other countries. What I do believe in is assimilation, as I am sure you do as well having come from Haiti. This does not mean that one has to leave his or her religion when they come to America. Yet, if there are certain traditions or aspects that are in conflict with our concept of equality and rights for all, then immigrants have to know that there must be an accommodation on their part-not on the part of their adopted country. It also means that American Muslims must have all the protections our Constitution guarantees for all including gays and those wishing to change religions.

Nor do I begrudge the effort of law enforcement to work within the Muslim community. Surely, there are many who want to cooperate, possibly because they themselves came to America to escape Sharia. It is a valid investigative tool, one I used myself while in DEA. Having said that, I detected a certain skepticism when I attempted to explain my views to the LAPD officers present. In that vein, I would suggest that you and your colleagues explore true Muslim moderates, people like Dr Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and another newly created organization, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. Here you will find the type of Muslims that our government should be working with-but has largely ignored. They will tell you the truth about organizations like CAIR and others. They recognize that there is a radical threat right here at home.

That leads me to my final observation. The three politicians who were present used the event to push their own political agenda against a rival party. Were I a law enforcement officer, I would have been most uncomfortable participating at such an event that featured partisan politics-especially when other law enforcement agencies were being singled out for attack (FBI-NYPD).

At any rate, I appreciate your allowing me to send you this rather voluminous information. My purpose is two-fold: First, our law enforcement agencies and officials need to be aware of the facts (in this case, Siddiqi and his associations). Secondly, those of us who are speaking out are not all a bunch of extremist bigots. On the contrary, I feel that I am fighting against hate and

I thank you for your time.

Gary Fouse

PS: I will be posting this letter on my blog. Accordingly, I will be happy to post any response you care to give.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Book Browsing in a Mosque

Gary Fouse

This past Sunday, as reported, I attended a town hall event at the Islamic Center of Orange County. Prior the start of the event, I had a chance to drop into the mosque book store and do some browsing. My time was limited, but I did happen find an interesting book called "West vs. Islam" by Margaret Marcus (aka Mayam Jameelah). The entire text of the book can be accessed at the below link.


Marcus was born to a Jewish family in New York in 1934. As a young woman, she converted to Islam and moved to Pakistan, where she lived with the family of the famous founder of the Islamic party Jamaat e Islami, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. Eventually, Maududi arranged a marriage for her. She became a prolific writer on Islam and is a well known figure in Islamic literary circles, Much of her writing reflects a condemnation of Western society and a strict interpretaion of Islam. Below is her Wikipedia entry


A critical book about Marcus and her extremism was written by Deborah Baker. It is called, "The Convert"

Below is a wikipedia entry for Maududi, which includes his views on Jihad and Sharia.


Below is a wikipedia entry for Jamaat e Islami. The article appears to be written by a non-English native speaker and seems favorable to the party.


If I may summarize, the writer of "West vs Islam" is a woman who apparently had psychiatric problems in her life, converted to Islam, moved to Pakistan and holds very negative opinions about Western culture. I noted in one part of her book while I was in the bookstore that she does not believe that Muslims in the West should adopt Western ways in areas such as dress and others.

Maududi's version of Islam was very strict in terms of Islam ruling Muslim countries, Sharia, and status of non-Muslims. The party he founded reflects those views. Marcus apparently does as well.

To sum up, I ask myself, why the Islamic Center of Orange County, whose imam, Muzammil Siddiqi, is a well-known religious figure in the American Muslim community, would have this book in their store? This is hardly a book that encourages American Muslims to assimilate into Western society.

Is the ideology that Muzammil Siddiqi subscribes to? Is this something that is compatible with American society, pluralism, liberty, and our Constitution? On that day, I heard a lot of speakers proclaim that Sharia law is perfectly in harmony with the US Constitution. I suggest that the non-Muslim speakers who participated in Sunday's event do their homework.

Is He Alive?

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Reports out of Iran is that an Order of Execution may have been written and signed for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested for being a Christian Minister and has been living in prison under an execution threat since 2009.  The father of 2 sons, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been tortured to renounce Christianity and embrace Islam.  Yet he has refused.  He has gathered strength in his faith while living in close supervision and in isolation from all others but his tormenters.
We are hearing reports from our contacts in Iran that the execution orders for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may have been issued.

Pastor Youcef’s situation – an innocent man convicted and sentenced to death for becoming a Christian – has not been this dire since we first brought his case to your attention last year.

It is unclear whether Pastor Youcef would have a right of appeal from the execution order. We know that the head of Iran’s Judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, must approve publicly held executions, but only a small percentage of executions are held public—most executions in Iran are conducted in secret.

There has also been a disturbing increase in the number of executions conducted by the Iranian regime in the last month.

Iran is actively violating its human rights obligations by sentencing and detaining Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. We call on the Iranian government to release Pastor Youcef immediately.

We are continuing to work to help spare the life of Pastor Youcef, and will provide additional updates on his situation as we are able.

Please continue to pray, share his story, and call for his release.

Will you lend your voice to many others and sign this petition to free Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  He is living in the Lion's Den and like Daniel of old he has the same protector.  But for how long?

UPDATE: It is official. A warrant of execution has been issued for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. It is not known on whether or not the execution of Pastor Nadarkhani has taken place.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Town Hall at Islamic Center of Orange County

Gary Fouse

Imam Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Center of Orange County

On February 19, 2012, The Islamic Center of Orange County and the Council of Pakistan American Affairs hosted a town hall at the above Islamic Center in Garden Grove. The theme was the US Constitution, US Law and Sharia. I attended and took notes. Afterward, I had a chance to talk with a couple of the panelists/speakers.

The official host of the affair was Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, who is the head of the center. Panelists  included LASD Sheriff Lee Baca, LAPD Chief of counter-terrorism, Michael Downing, US Attorney for the Central District of California Andre Birotte, Jr,  Congresswomen, Loretta Sanchez, Maxine Waters and Judy Chu (all Democrats), the Pakistani Consul General of Los Angeles, Riffat Masood, and, of course, Siddiqi. Aside from Downing, there were three uniformed LAPD officers from his unit present, one of whom appeared to be recording images of the crowd with his cell phone. First, I would like to summarize the theme of the hour-long session then mention some specific statements by the speakers.

If it may be summarized, each speaker talked about equal rights for all. They stated that it was wrong to single out all Muslims as a result of the actions of some. They spoke of widespread hatred directed at the Muslim community. Most made reference to their belief that Sharia was not in contradiction with US laws, the Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. Sanchez, Chu and Waters took the opportunity to make partisan political attacks against Republican members of Congress.

Here are some of the statements made by the speakers, each of whom spoke for 5-10 minutes.

Imam Siddiqi

Siddiqi stated that Muslims were the target of increasing hateful propaganda, also coming from public officials. He stated that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. He also complained of misinformation about Sharia. Siddiqi then read a prepared statement by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). The statement ( I am paraphrasing from my notes) stated that they saw no contradiction between the normative values of Islam  and the US Constitution. The statement stressed securing of life, equality of all humans, and religious freedom. It went on to state that Muslims in America should obey US laws, the Constitution and Bill of Rights as long as it doesn't conflict with their duty to obey God. It also stated that the core values of Sharia are respect for human life and property. There is no contradiction between Sharia and the US Constitution.

Siddiqi is the chairman of the FCNA. The entire statement is below from their website:


US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr

There was really little noteworthy about Birotte's remarks. He spoke of civil rights, diversity, working with all creeds, colors etc. He did tell the audience that upon taking over the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, he re-instituted the public corruption unit.

Chief Michael Downing

Downing spoke of a campaign of hate against Muslims across the country. He repeated the same themes about protecting rights of all. He stated that Sharia is not a threat to America, but that the threat is violent ideological extremists
Maxine Waters

Waters (reading most of her remarks) began by praising Sheriff Baca for his courage in taking on this issue. She then went on to attack House Republicans for their hearings on Islamic radicalization. She said they were "attacking Muslim people" and using "scare tactics". She mentioned that 13 states had attempted to pass legislation banning Sharia. She criticized Peter King (R-NY) for stating that he would continue his hearings. She also referred to Newt Gingrich's calling for a federal law that Sharia would not be recognized in US law. She also referred to HR 3618, the End Racial Profiling Act, that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from profiling.  She went on to list violent acts by hate groups, and said that many of the recent terrorist arrests in the US were a result of tips from the Muslim community. She added according to a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council that since 9-11, there have been 77 terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims domestically. She quoted a rabbi named Jerry Serotta of Clergy Beyond Borders, who took a shot at Newt Gingrich for speaking about American exceptualism. She concluded by quoting  ACLU director of religious affairs Daniel Mach, who said that "anti-Sharia laws are motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, plain and simple."

Loretta Sanchez

Sanchez began her presentation by rudely challenging an older man in the audience who was filming with a hand held camera. She asked who he was and if he was an official videographer. She then asked him to turn off his camera unless he was an official videographer for the event. A few moments later, a woman in the audience pointed out another woman who was filming. Sanchez asked her to turn off her camera unless she was an official videographer.

Sanchez then launched into an attack against Peter King for his hearings, which she called, "Muslim hearings". She stated that "the one purpose of the hearings was to humiliate and offend the cultural integrity of the American Muslim community." She also used the term, "witch hunt".

She also accused Republican members of Congress of having "accused CAIR of trying to insert Muslims into Congress to spy." Sanchez told the audience that she had seen racial profiling directed to people "who look like me".

She mentioned that President Obama has instituted the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to oversee all laws relating to fighting terrorism.

Sanchez also told the audience that she is "the only member of Congress in Orange County to stand up for the American Muslim community."

Riffat Masood

Masood was introduced as someone who represents the Muslim community of Southern California in general, not just the Pakistani community. The Pakistani Consul General told the audience that the Muslim-American community needs to integrate themselves more into the political process. She also made a reference to watching the Republican debates and made a vague comment that if they can discuss these issues there is hope. There was snickering in the audience.

Masood also made a vague reference to Congress proposing legislation regarding Pakistan, but she did not go into detail. She spoke of her first trip to Washington DC and visiting the memorials-especially the Jefferson Memorial. She compared the words and slogans on the memorials as being the same as Islam.

"Today", she said, we are far from what Jefferson and the Constitution talk about". ("So much hatred.") She urged her listeners as Americans to "marry" the Constitution with Islamic values.

Lee Baca

Baca began by lavishing praise on the "great Congressman Waters". He described Los Angeles as the epicenter of diversity. He commended Janet Napolitano for creating an inter-faith council within the Department of Homeland Security.

Judy Chu

Chu arrived late, during the Q and A, thus bringing that portion to a quick halt (after two questions). She talked about hate crimes against Muslims post-9-11, which, according to her, shot up. She spoke of her opposition to the King hearings, the New York PD spying on the Muslim community, a protest against Lowe's, the "terrible" FBI counter-terrorism training materials. She quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as stating that "the people who put together those materials are no longer with the department". Below is the actual exchange at a congressional hearing.

Chu also spoke of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act that "prevented Chinese-Americans from immigrating and  becoming naturalized", and spoke of a bill in Congress that would issue an expression of regret for that action. She also mentioned the relocation of the Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. She attributed that to Japanese-Americans not standing up and speaking out, which she urged Muslims Americans to do.

During the presentations, a small notebook and pencils were passed among the audience for questions. It appeared there would be no opportunity for people in the audience to voice their questions. I managed to scribble my own question, which was directed to Imam Siddiqi. It went something like this:

"Dr Siddiqi,

"If you are a true moderate, why did you host the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, at your mosque in 1992 and interpret his speech about violent jihad? Why did you participate in a demonstration in Washington in October 2000 along with Abdul Alim Musa and Abdurahman Alamoudi?"

Needless to say, that question never made it to the light of day, but one Arab woman was able to stand up and ask a question of the two law enforcement officers on the panel. She asked them as those who had taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, what they would do in the case of a wife-beating by a Muslim man. That caused a lot of grumbling in the audience and some people told her to sit down and be quiet. Before Baca or Downing could answer, an agitated  Siddiqi stood up and stated that wife-beating was forbidden by the Koran. The questioner referred to Koran chapter 4 verse 34 (which refers to this issue). The woman also referred to the principle of abrogation. (This means that if there is a contradiction between two passages in the Koran, that which was written later in time abrogates that which was written earlier.) Siddiqi replied that he didn't want to go into abrogation. At some point, Downing stated that in the case of wife-beating in his jurisdiction, the offender would be arrested. One other written question was taken from the audience, which concerned a National Security measure regarding arrests. Sanchez responded and told the questioner that if contacted, her office would send him or her a copy of the law. There were no other questions taken.

Once Chu concluded her remarks, the meeting adjourned because it was time for prayers.

Subsequently, I was able to chat with Mr. Birotte, Downing, and the aforementioned three LAPD officers. First, I introduced myself to Birotte as a retired DEA agent who had worled in the Central District of California (Los Angeles) for several years. I told him that I strongly agreed with his statements that all Muslim-Americans should not be painted with the same wide brush because of the terrorist and extremist acts of some. I then told him that I did have concerns about this place (the Islamic Center of Orange County) and Imam Siddiqi. I informed him that in 1992, Siddiqi had hosted the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman and had interpreted in real time Abdel Rahman's speech on violent Jihad. I also told him of Siddiqi's appearance in Washington DC in October 2000 at an anti-Israel protest, in which other speakers were Abdul Alim Musa and Abdurahman Alamoudi. I offered, if he would give me his card, to send him all the documents regarding Siddiqi. He agreed and gave me his card. Our conversation was very cordial.

Outside, I went over and introduced myself to the three LAPD officers who had accompanied Downing. Actually, I had met one previously at UC Irvine, a young officer who was born to a Muslim family in Pakistan. I repeated the same facts to them. I was met with some degree of skepticism. One officer stated that I should not blame Siddiqi for the statements of others, referring to the Washington appearance, but agreed that the information about the Blind Sheikh was troubling. Another officer asked me what evidence I had for my statements about the Washington appearance. I replied that it was on videotape and I had witnessed and reviewed the statements of Siddiqi, Musa, and Alamoudi. When asked what specifically Siddiqi had said, I replied that he had warned America not to risk the "wrath of God" by continuing to support Israel.

Here are his exact words. (The below videos come from the Investigative Project on Terrorism.)

"Siddiqui: We want our government to stop feeding the Israeli war machinery. We want to awaken the conscience of America. America has to learn that. Because if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come. Please! Please all Americans, do you remember that, that Allah is watching everyone. God is watching everyone. If you continue doing injustice, and tolerating injustice, the wrath of God will come." (Video by Investigative Project on Terrorism- Al Quds Day rally Washington DC, October 28, 2000)


The man in black standing over Siddiqi's left shoulder is radical imam Abdul Alim Musa formerly Clarence Reams, who served prison time for drug trafficking. He is virulently anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and pro-Iran. He tells his audiences that Islam will "take over" America, something he said at UC Irvine in my presence a few years ago. Here is what he said in Washington on October 28, 2000:


Below is a link to a video of Alamoudi's words that day in Washington:


Alamoudi is serving 23 years in prison based on his conspiring with Libya to murder a Saudi prince.

At some point, Chief Downing came over, and I repeated the same concerns I had to him. As to Siddiqi, he stated that over time some people change. He asked me if I was a member of any organization, and I replied that I was not. I also asked him if he knew about people like Zuhdi Jasser and Stephen Schwartz. He seemed not be aware of them, but asked if they were connected to people like Steve Emerson and David Horowitz. I replied that as far as I knew, they were not. I did elicit one telling comment from Downing. When I told him that I had concerns about leading Islamic organizations in the US like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, ICNA etc, he stated that "CAIR is problematic."

It should also be mentioned that after the meeting, one man handed an LAPD officer a flyer, which the officer proceeded to tear up in front of him.

My impressions

For what was advertised as a town hall meeting, there was no room for anything other than the narrative provided by the speakers. The theme was that hate-filled right-wingers (and Republicans) are targeting Muslim-Americans, and that Sharia law is perfectly compatible with US law. The program was timed to preclude any meaningful discussion or debate. The one person who raised the issue of wife-beating, herself, an Arab, was not treated with respect.

Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez shamelessly made this a partisan political issue trying to paint congressional Republicans as Islamophobes. Anyone who had fears about Sharia was just anti-Muslim.

I personally found Masood's comments about America being far from  the ideals of Jefferson and the Constitution offensive. How does a diplomat come here and make such a statement about the host country? She should pay more attention to the hate, religious intolerance, and radicalism that goes on in her own country.

Of course, there was no mention of the hatred against non-Muslims and the persecution that goes on in virtually all  Muslim countries against non-Muslims. Not a word was mentioned, for example, of the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Similarly, there was no mention of Muslim on Muslim violence in the name of Sharia.

As for our law enforcement representatives, I got the distinct impression that were not interested in hearing the other side of the issue or the disturbing history of Muzammil Siddiqi and his associations with Islamic jihadists in the US. In the case of the LAPD, these four officers are part of the counter-terrorist unit. Yes, they have a responsibility to maintain contact with as many elements of the Muslim community as possible, develop sources and contacts while protecting their civil liberties. I just wonder whether their eyes are really open, or they are simply bowing to political correctness. It is worrisome. One thing I learned during my nearly 30 years in law enforcement; when someone offers you information, you consider it and evaluate it. You don't just tear it up before reading it.

I also believe that it was inappropriate for two high-ranking police officials to sit on a panel with three partisan politicians who turned their presentations into attacks on a rival political party while attacking other law enforcement agencies (NYPD-FBI).

Finally this: After the meeting, while people went into the mosque to pray, I was standing outside alone. A young American Muslim girl (about 20) in hijab came up to me and asked if I needed any help. She was very sweet and gracious as she invited me to enter the mosque and observe the prayers. I politely declined (I felt it would be inappropriate to enter.) We had a brief but pleasant chat as she attempted to be of assistance. Here is my point: God forbid that I would want this young lady or others like her to be subjected to any hate and discrimination in America. She is not the problem. But I also worry about the influence that some of her leaders are having upon her and other young American Muslims.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

The Water Turns To Blood

For those people looking to signs from Heaven pointing to an upcoming Apocalypse, this might point the way.

Beirut River Mysteriously Runs Blood Red

BEIRUT: The Beirut River mysteriously turned blood red Wednesday after a stream of unidentified red liquid began pouring from the southern bank of the river in Furn al-Shubbak. The source of the liquid had yet to be determined Wednesday evening, as the river continued to empty the red-colored water into the Mediterranean Sea.

Government and local officials rushed to the scene at the Chevrolet crossing of Furn al-Shubbak Wednesday morning in an attempt to locate the sewage canal that was dumping the red-colored water but they were unable to locate the source. Accusations were traded among officials from the municipalities of Hadath, Hazmieh, Sin al-Fil, Furn al-Shubbak and Shiyah.

Eyewitnesses working in the area told The Daily Star this was not the first time the river had turned a different color. Several business owners around the Chevrolet crossing said that colored water pours into the river roughly every two months but no one pays attention to it.It was the quantity and brightness of the red liquid that grabbed the attention of many passersby and commuters on different bridges in the city Wednesday.

Environment Minister Nazem Khoury said the source of the water was likely from Hazmieh or Baabda.

“I call on the municipalities of Hazmieh and Baabda to cooperate swiftly to find the source of the pollution and its type,” Khoury said in a statement.

Earlier in the day, Khoury sent an environmental team to the area to examine the water. The team, headed by ministry official Bassam Sabbagh, took a sample of the water to determine its composition and whether it contained dangerous pollutants.

The samples will be examined Thursday because state laboratories were already closed by the time the sample was taken. “The sample we took will be examined tomorrow [Thursday] morning ... and we will know whether it is blood being mixed with water or if it is some sort of a color dumped in it,” said Sabbagh.

A similar incident took place in the Chinese Jian River last December after a factory illegally dumped red dye into the river, which is located in the northern Chinese province of Henan.

Some cities use non-toxic dyes to color rivers on special occasions. In Chicago, the river is dyed green every year in the celebration of St. Patrick’s Day.

According to Sabbagh, test results will help the ministry determine whether the substance is a chemical pollutant or blood from a nearby slaughterhouse.

“First we thought it was blood, but it seems like it is a kind of coloring dumped by a factory,” said Sabbagh, who also said that the test to determine the type of the chemical would take a week.

Sabbagh said the municipality and other ministries should help the Environment Ministry in its investigation. “We need the help of the local officials to have a clear idea of the sewage network in the region,” he said.

According to Sabbagh, who heads the ministry’s Environmental Pollution Control Office, maps of the sewage network would help officials locate the source of the red-colored water.

“After finding the source, it would be a matter of hours to get to the factory and the area where the [colored] water is originating,” said Sabbagh adding that swift action would be taken against those responsible for it.

Saad Elias, an adviser to the environment minister, did not rule out the possibility that a slaughterhouse could be behind the red color.

“After going through several phases of butchering at the slaughterhouses, they store huge amounts of blood and animal parts in containers ... they might have dumped them into a sewage canal,” said Elias.

“The ministry will definitely investigate this matter because our role is to prevent pollution,” he added.

Meanwhile, local officials in the area suggested that a paint factory could be responsible for the incident. “There are several paint factories in Hadath,” said an official from the Shiyah municipality.

As officials tried to determine the source and the nature of the substance in the river, the Beirut prosecutor assigned the Internal Security Forces to launch an investigation into the matter.

The Lebanese should prepare for the next 2 plagues:  Frogs and Lice.  And they should discover fast what the Jews want from them.  And then give it to them.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Why I Don't Support the Palestinians

Gary Fouse


Amid all the propaganda against Israel going on within American and European academia, you might think that the Palestinians were the ultimate victims of brutality, occupation, and apartheid. I don't buy it. However, rather than defend Israel's security measures, which I have already done many times, I want to express here why I have so little sympathy for the Palestinians.

All during my adult life, I have been reading and hearing about Palestinian terror since the 1960s. First it was the airplane hijackings. Then it was the Munich massacre during the 1972 Olympics. There have been too many to count. When I was living in Italy in the 1980s, there was the Achille Lauro takeover in which Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American Jew, was killed in front of his wife and thrown overboard in his wheelchair. There were the simultaneous attacks on Rome and Vienna airports, in which random victims were killed. Yes, the Palestinians have been not only content to kill Israelis, but Americans and Westerners in general.

When 9-11 happened, what did Palestinians do? They danced in the streets and passed out candy, just as they have done when terrorists blew up Israeli buses and pizza parlors killing civilians, women and children. They passed out candy when an entire Jewish family was slaughtered in their home in the West Bank including a 3- month-old infant sleeping in a crib.

The problem is that the Palestinians have hitched their wagon to blood-thirsty leaders like Yasser Arafat, Hamas and Hezbollah. They don't really want a two-state solution and peace with Israel. They want it all-"from the river to the sea". To this day, they continue to lob rockets into southern Israel, hitting schoolyards.

In Gaza, Hamas rejects peace talks. They want every last Jew driven from the Holy Land and the establishment of a Muslim state. Their very charter quotes the hadith that talks of the "last Jew hiding behind a tree and calling to the Muslim to come and kill him." To this day, they continue to lob rockets into southern. Israel hitting schoolyards where children play. Meanwhile, the so-called moderate Palestinian Authority features a news media that demonizes Jews as apes and monkeys. How is Israel supposed to sit down and negotiate with that?

In the face of all this, liberal Westerners, radical academics and gullible students have been brainwashed into thinking that Israel is the aggressor. As for the terrorism, they ignore it or call it "legitimate resistance". Our problem in the West is that we have lost our moral compass.

Yes, I want to see an eventual settlement that will lead to peace, but I am skeptical. The Palestinians have not demonstrated that they can even run a country-let alone one that would live in peace with Israel. It is easy to speak of a Palestinian nation, but once nationhood is granted, it has the sovereign power to make its own alliances with radical nations like Iran and receive shipments of God knows what. Who needs the establishment of another outlaw state?

Finally, I am convinced that this conflict is not about land, rather it is about religion. The Arab world will not accept a Jewish state in the region. That is why they tried to defeat Israel by war in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They failed, but the Palestinian "cause" is just an excuse to continue that war by other means.

Until the Palestinians decide to forget conquest and renounce terror, I cannot feel sympathy for them.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

The Evil Against Israel

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Vos iz Neias

So now Iran has unleashed its terrorists against Israel. Bombs have gone off targeted against Israeli missions in New Delhi and Tbilisi. In addition, four Iranians have been arrested in Bangkok after one of them blew his legs off trying to throw a grenade at cops. This is what the Islamic Republic of Iran does. We are dealing with terrorist nation run by religious fanatics.


And yet, the world seems to have this obsession with the tiny Jewish state that is simply trying to survive in a sea of sharks called the Middle East.

The events in India, Georgia and Thailand should educate the world about the evil that is lined up against Israel. But they won't learn. They will still go on with this brain-dead Boycott, Sanctions and Divest movement against Israel. They should have learned when Mumbai was attacked by a group of Pakistani Muslims who killed so many people and tortured, killed and mutilated a Jewish rabbi and his wife at the local Chabad House. It didn't matter. The Israel apartheid protests continued on college campuses, oblivious to what had happened in Mumbai-or not caring. They should have learned after the Fogel massacre in which an entire Jewish family had their throats cut by Palestinian intruders who also killed a three-month old infant in its crib. In the Palestinian world, they were celebrated as heroes and soldiers. But the protests against Israel continued anyway.

Meanwhile in Syria, a nation that will not make peace with Israel, the massacres continue as the world wrings its hands and talks about sanctions.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

UC Irvine School of Fine Arts Rejects Statue of Raoul Wallenberg

Gary Fouse

Reference is made to my previous posts about an effort to have a statue of Raoul Wallenberg placed on the UC Irvine campus.

Below is a copy of a letter sent to Peter Lancz, the organizer of the drive, by Joseph S Lewis, Dean of the Clair Trevor School of the Arts dated January 30, 2012. 

This is the same department that just this past Saturday hosted some kind of symposium by a group of anti-Israel activists and film makers.

Do you suspect that had someone wanted to erect a statue of Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat on the campus, the school would have given it more favorable consideration?

"Uhhhh, yeaaaah."

So do I.