Friday, June 29, 2012

Murfreesboro School Board Denial

Gary Fouse

In response to the accusations brought forth by Eric Allen Bell, the Murfreesboro School Board has issued the below statement in regards to communications with the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

Statement concerning student religious activities
June 27, 2012
A few concerned residents contacted Rutherford County Schools on June 27, 2012, after hearing a discussion on a Nashville radio station. No one from the school district heard the radio program directly and so exactly what was said cannot be confirmed.

However, the discussion apparently referenced students practicing religious activities at school with an accusation that the school district allowed some students but not others to exercise their religious rights.  Apparently, there also was a claim that the district had received a list of demands for Muslim students from the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.

Rutherford County Schools is releasing this statement to hopefully address rumors concerning this topic.

First, the school district is not aware of anyone receiving any written communication directly from the Islamic Center. However, several principals have reported they received an e-mail from a person named Eric Bell that accuses the school district of receiving and disseminating information from the Islamic Center. Mr. Bell’s email does include an attached informational document from the Islamic Center. But again, this document was not received directly from the Islamic Center; it came from Mr. Bell.

However, the school district routinely receives informational literature about religions from various groups, including Christian, Jewish and legal organizations. Students of all religions are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights by practicing religious activities or participating in religious clubs at school as long as those activities are student-initiated.

 Below is the text of an e-mail reportedly sent to the school  board by Abdulrahman Kattih (mosque organizer) 

From: Abdoulrahman Kattih (E-mail address deleted)
 Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 11:54 PM
 To: Angel McCloud
 Subject: Follow up on the flyer

Dear Mrs. McCloud

 We spoke a couple of weeks ago about sending you an informative newsletter to
 distribute to the principles in the Rutherford county schools to tell them about
 the Muslim students in the area, the newsletter has some information to help
better understand and deal with the Muslim students.
We estimate that there are over 300 Muslim students in the county and we are
 looking forward to working with the Rutherford county Board of education to help; integrate them better and be understood better in the schools they attend.

We are hoping to forward the attached flyer to the principles and ask if they
 may share with the teacher when needed. We will be delighted to provide printed
 copies if needed.

Please feel free to email or call me with any questions.

 Abdou Kattih
 (phone number deleted)

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Taxed For Living

By Findalis

That is the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Today in a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court just told the citizens of the United States that they not only must buy health insurance, but if they don't they will be taxes for the crime of living.
The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive.

In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains intact.

It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in making the decision.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

The clock is reset.  It is 2010 once again.  It is time to get out, vote the Donkeycrats out of office, vote Barack Hussein Obama out of office.  That is the only way to repeal this monstrosity of a bill.

We can now expect higher premiums.  Few doctors practicing, fewer new doctors.  We can now expect Obama and the left go farther and demand a single payer system.  G-d forbid that ever happens.

We need to get angry.  Angry enough to go to the polls.  We need to be so angry that this will be the last hurrah for Obama and the Donkeycrats!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

The Murfreesboro Mosque Issue Heats UP

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Mosque for the below-referenced leaked documents.

As the on-going storm over construction of a 53,000 sq ft mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee continues, the local school board is now on the hot spot. Below is a document reportedly sent by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro to the Murfreesboro School Board with guidelines on how teachers should treat Muslim students.*NKB7MZFj*LkZwY4DnPhVFX8t1Ey-e3VebAoZZcIIbM-bT7PvNnN*VrmqtgNivR0esy-WQ__/teachers_guide1.pdf

The above document was initially leaked by documentary film maker Eric Allen Bell via the below article:

Just in the past few days, Bell also discussed this document with a major Nashville morning talk show and sent the "teacher's guide" to all the local media. It was mostly ignored. However, one DJ, Michael DelGiorno, read the document over the radio.

When conservative media began calling the school board for comment, the board reportedly denied having received any such document. Bell then released an e-mail showing that the school board was in contact with their attorney and the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro itself by phone and by e-mail.  DelGiorno read the e-mail on the air and posted it on his Facebook page.
Photo: Letter from ICM to Rutherford Co School Board attorney


As of today the school  board is being inundated with e-mails from angry parents objecting to the special privileges for Muslim students. This evening, the board is understandably in an emergency session.

The entire 5-page document sent to the school board will be posted next month by the paper with the largest circulation in the area of the Islamic Center.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Maher Hathout Speaking Appearance in LA

Gary Fouse

 On June 24, Maher Hathout of the Muslim Public Affairs Council spoke to an audience of about 25 people at St Johns Episcopal Church in Los Angeles. The event was sponsored by the Guibord Center, headed by Pastor Gwynne Guibord, who was the host and moderator.

   Prior to the presentation, a couple of audience members passed around flyers describing Mr Hathout’s background and certain facts about Islam. One of the female pastors saw the flyer and handed it to Guibord. She read it and handed it to Hathout. In introducing Hathout, Guibord objected to the handing out of the flyer without her permission. She then introduced Hathout as a tireless worker for bettering relations. She told us that Hathout had been interviewed by many major newsoutls like CNN, and “even Fox”. Hathout is also on the Guibord Center advisory board. The entire event was filmed and will be appearing on the Guibord Center’s website in a couple of weeks. In addition, a friend of mine captured the event on her I phone.

    Hathout spoke from notes for about 15 minutes. He gave a very vague and general presentation defining the terms, Islam and Allah. He said that we have all been talking about each other rather than talking to each other. He said that in the Arab world, Muslims, Christians and Jews all use the word, “Allah”. He stated that it was false to say that the Muslim God was different from the Christian and Jewish God.

    “One God. One message. Believe in God, do good and believe all of his messengers including the last one you were not told about“ (Mohammed).

    That took us to the Q and A. I was the first. I asked him to explain what the punishment was under Islamic law (hudud sharia) for an apostate-including for apostates who speak out and publicly criticize Islam. I referred specifically to the names of Nonie Darwish, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Wafa Sultan.

    I should state here that Hathout does not give straight-forward answers. Most of the questions were direct about concerns of non-Muslims (all were polite). His answers are long, wandering, and twisted. In regards to apostasy and criticism of Islam by apostates, Hathout stated that things are getting twisted and misinterpreted, He referred us to a book he had written, in which he devoted a chapter to apostasy. He then quoted the “highest authority” the Koran.

   “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”

   He also quoted the Koran as stating that whoever wants to believe, let them believe, whoever wants to deny, let them deny.” He then made reference to 1400 years of wars, and the Crusades. He said that in his opinion, “punishment for apostasy is fake.” As for him, “anyone who wants to leave is fine.” “People can sling mud", he said. Hathout also stated that in Mohammed’s time, a man had claimed that he, not Mohammed, was the Prophet. When told of this, Mohammed said to leave the man alone. Hathout also said that when the Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa on Salmon Rushdie, he (Hathout) had condemned it. Further, he stated that the laws of blasphemy are only applied in Pakistan, and that was a carry-over from the British colonial rule when it was punishable to criticize the Church of England.

    “This is not Islam“, he stated. That was his answer. He never answered the question, the answer of which is death, a word he studiously avoided.

    The next questioner asked about the concept of abrogation (to reconcile conflicting verses in the Koran. It means that the verse which was written later in time abrogated that written earlier). Hathout stated that he was involved in writing a book about abrogation. He said that the concept of abrogation is nonsense, and that it was developed by scholars trying to reconcile contradictory verses. To Hathout, verses written were applicable to a certain event in time, and other verses were applicable to events at another point in time. (I am paraphrasing.) The next questioner wanted Hathout to explain the relationship between Islam and the State. (separation of religion and state). Hathout said that the first example of (mosque) and state was Iran subsequent to the revolution. To this question, he said, even Muslims are confused. “The idea of an Islamic state is a myth“. He also said that we should have a state following the dictates of Islam. Further, he said that the closest thing to Islam is democracy. He also said that criticism of the Saudi royal family is considered heresy. Finally, he said, “Who knows the intent of God?”

    A female questioner (Christian) asked why Muslims have such reverence for Jesus if he said he was the Son of God. Would that not be blasphemy according to Islam.

   Hathout’s reply was that he (and Muslims) do not accept the Jesus ever made that claim. (“I don’t think Jesus said that.”)

    The next questioner said that he was concerned about the gulf between Islam and Western culture. He referred to the previous evening’s event in Manhattan Beach where several apostates told their stories of the fear they have suffered because of their conversion. (This was the Pam Geller-Robert Spencer event, which I also attended. See my post.) Hathout replied , “Oh, you went to that one, huh?”

    The questioner then mentioned the Freedom Pledge letter, which was sent by Former Muslims United to 100 top Islamic leaders in the US in 2009. Hathout was one of the recipients. (Only 2 signed the pledge or even acknowledged it.) To this, Hathout stated, “I never received it.”, at which time, I walked up to the table where he was seated and handed him a copy of the letter, which was addressed spefically to him. He took it in his hand and tossed it to the side in a dismissive manner. The questioner continued and asked him if he would read it and sign it here and now. At this point, Hathout took the letter and stuck it in his coat pocket saying he would read the letter, and if it was serious and did not insult Islam, he would sign it.

    The next questioner wanted to know why Muslims are not standing up and speaking out about terror and other events happening world-wide. Hathout stated, that “when we speak up we get vilified.” He continued that every major US Muslim organization spoke up after 9-11. Every US mosque condemned it. “Do you want me to write it on my forehead?”

    After a coffee break (featuring Green-friendly actual drinking cups instead of Styrofoam), the Q and A continued. A gentleman told Hathout that he had read one of his books, and found him to be very moderate except for one thing-the topic of homosexuality. The question was, “How should a Muslim leader treat this topic in a Muslim-majority county?”

    Hathout corrected him stating that the book was written by his brother (Hassan?), and that on this topic, he did not agree with his brother. He said that when most Muslims hear this word (homosexuality) they react as if it were an “allergy”. “I do not agree”, he continued. He thanked the man for bringing up this “taboo subject” and stated that he didn’t understand the issue, but was going to write something on this topic to “fill the hole“.

    At this point, a man in clerical collar introduced himself as a retired preacher and proceeded to throw up a two-part softball. He asked in what areas are American Muslims most misunderstood by Christians, and how he could get to make Muslim friends outside of events like these-people whose homes he could visit, etc.

    Hathout mentioned 3 main areas- women, jihad and “kill the infidel”, the latter term he stated, was an invention of the Crusades. Here are some points he made. “We don’t want to kill, but we don’t want to be killed.” In Algeria, one million Algerians were killed fighting the French. Religion does not kill people. People use religion to control people. In WW I and II, the Korean War and the Vietnam war, religion played no role. We should remedy violence through religion.

    The next questioner was a lady who told of having a Muslim roommate in college, who instructed her never to touch her Koran, and how she was put back by that. Hathout told her he was sorry and that girl “was not brought up right“.

    The next questioner (an Arab-American Christian who speaks and reads Arabic) told of reading the Koran and being amazed at the “second-class” references to women, the reference to a husband beating his wife, and asked, “Where are the female imams?”

    Hathout stated that in Islamic jurisprudence, a woman can divorce her husband-for any reason. He also said that in Arabic, the word “beat” has 17 different meanings. “Part of our struggle is to correct this misinterpretation,” he said. He also made a reference to Saudi Arabia as a place where a woman could not drive. “There is nothing about that in the Koran“. As to women imams, he gave an example of a woman who had proclaimed herself an imam and had been “cursed” by many, but supported by others. “We are trying to explain the message of Islam, Feed the hungry, the suffering, ect. There was a reference about hate in connection with the 700 Club. “Why do parents reprimand their child for trying to be American”, he asked.

      Finally, Guibord asked the final question, another softball. She opened by saying that English is an “object language”, while Arabic is a “process language”. This apparently was a vague issue related to “the Texts”. Her question seemed confusing, at least to me, but she wanted Hathout to explain this. I assume she was trying to open up the idea of misinterpretations of the Islamic texts due to differences in language structure and thinking.

    Hathout stated that we need to go deeper into the Texts. He asked why didn’t God create man with one religion? In his opinion, God wanted man to be diverse in every way including in beliefs. Somewhere along the way, there was a reference to conquerors like Alexander the Great, Napoleon and Bush. (As I said, he wanders in his answers.)

    After the event, I was chatting with a woman who had been handing out flyers about Hathout. The aforementioned pastor/priest approached us and asked the woman who had produced the flyers, which were not signed. The woman wrote down the name of the man who produced them (who happened to have been in the audience.) The pastor became a bit argumentative and asked why, when a true moderate comes to speak, he is attacked?” At that point, I joined the conversation and told the man that Hathout was not a moderate, and that he had not answered my question. I explained to him what the penalty for apostasy (and blasphemy) is death. I also explained to him that Islam was both a religion and a political ideology, which has a code called sharia, much of which is benign, but containing punishments for Crimes against God (hudud). That, I explained, is where you find things like death for apostates, blasphemers, adulterers and homosexuality. At this, he asked what about all the terrible things Christians did a thousand years ago (or two thousand?) The man continued to be argumentative and finally, I told him with all due respect that he was ignorant and needed to educate himself. He replied in kind and that was the end of conversation. The man then went outside and started an argument with the man who had produced the flyer.

    Let me conclude by saying that Hathout is an experienced dissembler. He could not give direct answers to the questions and concerns. His sponsors, the Guibord Center, is obviously, an activist group devoted to putting a happy face on the whole issue. As for the audience and the questioners, everybody followed the protocol and was polite. It was not structured to allow for meaningful discussion or follow-up questions. Nevertheless, we made our points. Others in the audience will have to judge as to whether Hathout satisfied their concerns. I hope to put up a video of this event in the near future.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

A Summer Evening for Human Rights

Gary Fouse

Last night, I attended a three-hour event held at the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan Beach, California. It was hosted by Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) and the American Freedom Defense Initiative. It was called, "A Summer Night for Human Rights" The event was organized by Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. There were well over a hundred people in attendance. The speakers were:

Nonie Darwish
Walid Shoebat
Ibn Warraq
Ramin Parsha
Mohammed Asghar
Bushra Qader
Amani Mustafa
Ishmali Zarouali

Wafa Sultan was also scheduled, but was ill.

Coincidentally, a few blocks down the street, CAIR was hosting something called "A Summer night for Civil Rights", featuring comedy and other forms of  entertainment. Tickets were up to $100 apiece. Our event was free.

The event I attended also had a more serious tone. The evening featured talks by 8 people from various countries, all of whom had been born Muslim, but became apostates. They did so at considerable price. Virtually all of them had been living under death threats, fatwas, and one was actually stabbed multiple times and nearly died from his wounds.

Ms Geller opened the evening by informing the audience that she had been contacted by the police (considerable security was present) and told that CAIR had contacted them (police) expressing concern about the Geller event and that they were concerned about their own security. Geller told them that since all of the people on their panel had been put under fatwa or other threats, it was our event that they needed to protect.

The first speaker was Nonie Darwish, Egyptian-born apostate, who has written and spoken out against the violence and hate within Islam. She was followed by the below speakers:

Another Egypian woman, Amani Mustafa, told of when she was a child seeing her mother convert to Christianity and being told by an imam that she had three months to return to Islam or she would be killed. Her mother refused and was able to leave Egypt for America having to leave her daughter behind with her father. Eventually, the speaker was able to leave Egypt with her two children and come to America, where she now lives. She told of having to move several times around the country to escape being murdered-here in the US, no less. She now operates a Christian ministry.

Meanwhile, down the street, CAIR was hosting "A Summer Evening for Civil Rights".

Walid Shoebat, a former Jihadist himself fighting against Israel, gave his story of conversion to Christianity. He had nothing kind to say about Islam and outlined the design of Jihadists to make Islam supreme here in the US and take away our liberties. He stated emphatically to a roar of applause that our constitution is, indeed superior to Sharia law. Shoebat is a dymnaic speaker and his speech drew the loudest applause, a standing ovation.

Ishmael Zarouali, a young Moroccan man, told of converting to Christianity while studying in France. He was warned by his friends not to return to Morocco, but did. One night, he was abducted off the streets by 4 men who took him to a room and demanded to know why he had left Islam. He was stabbed multiple times and left for dead. He awoke in a hospital. Subsequently, many of his friends, who did not know of his conversion, held a celebration for him and praised Allah that he survived. Little did they know, according to Zarouali,  that the attempt on his life was made in the name of Allah.

Meanwhile, down the street, CAIR was hosting "A Summer Evening for Civil Rights".

Bushra Qader, an Iraqi apostate dentist, who spoke limited English, told of how, while living in Dubai, her daughter had to be taken out of school because she was thought to be a Christian.

Ibn Warraq, an apostate who was born in India and moved with his family to Karachi after the India-Pakistan partition, also spoke. He is the author of "Why I am not a Muslim". Not long ago, Warraq participated in a debate with Islamic intellectual Tarik Ramadan in England, whom he described as a "master dissembler". He told us a humorous anecdote when referring to Ramadan's call for a moratorium on stoning (emphasis mine). He told the panel and the audience that rather be stoned for committing adultery, he would prefer to get stoned- then commit adultery.

Virtually all of the speakers told of their love for America and the ability to practice whatever religion they wished. Here was a group of people from Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, Morocco, Bangladesh, and Iran all telling the audience about the hate and intolerance they experienced in their homelands because they had left Islam and the appreciation of the freedoms they enjoy today-even though they still get threats.

But why go on? Here is the video of the event, with photos courtesy of Atlas Shrugs.

I know it is 3 hours long, but you need to hear these stories. Then think about that event CAIR was holding at the same time down the street called "A Summer Night for Civil Rights".

Saturday, June 23, 2012

More Questions on the Murfreesboro Mosque

Gary Fouse

Eric Allen Bell is a documentary film maker who went to Murfreesboro, Tennessee to cover the controversy over the construction of a mega-mosque in that small community. Initially supportive of the mosque builders, the more he learned, the more suspicious he became. Now an outspoken opponent of the mosque for a variety of reasons, Bell is writing and speaking out about the troubling associations of the people behind the mosque project.

Below is Bell's latest article for Global Infidel TV. There is a lot of information contained therein, and I am not in a position to confirm or refute any of the information. I do think, however, that it raises many concerns and should be part of the debate.

I would encourage the reader to note the alleged links between the Murfreesboro mosque and the Muslim Brotherhood. I would also point out the apparent involvement of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which holds deeds on most of the mosques in the US-their own links back to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the people involved with NAIT. I note the presence (as usual) of none other than Muzammil Siddiqi, head imam of the Islamic Center of Orange County, former head of the the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a member of the Fiqh Council of North America.

I forgot to mention that Siddiqi is also a proud winner of the prestigious "Rusty Award" handed out every year to "community leaders" in Orange County by the OC Human Relations Commission, headed by an empty-suit named Rusty Kennedy, who is currently fighting to maintain funding for this little bureaucracy in spite of wide-spread community opposition.

But I digress. Here is  Mr Bell's article.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

DEA Administrator Testimony on Fast and Furious

Gary Fouse

Last night, I was watching the Holder contempt hearing on C-SPAN (re-run). It was then followed by the testimony of DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart before the House judiciary committee headed by James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). There were several issues on the table; the incident in San Diego, where a suspect was accidentally left in a DEA office holding cell for 5 days, the allegations of sexual misconduct involving prostitutes by DEA agents in Cartagena, Colombia during the presidential visit, medical marijuana, and, of course, Fast and Furious. I will concentrate on the last issue.

Below is the video of the testimony. You will note that no Democrat asked about Fast and Furious. Bobby Scott (D-VA) and John Conyers (D-MI) all but called for drug legalization. Scott decried the "fact" that drug enforcement disproportionately incarcerates more blacks and Latinos then whites. Conyers, never too fast on his feet in the best of times, clearly showed that it is time for him to retire. But I digress

Since the Fast and Furious operation involved multiple agencies to one extent or another (Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force-or OCDETF), Leonhart was asked about the extent of DEA's involvement. Specifically, former DEA Tucson agent-in-charge Tony Coulson, now retired, has alleged that DEA agents in Arizona, specifically Phoenix, knew about ATF's methods in Fast and Furious, but were told by local DEA supervisors to "back off", or that it was "being taken care of".

When asked about Coulson's charges, Leonhart stated that it was her understanding that Coulson had recently recanted those statements or said that he had been misquoted. (As of this morning, I am unable to find any reports to that effect on the Internet.) Leonhart went on to state that DEA was cooperating fully with the (DOJ) Inspector General's Office, which is conducting the investigation. Sensenbrenner told her that her answers (to him) regarding all three of the issues were "inadequate" and that she would be called back to testify again in the future.

Here is how I would interpret Coulson's statements: If true, that would support my theory that ATF agents at the local enforcement level or even their local supervisors could not have been acting on their own without approval (or orders) from Washington. Had this involved a local rogue operation, and other agencies became aware of it, that would have resulted in a notification thorough DEA's own chain of command/inspectors to Justice inspectors/ATF inspectors in Washington. If Coulson's allegations are true, that is a strong indication that people in Washington were calling the shots on Fast and Furious. That, of course, is just my personal opinion.

                                                          "Mine too."

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Prelude To War

By Findalis

From Wikipedia:

World War 1:
In the 19th century, the major European powers had gone to great lengths to maintain a balance of power throughout Europe, resulting by 1900 in a complex network of political and military alliances throughout the continent. These had started in 1815, with the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Then, in October 1873, German Chancellor Bismarck negotiated the League of the Three Emperors (German: Dreikaiserbund) between the monarchs of Austria–Hungary, Russia and Germany. This agreement failed because Austria–Hungary and Russia could not agree over Balkan policy, leaving Germany and Austria–Hungary in an alliance formed in 1879, called the Dual Alliance. This was seen as a method of countering Russian influence in the Balkans as the Ottoman Empire continued to weaken. In 1882, this alliance was expanded to include Italy in what became the Triple Alliance.

After 1870, European conflict was averted largely through a carefully planned network of treaties between the German Empire and the remainder of Europe orchestrated by Bismarck. He especially worked to hold Russia at Germany's side to avoid a two-front war with France and Russia. When Wilhelm II ascended to the throne as German Emperor (Kaiser), Bismarck's alliances were gradually de-emphasised. For example, the Kaiser refused to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890. Two years later, the Franco-Russian Alliance was signed to counteract the force of the Triple Alliance. In 1904, the United Kingdom sealed an alliance with France, the Entente Cordiale, and in 1907, the United Kingdom and Russia signed the Anglo-Russian Convention. This system of interlocking bilateral agreements formed the Triple Entente.

German industrial and economic power had grown greatly after unification and the foundation of the Empire in 1871. From the mid-1890s on, the government of Wilhelm II used this base to devote significant economic resources to building up the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy), established by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, in rivalry with the British Royal Navy for world naval supremacy.[19] As a result, each nation strove to out-build the other in terms of capital ships. With the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906, the British Empire expanded on its significant advantage over its German rival. The arms race between Britain and Germany eventually extended to the rest of Europe, with all the major powers devoting their industrial base to producing the equipment and weapons necessary for a pan-European conflict. Between 1908 and 1913, the military spending of the European powers increased by 50 percent.

Austria-Hungary precipitated the Bosnian crisis of 1908–1909 by officially annexing the former Ottoman territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which it had occupied since 1878. This angered the Kingdom of Serbia and its patron, the Pan-Slavic and Orthodox Russian Empire. Russian political maneuvering in the region destabilised peace accords that were already fracturing in what was known as "the powder keg of Europe".

In 1912 and 1913 the First Balkan War was fought between the Balkan League and the fracturing Ottoman Empire. The resulting Treaty of London further shrank the Ottoman Empire, creating an independent Albanian State while enlarging the territorial holdings of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. When Bulgaria attacked both Serbia and Greece on 16 June 1913, it lost most of Macedonia to Serbia and Greece and Southern Dobruja to Romania in the 33-day Second Balkan War, further destabilising the region.

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian-Serb student and member of Young Bosnia, assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia.[24] This began a period of diplomatic maneuvering among Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain called the July Crisis. Wanting to finally end Serbian interference in Bosnia, Austria-Hungary delivered the July Ultimatum to Serbia, a series of ten demands intentionally made unacceptable, intending to provoke a war with Serbia.[25] When Serbia agreed to only eight of the ten demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July 1914. Strachan argues, "Whether an equivocal and early response by Serbia would have made any difference to Austria-Hungary's behavior must be doubtful. Franz Ferdinand was not the sort of personality who commanded popularity, and his demise did not cast the empire into deepest mourning".

The Russian Empire, unwilling to allow Austria–Hungary to eliminate its influence in the Balkans, and in support of its longtime Serb proteges, ordered a partial mobilization one day later. When the German Empire began to mobilize on 30 July 1914, France, resentful of the German conquest of Alsace-Lorraine during the Franco-Prussian War, ordered French mobilization on 1 August. Germany declared war on Russia on the same day. The United Kingdom declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914, following an "unsatisfactory reply" to the British ultimatum that Belgium must be kept neutral.
From Wikipedia:

World War 2:
The main causes of World War II were nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the World War I and the interwar period in Europe, plus the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

The culmination of events that led to the outbreak of war are generally understood to be the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany and Soviet Russia and the 1937 invasion of the Republic of China by the Empire of Japan.

These military aggressions were the result of decisions made by the authoritarian ruling Nazi elite in Germany and by the leadership of the Kwantung Army in Japan. World War II started after these aggressive actions were met with an official declaration of war and/or armed resistance.
I could go on for many wars.  The main thesis is that posturing and beating of the chests will only cause others to prepare for war instead of becoming scared of the idiot with the aggressive behavior. This was true all through out history and is true today.
The IDF has deployed Armored forces near the Israel-Egypt border, moving tanks closer to the fence, Ynet has learned. The unusual move followed Monday's terror attack on defense contractor crews building the new security fence.

The attack claimed the life of Said Phashpashe, 36, from Haifa. Golani soldiers who were scrambled to the area killed two terrorists.

Ynet was able to document the presence of Israeli tanks in close proximity to the border – maneuvers which are barred by Jerusalem's peace treaty with Cairo. The last time the IDF boosted its front-line combat vehicle presence in the sector was in August 2011, following a murderous terror attack by the Islamic Jihad, which left nine Israelis dead.

At the time, the military deployed several armored personnel carriers along the border, as part of the heightened security measures in the sensitive area.

Ynet's chief military commentator Ron Ben Yishai noted that several months ago, Israel and Egypt arrived at an agreement by which Cairo would be able to deploy 20 tanks near the border, to ward off attacks by Bedouins on Egyptian forces, despite the fact that such a move contradicts the peace treaty.

It is likely that the deal also allowed Israel to do the same in favor of increased protection for the area's communities.

Gaza Division Southern Brigade Commander Col. Tal Harmoni held a press briefing Monday, following the terror attack: "We are in a race against the clock to close the border," he told reporters. "We have to seal off the border as soon as we can to prevent exactly these kinds of attacks."

Harmoni added that as tragic as the attack's result were, "It could have been far worse – a large-scale attack was prevented.

"The IDF has strong ties with the Egyptians forces, who are working tirelessly to thwart such incidents," he concluded.

Every day there is an attack or attempted attack on Israel from the Sinai.  The military claims that they don't have jurisdiction to arrest the terrorist.  The Muslim Brotherhood is stirring the people of Egypt towards war with Israel.  A war the Egyptian military doesn't want and the Israelis dread the war and the loss of life it will bring.

It seems that only the Muslim Brotherhood want war with Israel.  A War of Liberation they are calling it.  A war in which they believe they will not only liberate Jerusalem but turn it into the Capital of Egypt.  A war in which both military and civilian in their nation will pay the price.

Israel has placed some of its tanks on the border with Sinai.  The IDF is preparing war plans to defend the nation.  Planes are standing by and Rabbis are beginning to pray for the nation.  Egypt is too confident, too cocky.  Egypt can be hurt, damaged, destroyed if necessary.  The women of Egypt will cry to G-d in anger and pain.  This will be a war that could be averted but not with the Leadership we now have in the White House.

Monday, June 18, 2012

ATF Whistle Blower Speaks Out

Gary Fouse

If you don't know the name John Dodson, you should. He is one of the ATF whistle blowers who actually participated under Operation Fast and Furious under orders and against his better professional judgemen., Here he speaks to Fox News, one of the few (as usual) news outlets willing to report on Fast and Furious.

Of course, the Justice Department would like to convince the public that Fast and Furious was a case of a few rogue agents in Arizona as being responsible for this operation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The  very existence of the so-called investigation by the Inspector general of DOJ shows that. How is how.

Had that been the case, the IG office would sit down and question every agent involved in the operation to find out who concocted this scheme. Keep in mind nobody has been publicly identified. Nobody has been charged with anything to date. Had agents or supervisors from Arizona been the actual initiators, they would have been identified within a week by investigators. In fact, every agent who participated in Fast and Furious in any manner would have been identified within days through the interviews and investigative reports alone.

I remember back in the early 1970s when two agencies, one federal, one city, were working on a joint surveillance of suspects in a motel in Southern California. The local investigators planted an illegal bug in the suspects' room. When other officers alerted their supervisors, the case was abruptly terminated, and an immediate investigation was launched by the police department's internal affairs and the federal agency's inspectors, who came out from Washington. Everybody involved in the surveillance was interviewed and the case was referred for prosecution against those who actually planted the bug. It took a matter of a few weeks.

The truth is that Fast and Furious was concocted not in Arizona, but in Washington-either in DOJ or the White House. Why else has nobody been identified and charged after all this time? Why else would Justice be keeping some 80,000 documents from Congress that supposedly are in the hands of the IG? If the IG of DOJ is so independent, why don't they turn over the documents directly to Congress?

If the actual persons behind Fast and Furious are able to get away with this, how can we, the American people, continue to have faith in the system?

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Happy Father's Day!

By Findalis

It has been years since I lost my father, and there is not a day that goes by that I wish to hear his voice, listen to his wisdom, or get comforted by his embrace.

For those of you who still have your dads, give him a big hug and tell him that you love him.

For those Dads enjoy those ties, coffee cups, power tools, etc...   To your little ones you are their hero.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Epilogue to the Holocaust

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Front Page Magazine and Janet Ellen Levy

Giulio Meotti, writing in Frontpage Magazine, paints a sad story of the status of the surviving Jews in Europe. He begins with a description of the security surrounding the Rome synagogue- then describes what life is like for Jews in the rest of Europe-those who survived the Holocaust and those who have chosen to remain in Europe.

It is an outrage. The fact of the matter is that Europeans are quaking in their boots because they have chosen to either ignore the Jew hatred exhibited by their restive Muslim immigrant population-or join in it for practical, but immoral reasons. The result is predictable. Europe will eventually lose the last remnants of a people who have contributed so much to its culture, sciences, arts and society over the centuries to be replaced with a group that has no respect for European traditions or culture, a group that contributes little but welfare costs, crime, violence, intolerance, and hate.

Not only are the Europeans in a state of wilful denial, so are we here in the US as shown by Daniel Greenfield's article in FrontPage Magazine.

Our State Department cannot even admit the horrors in Nigeria being carried out in the name of religion by Boko Haram just as it says nothing about religious intolerance being carried out violently from one end of the Muslim world to another. It is a fact that DOS has omitted this information from their annual human rights report for 2011, a period that covers the much-vaunted Arab Spring.

And if that is not bad enough, Hillary Clinton is holding closed door meetings in Washington and Istanbul  with representatives of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a 56-member bloc within the UN that is trying to get said UN to pass a resolution urging all member nations to outlaw "defamation of religions", which, in reality, is defamation against Islam-all as they practice religious persecution against non-Muslims in their own countries. Why is Hillary Clinton even giving them the time of day, let alone not telling them to clean up their own houses? Why does Congress not subpoena Ms Clinton to explain under oath what is going on in these secret meetings?

And where are the voices of American Muslims when it comes to religious persecution in Islamic countries?  When I recently raised this very question at a sharia workshop at Loyola Marymount University on April 18, 2012, I was told by local US Islamic leaders that:

"It is a false criteria" (Sherman Jackson).

"Don't blame Islam. Don't blame Muslims." (Sayyid Mustafa al-Qazwini)

And these same American Islamic leaders decry Islamophobia in the US. It is true that there is Islamophobia in the US and around the world (depending how you define that tricky term), and innocent Muslims are paying the price for it. Yet, by and large, Americans have treated Muslims quite fairly. FBI statistics show that hate incidents or crimes against Muslims are low-especially compared to anti-Jewish hate crimes. Yet, what CAIR and their fellow organizations are trying to do is use "Islamophobia" as an excuse to stifle legitimate criticism and discussion of issues that are causing death and destruction all over the world and threaten our very freedoms. They will not succeed.

It is not bigoted to speak the truth and state that the Islamic world has a problem when it comes to tolerating other religions. It is not bigoted to tell Muslims that we in the West want no part of their religious bigotry. It is not bigoted to tell  Muslim  jihadists (stealth or otherwise) in the US and Europe that they will not take over our societies and impose their religion and sharia on the rest of us.

The real problem-both in Europe and the US- is a lack of moral leadership. The political leaders will not listen to their own people. In Europe, I could probably be prosecuted for writing this very article. Yet they allow their dwindling Jewish populations to be targeted every time they walk onto the streets. They actually  do so in the name of tolerance (toward the perpetrators).

How much longer will it be before we have the same situation in the United States of America?

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Where Is The Outrage? -- Part II

By Findalis

Hat Tip once again to Texas Fred

Yesterday I posted Where Is The Outrage?  This is a follow-up once again posted by Texas Fred.
I had a dream the other night, I did not understand,
A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.
His clothes were torn and dirty as he stood their by my bed,
He took off his three cornered hat, and speaking low, he said.

We fought a revolution to secure our Liberty,
We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.
For future generations this legacy we gave,
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep,
But tyrants labored endlessly, while your parents were asleep.
Your freedom gone – Your courage lost – You’re no more than a slave,
In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

You buy a permit to travel, and a permit to own a gun,
Permits to start a business or to build a place for one.
On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent,
Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money’s spent.

Your children must attend a school, that does not educate,
Your Christian values can’t be taught, according to the State.
You read about the current news in a regulated press,
You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the IRS.

Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold,
You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.
You pay for crimes that make your nation, turn from G-d in shame,
You’ve taken Satans number, as you traded in your name.

You’ve given government control to those who do you harm,
So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm.
And keep our country deep in debt,put men of G-d in jail,
Harass your fellow countrymen while corrupted courts prevail.

Your public servants don’t uphold, the solemn oath they’ve sworn,
Your daughters visit doctors, so their children won’t be born.
Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores,
And send your sons to slaughter, to fight other peoples wars.

Can you regain your freedom, for which we fought and died,
Or don’t you have the courage or the faith to stand with pride.
Are there no more values, for which you would fight to save,
Or do you wish your children, to live in fear and be a slave.

Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand,
Defend the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Preserve our great Republic, and teach each G-d given right,
And pray to G-d to keep the torch of freedom burning bright…
These are NOT just *words*, this is an inspiration!

When do We, The People, finally say ENOUGH! When do Americans STAND and fight for what is RIGHT? When do we stand and demand, and secure those blessings of liberty that this nation was founded upon?

I don’t refer to the *liberties* that Ron Paul and his ilk demand, free and legal drugs, I mean REAL liberty! Pride in ones nation and self! Am I beating a dead horse? Is there anyone out there, other than my loyal readers actually paying attention?

Do you remember the old typing drill from High School? Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country?

It’s time!

This piece was sent to me in the comments section of this post, Where is the outrage?, and it was just too good to leave in comments! Thank you Mr. Dick Robie!
Our anger has risen and we will not be satisfied until our liberties are restored and this Administration is investigated properly for their trouncing of our Freedom.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Where Is The Outrage?

By Findalis

Hat Tip to Texas Fred

I read this at the above site and am passing this along to give it a wide birth.  Judge Andrew P. Napolitano has been a voice of common sense on FOX News.  I do hope that you will read this and pass it to others.
Since this particular piece didn’t get that much coverage, I hope the good Judge and FOX News will have no objections to this being used, in full, with full accreditation back to FOX News and Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. This is a piece that needs to be seen by ALL Americans.

Where is the outrage?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published June 07, 2012

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And, any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s Secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution…” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed — intelligence gathering first, protecting freedom second — and the mechanism of reconciling the two — balancing them — constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government — and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and as inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias — a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones — some as small as golf balls — to watch us, to listen to us and to record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here. Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Gov. Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Barack Hussein Obama can offer NO viable defense for this invasion of privacy. Mitt Romney, if he has ANY courage in him, will not only challenge it, he will vow to strike it down once he is elected POTUS.

Are *WE* prepared for the consequences?

I think a more fair question would be; is the regime of Barack Hussein Obama prepared to suffer the consequences that indeed they must if this travesty is allowed to come to fruition?
It has been reminded to us time and time again that our freedoms will be taken from us not all at once, but slowly.  All so slowly that we will not even notice their loss.  By the time we notice the loss of our freedoms it will be too late.

Take heed America!  It is time to Wake Up!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

10 Camels For Obama. 10 Chickens For Clinton.

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

That is the bounty put upon Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton by the Shabaab al-Mujahideen Movement in Somalia.
President Barack “Idiot” Obama, dead or alive, is worth 10 camels, and bounty hunters can claim 10 chickens for the ‘old woman,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, say Somali terrorists.

Their offer mocks a U.S. State Department announcement offering $33 million for seven Al Shabaab terrorists, affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

"Whoever reveals the hideout of the idiot Obama will be rewarded with 10 camels and whoever reveals the hideout of the old woman Hillary Clinton will be rewarded 10 chickens and 10 roosters," announced Fuad Muhammad Khalaf of the Shabaab al-Mujahideen Movement in Somalia. He added, "I can assure you that these kind of things (US bounties) will never dissuade us from continuing the holy war against them.”

The website posting was reported by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors terrorist websites.

The State Department’s Rewards for Justice program placed a $7 million bounty on the head of Al-Shabaab’s founder, Ahmed Abdi al-Mohamed, and $5 million each for five of his senior aides. Two other of his terrorists are worth “only” $3 million each.

Al Shabaab “is responsible for the killing of thousands of Somali civilians, Somali peace activists, international aid workers, journalists, and African Union peacekeepers,” the State Department stated in its announcement.

For the sake of comparison, 10 adult camels for Obama can be worth up to $50,000 dollars, while a live chicken for capturing Clinton might fetch $10. Kosher chickens often are found on sale at Israeli supermarkets for less than $3 a pound, or less than $10 a bird. not including stuffing.

I guess that they didn't get the memo:  Barack Hussein Obama aka Barack "Idiot" Obama has made peace with the Muslim world.  Didn't they hear his speech in Cairo?  I guess not.

Why put out a bounty on them.  They should just wait until November and watch him get defeated by Mitt Romney.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Meanwhile at Foggy Bottom: What About Religious Persecution?

Gary Fouse

Hat tip CNS News

* For all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors, Foggy Bottom is the section of Washington DC where the State Department is located. In Beltway parlance, State is often referred to as "Foggy Bottom".

"Have you read the latest human rights report?"

Apparently, it is a short read because the State Department has left out a crucial part about religious rights around the world during the past year that would cover the period of the Arab Spring. The below report is from CNS News.

Is this surprising? All I could find was the period July-December 2010. Where is 2011? Why is it that other human rights categories are reported for 2011 but not religious persecution?

Here is why. It is because the most violations in this area are occurring in predominantly Muslim countries against Christians, Baha'i and other non-Muslim minorities.

I wonder if any enterprising reporters will ask Hillary Clinton to explain this omission.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Good word! So that explains it...

From Urban Dictionary

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Unless we can get Obama out of the White House, this country is headed for ineptocracy.
The economic crisis in Greece is a classic example of the dangers of ineptocracy.

On Beheadings

Gary Fouse

Raymond Ibrahim has written an article on the latest beheading video that is going around the Internet. What makes this video especially interesting is that it is not just an isolated video, rather it is part of a TV commentary by  a controversial talk show host, Tawfik Okasha, on Egypt Today. Okasha is an opponent of the Egyptian revolution and a presidential candidate as well. In addition, there has been some controversy over where the incident actually took place. According to the TV report, it happened in Tunisia, and the victim was an apostate who had converted to Christianity. Tunisia had been considered heretofore as a "moderate" country when it came to religion, and, of course, was the first country to initiate the so-called Arab Spring. Some are taking issue and claiming that the incident occurred in Iraq or Syria, while some claim that the victim was a  Shiite, or that the reason for his killing was that he was guilty of some sort of treason like collaborating with the Americans. You can read those claims and Ibrahim's response at the bottom of the article.

I will leave it to the reader to decide if he/she wants to view the incident at the below link. It is extremely graphic.

The question of death for apostasy from Islam came up when I attended a sharia workshop recently at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. During a  break, I got into a conversation with imam Muzammil Siddiqi, leader of the Islamic Cneter of Orange County, on the subject of death for apostates. Siddiqi was one of 100 prominent Islamic leaders who had been sent a Freedom Pledge in 2009, written by Nonie Darwish and others, which asked these leaders to sign a pledge that American apostates should not be harmed. Siddiqi never signed it or responded. When I asked him about it, he said he had never received it. I then asked him more about whether apostates should be punished by death according to hudud sharia. His answer was that some (people) said yes, but that as far as he was concerned, if someone wanted to leave Islam, let them leave. I then pressed him as to what should happen to an apostate who not only left Islam but publicly criticized it as had Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. "Aha", he replied. This would be tantamount to treason and gave as an example a Muslim who fought with the Russians in Afghanistan.

Treason, according to Siddiqi.

Indeed, Siddiqi may have a point. It seems to some Islamic leaders, clerics, etc, mere apostasy is enough to merit a death sentence, while others, such as Siddiqi say (at least to non-Muslim questioners and audiences) that as long as an apostate does so quietly and merely leaves, that person should not be subject to death. Yet, if the apostate also criticizes Islam that constitutes treason.

Nor is Siddiqi the only Muslim I have raised this with. I recently had a discussion with a Saudi acquaintance, who is a lawyer in Saudi Arabia and wants to study law in the US. We got into a discussion on sharia, and I asked him about the apostate question. He confirmed that apostasy is a capital offense in his country, but that the apostate would be given three opportunities by a judge to recant before an execution would be carried out. He also stated that if a person simply left the religion and didn't tell anyone, he would not be harmed. Yet, if the person spoke out on his or her conversion and criticized Islam, that would be treason-the same word Siddiqi used in my conversation with him at LMU.

These are all interesting points to consider, but it still leaves the question hanging out there. In the video, a young man is beheaded as one of his executioners reads holy verses.