The Fouse Report: 28 Jun 08

Is UCI Becoming America's "Brown University"?

In 2005, I published a book entitled: Erlangen-An American's History of a German Town. It was a history of the German university town of Erlangen, near Nuremberg. I had spent almost three years in Erlangen as a young US Army MP (1966-1968). Since that time, I have returned several times, most recently this month, due to my love for the city where I spent a formative time of my youth.

During my research, I learned a lot about Erlangen in the years leading up to and during the Third Reich. In the years prior to Hitler taking power, Erlangen University acquired a reputation as a bastion of Nazi support and anti-Semitic feeling. Though there were not that many Jewish students or professors there, those that were found themselves subjected to a lot of abuse from students who were Nazi sympathizers. Indeed, the university was the first in Germany whose student government was dominated by Nazis. Hitler himself paid tribute to the university which gave him the most support in his early years of rising to power in Germany. As a result, Erlangen University boasted the moniker of "The Brown University".

I offer that as a backdrop because the university where I teach part-time, the University of California at Irvine (with the improbable mascot name "Anteaters"), has acquired a reputation in recent years as a bastion of radical Islamic activity (on the part of the Muslim Student Union), as well as anti-Israel-and anti-Jewish expression. It has reached the point where several Jewish students have opted to go elsewhere to study because of the perception. While not equating UCI with anything that existed in Nazi Germany, it is undeniable that words and deeds are on-going at UCI that can only be troubling to Jewish students and their families.

First of all, I have written extensively about this issue for over a year now, and I won't try to recount everything I have written in detail. I have also made the point that 99% of our students have nothing to do with anything that could be called anti-America or anti-Jew. Most of our students are Asian-American, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with the problems on our campus.

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold: First, we have an MSU that is virulently anti-Israel. The problem is that this has included much expression of Anti-American sentiment-and anti-Jewish sentiment on the part of MSU's sponsored speakers who come to UCI every quarter to speak. Many of MSU's speakers are radical Muslims who advocate the destruction of Israel, glorify suicide bombers, defend Hizbollah and Hamas and damn America in the process for its support of Israel and other offenses, real or imagined. Often, some of these speakers use anti-Semitic statements, usually careful to say, "Zionist Jews" to avoid the charge of anti-Semitism. For example, Mohammed Al-Asi, an Imam from Washington DC, has referred to Jews (on the UCI campus) as "low-life ghetto dwellers." He has also stated on the UCI campus that, "You can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you cannot take the ghetto out of the Jew". He is also a defender of the Government of Iran, as well as Hizbollah and Hamas.

Amir Abdel Malik Ali, (formerly Derek Gilliam) a black convert to Islam, who is an imam in Oakland, comes to UCI every quarter and rails against Israel, America, and Zionist Jews as he defends Hamas and Hizbollah. He has appeared on tape glorifying suicide bombers in Israel.Then there is Abdul Alim Musa (formerly Clarence Reams), from Washington DC, who echoes all of Ali's above sentiments, calls for Islam to take over the world and maintains that 9-11 was an inside job. This former drug dealer turned imam has also appeared at UCI spouting his nonsense. This past quarter, the MSU week of "Holocaust in Palestine" featured a mock wall depicting the wall Israel has established to keep out suicide bombers. On the wall were various photos, drawings and slogans. I personally observed (and have posted) a caricature of Ariel Sharon drawn in the classic style of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, a vicious anti-Semitic weekly newspaper of the Third Reich. (Streicher was hanged after the war as one of the major war criminals.) Sharon was depicted with an over sized nose, thick lips and leering gaze.In addition, there have been occasional incidents where Jewish students who monitor and film these events have been harassed, threatened and shoved by MSU members.

During last quarter's events, one Jewish female student who was filming Ali's evening speech, was reportedly followed back to her car by about 6 MSU males, who surrounded her car. This incident was reportedly witnessed by a South African woman who had come to hear the speech. According to her account, when the police arrived, they treated the incident with complete indifference. (This alleged incident was reported in the Red County blog.)

This leads me to the second problem. The response of the university administration over the past several years has been negligible. Their position is that this is all a matter of free speech and free expression. Jewish students who have complained about the MSU have met with similar indifference. Certain university officials have been quoted as having called complaining Jewish students "hysterical Jews", "troublemakers" or "outside groups". Another faculty member just this week stated in an email (which I have read)that complaining Jewish students were misrepresenting the facts. He also took a shot at certain blogs like Pajamas Media and Little Green Footballs for reporting on the issue. The professor opined that whatever was being said by the MSU, no matter how offensive, was protected speech.

UCI Chancellor Michael Drake recently met in Washington DC with representatives of Hillel (a national Jewish student organization). He assured them that there was no room for hate speech at UCI. No room for hate speech at UCI? No room for imams calling Jews "low-life ghetto dwellers"? No room for Nazi-like caricatures of Ariel Sharon? No room for glorifying those who blow up innocent men, women and children on buses and in pizza parlors?

This past quarter, David Horowitz appeared at UCI and characterized it as the "worst in the country" when it came to this problem. There were at least two deans in the audience who listened to Horowitz's remarks. In the question and answer session that followed, none of these individuals took the opportunity to speak up and defend the university. It appears that the Jewish students at UCI are on their own as far as the school is concerned. Yes, there are a few professors who are alarmed at the MSU. Yet, few if any have spoken out publicly to criticize the MSU and the administration. Some choose to lend their influence quietly in working with the administration to make changes. I have chosen to hold the university's feet to the fire in a public manner. I have written to the campus newspaper, the UCI EEO Office and the Orange County Human Relations Commission outlining my concerns. This last endeavor was a waste of time. All I got was a nasty email from the OCHRC director, a certain empty suit hack named "Rusty" Kennedy, who called my letter a "diatribe" against the university (which was doing a great job along with his office to combat racism, blah, blah, blah.) He then had the cojones to sign his nasty-gram, "Rusty"."Rusty".

Fortunately, the US Department of Education (Office of Civil Rights) has agreed to re-open an investigation into anti-Semitic allegations from 2007, which they had previously determined to be "unfounded". Where this will go is anybody's guess. What is needed here is public exposure of the activities of the MSU that have brought so much discredit to what should be otherwise a fine university.

As I stated above, I am not suggesting that anyone at UCI harbors pro-Nazi sympathies, but I personally believe from my own observations that anti-Jewish feeling exists among at least some of the MSU members and especially many of their sponsored speakers. If the university administration cannot or will not meet its responsibility to provide a safe and hate-free environment for its Jewish students, then they should be held up to public exposure as well. While they fiddle and preach about "free speech", UCI is gradually becoming a version of America's own "Brown University". (And that has nothing to do with the one in Rhode Island.)

posted by Gary Fouse

From Other Sites on the Line: 28 Jun 08

Confronting the Islamic Military

Cross posted from Debbie Hamilton's Right Truth:
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/06/the-misnomer-of-radical-islam---americas-security-blunder.html

DEBBIE NOTE: Right Truth is thankful to Martel Sobieskey for publishing his articles here at Right Truth. We look forward to publishing future articles. Regular readers at Right Truth know that I completely agree and support the material set forth in this particular article. We have found a kindred spirit my friends.

This article is posted at Real Clear Politics, your votes are appreciated

The Misnomer of Radical Islam
America’s Security Blunder
June 27, 2008
by Martel Sobieskey

There is the erroneous assertion that Radical Islam is not connected with mainstream (moderate) Islam in any way, that the religion of Islam has been “hijacked by a few extremists” that the vast majority of Muslims do not agree with the Islamofascists. Such thinking is a terrible error and a grave threat to America’s national security, especially in this age of nuclear terrorism.

So what is Radical Islam and what should it be properly named? Radical Islam is actually the Islamic Military. The so-called radicals are not a fringe element; they are fully supported by the worldwide Islamic community (Ummah). If they were a fringe element, they would have been defeated long ago. The fight rages on because of strong support from the moderates both covertly and overtly. This means the Islamic Military (wrongly labeled radicals) is intimately connected with moderate Muslims who we have mistakenly labeled as innocent bystanders.

Moderate Muslims are not innocent bystanders. Moderate Muslims provide the base of operations which makes it possible for the Islamic Military to continue their terrorist operations. Hate America, demands to replace constitution with the Koran, and outbursts for Sharia law are preached openly from nearly every Mosque in America under the guise of freedom of speech and religion. Freedom of speech and religion has morphed into a weaponized tool of Islamic psychological warfare which is defeating America’s will to protect her national security. Any American who says Islam is less than perfect may become the victim of an unfair lawsuit by a “moderate” Muslim organization.

Why can one be so certain about this fact? The answer is the Koran. The Koran fuses together both moderates and their military. No Muslim dares to contradict the Koran because the penalty is -- death and loss of personal salvation. The moderate Muslims of every nation, including those in America fully support their Islamic military because worldwide conquest is the primary religious duty of all Muslims. Fellow Americans if you believe that your local Muslims are not secretly harboring in their hearts an agenda for the conquest of America by Islam then you are dead wrong, and understand nothing about the Koran.

Moderate Muslims may not carry weapons and murder innocent people hands on, but they play the role of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”. Moderate Muslims use two primary strategies to make conquest for Islam. The first is dawa, which is influence peddling, “wining and dining” and manipulation. You make conquest by “pleasing” your opponent, “buttering them up” -- bribery and back room dealings are common place. There is a “ton” of Muslim oil money buying preferential treatment for Islam in America. The second is taqiyya, which is outright deception and lying. Deception and lying to infidels as a strategy of conquest is one of Islam’s most valued “weapons”, a precedent set by the prophet Mohammed himself. Americans hear this deception everyday with proclamations that “Islam is a religion of peace.” This phrase is an excellent example of successful psychological warfare which has caused Americans to let down their guard, and made us very vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, even possible nuclear attacks as several experts have pointed out.

Recent history proves that the “so called peaceful Muslims” work as a team with their Islamic Military. They immigrate to a country touting what peaceful law abiding citizens they are, establish themselves, build mosques, increase their numbers and “bingo” terrorists acts start occurring in the host country. Do the attacks in Spain, England, France, Thailand, Bali, the Philippines, Holland, Sweden and the USA ring any bells here? All these attacks have been preceded by the establishment of moderate mosque communities which in turn became footholds from which the Islamic military could launch their terrorist attacks. The larger the percentage of Muslims that occupy a country the greater the havoc they wreak. The situation is directly proportional. Reducing the percentage of Muslims that dwell in the host country is the most effect way of stopping terrorism. Western governments must evaluate this fact very seriously if they wish to win the war against Islamofascism long term.

Have we Americans become gullible fools? As long as we fail to deal aggressively and comprehensively with the intimate Koranic connection between the moderate Muslims and their Islamic military we can never stop the terrorist attacks. Have you ever wondered why, so numerous the complaints worldwide, that Muslims are not assimilating into their host nation? It is because they are not there to assimilate -- they are there to conqueror the host country for Islam as their Koran requires. Fellow Americans please read the Koran for your self. Don’t take my word on it. You will learn first hand that anyone who tells you that Islam is a religion of peace is insulting your intelligence. The Penguin Classic edition, The Koran, translated by the Arab Scholar N. J. Dawood is a well respected version having sold over a million copies worldwide.

The best description of the symbiotic Koranic relationship between the moderates and their military comes from the Muslims themselves. They have a saying, “the poisonous fish swim in the sea”. The “poisonous fish” are the militants and the “sea” is the moderate mosque community. For example, for their 9/11 operation, the Islamic Military (poisonous fish) used the Al Farouq mosque in New York as the “sea” from which they “swam” to pulverize the trade towers. The next poisonous fish may be swimming from the sea of your local Mosque community with a nuclear explosion. Wake up Americans we are not fighting with bows and arrows anymore. We must take aggressive preventative measures to stop the Islamic military’s “euphoric” obsession to make a nuclear attack on American soil.

It is a great mistake to continue calling the Islamic military radicals because the term “radicals” has blinded us to think that the moderates are not in cahoots with their Islamic Military. In so doing we have violated the primary dictum of warfare which is to know and understand one’s enemy. Consequently, we have failed to understand that the Islam of Osama Bin Laden is main stream Islam – not a radical fringe. Osama Bin Laden is one of the generals of the Islamic military which is fully supported by the worldwide community of moderate Muslims, including American Muslims. Both moderate Muslims and their military have the same goal which is the Islamic conquest of the entire world -- this is the primary religious duty of all Muslims as required by the Koran. Americans desperately need to understand this fact if they wish to protect their country from great harm.

Martel Sobieskey has 35 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, educators, and security personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched Jihadist religious conditioning inherent in Islam.

___________________________________________________________________________________

A note from Radarsite: Every now and then we run into an article that just nails it. This is one of those articles.
We find ourselves in the midst of a strange war, the battlefield is obscured by thick clouds of propaganda and obfuscations. The one thing that we need the most in this life and death conflict is clear and concise information about our enemy and their intentions. And this is the very thing that we are lacking. Our own liberal multicultural obstructionists have done their very best to protect America's enemies in the guise of protecting our American values. Our feeble attempts at identifying our enemies -- or in even trying to sort them out from their so-called "moderate" brethren -- are cut short by the liberal left with cries of racism and bigotry.

For generations now, whether it has been in dealing with the IRA or the PLO, or more recently, with Hamas and Hezbollah, we have bought into this bizarre Doublethink ruse of the separation of the so-called "militant wings" of these fanatical and murderous entities from those purportedly benign "political wings". Somehow, either by gullibility or wishful-thinking -- or some mushy combination of the two -- we have allowed ourselves to be bamboozled into accepting this ludicrous paradigm, accepting this preposterous notion that our enemy's left hand isn't aware of (or isn't responsible for) whatever its right hand is doing. This dangerous delusion allows us to believe that at least one half of these lunatic organizations are rational and reasonable and amenable to dialogue. The results of this naivete have almost always proven to be disastrous.

This is why Mr. Sobiesky's article is so very important. By coming up with his new and brilliant paradigm "the Islamic Military", he has given us a much-needed handle to get a hold on the issues and avoid those delusional pitfalls of Doublespeak. Without all the subterfuge, we can plainly see that we are in reality dealing with a single entity. This is exactly the kind of clarity that we so desperately need.

It comes down to something perhaps as simple as this: If a schizophrenic commits a murder, we cannot just prosecute that evil side of his persona; we must incarcerate or eradicate the entire person. With the threat of Islam, we can no longer accept their good Muslim/bad Muslim narrative. The enemy is a single evil entity; and it is Islam.

Thank you Mr. Sobiesky for this gift of reason. And thank you Debbie for posting it.
Hopefully we can still change course, and start to get realistic about this great cultural war we have had thrust upon us. -- rg


For more from Radarsite on this subject see:
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2007/12/golden-key_09.html
and:
http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2007/12/wrestling-with-mohammed_09.html

Blips on the Screen: 28 Jun 08

Italy: Silvio Berlusconi's 'Iron Fist' Laws Approved

Soldiers could be sent into Italy's cities, illegal immigrants will be imprisoned and all non-serious court cases will be frozen for a year under new measures approved by Italy's senate.
The senate voted 166 to 123 to approve a wide-ranging package of measures which will allow Silvio Berlusconi to govern Italy with an iron fist.
Mr Berlusconi, 71, will now be able to use as many as 3,000 soldiers for up to six months in order to fight crime. Previously, the use of the army had to be agreed by the parliament beforehand.
Another controversial measure in the package will eventually see illegal immigrants imprisoned for up to four years. Landlords who rent homes to illegal immigrants will have their properties seized. Mr Berlusconi has pinned much of the blame for Italy's crime problem on immigrants and has vowed to "wash the piazzas clean of uncertainty". Immigrants who claim to have family in Italy will be given DNA tests.
Source
News Source: telegraph.uk

A note from Radarsite: The Conservative backlash continues in Italy. This is how it can be done. This is what the power of will can accomplish. In this example lies our hope and our future. We are aware of the fact that a large proportion of this Italian Immigrant problem is focused on their gypsy population, but the Muslims are also being targeted, as the recent bulldozing of a mosque in Verona illustrated so vividly.

See: http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-other-sites-on-line-26-may-08.html
This is what is called national self-defense, a concept that we seem to have overlooked lately, when it comes to enforcing our own immigration laws. If an immigrant element causes problems for the host country, that country has every right to do whatever is necessary to protect itself. And Italy is showing us how this can be done. While Britain and Scandinavia are being all but overwhelmed by their arrogant and often criminal immigrant populations, at least one European country has had enough.

Can we learn from this? Have the delusional multiculturalists wreaked enough havoc yet? We can only hope. And vote! - rg

If Israel attacks Iran, what would the U.S. do?

James Gordon/Creative Commons
The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, like these F-14B Tomcats, means that Israel would require a U.S. green light to fly in and attack Iran.

If Israel attacks Iran, what would the U.S. do?

A note from Radarsite: Another thorough and insightful analysis of the looming Iranian nuclear crises, this time from JTA. It appears more and more likely that some form of military action will indeed be taken against Iran within these next six months, either from Israel or the US, or some combination of both -- most likely, an Israeli strike with American support and possible American follow up. With the pacifist left still screaming that "Bush lied and thousands died" in Iraq, are we prepared for that inevitable furious liberal backlash?
As usual, our enemies are both internal and external, both our own homegrown Chamberlainesque pacifists and the crazy Iranian mullahs. - rg

Hat tip to Susan Kaminski
Cross posted from JTA.org
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080624iranpolicy20080623.html

By Ron Kampeas
Published: 06/24/2008

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- As the question of an Israeli attack on Iran edges from if toward when, a new question looms: What would the United States do?
The question is preoccupying not just the White House but the Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, although neither would address
A number of neoconservatives in Washington, known for their closeness to the Israeli defense establishment, now predict that Israel may strike between the election in November and the inauguration of the next president on Jan. 21, if only because that’s a time when Israel can count on U.S. support.

"Israel would be unlikely to do it before the U.S. election," said John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is close to the pro-Israel community in the capital. "But after the election and before the inauguration would be a window."

Israeli officials will not name a date, but some have grown more pronounced in recent weeks about the increased prospect of a strike should Iran develop nuclear weapons capability.

"A year from now Iran will be very, very close to the completion of its first nuclear bomb," Ephraim Sneh, a member of Israel's ruling coalition, said earlier this month at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference. "I may predict that there is -- will be no government in Jerusalem which would allow it to happen."

Asked to predict what the buzz would be at the May 2009 AIPAC policy conference, Sneh said, "If we are alone we will have to act alone. This will be the subject of May ’09."

Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli transportation minister, said this month that an attack would be "unavoidable" if Iran had the bomb. As Mofaz also is the top Israeli negotiator in the U.S.-Israeli strategic dialogue, his remark suggested that he is confident of U.S. support for an Israeli attack.

Bolton says that is not an unreasonable conclusion with the current administration.
"From past policies, they know that Bush holds a favorable view of Israel's right to self defense," Bolton said of Israeli officials.

Israel's closeness to Bush has led Bolton and fellow neoncons such as William Kristol to predict that Israel may time its strike before Inauguration Day on Jan. 21, 2009, particularly if U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the putative Democratic nominee, wins the presidency.

"The thing that makes an Israeli strike more likely is when any U.S. politician gets up and says Iran can be contained," said Michael Rubin, a colleague of Bolton's at the American Enterprise Institute and an alumnus of the Bush administration's Pentagon policy unit on Iran.

Obama argues for tough diplomacy with Iran -- carrots of engagement backed up by sticks of increased sanctions -- and insists that such diplomacy may yet contain the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Even in the case of a victory by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has adopted a posture on Iran closer to that of the Bush administration, Israel is likelier to trust the backing of the Bush administration in case of a strike, Bolton said.
"You can't predict what a new president will do with accuracy," he said.
Any Israeli attack on Iran almost certainly would first need a green light from the United States. Airspace over eastern Turkey and Iraq, controlled by the United States and one of its closest allies, would be the likely flight path from Israel to Iran.

"You would absolutely need permission and the IFF codes," said Jonathan Schanzer, the director of policy at the Jewish Policy Center, referring to the electronic Identification Friend or Foe codes that combat planes need to cross international airspace.

Schanzer, whose group is allied with the Republican Jewish Coalition, is a Bush administration alumnus, having worked at the Treasury Department as an intelligence analyst.

Orde Kittrie, an Arizona State University expert on Iran and proliferation, said Israel likely would expect U.S. backup following a first strike against Iran because the Jewish state alone could not sustain the required extended attack on Iran.
"You'd have to send several waves" of air attacks, Kittrie said. "It's not clear the Israelis have the capacity for more than one wave. The Americans do have the capacity."

Rubin, who has researched the consequences of an attack for a bipartisan U.S. Senate panel considering its consequences, said an attack would require at least 1,400 sorties -- well beyond Israel's capacity.

"It's not out in the open like Osirak," the Iraqi nuclear reactor Israel destroyed in 1981, he said. "It's all over the place. It might take more than one sortie to strike" some targets. "You'll have to go after the military structure, take out the means for retaliation."

Israel lost the element of surprise after the 1981 strike, Rubin said, and now Iran and other Persian Gulf states have sophisticated anti-aircraft systems.

The difficulties notwithstanding, Israel seems determined to signal to the West that it is considering a strike on Iran.

Last week, The New York Times reported that the Israeli military held an exercise this month involving more than 100 combat aircraft flying up to 900 miles -- the distance between Israel and Iran. Helicopters also conducted pilot rescue exercises.
The Bush administration alumni interviewed agreed that the administration likely would back Israel in the eventuality of an attack. But they were quick to add that the administration also is cognizant of the dangers: terrorist attacks by Hezbollah terrorists, Iran’s proxies, in the Middle East and beyond, as well as missile strikes by Iran.

The most threatening element is a broader conflagration involving the United States, which has some 150,000 troops in Iran’s neighbor, Iraq.

"The biggest danger is that Israel will think it can start the job and leave the United States to finish it," Rubin said.

Bolton said that available Western intelligence on Iran does not adequately predict the outcome of a strike, leaving open the danger of an enraged – and still nuclear capable – regime in Tehran.

"You could have a successful military strike that destroys the conversion facility at Esfahan only to find there's another conversion facility 100 miles away," Bolton said, referring to the process that creates weapons-grade uranium. "You could have the risks and downsides of nuclear attack without breaking the cycle."

The White House and the campaigns would not talk about such a prospect beyond issuing generic defenses of Israel's right to self-defense, but it is clear there are concerns.

The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, is touring Israel this week on a surprise visit. And senior advisers to both campaigns signed on to a report last week calling for an urgent dialogue between Israel and the United States on Iran -- a dialogue that would address the prospect of military action in dealing with the Islamic Republic's threat.

Among the participants on the panel on U.S.-Israel relations convened by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israel think tank, were Tony Lake and Susan Rice, top foreign policy advisers to Obama, and James Woolsey, who advises McCain.

"It’s very significant that the key advisers to the presidential candidates signed on to a report that specifically talks about the need and importance for U.S.-Israel cooperation and partnership on the entire range of options regarding Iran," Robert Satloff, who convened the panel, told JTA.

"It is more than just being 'on the table.' It takes it to another level. These are topics that merit at the appropriate time high-level engagement and discussion. It does suggest that these options are legitimate."
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz8neME9DYOr5Cz34JXBtDpWXHCzD4N9MramveCB80smfASlxvC
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1813706,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/20/israel.exercise/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?bbPostId=Cz8neME9DYOr5Cz34JXBtDpWXHCzD4N9MramveCB80smfASlxvC">http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/politics?bbPostId=Cz8neME9DYOr5Cz34JXBtDpWXHCzD4N9MramveCB80smfASlxvC

Interesting visitors:
IP Address 87.107.49.120 [Label IP Address]
Country Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Region -
City -
ISP Persiasat

Navigation Path
Date Time WebPage
29th June 2008 04:29:33 No referring link
radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-israel-attacks-iran-what-would-us-do.html

The Fouse Report: 27 Jun 08

Justice Anthony Kennedy-Is He the Most Powerful Man in America?

The Supreme Court Child-Rape Ruling

By Gary Fouse

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/

Friday, June 27, 2008

In the past few days, the US Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy vs Louisiana that no state may sentence a convicted child rapist to death. As usual, the decision was a 5-4 vote, with the 4 liberal justices lined up against the 4 conservative justices. The deciding vote? Anthony Kennedy, of course.

For those of you who don't follow the make-up of the Supreme Court (which everyone should), the 4 liberal justices are; John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter. The 4 conservatives who dissented were Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito and John Roberts. Anthony Kennedy, who is the one swing vote on the Court, sided with the majority and wrote the majority opinion. As Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham opined last night, Kennedy may well now be the most powerful man in America.

And what did the majority base its legal ruling on? Incredibly, they based it on "evolving standards of decency"..."Based on both consensus (among state legislatures) and our own independent judgement, our holding is that a death sentence for one who raped but not kill a child...is unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th Amendments." Where in the Constitution did they find that reasoning? What consensus in state legislatures are they talking about? Does that mean that the elected officials in all state legislatures all are against the death penalty for child rapists? Even if so, what connection is that to the Constitution?

Then there is this statement: "Society's desire to inflict the death penalty for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of a mature age to make that choice."

In dissenting, Samuel Alito, joined by Scalia and Thomas, demonstrated why they were solid choices to sit on the Supreme Court. Thomas writes, "The court today holds that the 8th Amendment categorically prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of raping a child. This is so, according to the court, no matter how young the child, no matter how many times the child is raped, no matter how many children the perpetrator rapes, no matter how sadistic the crime, no matter how much physical or psychological trauma is inflicted, and no matter how heinous the perpetrator's prior criminal record may be." (In the Kennedy case in Louisiana, the defendant, who raped his step-daughter, indeed, nearly killed her in the process.)

Finally, this comment: "Once all of the court's irrelevant arguments are put aside, it is apparent that the court has provided no coherent explanation for today's opinion."

When I was 14, the State of California (back in a different era) executed one Caryl Chessman, who had raped a series of young women leaving one of his victims severely psychologically damaged. (No one died, but one element of his crime that made him eligible for the death penalty involved kidnapping.) After years of appeals and stays of execution, Chessman was executed in California's gas chamber at San Quentin Prison in 1960. That was almost 50 years ago. Had Chessman had the good fortune of committing his crimes today in Massachusetts or Vermont (two states notoriously lenient when it comes to child rape), he might have served a minimal time in jail-even if his victims had been small children. (To repeat, Chessman's victims were not children, but young women.)

Is this the evolving standard of decency that Judge Kennedy refers to? What decency is there in taking a less condemning view of child rape?

This case illustrates why presidential elections are so vitally important. It is not just about taxes, health care, bringing the troops home and all that. The next president will probably select not only 2-3 Supreme Court judges, but a large number of federal judges as well. As a retired DEA agent I well recall the disasterous judges that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton appointed to the federal bench. Is there any doubt that Barack Obama will do the same? Those conservatives out there who are dissatisfied with John McCain as the nominee should think long and hard before sitting out the election.

Stokely Carmichael: Remembering the Hate

Stokely Carmichael:
Remembering the Hate

From The Road to Hell
Time.com
Friday, Dec. 15, 1967

After five months of jetting around the world, Black Power Proselyter Stokely Carmichael announced last week in Sweden that his journey is about to end. "I shall return to hell," he declared. "That is, to the United States."

[In Paris] the quondam chairman of the misnamed Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee was the star anti-American ideologue at a left wing-sponsored "Che Guevara Week" meeting. Standing under a huge portrait of the late Cuban revolutionary and flanked by Viet Cong flags and a Christmas tree, Carmichael [said]: "We do not want peace in Viet Nam...we want the Vietnamese people to defeat the United States." And: "We feel we are not paying too high a price even if we have to destroy the structures of the United States."

In Cuba, he boasted that "we have our own list, and it includes McNamara, Johnson and Rusk—if we have to kill them, we will." In North Viet Nam, he gave his "warm support for the struggle against the common enemy." In London, he vowed that "we are going to take over—if the whites don't like it, we will stamp them out."

In Conakry, Guinea, he declared: "We will win our rights or we are going to burn the country down to the ground."

A note from Radarsite: Hating America. It may not be the world's oldest profession, but it's certainly not the newest one either. To our younger generation, Hating America may appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon, a post-9/11 exercise in self-flagellation, a reaction to our invasion of Iraq, or an expression of the left's near-psychotic loathing of George Bush. On the international stage, America has been seen by it's enemies (and often by its purported allies) as an aggressive imperialist power, whose impulsive military blunders have threatened the stability of world peace -- something that the Europeans had hoped -- and still hope -- to achieve through their philosophy of appeasement and conciliatory gestures towards dangerous and predatory tyrants.

It is important for us to remember, however, that Hating America has had a long dishonorable history. And to remember that today's hate-filled and inflammatory rhetoric is no more outrageous and disgusting than it was in 1967, when this article was written. It is also interesting to point out that almost invariably the fanatical leaders of these virulent Hate America movements are the products of successful middle -- or even upper class family backgrounds (Stokely Carmichael grew up in his carpenter-father's home in an all-white area of New York's The Bronx -- "We were immediately and completely accepted," recalls his mother Mabel). In short, they never missed a meal, were well provided for, well educated, and seemingly endowed with all of the advantages needed for a successful life. Our Jane Fondas and Danny Glovers and Stokely Carmichaels all share these incongruous biographical details with our international America Haters, the Osama bin Ladens and Mohammed Attas.

Contrary to their own propaganda, these Hate America movements are not the rebellious insurgencies of the poor and downtrodden but, rather, are almost without exception the results of a pampered and coddled existence, coupled with the poisonous indoctrination of a leftist educational system. Almost all of these fanatical rebels were radicalized, not on the cold streets of hard living, but on comfortable ivy-covered paths of expensive college campuses.

Conversely, the poor and downtrodden of this world can't wait for their chance to get to America, and will pay almost any price to achieve this lofty goal.

How, then, do we reconcile these two diametrically opposed views of our controversial country?

We could just stop sending our children to colleges and universities and send them out to work. Or, perhaps more realistically, we could at least attempt to counter the leftist propaganda which eminates from our Ivy League Hate America factories. We could pay a little closer attention to what our children are being taught, and who is teaching them. In short, we could stop abrogating our responsiblities and fight back against the hate. It is, as we have seen, an unending battle.

Read the entire 1967 article here:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837582-1,00.html

From Other Sites on the Line: 26 Jun 08

Muslim Chutzpah

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle:
http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2008/06/pot-calling-kettle-black_26.html
Thursday, June 26, 2008

The pot calling the kettle black!

Thursday, June 26, 2008
I thought that I had heard of every Chutzpah that the Muslim world could throw at the West, but this time they have a new low of accusations. Now it seems that the Islamic Saudi Academy is the subject of Persecution because they are Muslims.View the clip from al Jazeera. This is the school that the US Commission on International Religious Freedom cited that the textbooks used in a American School promote violence, discrimination, or intolerance based on religion or belief. Given the fact that the ISA is run by Saudi Arabia, and that the textbooks used in the school are the same ones used in Saudi Arabia; the Commission was correct to condemn this school for the hatred that the school is espousing.

The Commission has long called for Saudi Arabia to be designated a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, for its egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom. In particular, the Commission has expressed concern about the promotion of religious intolerance and religion-based violence in official Saudi government textbooks used both within Saudi Arabia and at Saudi schools abroad, such as the ISA. The Commission has been urging the U.S. government to press the Saudi government to promote religious tolerance in the Saudi curriculum since 2001, and in 2003 it issued an in-depth report about religious freedom conditions in Saudi Arabia, including intolerance and incitement to violence found in Saudi textbooks and the country’s official educational curriculum. It was not until September 2004 that the State Department first publicly expressed concern over the Saudi government’s “export of religious extremism and intolerance to other countries” at a press conference announcing Saudi Arabia’s CPC designation.

So how did the ISA and the Saudi Government respond to this? Instead of changing the textbooks and removing the hatred, they decided to attack the Commission and the United States, calling both racist and Islamicphobic.

From the transcript of the tape:
Reporter: "We are at the Islamic Saudi Academy in the state of Virginia - the largest institution teaching the Arabic language and Islamic education on the East Coast of the U.S. However, this institution faces mounting pressure, and this is a nightmare for the families of the students enrolled in the academy. This pressure is being brought to bear by several Congressmen, known for their great hostility towards Arabs and Muslims. "

However, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was established by Congress, has recommended that the academy be shut down, alleging that its religious curricula, which are taught in Saudi Arabia as well, included material inciting to racism and intolerance towards other religions. [The commission] did not even talk to those in charge of the academy, let alone visit it."

I guess that finally reading the hate filled textbooks was enough to understand exactly what is being taught at the ISA. Given the fact that the 1999 valedictorian of the school, one Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, has been convicted of conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to hijack aircraft and providing support to Al Qaeda. I am sure his picture is proudly displayed on their walls.Again from the transcript:
Reporter: "The local authority of Fairfax County, where the academy is located, has challenged the threats of closure. It determined that the allegations are invalid, and it approved the religious curricula after examining them. The non-Muslim teachers also expressed disgust and frustration at the allegations."Considering that the School's principal has been arrested for allegedly covering up a 5-year-old girl’s report of sexual abuse by her father.

And considering that the school has promised to clean up the offensive textbooks.Yet the school and Saudis are attacking the Commission even though it is now emerging that this school has been a hotbed of anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic hatred for years and a breeding ground for terrorists. And when the US government after years of being stonewalled finally discovers what the true nature of the Islamic Saudi Academy is. They are being called racists.

And that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Findalis

A note from Radarsite: Another terrific article from Findalis at Monkey in the Middle. This is exactly the nature of the war we are in. Our victories in this war are, it seems, few and far between. We still have so much to learn, both about ourselves and about the enemy we face. Incredibly, seven years into this WOT, we have still not found the political will to clearly define our enemies and act effectively against them. -rg