Obama reaches out to Muslim Brotherhood

By Bradley Klapper June 30, 2011 12:56 pm

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties and promote democratic principles ahead of Egypt’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. isn’t adopting a new policy. She says the administration wants to engage all Egyptian groups as long as they espouse nonviolence.

Read more at GOPUSA…

Happy 235th Birthday, America!

This is such a good time to take a break and remind ourselves of just how blessed we are as Americans. I ould never be so eloquent as our former president, Ronald Reagan. He expresses many of our thoughts/feelings:

What July Fourth Means to Me
Ronald Reagan

Editor’s note: When he was president, Ronald Reagan wrote the following piece for Independence Day in 1981. Aide Michael Deaver later wrote: “This 4th of July message is the President’s own words and written initially in his own hand.”

For one who was born and grew up in the small towns of the Midwest, there is a special kind of nostalgia about the Fourth of July.   I remember it as a day almost as long-anticipated as Christmas. This was helped along by the appearance in store windows of all kinds of fireworks and colorful posters advertising them with vivid pictures.   No later than the third of July – sometimes earlier – Dad would bring home what he felt he could afford to see go up in smoke and flame. We’d count and recount the number of firecrackers, display pieces and other things and go to bed determined to be up with the sun so as to offer the first, thunderous notice of the Fourth of July.

I’m afraid we didn’t give too much thought to the meaning of the day. And, yes, there were tragic accidents to mar it, resulting from careless handling of the fireworks. I’m sure we’re better off today with fireworks largely handled by professionals. Yet there was a thrill never to be forgotten in seeing a tin can blow 30 feet in the air by a giant “cracker” – giant meaning it was about 4 inches long.  But enough of nostalgia.

Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth.

There is a legend about the day of our nation’s birth in the little hall in Philadelphia, a day on which debate had raged for hours. The men gathered there were honorable men hard-pressed by a king who had flouted the very laws they were willing to obey. Even so, to sign the Declaration of Independence was such an irretrievable act that the walls resounded with the words “treason, the gallows, the headsman’s axe,” and the issue remained in doubt.

The legend says that at that point a man rose and spoke. He is described as not a young man, but one who had to summon all his energy for an impassioned plea. He cited the grievances that had brought them to this moment and finally, his voice falling, he said, “They may turn every tree into a gallows, every hole into a grave, and yet the words of that parchment can never die. To the mechanic in the workshop, they will speak hope; to the slave in the mines, freedom. Sign that parchment. Sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the Bible of the rights of man forever.”

He fell back exhausted. The 56 delegates, swept up by his eloquence, rushed forward and signed that document destined to be as immortal as a work of man can be. When they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he was not to be found, nor could any be found who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well, that is the legend. But we do know for certain that 56 men, a little band so unique we have never seen their like since, had pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Some gave their lives in the war that followed, most gave their fortunes, and all preserved their sacred honor.

What manner of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, 11 were merchants and tradesmen, and nine were farmers. They were soft-spoken men of means and education; they were not an unwashed rabble. They had achieved security but valued freedom more.  Their stories have not been told nearly enough.

John Hart was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. For more than a year he lived in the forest and in caves before he returned to find his wife dead, his children vanished, his property destroyed.  He died of exhaustion and a broken heart.

Carter Braxton of Virginia lost all his ships, sold his home to pay his debts, and died in rags. And so it was with Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Rutledge, Morris, Livingston and Middleton. Nelson personally urged Washington to fire on his home and destroy it when it became the headquarters for General Cornwallis. Nelson died bankrupt.

But they sired a nation that grew from sea to shining sea.  Five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep, 3 million square miles of forest, field, mountain and desert, 227 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines of all the world.  In recent years, however, I’ve come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation.

It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history.  Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another.  Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people.

We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.

Happy Fourth of July.   Ronald Reagan President of the United States

The 1967 Lines and Israel’s Defensibility – Some Hard Facts

If you are impressed by the “statesmenship” of President Obama when he insisted that Israel withdraw to her 1967 borders, after reading the following you may agree that the President’s handlers would have been well advised to have considered the facts. Stotsky’s article helps us to understand why the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could never accept his edict based upon ignorance.

By Steven Stotsky (CAMERA)

The 1967 Lines and Israel’s Defensibility – Some Hard Facts

On May 19, 2011 U.S. President Obama presented his vision of a two-state solution, stating, “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” What struck many as simply a restatement of official American policy, provoked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to respond “Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.”  Some questioned the Israeli Prime Minister, recalling that Israel successfully defended itself against Arab aggression in 1948 and 1967 from those lines.  But in the 44 years that have elapsed from 1967, there have been substantial changes that directly bear upon Israel’s defensibility behind the lines that existed prior to the 1967 Six-Day War.  Many Saw President Obama’s Statement as a Major Shift in American Policy!

Before exploring these factors, it is important to identify how President Obama’s statement reflects a change in American policy.  Prior agreements between Israel and the United States operated on the principle that Israel would cede territory incrementally with the endpoint approaching the 1967 lines but allowing for adjustments to accommodate vital Israeli security requirements.  The transfer of territory to Palestinian control was tied to the Palestinian Arabs upholding the tenets of the peace process, including ending incitement against Israel, acting against terrorists and accepting Israel’s right to exist.  Many interpreted President Obama’s speech as reversing the order, establishing the pre-1967 lines as the default starting point of negotiations, rather than the approximate end point of the process.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, a critic of the President’s policy, explained the significance of this change in The Washington Post (“What Obama did to Israel,” May 26, 2011). Krauthammer wrote that President Obama declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves Israelis and Palestinians will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.   It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree.  And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.

In his response to President Obama’s raising the pre-1967 lines, Prime Minister Netanyahu reminded listeners that Israel’s main population and industrial centers would be reduced to a coastal strip of land only nine miles wide at its narrowest point.  Netanyahu also reasserted that Israel needed to maintain a military presence along the Jordan River. The Prime Minister did not provide a detailed explanation of the Israeli requirements.

An Israeli General’s Military Assessment

In 2005, Israeli Major General Yaacov Amidror elaborated in detail on the extreme, if not insurmountable, challenges to Israel of returning to boundaries approximating the 1967 lines.  Amidror explained that all Israel’s military commanders believe there is no possibility of defending Israel from within the 1967 lines in case of war, and certainly not against a modern army equipped with precision weapons.  No responsible leader can promise that Israel will not have to face such a threat in the future.  There is a necessity for sufficient depth for the reserve forces to mass and for adequate space before enemy forces reach the strategic interior.

This was also the judgment of former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the United States Armed Forces, Earl Wheeler.  In a memorandum on June 29, 1967, just weeks after the Israeli victory in the Six Day War, Wheeler wrote: “From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders. [In the West Bank] Israel should control the prominent high ground running north-south.

After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a review of Israel’s minimum requirements for defensible borders by U.S. Army Colonel Irving Kett reached the same conclusions.   A military presence in the Jordan River Valley, a natural tank trap because of its low lying terrain and few roads running west, needed to be retained along with the West Bank high country.  Israel’s vulnerable coastal strip also needed to be widened. The high expectations of the Oslo accords caused some to question the need to adhere to this doctrine.

In 2005, Amidror reflected on Wheeler’s memorandum:

Nearly forty years have passed since the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared their memorandum for the Johnson administration…Clearly, the geography and topography have not changed, and military technology has not negated their conclusions, either.  Indeed, there have been significant developments in the size, quality, and structure of the armed forces of the Arab states surrounding Israel that makes the analysis of the Joint Chiefs of Staff even more compelling today:

  • Back in 1967, most Middle Eastern armies were made up of relatively slow infantry formations.  Today, Middle Eastern armies are structured around highly mobile armored and mechanized formations that can fight continuously over much longer stretches of time…
  • The range of effective fire has also grown with the advent of new military technologies. This is true with respect to defensive weapons, such as anti-tank missiles, as well as offensive weapons, including aerial-delivered and artillery projectiles… This is also why the minimal defensive depth that the U.S. Army has defined as necessary for its own divisions has almost doubled in recent years.
  • Precision-guided weapons will become a dominant factor for both sides on the battlefield in the future. As long as such weaponry was in Israeli hands alone, this clear-cut advantage in military technology enabled the Israel Defense Forces to cope with inferior conditions on the ground, such as disadvantageous terrain or inadequate depth. But when Israel’s adversaries also possess precision-guided weapons, then defensible borders become an absolute necessity for which there is no possible substitute.

If Israel does not control the defensive line proposed by U.S. planners, the Israel Defense Forces will pay a steep or impossible price in the event of war… The opportunities to disperse Israeli defensive assets that might become the targets of an adversary’s precision-guided munitions would be extremely limited.

Amidror factored in the substantial military build-up by Arab states over the past four decades.  This build-up is unprecedented in both the quantity of armaments and the upgraded capabilities.

In 1967 the Arab states that participated in the war, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, possessed a combined 2000 tanks, 700 combat aircraft and 1500 artillery pieces.  They fielded armies comprising approximately 550,000 troops against Israel (A.J. Walker, Arab-Israeli Wars).  Fast-forward 44 years. A study by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published in early 2011 calculated the following force and armament levels for the current Arab “frontline states” in any war with Israel.

country  Active troops  Tanks  Combat aircraft  Artillery

  • Egypt:     468,000 troops, 3,723 tanks,  461 combat aircraft 1,952 artillery
  • Syria:       325,000 troops, 4,950 tanks, 555 combat aircraft, 3,030 artillery
  • Jordan:   100,500 troops, 1,223 tanks,  102 conbat aircraft, 453  artillery
  • Lebanon:  59,000  troops, 336 tanks, no combat aircraft, 182 artillery
  • Total:      942,500 troops, 10,232 tanks, 1,118 combat aircraft, 5,617 artillery

A review of this selected list of armaments reveals that the CSIS-defined frontline states possess up to five times more tanks than the participants in 1967.   Along with the dramatic increase in tanks, they have added several thousand lighter armored fighting vehicles.  The number of aircraft has increased substantially.  In addition to the fix-winged aircraft several hundred ground attack helicopters have been added to Arab arsenals.  These states also possess nearly four times as many artillery pieces as they did in 1967.

On top of those figures, Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states have used their oil wealth to purchase large arsenals of advanced weaponry which could be supplied to the frontline states to make up for combat losses. And there is no slowdown in sight in their accelerated pace of arming. The United States in 2010 recommended a $60 billion deal to supply new military aircraft to Saudi Arabia, a figure that dwarfs the spending of any other country in the region, including Israel.

To grasp the scope of the contemporary Arab arsenal in sheer numbers, the armaments possessed by the frontline Arab states are on par with the arms amassed by German forces in June 1941 for its assault against the world’s largest country, the Soviet Union.  The 10,000 modern tanks of the combined frontline Arab forces are three times the 3,350 tanks assembled by Germany at the start of it invasion of the Soviet Union.  It is worth recalling that the Soviet Union was able to withstand the massive assault only because of its vast strategic depth, which bought Moscow time and space to rebuild its forces.

Along with the vast numerical increases in weapons, the mobility and lethality of these weapons have also improved. By joint agreement, Egypt has co-produced more than 1000 of the United States’s premier M-1 Abrams battle tank.  These tanks can travel at higher speeds than older models and along with the lighter vehicles give the Arab ground forces greater mobility to seize territory.

Both Egypt and Jordan have stocked their air forces with advanced American models, including F-15s.  Egypt and Syria also possess substantial fleets of ground attack helicopters which have proven to be highly effective supplements to support ground forces and attack armored units.

Addressing the assertion that “the advent of ballistic missiles has made the entire discussion about defensible borders irrelevant,” Amidror argues that the value of territory has actually increased as a result of the introduction of ground missiles to the Arab arsenal.  He writes:

“In the face of such a threat, the dispersal of infrastructure installations and weapons systems, as well as command and control mechanisms, becomes critical… Missile defenses can blunt a missile attack, but cannot be relied upon to provide completely hermetic protection, especially if the size of the initial attack is considerable.  Moreover, in the event of a nuclear missile threat, it is the survivability of a state’s “second strike” capability that determines the level of deterrence it enjoys.  Only a wider space will enable Israeli forces to have the necessary level of redundancy to survive a missile strike.

Other weapon systems have also been upgraded both in quantity and quality. According to another CSIS study comparing Israeli and Syrian air power, Syria now possesses 787 surface to air missile sites in comparison to just 87 Israeli sites.  The same study also calculates that the larger three bordering states, Egypt, Syria and Jordan have 1172 modern combat aircraft to Israel’s 411.

The CSIS study and others note that Israel own military capabilities have kept pace with the Arab advances since 1967, allowing it to retain a qualitative advantage over the numerically superior Arab forces.  But Amidror insists that the expansion of the Arab arsenals and the parallel development of new technical capabilities requires a greater defensive depth in order to defeat them.

Since most of Israel’s population is located just west of the West Bank, this is where the mobilization points must be located.  It is not possible to relocate them to the south, in the Negev.  For this reason, the location of the border along the West Bank is critical to Israel’s ability to mobilize and equip its reserve forces, and to assure they reach the battlefield as an organized military force.

Amidror sums up the situation by demonstrating that all Israeli leaders from across the political spectrum recognize the indefensibility of the 1967 lines.   He cites the words of current President and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, long considered a leader of Israel’s more dovish camp:  “One must ensure that Israel will not only have length but width. We must not be tempted by all kinds of advisers and journalists to return to a country whose waist is 14 kilometers wide.”

And. repeats the words of the former Prime Minister and Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin in his last appearance in the Knesset, one month before his murder:  “We will not return to the lines of June 4, 1967.  The security border for defending the State of Israel will be in the Jordan Valley, in the widest sense of that concept … Our evacuation of the West Bank would create the greatest threat we can possibly face.”

Amidror’s response focuses on defensive factors separate from political decision-making.  However, he recognizes there is a political dimension that bears upon the military assessment of the defensibility of the 1967 lines. Amidror writes, “The main alternative strategy which some military professionals advocate to make up for the weakness of the 1967 lines is that of  ‘taking the war to the enemy’s territory’ by having Israel carry out a pre-emptive attack… and by doing so, create the necessary depth for defense.  However, this approach is conditional on a difficult political decision:  to launch a war and conquer territory beyond a state’s own political border. There is no guarantee that a future leadership will take such a decision.”

While a policy of pre-emptive attack could theoretically create the necessary depth for defense, if the threat to Israel were to emanate from states that formally were signatories to peace treaties, the chances that an Israeli government would violate them with pre-emptive action are nil.

In summary, for Israel to return to lines approximating the pre-1967 armistice lines at the start of or as part of a diplomatic process, rather than perhaps subsequent to the successful conclusion of such a process, would entail enormous risks.  This is so not only because of the evident vulnerability of those lines during the period of 1949-1967, but also due to the extraordinary expansion of Arab arsenals and accompanying advances in military technology.

U.S. Jews Not Able to Fly On Delta Flights To Saudi Arabia!

By Michele Chabin
Religion News Service

JERUSALEM (RNS) Jews and Israelis, or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith, will not be able to fly code-share flights from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia under Delta Air Line’s new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines that is set to begin in 2012.

Although Delta announced in January that the Saudi airline would join its SkyTeam network next year, the implications of the deal only came to light recently, according to people who have scrutinized the details.

Saudi Arabia, which is governed by strict Islamic law, requires citizens of almost every country to obtain a visa. People who wish to enter the country must have a sponsor; women, who must be dressed according to Saudi standards of modesty, must be met at the Saudi airport by a man who will act as a chaperone.

Saudi Arabia bans anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering the country, even in transit. Many Jews believe the kingdom has also withheld visas from travelers with Jewish-sounding names.

Religious items such as Bibles that are not related to Islam may be confiscated at the airport.

Colby M. May, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal group founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, said his office is trying to determine if the agreement runs afoul of U.S. law.

“The very idea that there is a common carrier airline service that would deny an American citizen in America access to their services because they are Jewish or have religious items such as a yarmulke, a cross or a priestly collar, is deeply disturbing,” May said.

May said he is “trying to get answers” from Delta.

“They have not responded in a way that answers the question,” he said. “Hopefully they’ll do so.


In a statement to Religion News Service on Thursday (June 23), Delta said it “does not discriminate, nor do we condone discrimination against any protected class of passenger in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender.


The airline, which did not deny the new policy, insisted that it has no control over who may fly to Saudi Arabia.

“Delta must also comply with all applicable laws in every country it serves,” adding that passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents required for entry.

“If a passenger travels without proper documents, the passenger may be denied entry into that country and our airline may be fined,” the statement said.

The Jan. 10 agreement allows Saudi Arabian Airlines to become a member of SkyTeam in 2012 after “fulfilling all membership requirements,” according to a SkyTeam statement. The Saudi airline is SkyTeam’s first member from the Middle East.

The policy has deeply angered U.S. Jewish groups, especially since Delta is an American carrier.

“Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, should be strongly condemned for its despicable discrimination against Jews,” said Kenneth Bandler, a spokesman for the New York-based American Jewish Committee.

“For an American company, our nation’s values should trump narrow business interests. Delta should be the first to reject Saudi airlines as a SkyTeam member.


Dan Diker, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, said he hoped “Delta will not be complicit with what appears to be a demonstrably anti-Semitic and racist policy by Saudi Arabian Airlines.”

Weiner’s mother-in-law a member of Muslim Brotherhood

Tasked with advancing movement that aims to establish Saudi-style regime in U.S.
Posted: June 18, 2011

The mother-in-law of disgraced Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Saudi Arabia, according to Arabic news sources cited by a former Palestinian Liberation Organization operative.
Walid Shoebat, an ex-Muslim Brotherhood activist in the Holy Land, translated sources that say Huma Abedin’s mother, Saleha Mahmoud Abedin, a professor of sociology in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, belongs to the Sunni movement’s women’s division known at the Muslim Sisterhood.
One of the Sisterhoods aims, reportedly, is “to spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes.”
The Muslim Brotherhood, launched in Egypt in the 1920s in response to the collapse of the Ottoman Turkish Empire, is the parent of most of the major violent, jihadist organizations in the world today, including al-Qaida and Hamas. Brotherhood leaders have established front groups in the U.S., including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, to help fulfill its long-term aim of establishing Islamic law in America, as documented in the book Get “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.” The photo above is that of Huma Abedin (Weiner’s wife) and Hillary Clinton

Shoebat, who posted an article with Denver radio host Ben Barrack about his findings, says the information about Saleha Abedin was obtained from the Egyptian opposition newspaper Al-Liwa Al-Arabi, which released an investigation by Egyptian security.
Weiner’s wife, a practicing Muslim who is still well-connected to her family, serves as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff. She is considered Clinton’s “right-hand woman,” having worked with the former first lady and senator since coming to the White House in 1996 as an intern. Weiner resigned from his Queens, N.Y., congressional seat Thursday after admitting he lied about sending lewd texts and photographs to women on the Internet.
Born in Kalamazoo, Mich., Huma Abedin moved to Jeddah at the age of 2, before returning to the U.S. 16 years later to attend college. Her father was an Islamic scholar of Indian descent while her mother is originally from Pakistan.
Arnold Ahlert, a contributing columnist to JewishWorldReview.com, pointed out why it’s rare for an observant Muslim to marry a Jew.
“It is sacrilege in Islam for Huma’s mother to accept the reality that her daughter is married to a Jew, a marriage that is considered null and void by the highest authorities in Islam,” Ahlert writes.
But he noted that Huma Abedin’s position with Clinton in the State Department and her marriage to Weiner give her exposure to state secrets and access to the inner workings of Congress.
Clinton and Huma Abedin visited Saleha Abedin’s school in Jeddah, Dar Al-Hekma College, in February 2010. An Arabic news report of the visit said Saleha Abedin “beamed in the presence of Secretary Clinton.”
Clinton complimented the professor’s daughter, explaining that “Huma holds an important and sensitive position in her office,” a news report said.
One month prior to that trip, Clinton signed a document that lifted the U.S. entry ban on Tariq Ramadan, a grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna, who has ties to Islamic terrorist groups.
Ahlert observed that while the Muslim Brotherhood’s women’s group is being portrayed by Western media in a “benign fashion,” Al-Liwa Al-Arabi reports that the members of the Muslim Sisterhood are the “the wives of some of the highest-ranking leaders in the Muslim Brotherhood,” who are being recruited to “smuggle secret documents for the members since women go undetected by security surveillance” and “to spread the Brotherhood’s ideology by infiltrating universities, schools and homes.”
The Sisterhood, the paper says, is commissioned to “fulfill the interests of the Brotherhood and also to benefit from international women’s conferences and unify all efforts to benefit the Brotherhood globally.”
The Sisterhood’s mission also includes organizing projects that will penetrate its prohibited ideology into the decision-making in the West in an indirect way under the guise of “general needs of women.”
The objectives will be accomplished, Al-Liwa Al-Arabi reports, “through the university and the state capitals and institutions.”
The newspaper lists Huma Abedin’s mother among a dozen members of the Sisterhood from Saudi Arabia.
Brother Hassan

Shoebat also noted that it has been reported in Arab media that Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan, is a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies at Oxford University in England.
A number of Muslim Brotherhood members sit on the center’s board, including Qatari cleric Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has incited violence against Jews and Israel.
Ahlert said Huma’s brother has been a key to furthering the Islamic agenda in the West.
Hassan Abedin has been seen meeting with Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal on an agenda of “spreading Islam to the west” and is “well linked” to al-Qaida associate Omar Naseef.
A 2007 report, Ahlert said, identified Naseef as the likely force behind the Abedin family’s departure from Michigan to Jeddah in about 1977.

Police Captain Suspended Without Pay

He refused to attend proselytizing event at Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamic center
Sign our petition calling for his reinstatement!

Tulsa Police Captain Paul Fields was recently suspended for two weeks without pay because, according to the WorldNetDaily story below (highlights added), he refused to attend a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” event at the Islamic Society of Tulsa—an event that was nothing more than Islamic proselytizing.
As you read the story below, we’re sure you’ll feel as outraged as we are by this assault on Captain Fields’ rights!

Please read and sign our petition calling for his reinstatement, and then forward it to everyone you know. Let’s expose to America the unconstitutional and politically correct actions of Captain Fields’ superiors!

At the appropriate time we will hand deliver the petition to the Tulsa police department. If the response to the petition is strong enough, we’ll hold a rally and news conference in front of police headquarters to put the heat on them. So please sign the petition today!
If the Tulsa police department’s leadership can get away with this, what’s next? Requiring all government officials to attend Friday services at a local mosque?

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Policeman sues over orders to attend Islamic prayer
City accused of being ‘complicit’ in Muslim Brotherhood jihad plan
By Bob Unruh

Chief Charles Jordan  A Tulsa, Okla., police captain is suing his chief and the city after he was demoted and targeted by an internal investigation for refusing orders to attend an event featuring lessons in Islam, a tour and a prayer service at a mosque linked to an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror financing trial.
The legal action has been brought by attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Paul Fields.
Named as defendants are the city, police chief Charles W. Jordan and deputy chief Alvin Daryl Webster. WND requests for comment did not generate a response from the defendants.
The lawsuit focuses on the officer’s constitutional and civil rights, and besides a resolution of Fields’ concerns, it seeks an injunction preventing “enforcement of defendants’ unconstitutional acts, policies, practices, procedures and/or customs.”
At issue is a solicitation by officials in the Tulsa Police Department for officers to attend a “Law Enforcement Appreciation Day” organized by the Islamic Society of Tulsa. The invitation said the officers would be given tours of the mosque, meet the mosque’s leadership, be given presentations of “beliefs, human rights, women” and “watch the 2-2:45 weekly congregational prayer service.”

While at first the police administration’s recommendation for attendance at the event appeared to be voluntary – there was a voluntary signup list – the law firm said when officers refused to respond, the managers made it a required event.

Find out what other plans there are for the U.S., in “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

The day “had nothing to do with any official police function. It clearly fell outside of the police department’s policy on community policing, and based on comments made by police department officials in a closed door meeting, it was not ‘community outreach’ as it has been previously portrayed,” the law firm explained.

“Rather, it included a mosque tour, meetings with local Muslims and Muslim leadership, observing a ‘weekly prayer service,’ and lectures on Islamic ‘beliefs,'” the Thomas More Law Center explained. “The event was scheduled for Friday, March 4, 20011 – Friday being the ‘holy day’ or ‘Sabbath’ for Islam. In fact, the event was originally voluntary, but when not enough officers were willing to attend, it became mandatory.”

Invitation to prayers The lawsuit alleges, “The event held by the Islamic Society involved Islamic proselytizing. The Islamic Society event was advertised as including Islamic proselytizing, and it in fact resulted in the proselytizing of city police officers who attended the event.”

The issue of Islamic law, or Shariah, infiltration into the United States is drawing increasing attention. Several state legislative efforts already have developed, including in Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee and Florida, to prevent judges from applying Shariah, which includes penalties such as beheading for leaving Islam, in the government’s court systems.

Last year in Oklahoma, voters with a 70-percent majority approved such a ban, but U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange blocked it after the Council on American-Islamic Relations argued the move was “anti-Islam.”

The issue also is the subject of a lawsuit in Michigan, where city officials in Dearborn are accused of allowing Shariah to be used to block Christians from discussing their faith at the city-sponsored Arab Fest. Under Shariah, it is illegal for a Muslim to convert to another faith.

The March edition of “Whistleblower” magazine, titled “Know Thine Enemy,” also shows how the Muslim Brotherhood, – “the shadowy, transnational Islamist parent organization of al-Qaida and Hamas – is committed not only to filling the growing leadership vacuum in the Arab world, but also, through its many proxies within the U.S., to impose the Quran and Shariah law right here in America.”

The report reveals details about key U.S. front organizations for Shariah, about the Muslim Brotherhood’s “project” for North America, how Muslim groups are influencing judges, members of Congress and others and how Barack Obama’s “appointments, statements, lawsuits” show “a strong and troubling affinity for Islam.”

According to the new Tulsa lawsuit, images of some police officers appeared later in a publicity photograph used by the mosque to promote “Islam classes for Non-Muslims.”

The Thomas More Law Center, which already is involved in other litigation defending the religious freedom of Christians as well as “countering the infiltration of radical Muslims in America,” said it was working with Tulsa attorney Scott Wood to defend Fields’ “constitutional right not to become a propaganda prop for the local mosque.”

Fields had responded to the order to appear for the tour, prayer and other mosque events with a written notice stating: “Please consider this email my official notification to the Tulsa Police Department and the city of Tulsa that I intend not to follow this directive, nor require any of my subordinates to do so if they share similar religioius convictions.”
Webster then ordered Fields into a meeting where he was handed an order transferring him to the Mingo Valley Division, an area known for drug activity, as well as a notification of an internal investigation of Fields.

The lawsuit explains that the Tulsa Islamic Society is “Shariah-adherent,” meaning that it teaches Islamic law must control “all matters of life, politics, and religious law.”

“Consequently, the religion of Islam is not merely one segment of life; it regulates life completely, from the social and the political to the diplomatic, economic, and military. The combination of religion and politics as a unified, indefeasible whole is the foundation of Islam, an inseparable political/religious doctrine of Islamic governments, and the basis of Muslim loyalties. In this respect, the theo-political doctrine of Islam is contrary to the dictates of the First Amendment’s religion clauses,” the lawsuit explains.

LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood

Tom Trento does some of the most revealing and complete reporting on radical Islam. In this video he reports how Deputy Chief Michael Downing of the L.A.P.D. officially partners with the Muslim Brotherhood. If you go to LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood, you will see how incredibly ignorant many our our leaders and “potectors” are. On this site you will find 15 videos. Click the first for this story.

King hearing yesterday on radicalization in U.S. prisions

Yesterday U.S. Rep. Peter King conducted his second hearing on Islamic radicalization, this one focused on a very serious problem, radicalization in our prison system.

On June 13th our friends at the Center for Security Policy issued the press release below, drawing attention to the recent study showing how prevalent jihadist materials are in a representative sample of American mosques.

This raises a very important question: How frequently are these same kinds of materials being used in our prison system? Which begs the next question: Why should materials calling for jihad be allowed in our prison system at all?

Violence-Positive Texts Incubate Jihad in

Mosques: Congress Needs to Ensure They Do Not

Do the Same in Federal Prisons

Washington, DC, June 13, 2011 – Chairman Peter King has just announced the witnesses who will appear on June 15th before the House Homeland Security Committee as part of a series of hearings on radicalization of the Muslim-American community. The Center for Security Policy respectfully suggests that one of the lines of questioning for the past and present law enforcement officials* called to testify about “The Threat of Muslim-American Radicalization in U.S. Prisons” must be an inquiry into permitted print and video materials that may contribute to jihadist recruitment and indoctrination inside federal penal institutions.

Such materials were used in a new peer-reviewed study published last week in the highly respected journal Middle East Quarterly (MEQ) as indicators of jihadist sentiment and proselytization in a random sample of 100 American mosques. This study, which is entitled Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques, involved the collection of empirical data through repeated on-site investigations over several years. It established that 81% of U.S. mosques had the cited materials on the premises. The study also found that in over 84% of the mosques surveyed, the imam recommended texts advocating violent jihad.

The seven texts featured in the MEQ analysis are illustrative of the body of hate-mongering, supremacist literature and films used by shariah-adherent Muslims to inculcate in targeted populations their call to violent jihad:

1. Al-Nawawi’s Riyad-us Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)

2. Maududi’s Jihad in Islam

3. al-Misri’s Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance of the Traveller)

4. Maududi’s Tafhim al-Qur’an (The Meaning of the Qur’an)

5. Saabiq’s Fiqh-us-Sunnah (The Book on Acts of Worship)

6. Tafsir Ibn Kathir

7. Qutb’s Ma’alim fi’l-Tariq (Milestones)
[Click the links above to read more about each book, including PDFs of the full text, notes on each texts’ availability, and more.]

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said today:

The materials advocating violent jihad found in the vast majority of American mosques surveyed in the Middle East Quarterly study have reportedly also been made available in American prisons nationwide. If so, there is every reason to believe they will contribute significantly to the radicalization of inmates.

The House Homeland Security Committee’s hearing on Wednesday is an opportunity to amplify and inform the public debate over the national security implications of jihadist texts that are found in both America’s mosques and prisons – and to set the stage for addressing the seditious actions they are designed to foment.

Illustrative quotes from these materials include:

From Maududi’s Jihad in Islam: “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.”

From Qutb’s Milestones: “If someone does this [prevents others from accepting Islam], then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission.” (Chapter 4).

From Qutb’s Milestones: “But any place where the Islamic Shari’ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes the home of Hostility (Dar-ul-Harb) for both the Muslim and the Dhimmi. A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it, whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located.” (Chapter 9)

The full text of the Middle East Quarterly article can be found at http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques.
Additional resources may be found at www.mappingsharia.com.

* Witnesses at the second of the Homeland Security Committee’s Radicalization hearings will be:Patrick Dunleavy, Retired Deputy Inspector, Criminal Intelligence Unit, New York Department of Correctional Services; Kevin Smith, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California; and Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing,Commanding Officer, Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau.

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Addactforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your “Bulk” or “Spam” folder, please click the “Not Spam” button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

America The Land of the Free! Really?

June 13, 2011 by Bob Livingston

The President and all 535 members of Congress take oaths to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. One has to wonder how many have ever read it. They certainly seem hell-bent on disregarding it.

Article 1, Section 1 says all legislative powers are vested in Congress, which consists of a Senate and a House of

Representatives. That’s apparently no longer the case, although I can’t find where that was legally changed through an Amendment.

The Environmental Protection Agency believes it holds legislative power. According to U.S. News & World Report: “Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.”

There is no Constitutional authority for an EPA, nor is there Constitutional authority for Congress to cede its lawmaking powers to the EPA. But apparently, Congress doesn’t care.

The EPA is just one of dozens of Federal agencies that have taken it upon themselves to regulate and control the lives of Americans while Congress sits idly by. Many of the bureaucrats who run these regulatory agencies are appointed by the President, so they do his bidding.

When Boeing decided to build 30 percent of its 737s in South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint in an effort to force the company back into the unionized Washington plant. In effect, the President — through his politically appointed board — was telling a company where it could and could not conduct business. This is Third World thuggery.

The President, ordered by a court to resume granting drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, directed his Secretary of Interior to disregard the court. No drilling permits are issued. The feckless court system does nothing. There is no rule of law left in America.

We currently have wars going on in five Middle Eastern countries — Afghanistan (which should be over, since we supposedly fulfilled the goal of killing Osama bin Laden), Iraq (which should be over, since we supposedly fulfilled our goal of toppling Saddam Hussein), Pakistan (undeclared and illegal), Libya (undeclared and illegal) and Yemen (undeclared and illegal) — with no end to them in sight.

Aside from a few lone voices — Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — Congress, which alone has the authority to declare war, says nothing. In fact, 265 members of the House — Democratic and Republican alike — voted against a resolution to end the unConstitutional war in Libya.

There are grave doubts that President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the office of President. He refuses to release any documents that would show who he is and where he comes from. He finally released a long-form birth certificate that he says proves he is natural born, but more and more document experts have come forth to show the document a forgery. It is apparently a compilation of birth certificates from others born in Hawaii at the time of Obama’s reported birth. There is increasing evidence Obama committed some kind of fraud to obtain his Social Security number, which came from Connecticut, a State in which Obama never lived or worked.

People who bring up these issues are automatically dismissed by the corporate media talking heads as quacks and labeled “Birthers” in an effort to marginalize them. Congress, with the duty to investigate and remove the President if he is found to be ineligible for the office, runs from the issue. Again, the members of Congress refuse to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

The Department of Homeland Security and local police forces have vans and trucks patrolling our streets with the capability of looking inside passing cars and into homes. The Transportation Security Administration forces airline passengers into choosing between harmful naked-body scanners or full-body groping sessions for the “crime” of buying an airline ticket. The grope-and-peek procedures are being expanded to include rail travel and attendance at sporting events and concerts, and technology is being developed to allow agents to funnel large crowds of people through mobile command centers so they can be questioned while computers monitor their physiology as they respond.

Law enforcement uses parabolic antennas to listen in on far-away conversations, video cameras to follow people’s every move and face recognition software to identify them — even if they have not been charged or convicted of a crime.

These actions are blatant violations of the 4th Amendment. Congress does nothing… and says little.

When States do try to take a stand — as Texas did recently in considering legislation to ban the TSA from performing its gropefest/pornshow activities there — the thugocracy in Washington that is the Obama Justice Department threatened to impose a no-fly zone. This is a direct assault on Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution, which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Any time a State attempts to nullify a law or regulation that it deems unConstitutional, it is threatened by the Justice Department, sued or refused funds. Those funds, by the way, go to the Federal government after they are taken from workers who have no choice but to comply with the onerous tax code or go to prison.

The 4th Amendment, the one that guarantees Americans the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, was eviscerated by a recent Supreme Court ruling that gave police license to enter a home without first obtaining a warrant if they hear what they deem suspicious sounds inside.

The USA Patriot Act, passed while the rubble of the World Trade Center still smoldered following the false flag terrorist attack of 9/11, gave the Federal government license to create all sorts of reasons and excuses to surreptitiously listen in on electronic conversations, rifle through bank records and imprison people without trial.

Local police departments are becoming increasingly militarized. In Chicago, an armed SWAT team forced its way into a home and stole the daughter of a woman who chose an alternative treatment option for her child’s behavioral problems — a treatment she originally sought voluntarily. In Pima County, Ariz., police fired 71 shots in seven seconds at a former Marine who had served two tours of duty in Iraq. Saying they were there to serve a narcotics search warrant, officers first claimed Jose Guerena shot first. That lie fell apart because the safety of his weapon was still on.

According to a report by the Cato Institute, this sort of thing is becoming increasingly common: “Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

“These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects.”

The streets are no longer safe from police harassment and overreaction as, more and more, it seems police believe they are above the law. All across the country, thanks to the growing proliferation of cell-phone and video cameras, law enforcement is shown to be abusing citizens for simply doing what people do: taking photographs, talking to one another and observing police actions. It is not uncommon for people to be detained and have their cameras and cell phones taken away or destroyed if police officers believe they will be cast in a bad light.

We now have a quasi-military roaming the streets terrorizing citizens, a Congress neglecting its authority, a Supreme Court disregarding the Bill of Rights and a President — who may not even be eligible for the office — taking on the powers of a dictator through his regulatory agencies and so-called Justice Department.

America, land of the free? Not anymore.

Shari’s and Violence in American Mosques

Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2011


random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers.  Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all.  Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts.  In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts.  The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques.  Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad.  The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.


he debate over the connection between Islam and its legal doctrine and system known as Sharia on the one hand and terrorism committed in the name of Islam on the other rages on among counter terrorism professionals, academics, policy experts, theologians, and politicians.  Much of this debate centers on the evidence that the perpetrators of violence in the name of Islam source the moral, theological, and legal motivations and justifications for their actions in Sharia.  Much of the opposition to this focus on Sharia centers on the argument that Sharia is and has been historically malleable and exploited for good and bad causes.

This study seeks to enter this fray but at a more empirical level.  Since we know that mosques are in fact a situs of recruitment and “radicalization” for terrorism committed in the name of Islam, this study seeks to enter into that domain to determine if there is an empirical correlation between actual, manifest Sharia-related behaviors and the presence of violent and jihad-based literature, and further, the promotion of that literature.  While the presence of violent and jihad-based literature alone does not necessarily suggest the worshippers at such a mosque adopt the violent literature’s approach to the use of violence, if the imams at such mosques also promote the literature, and if those mosques are more likely to invite guest imams and speakers who are known to promote violent jihad, the presence of these factors together would be strongly suggestive of an environment prone to jihad recruitment.  Thus, this study also seeks to determine if the spiritual leadership in these mosques is supportive of this genre of literature.

read ‘Shari’a and Violence in American Mosques’
by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi
Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011