12/12/11

Islam Will Protect America

By: Ashraf Ramelah
Voice of the Copts

Ashraf Ramelah – Family Security Matters

Will we ever know the extent to which President Obama’s most recent submission to the pressured demands of Islamists has endangered American national security? When the Obama administration yielded to the outcries of Muslim-American citizens and Islamic organizations recently with the removal of FBI training manuals containing certain anti-terror material deemed “offensive,” the President was either ignorant of the goals of Islam, complacent about whathe knows, or notching up another win for appeasement and promotion of Islam – for now a mystery.

One persuasive player in thatongoing scenario was Mr. Salam Al-Marayati, the director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and a member of the Executive Committee of the California Democratic Party and also a formerClintondelegate to the Democratic National Convention. He charged the FBI, which had documented facts about Islamic history and religious-political norms, with “ineptitude” in their use of erroneous and misguided language leading to “biased and faulty policing.” Although former analysis of this event has been thorough, I wish to point out thatthis occurrence not only jeopardizes our safety but perpetuates the common theme thatthe Islam of our nation’s mosques and communities is somehow benign and different than the Islam of Al Qaida.

We must always be mindful of the motives and methods of Muslim-Americans who pressure the USgovernment for Shariah compliant revisions and whatit means for our country. At the time of his op-ed article in the Los Angeles Times entitled The Wrong Way to Fight Terrorism (Oct. 20, 2011), Mr. Al-Marayati, an Iraqi born Muslim, was on the verge of receiving very good news. Attorney General Holder would buckle under the pressure of Islamic pleas by withdrawing the FBI training manual. Contrary to Mr. Al-Marayati’s assertion, the manuals were comprised of valuable information for American national security and served the performance of FBI officers free to do their duty underUS law, harming no one.

Using the method of furthering lies (Taquiyaa) and bolstering false assumptions already inserted into American culture, Mr. Al-Marayati’s argument against the words used in the manual centered upon the absence of any link between the “cult” of Al Qaida and the religion of Islam. Additionally he warned thatfacts about Islam and quotes from the Koran actually thwart the fight of terrorism because FBI use of them would lead to a breakdown of trust between Muslim-Americans and the FBI, made certain by him and those working with him.

Some argue thatthis would come on top of an already eroding trust between the non-Muslim and Muslim Americans because of Muslim resistance to assimilate: inching Islamic law into American courts, creating Shariah no-go zones, and adhering to Bedouin dress. But despiteAmerica’s reasons for suspicion, Mr. Al-Marayati blamesAmericafor providing a tainted environment for Muslim immigrants asking, “How can we persuade Muslim American communities to stayatthe table when the food on the table is filled with poison?” — a wild accusation against Americans who have been open, friendly, polite and tolerant.

Mr. Al-Marayati equated FBI teachings with al Qaida’s rhetoric of hate (law enforcement agents are on “opposite sides of the same coin of hate”), threatened thatMuslims will stop cooperating with the US government (“it will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim-American community”) and distorted the facts (“baseless…claims” contained in FBI manuals), in order to accomplish this dirty deed. The sinister point thatMr. Al-Marayati makes is his insinuation thatthe harsh realities of Islam visible around the world today are based upon an Islamic religious jurisprudence which has no bearing on the workings of al Qaida, even as Jihad remains a pillar of all Muslim believers.

More outrageously Mr. Al-Marayati suggested that“Muslim leaders, not FBI agents, can more effectively battle al Qaida’s destructive ideas.” He justifies this by citing several incidents where Muslim-Americans have informed our government of the plots by fellow Muslims to help foil thoseattempts and lead to arrests. By this example alone, Mr. Al-Marayati actually proves the legitimacy of the FBI training language he wants expunged. A man named Antonio Martinez, a convert to Islam (not to Al Qaida) allegedly tries to blow up a military recruitment center and his whereabouts were given to law enforcement by the Maryland Muslim community.Martinezwas not a Muslim fundamentalist or Al Qaida member, proving the FBI does indeed need correct and accurate information about devout Muslims, their beliefs and their community.

After Mr. Al-Marayati buried himself with his own argument, he brazenly concludes thatAmericalaw enforcement must depend on Muslim leaders alone for their information. Mr. Al-Marayati expects American national securityatits highest level to be placed in the hands of a “task force” of “experts” who worship and practice from the same book as Al Qaida agents and have the same loyalties – all in the guise of promoting tolerance. He will get his way in this as well. The Muslim Public Affairs Council and CAIR have prevailed against the American people.

As an American, Mr. Al-Marayati should be considered a traitor to his country since he has propagated false impressions leading to the disarming and disabling ofUScounter-terrorism. His efforts should have been dismissed by US officials as paranoidatbest, but instead were rewarded with a setback for national security – removing facts needed to fight terror (ironically as a bonus to him, facts in and of themselves now deemed a threatto national security), jeopardizing the safety of America, and demoralizing American self-defense.

Al-Marayati and his cohorts have succeeded in expunging the “insults” about Islam from the training manuals because this is more important than expunging dangerous elements from the country. Muslim supremacy, emanating from the victimhood complex insideAmerica’s emergent Islamic community, impacts our courts, hijacks academia, and patrols free speech. So far Islamic leaders, out front and pro-active, encounter relatively little resistance from Americans just now beginning to detect the danger.

Will Americans settle for a repressed society governed by political correctness waiting for Islam to build a stronghold inside our country? Immigrants living inAmericahaving once been subject to Islamic law are much more cautious than those who were born into freedom and have only known the freedom of the West. Take the word of the Copt living inAmerica; the signs of Jihad are everywhere, seeking to dismantle our liberty and way of life. It is the Copt living inAmericawho will speak the truth having lived it never allowing the falsehoods of Islam to dominate.

12/12/11

Republican Record on Border Security: 25 Years of Broken Promises

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

History is apparently not Newt Gingrich’s strong suit, despite the fact that he has a Ph.D. in history and taught it in college before entering politics. Probably he knows a lot about Greek or Roman history, but things that happened only 25 years ago? Don’t ask.

Gingrich suggests it would be “humane” to allow illegal aliens “who have been here 25 years, go to church and raise children in our communities” — let’s give such illegal aliens legal status. Of course, he then backtracked and said, let’s not do this until after we have border security.

That’s basically what we did in 1986 with the amnesty legislation that gave legal status to three million illegal aliens. Gingrich wasn’t in Congress yet, but surely he has heard of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. It was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

That amnesty was sold to Reagan and passed as part of a “bipartisan deal,” the terms of which were never honored. We were promised three things.  First, this was to be a one-time amnesty, never to be repeated. Second, new laws were enacted to punish employers who hired illegal workers. Third, the border was to be secured.

All three promises have been broken.  There have been numerous small amnesties enacted since 1986 and enforcement of the employer sanctions was never undertaken in a serious way. But by far the most egregious and hypocritical broken promise was that of border security.

The charade of declaring the border “secure enough” has been continued through five presidents of both political parties. It has been a bipartisan bait-and-switch game that only came to an end when the Minutemen put a huge media spotlight on the cross-border traffic and forced politicians to take up the issue.

Various reasons and excuses have been offered for this failure. Often we hear that it is impossible to secure the border, so let’s move on. This seems to come from the same people who also argue that the dramatic decline in Border Patrol apprehensions shows our border enforcement is working. So, which is it? If policies A and B get a 50% decline in border crossings, why not build on that success and go after the remaining 50%?

We hear only slogans and excuses, not concrete proposals for achieving border security, but it is not rocket science. If we add enough fencing and combine it with more manpower and appropriate technology, we can secure the border. And if that does not work, then use our military.

Today, after 25 years of posturing and broken promises, Americans can be forgiven for displaying a distrust of new promises. How about a plan of action, not a plan for more broken promises?

Gingrich is only the latest in a long line of aspiring Republican politicians who think they can substitute another round of soon-to-be-broken promises for concrete action on border security. As for Democrats, they are even worse. Obama has made a mockery of both border security and interior enforcement. The difference is, we do not expect anything else from Democrats.

So, let’s set some real benchmarks for Republican candidates who say they are committed to border security. Here are three concrete steps that a new president should take to show he is serious about it. Which candidates will pledge to do these three things on day one?

  • First, a newly inaugurated Republican president should ask Congress to reauthorize and fully fund the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which mandates 700 miles of double pedestrian fencing on the south west border.
  • Secondly, the new Republican president should sign an executive order rescinding the Obama administrative amnesty plan of June 2011.
  • Finally, a Republican president should ask Congress to pass a law to end “anchor baby” status for children born to illegal aliens, tourists, business travelers or any person not a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States. That law will be challenged in the courts, but that is a fight we have to win.

If a candidate for president refuses to make a pledge to do these three things on his first day in the White House, we will know he is not serious about border security or immigration enforcement. We will know we are in for another four years of broken promises.

Related articles

12/12/11

Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States

From: The White House

As a government, we are working to prevent all types of extremism that leads to violence,
regardless of who inspires it. At the same time, countering al-Qa’ida’s violent ideology is one
part of our comprehensive strategy to defeat al-Qa’ida. Over the past 2½ years, more key
al-Qa’ida leaders—including Usama bin Laden—have been eliminated in rapid succession
than at any time since the September 11 attacks. We have strengthened homeland security
and improved information sharing. Thanks to coordinated intelligence and law enforcement,
numerous terrorist plots have been thwarted, saving many American lives.
President Barack Obama, August 2011

Law enforcement and government officials for decades have understood the critical importance of building relationships, based on trust, with the communities they serve. Partnerships are vital to address a range of challenges and must have as their foundation a genuine commitment on the part of law enforcement and government to address community needs and concerns, including protecting rights and public safety. In our efforts to counter violent extremism, we will rely on existing partnerships that communities have forged with Federal, State, and local government agencies. This reliance, however, must not change the nature or purpose of existing relationships. In many instances, our partnerships and related activities were not created for national security purposes but nonetheless have an indirect impact on countering violent extremism (CVE).

At the same time, this Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) also includes activities, some of them relatively new, that are designed specifically to counter violent extremism. Where this is the case, we have made it clear. It is important that both types of activities be supported and coordinated appropriately at the local level.

read more…

For your info. I consider this fascist and tyrannical, but you should decide for yourself.

12/12/11

AFSI Decries Government Destruction of Givat Aryeh

By: Fern Sidman

On Sunday morning, December 11th, over 50 people gathered at the Israeli Consulate in New York to vocally express their revulsion at the recent decision by the Israeli government to demolish the community of Givat Aryeh. Organized by Americans For A Safe Israel (AFSI), its executive director Helen Freedman, who just returned from Israel on the organization’s bi-annual Chizuk mission, told those gathered, “Just two weeks ago, we celebrated the dedication of a new Torah scroll that was presented to the residents of Itamar and Givat Aryeh in the Shomron by its sponsor, AFSI member Jack Ross. Now we are totally disheartened to learn that the destruction of this community was orchestrated by a decision of the Netanyahu/Barak government.”

Calling the decision to bulldoze the synagogue and the homes of those residents in the Givat Aryeh community a “craven, cowardly and sacreligious act,” Ms. Freedman declared, “it is shameful and abhorrent that an ostensibly Jewish government in Israel would even consider destroying a holy Jewish synagogue, along with the homes and possessions belonging to its most loyal citizens.”

Lambasting the indifference and apathy of New York’s Jewish leadership, Ms. Freedman added, “I had invited many rabbis and mainstream Jewish leaders to attend this demonstration. Many refused, saying that they didn’t believe in criticizing Israel in public. I responded by saying, “If your beloved is about to walk off a cliff, wouldn’t you reach out to restrain him?”

In a private interview with Israel National News, Ms. Freedman said, “I believe it is because of our great love for Israel that we venture out together on a bitterly cold Sunday morning in December to denounce actions that are suicidal for our Jewish homeland. It is dishonest and un-Jewish to shake off that responsibility while pretending that it is in the best interest of Israel when we know it is self-destructive. As we approach the Chanukah season, we would do well to remember the immortal words of the brave Matthias who said, “‘All who are faithful to G-d, follow me!”

Demonstrators held aloft Israeli flags along with signs and banners saying, “Build Jewish Homes and Schools: Don’t Bulldoze Them,” “A Two-State Solution is Indefensible,” and “Save Judea and Samaria from Destruction.”

Among the speakers at the protest were Pastor James David Manning of the ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem who was joined by a contingent of his congregants. As an outspoken supporter of Israel and a fervent Zionist, Pastor Manning said, “The Bible states quite clearly that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people for eternity and no one has a right to take that away. My congregants and I unequivocally support the Zionist cause and as a Christian member of the clergy I remind everyone that whoever blesses the people of Israel shall be blessed, but those who curse Israel shall be cursed forever.”

Echoing these sentiments was Raanan Isseroff, a representative of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement who reminded the protestors of the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe who said that, “the land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel and is non-negotiable. It is G-d’s gift to the Jewish people and there is no human being who can alter that fact.”

With great emotion, AFSI member Jack Ross recalled that the Torah he had presented to the people of Givat Aryeh had been purchased and restored by him in memory of his parents who had survived the Holocaust. “I dedicated this special Torah to the memory of the murdered members of the Fogel family in Itamar and tragically, it was confiscated by the IDF on December 1st when both the community and synagogue of Givat Aryeh were destroyed.”

In a powerful display of symbolism designed to graphically depict the devastating destruction that was wrought in Givat Aryeh, both Mr. Ross and long-time Jewish activist Charlie Bernhaut, held up a Torah scroll, to represent the assault on Torah-true communities in Judea and Samaria by the Israeli government. Mr. Bernhaut enumerated the names of the communities that appeared in the Torah which was on display and told the protestors that, “these are the very same communities that the Arabs claim belong to them. It is clear that we get nowhere when we attempt to appease our enemies.”

David Jacobs, formerly of Staten Island and now a citizen of Israel who resides their with his family, spoke of his own daughter’s Bat-Mitzvah which took place in the Eli-Sinai synagogue in the former Gush Katif region. Recalling the pain he felt when that synagogue was destroyed as well by the Israeli government when the residents of the 21 communities of Gush Katif were expelled in 2005, Mr. Jacobs outlined many of the flaws existing in the Israeli government today and the difficulty Jews have in publicly speaking out about them.

Other activists such as Brooklyn resident Robin Ticker, Manhigut Yehudit spokesman Rob Muchnick, veteran AFSI volunteer Charlotte Wahle and Bob Unger, all delivered moving remarks about the crucial need to “recognize the fraudulence of the Arab claim to the land of Israel” and added that any discussions of “legal” and “illegal settlements” in the land of Israel are a misnomer considering that “we recognize that the entire land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people.” Concluding the protest was professional singer and activist Bob Unger who led the protestors in an emotional rendition of “God Bless America” and “Hatikvah.”