Muslims Not All the Same

Arlene from Israel

I had expected to move today to issues other than the Boston terror attack. Barry Rubin, however, has written an excellent piece on this subject — “Who Will Keep More Muslim Teenagers from Becoming the Next Boston Terrorists?” I begin with this.

Since writing last, I’ve had correspondence with a couple of my readers regarding the concept of Islamists, jidhadists, radical Muslims vs. Muslims. They both objected, each in his own way, to my making a differentiation between the radicals and moderate Muslims, whom they claim do not exist, as Islam is a violent religion. Period.

Two readers out of thousands is a very small percentage. But it occurs to me that there may be other readers who did not write but entertain similar thoughts. And so I think it important to visit the issue here.

Not for a moment do I delude myself about the fact that radical Islam is predominant today. For the sake of the Western world, the danger it presents must be named, confronted and battled. I’m not shy about this. What is more, I know very well indeed that there are Muslims in the West who profess moderation but are fronts for the radical agenda. (CAIR in the US is a prime example.) I myself have argued with naive but well meaning people who were too eager to embrace such fronts, taking their declarations of moderation at face value.

What is more, I know about Islamic teachings regarding the infidel. And believe me, I do not take them lightly. How many times in the course of my work have I encountered the hadith (teaching): “and the tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.”


And yet, I also know Muslims who are moderate. Muslims who can be trusted. Muslims who do not internalize messages from their religion about killing non-believers and are not out to establish a world-wide caliphate. I can identify only a small number, but they are there. In many cases overwhelmed or threatened by the radicals, they maintain a low profile.


I think it’s important that the differentiation be made. First, because if we imagine we must do battle with the whole Islamic world, we are lost; to be effective we must focus on the true danger. And then, because it does injustice to those moderates who would live quietly.

Barry Rubin makes the differentiation: He argues that it’s important to “wage a real and serious battle within Islam.” He makes the case for countering the radical messages and talks in concrete terms about what needs to be done.

“…one could argue that there is no moderate—or at least no non-violent, non-revolutionary– Islam that can be developed. But that simply isn’t true. The works and the moderate individuals exist, but they are not given support, even in Western countries, nor do they have the resources to wage the battle. Everyone who ignorantly drones on about Islam being inevitably radical doesn’t know how hard Islamists have had to work for forty years or more to create what exists now, nor how many people who are Muslims oppose this movement in Iran, Arabic-speaking countries, Turkey, and other places…” (Emphasis added here and below)

“…in a bizarre manner Western societies favor the radicals, giving them good press and praise.
“…moderate Muslims are penalized and ignored.

…the ability to critique precisely what is radical in Islam and what is wrong with Islamism is handicapped by the successful effort to brand any attempts at making such distinctions as ‘Islamophobia’ instead of a sensible fear of revolutionary Islamism.

“This, then, is the dilemma and why young people like the Tsarnaev brothers will be indoctrinated with extremist Islam with almost no alternative offered on the other side. If groups that are Muslim Brotherhood fronts are going to be treated by the American establishment as examples of normative, moderate Islam, what space is there for any real moderate Islam?

“If the enemy is not going to be defined as radical Islam or Islamism or some other phrase that identifies the issue, then how can anyone campaign against such doctrines?

“The West has paralyzed itself, and, ironically, the first people who are going to suffer are Muslims who are not Islamists and not radicals…”



Michael Mukasey, in his piece — “Make No Mistake, It Was Jihad” — in the Wall Street Journal makes a similar point:

“At the behest of such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations [that’s CAIR] and the Islamic Society of North America, and other self-proclaimed spokesmen for American Muslims, the FBI has bowdlerized its training materials to exclude references to militant Islamism.”

This mindset is what led the jihad attack by Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood to be identified as “workplace violence…recall that the Army chief of staff at the time said the most tragic result of Fort Hood would be if it interfered with the Army’s diversity program.”

“…There are Muslim organizations in this country, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, that speak out bravely against that totalitarian ideology [the anti-American Brotherhood ideology that Mukasey describes]. They receive no shout-out at presidential speeches; no outreach is extended to them. (Emphasis added)


So there you have it. A moderate Muslim group that indeed does exist but is sidelined while the “sensitivities” of radical groups are responded to in a fashion that makes the differentiation impossible.

Mukasey makes yet other significant points. We waited for President Obama to say the “t” word — terrorism — he points out. And indeed while he was reluctant at first, it wasn’t long until he did. However, there was then “his vague musing on Friday about some unspecified agenda of the perpetrators, when by then there was no mystery: the agenda was jihad.” [There were, declared the president, “many unanswered questions” about what drove the suspects to violence.]

And so, still, an unwillingness to tie radical Islam to the violence. “We have heard not a word from those sources [who wield executive power] suggesting any need to understand and confront a totalitarian ideology that has existed since at least the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s.”

“Tamerlan Tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after questioning by the FBI.” (Emphasis added)


As a journalist, I exercise a self-restraint: In order to maintain a professional standard, I avoid inappropriate terminology. But I must say that Secretary of State John Kerry is trying that self-restraint. This is with regard to his comment, while in Turkey, on the Mavi Marmara incident:

“I know it’s an emotional issue with some people. I particularly say to the families of people who were lost in the incident we understand these tragedies completely and we sympathize with them.”

“I mean, I have just been through the week of Boston and I have deep feelings for what happens when you have violence and something happens and you lose people that are near and dear to you. It affects a community, it affects a country. We’re very sensitive to that.”


Mind-blowing, is it not? The people killed on the Mavi Mamara by Israeli commandos had terrorist associations and had deliberately and viciously attacked the Israelis, who then responded in self-defense. While those killed in Boston were innocents, whose lives were taken by terrorists.

And here Kerry is, empathizing with the families of terror-connected people. What an insult to Israel!

He was, it seems clear, attempting to play up to the Turks.

Let’s call him extremely obtuse where the nuances of a situation are concerned, and, in the end, just plain stupid.

Although some see it this way, I doubt that he was consciously trying to undercut Israel — he hadn’t thought that hard, or that deep. Besides, it would make little sense to undercut Israel when Hagel was in Jerusalem doing the opposite (see below).

His statement was made at a time when an Israeli delegation had come to negotiate compensation to be paid to Turkey for the lives of those killed on the Mavi Marmara, with Turkey demanding one million dollars for each of the nine dead, while Israel was offering one-tenth of that. Was he consciously attempting to “help” up the compensation terms — trying to show the Turks that he was their good buddy?

Reassuring, is it not, to know that US foreign affairs are being handled by such an astute individual?


One of the reasons Kerry was attempting to play to the Turks is because he was hoping to influence a decision Turkish PM Erdogan had made, to visit Gaza next month. This visit is considered potentially counterproductive to “jumpstarting the peace process,” and is being opposed by the PA’s Abbas.

The response to this request by Kerry? Said Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, who also serves as the government’s spokesman:

“Mr. Kerry’s statement … from a diplomatic perspective was objectionable, wrong and was incorrect.

“Only the Turkish government decides when and where the prime minister or any other Turkish official travels. An experienced foreign minister would not have done this. A foreign minister cannot and should not directly express to the media his personal opinions about our prime minister’s visit.”

“An experienced foreign minister would not have done this.” Kerry is over his head. And the Turks pull no punches.


Says commentator Ruthie Blum:

“Islamists view bowing down as a sign of weakness, and America keeps showing them that they are right to hold this view.”


Blum further suggests that the Israeli response to all of this may be tempered by the need for Turkish airspace in the event of an attack on Iran. In addition to which, attacking Kerry while Hagel was making nice here would likely not have been prudent. This entire situation is fraught with layer upon layer of complexity.


Erdogan is eager to go to Gaza at the time originally scheduled — late May, after visiting the White House –because it will be the third anniversary of the Mavi Marmara incident. That ship, after all, had as its mission the breaking of the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.


As to the compensation negotiations, the Israeli delegation — headed by Security Council Head Ya’akov Amidror — left Turkey last night saying things had gone well. A joint text has been prepared but not yet released; the amount of compensation, which will be arrived at by a mutually agreed-up mechanism, has not yet been determined.

Families of the nine who had been killed are telling a different story, however. They say that their government didn’t consult them when agreeing to these negotiations. They don’t want compensation, which would not do justice to the memories of their “martyrs.” They want the end of the blockade of Gaza, which is what their loved ones gave their lives for. And they intend to continue to pursue legal proceedings against the Israeli military leaders who were involved.


While Kerry had gone to Turkey, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was here in Israel the last couple of days. What we are seeing seems a startling change in Hagel from what he has reflected in the past. I would say he’s doing his job as he should — taking orders from the commander-in-chief and representing a new US policy — or what appears to be a new policy.

Previously, the US had put considerable pressure on Israel not to attack Iran, and had sent high level personnel here to dissuade us from considering military action.

Now, on coming to Israel, Hagel said: “Israel is a sovereign nation…Israel will make the decision that Israel must make to protect itself, to defend itself.”


What is more, he signed on the dotted line with Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon for a deal that will not only give Israel a qualitative military edge in the region, but will accord Israel the right to buy armaments that were not available outside of the US until now — rendering an Israeli attack on Iran more feasible.

The two held a press conference yesterday (see picture), and from Ya’alon’s body language we might guess that things went well.

Credit: WordJewishCongress


Hagel also met privately with PM Netanyahu this morning. At their press conference, Netanyahu thanked the Secretary for US support, saying:

“Iran’s attempt to arm itself with nuclear weapons…is a challenge that Israel cannot accept, and as you and President Obama have repeatedly said, Israel must be able to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.”

In his response, Hagel said:

“Israel is a model for the world.”


Whoa. Absolutely true, but this from Hagel? Is the world listening? And more to the point, what is Hagel about here?

Credit: ktvu


The new US policy? What it seems to be is this:

Obama now recognizes that negotiations (diplomacy) alone will not move Iran and that Netanyahu is right about the need for a credible military threat. But rather than making such a threat itself, the US is threatening Iran via Israel. What is more, the US seems to be working to ensure that if the threat does not work and an attack on Iran is necessary, that attack — by Israel, not the US — will be successful.

Thus acknowledgement of Israel’s “right” to attack in self-defense — a right we’ve always had but which until now Obama sought to curtail. And provision of cutting edge armaments — previously unavailable — that can make a difference.


However, there is a “but…” here.

A difference of opinion between Israel and the US regarding the right time to attack still exists. Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center of Public Affairs, spelled it out thus:

“It’s all about timetables. If you say [as Israel does — this is Netanyahu’s red line] the goal is to halt Iran in the enrichment phase, you don’t have much time. If you are waiting for Iran to weaponize [the position the Obama administration has taken] maybe you can give it another year or more.”

And so we still must ask if those cutting edge armaments Israel will receive from the US will arrive in time for action to be taken in the enrichment phase? Or is Israel’s ability to act with greater effectiveness going to be curtailed until a later time?

What is more, as the NYTimes reported (emphasis added):

…what the Israelis wanted most was a weapons system that is missing from the package: a giant bunker-busting bomb designed to penetrate earth and reinforced concrete to destroy deeply buried sites. According to both American and Israeli analysts, it is the only weapon that would have a chance of destroying the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment center at Fordow, which is buried more than 200 feet under a mountain outside the holy city of Qum.

“The weapon, called a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, weighs about 30,000 pounds — so much that Israel does not have any aircraft capable of carrying it. To do so, they would need a B-2 bomber, the stealth aircraft that the United States flew nonstop recently from Missouri to the Korean Peninsula to underscore to North Korea that it could reach their nuclear sites.

“The Obama administration has been reluctant to even discuss selling such capability to the Israelis…”


I’ve had my eye on those bunker busters for some time, and raised the issue of whether they would be provided to Israel when I wrote about this latest armaments deal.

Now I ask: What is Obama really all about?


Head of IDF Military Intelligence, Research Branch, Brig. Gen. ltay Baron, says that Assad’s troops have used lethal chemical weapons — mostly sarin gas — against armed rebels in the past weeks and is continuing to do so. The US and other nations are still saying they need to confirm this.

Baron, in a briefing to the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said that the lack of an “appropriate international response” to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons was “very worrying” and might give Assad the impression (dare I say the correct impression?) that there will be no consequences for what he’s doing.

Obama had said that use of WMD by Assad would be crossing a red line. Perhaps this position motivates the reluctance to acknowledge the evidence as firm.

Baron further said that 1,000 people were being killed in Syria every week. “There are more than 1000 tons of chemical weapons in Syria, plus missiles with warheads. It is a massive arsenal. The regime has already made use of some of these weapons….”


Baron noted, as did IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz recently, that Russia is exceedingly heavily involved in shoring up Assad. Gantz called this “strange.”

To be watched very very closely indeed. This is going on at our periphery and it’s a question of when and how the IDF will be involved.


April 17, 2013: A Day of American Pride in Our Freedom

By: Toddy Littman

President Obama, who, exploiting former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the Newtown Shooting families that he had the American People pay for as lobbyists to go to Washington D.C. to speak to Senators and Congresspersons apparently on behalf of the White House (one Newtown mother and father even replaced President Obama in his weekly radio address), then, after all this sensationalism fails, decides to register an emotional response to the Senate Vote on Gun Control…

“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. But this effort is not over.”

And that my friends is why this is a Day of American Pride in Our Freedom!

The day of April 17th, 2 days before capturing the naturalized citizen Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who is suspected of carrying out the Boston Marathon Bombing of April 15, 2013 in the severely gun restricted State of Massachusetts (see http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/02/17/), Obama, our illustrious POTUS with the Leastus in affection for the United States of America decides to shame the United States Senate for actually voting according to their constituency and not his whims, http://www.washingtonpost.com/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/17/senate-debates-gun-control-package-live.

Apparently President Obama didn’t get the memo: Sir, you no longer have a super majority and can no longer force bills through Congress that the American People do not want or support, you can no longer ignore the limits placed on the national government by the Constitution, your whims are no longer the people’s command.

The reality is that the Senate, for the first time in a very long time, did what the American people want in voting down gun control legislation and causing a lack of any schedule for the final bill to be brought to a vote, essentially tabled without any amendments surviving, making the effort to violate the limits imposed on the National Government by the Law of the Land via the 2nd Amendment a struggle that hopefully will result in the bill never being brought to the Senate floor.

To understand, what I just described is a Senate that actually upheld the Constitution, whether it knew it or not, that we should be celebrating in the streets that by the Grace of God, or the natural breakdown of collectivism with egos as strong as Obama’s running about, “gun control legislation,” the mere idea of which is a direct statement of “infringement of the 2nd Amendment,” failed! For the first time in a very long time the Pomp and Circumstance engine of Politics did wind down that Freedom could reign! It may be short lived, however, that’s up to us.

You see there’s this little known bill, Obamacare, that appears to be up for repeal right now. I say this because the argument by those who want gun control, such as Alan Colmes when he appeared versus Conservative Democrat Tammy Bruce, to the best of my recollection said “that most Americans wanted what was in this legislation” which, if I am not mistaken means, “Obamacare should be repealed since most Americans don’t want Obamacare.”

Funny thing about Mr. Colmes and the Liberal noise machine of dress flapping over a subway vent like Marilyn Monroe, is that they don’t ever care about majorities when the People disagree with them, and will only cite the polls taken the day after the crisis they can’t let go to waste to justify something that weeks or months later a more sober America has said “no” to.

Then of course they defer (misdirect) the cause of the failure, blaming the NRA, you know, that organization that was formed by white gun owners who trained and protected freed slaves (see http://www.westernjournalism.com/nra-created-to-protect-free-slaves/).

And to all those Leftist naysayers, lost in the belief Our Founders were uncaring slave owners in their wanting to undermine the entire idea just posed, I submit James Madison from Federalist 42, in part, and please note his use of the word “brethren”:

“The regulation of foreign commerce, having fallen within several views which have been taken of this subject, has been too fully discussed to need additional proofs here of its being properly submitted to the federal administration. It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!” (Emphasis mine, http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_42.html, explaining Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.)

To any who may have been concerned, I’ve been dealing with some health issues that I will not get into detail here. Nothing life-threatening but enough to make it difficult to update this site all that frequently. I’ll do my best to keep things going, but know that ChangingWind.Org may be quite busy for some days or weeks and then I’ll need another absence, but rest assured I am not about to turn up daisies any time soon.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Anyone interested in contributing to ChangingWind.Org in our effort to provide some perspectives and solutions in our promotion of Freedom and Conservative Principles by our Faith in Jesus Christ, please see if there is anything in our bookstore that you may want to have or get as a gift for a friend or family, or even Barack Obama (I’d recommend Blood Barons), we’d greatly appreciate that, and I promise not to make this appeal to you all that often, http://www.amazon.com/.


The Vicious Circle of Death: When Democrats play politics with Islam.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

Fox News web site reported tonight that the two Muslims who bombed the Boston Marathon a week ago were motivated by their “faith”. While the story is basically accurate it leaves out much of the background history and controversy that surrounds the Islamic mosque where the brothers worshiped and, in fact, fails to point out that it wasn’t so much “faith” as it was the religious teachings of the Wahhabi brand of Islam that was preached in this mosque. The Wahhabi sect of Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and as is pointed out below, some of the major financing for this mosque came from the government of Saudi Arabia which has been responsible for the financing of almost 80% of all mosques constructed in America. And one other little detail is that the Saudi government insists that one of the conditions for accepting their financial help is that the mosque must distribute Wahhabi literature.

Faith eyed as motive in Boston marathon attack, as suspect communicates by writing

Published April 22, 2013 Associated Press

The two brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon appear to have been motivated by a radical brand of Islam but do not seem connected to any Muslim terrorist groups, U.S. officials said Monday after interrogating and charging Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with crimes that could bring the death penalty.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/22/marathon-attack-suspect-communicating-by-writing-sources-say-with-faith-seen-as/#ixzz2RFtn0uUl

Thus the mosques constructed in Boston by the Islamic Society of Boston were bound to promote the ultra-conservative, anti-American Wahhabi sect of Islam. Wikipedia contains this information on Wahhabism:

The Saudis have spent at least $87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years. The bulk of this funding goes towards the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrasas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports imam training; mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars). Some of the hundreds of thousands of non-Saudis who live in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf have been influenced by Wahhabism and preach Wahhabism in their home country upon their return. Agencies controlled by the Kingdom’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da’wah and Guidance are responsible for outreach to non-Muslim residents and are converting hundreds of non-Muslims into Islam every year.

A study conducted by the NGO Freedom House found Wahhabi publications in mosques in the United States. These publications included statements that Muslims should not only “always oppose” infidels “in every way”, but “hate them for their religion … for Allah’s sake”, that democracy “is responsible for all the horrible wars of the 20th century”, and that Shia and certain Sunni Muslims were infidels.

Nine years ago, on January 4, 2004 The Boston Herald ran a story by Jonathan Wells and Kevin Wisniewski with the two opening paragraphs that revealed the terrorist connections of a new mosque about to be built in Boston.

The leader of the Islamic group preparing to build a major new mosque in Boston has deeper involvement with organizations and individuals suspected of funding terrorism than previously disclosed, the Herald has learned.

Records obtained by this newspaper reveal the chairman of the local Islamic Society of Boston, Osama M. Kandil, is one of three directors of Taibah International Aid Association.

The problem is that Taibah International was designated as a terrorist entity by the Treasury Department in 2004. So what do you think the Democratic Party that controlled the government in Boston did? They helped the Muslims build the mosque. In fact, the Democrats, and especially Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, even arraigned a sweetheart deal to sell the Islamic Society of Boston a plot of city-owned land with a market value estimated by the Boston Redevelopment Authority of $401,187.50 for the bargain price of $175,000. Another news source in Boston named The Phoenix published a story on November 24, 2008 with the revealing headline:

Menino’s mosque
The bizarre story behind the construction of Boston’s most controversial building

DAVID S. BERNSTEIN | November 24, 2008
Mayor Menino, in a fit of multicultural ecumenicalism, approved the sale of city-owned land to the mosque for the bargain basement — and still controversial — price of $175,000, plus the promise of in-kind services, including upkeep of nearby parks. The predictable uproar that arose in the wake of not only selling land well below market rates, but also selling it to a religious institution in contravention of the supposed separation of church and state, was supposed to be muffled by making the complex available for community use. But oops — that never happened.

Read more: http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/72356-meninos-mosque/#ixzz2RA6ffs5P

I believe that one of the first people who disclosed the complete details behind this Islamic mosque in Boston was Daniel Pipes who wrote about it on his Middle East Forum web site on October 23, 2003. What is unique about this story is the fact that as the details unfolded over the years, Daniel Pipes continued to follow it and post an astounding 70 Updates between 2003 and 2008. It is truly a detailed saga of events worth reading.

The Islamic Society of Boston & the Politicians’ Red Faces

by Daniel Pipes
October 29, 2003
updated Dec 29, 2008

At the groundbreaking in November 2002, local politicians hailed the planned construction of an Islamic Center by the Islamic Society of Boston as a bridge between Islam and Boston’s other religions, the Boston Herald recounted yesterday in the first of a major two-part investigative series. Mayor Thomas M. Menino hailed the center for “creating a space for inter-faith dialog,” and thereby bringing “both the Muslim community and the community at large closer together.” U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano (Democrat) predicted the center would “help to create a dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims so we may learn more about each others’ traditions.” The Boston Redevelopment Authority, a public agency, was no less enthusiastic about the project and sold a 1.9-acre lot to the Islamic Society of Boston for $175,000, or well under the property’s market value.

All this looks pretty dumb a year later, with revelations in the Herald yesterday that the Islamic Society of Boston is closely associated with:

  • Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Islamist whose outspoken backing for Hamas led the Department of State to bar him from entering the United States in 1999; and
  • Abdurahman Alamoudi, the American Islamist recently arrested on terrorism-related charges (on him, see “United States of America v. Abdurahman Muhammad Alamoudi”) who in the past has publicly supported Hamas, Hizbullah, and other terrorist organizations.

Then today’s Herald casts an intense look at:

  • Osama M. Kandil, the Islamic Society of Boston’s leader for over a decade. Turns out that in addition being a former instructor at Harvard Medical School and the founder and chairman of an Egyptian pharmaceutical company, Biopharm Group, he is also associated with the notorious Safa group of Saudi businesses and “charities” headquartered outside Washington, D.C. and was a founding director of the Muslim Arab Youth Association, one of the most radical Islamist organizations in the United States.

Menino and Capuano responded today to the initial revelations, Menino by blowing off the charges (“The Islamic community I know is a good community. Two individuals do not make up a whole community”) and Capuano by calling the allegations “pretty serious” and promising “to do my best to learn more.”

The moral of this too-oft-repeated tale is not hard to guess: politicians – and bureaucrats, journalists, clergy, academics, et al. – need to know an Islamic institution is clean of Islamist associations and intentions before endorsing it, much less selling it government-owned land at fire-sale prices. Good will and ecumenical intent cannot substitute for research. (October 29, 2003)

Some additional details of equal interest from Daniel Pipes story was the update on October 23, 2004:

Oct. 13, 2004 update: And speaking of “politicians’ red faces” – who should have written a warm letter of congratulations to the Islamic Society of Boston on the occasion of its groundbreaking, dated Nov. 7, 2002, but John Kerry?

Oct. 21, 2005 update: Jerry McDermott, a Boston City councilor, sent a letter to constituents in which he made two allegations about the ISB transaction (I leave the original punctuation of the letter unchanged):

  • An employee of the BRA Mohamed Ali Salam who was instrumental in making the deal is also a member of the Islamic Society of Boston. He is a major fundraiser for the ISB. This raises a conflict of interest. I believe the official at the BRA acted alone and will be fired.
  • someone at the BRA knew the land was being sold to buyers from Saudi Arabia. The documents for this land transaction were signed by the BRA and mailed to Saudi Arabia and notarized at the US Consulate. The money for the new Mosque has questionable origins. The content of what will be preached at the Mosque is also an area of concern.

McDermott added this on the Saudi angle:

  • McDermott stressed that the most important new discovery he made about the sale was its connection to Saudi Arabia. “The biggest area of concern is that the deed was signed and notarized at the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, which is known for practicing one brand of Islam – Wahabism – that’s certainly not known to be peaceful.”

When you dance with the devil you’re going to get burned. Or maybe some others standing near you will become the victims. I wonder if Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has any regrets today for helping the Islamic Society of Boston get their mosque built? I doubt the thought even crosses his mind. Neither the Democrats or the liberal mainstream news media will admit that the hate-filled passages contained in the Qur’an is the motivating factor in all of the terrorist attacks. Not some organized plot or wide spread movement, just a whole lot of individuals who suddenly discover what their religion expects them to be. The fact is the major news outlets like the Associated Press advise their reporters not to identify the Islamic religion of those news stories about arrests. Just like the latest coming from Canada about the two Muslims who were arrested for plotting to blow up some trains from Toronto to the U.S. Notice how they blame it on al-Qaida and while they mention the names they do not mention the religion. But it is hopeful that after the admissions made about the Boston Marathon bombers being motivated by their faith there will be a policy change and then people will begin to see the connection.

Two Are Accused in Canada of Plotting Train Derailment
Published: April 22, 2013

OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Monday announced the arrest of two men who are accused of planning to derail a passenger train in an Al Qaeda-linked plot.

The suspects were identified as Chiheb Esseghaier, 35, who has been living in Montreal, and Raed Jaser, 30, of Toronto. The police said the men were not Canadian citizens, but declined to identify their nationalities or to describe their immigration status in Canada.

Just for the record the Islamic Society of Boston runs more than one mosque in Boston. The mosque that Mayor Thomas M. Menino helped the ISOB get built is in the Roxbury suburb of Boston. The Boston Marathon bombers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Massachusetts, another suburb of Boston.

And a further note about the special treatment the Islamic Society of Boston receives from the Democrat-controlled city government is mentioned in this 2008 update in Daniel Pipes’ story.

July 24, 2008 update: A reader, the producer of L’Afrique (lafrique.com), was surprised to see that the Roxbury Crossing station of the Boston area subway system sports a painting of the nearby Islamic Society of Boston mosque and other Islamic themes. He sent me pictures of the still-unfinished mural and its surroundings, one of which I reproduce here. (For the others, click here, here, here, here, and here).

Comment: As the photographer points out, the Boston public transportation system does not sport crosses, stars of David, or other religious insignia. How did this exception come about? One hopes that Bostonians are not so beat down by ISB litigiousness that they have lost all curiosity about that institution’s activities.

And why didn’t the FBI see anything suspicious about the Muslim terrorist Tamerlan Tsarnaev after the Russian government alerted them? The revelation that the FBI looked into Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s possible link to terrorist groups but gave him a clean bill of health, has drawn several days of criticism from lawmakers and now the promise of congressional probes, according to the Washington Times. I am only guessing but just maybe after Barck Hussein Obama had the government purge all references to the words “terrorist”, “Islam” and “Muslim” from the FBI field manuals, the agents were not allowed to look into those areas in their investigation.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Oldironsides.


Terrorism Highlights Threat From Al Jazeera in America

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

CNN has been criticized for reporting the arrest of a suspect in the Boston bombing case when no one in fact had been arrested. The channel was apparently given inaccurate information by an anonymous official. Even more serious, however, was the claim by CNN’s “terrorism analyst,” Juliette Kayyem, that the Islamic terrorists who reportedly carried out the Boston bombings were not Islamic terrorists.

Identified as “the most senior Arab American female appointee in the Obama Administration,” where she served as Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, Kayyem told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Saturday that the words “Islamic terrorists” were not appropriate in this case and that she had a “fear” of linking Muslims to terror.

CNN itself reported on April 16, “Juliette Kayyem, CNN contributor and former U.S. assistant secretary for homeland security, cautioned against putting too much stock in the early reports of Arab involvement.”

This is the person who helped coordinate the Obama Administration’s response to al Qaeda, including in Boston itself, before the deadly bombings. Since leaving the administration she has emerged as the most prominent former Obama Administration official who has publicly supported terror TV channel Al Jazeera’s penetration of the U.S. media market.

The new “Al Jazeera America” has already announced it will open a “news bureau” in Detroit, an area with one of the largest concentrations of Arabs and Muslims outside the Middle East.

Kayyem, a Boston Globe columnist, is the former homeland security adviser to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and is said to have “helped coordinate Boston Marathon security in years past…” After that, she served President Obama as Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security.

“As Assistant Secretary,” her biography states, “Ms. Kayyem was responsible for coordinated and consistent planning between the Department and all of its state, local, tribal, and territorial partners on issues as varied as immigration, intelligence sharing, military affairs, border security, and the response to operational events such as H1N1 influenza outbreak, the December 25th attempted terrorist attack, the Haiti earthquake, and the BP oil spill.”

Incredibly, she wrote a September 20, 2011, column entitled, “The war on terror is over,” trashing officials of the Bush Administration for their “militaristic” approach to defeating the Islamists.

She had previously written a column for The Boston Globe accusing Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) of “anti-Muslim paranoia” for raising questions about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the Obama Administration.

Speaking early in the morning on Saturday, April 19, CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out the obvious, based on previous reporting: “It certainly seems as though these individuals are Islamic terrorists.” Kayyem shot back, “…those are two separate words at this stage, because I think after 9/11 we have this fear of tying a Muslim with terrorism. We shouldn’t do that.”

A “fear” of tying a Muslim to terrorism? Did the Kayyem way of perceiving the world infect other agencies in the Obama Administration? Is this, in fact, a viewpoint that is blind or sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood? Does this help explain why the FBI ignored the terrorists’ devotion to Islam and the travel by the older brother to a Muslim region of Russia?

Earlier, Kayyem had played that down as well, saying to Tapper, “Two brothers, from Chechnya. We don’t know their motivations. We don’t know their ideology. We don’t know if they have ties to other organizations or anyone abroad, are responsible for the bombings here and a lot of mayhem last night, including the death of a police officer.”

By this point it was known they were Muslims and that they were accused of the Boston bombings.

She told Tapper, “But in terms of why they did this, this is where it gets really too early to say. That they are from a certain part of the world, or that they have a certain religion, it really is something that we—we just don’t know. They could have very possibly self-radicalized and then planned this on their own with no ties to anyone else, or one, or maybe one or two other people. But some foreign conspiracy, it’s hard to—there is no proof of it yet.”

Tapper seemed flabbergasted, based on what was already known about the brothers: “Just to underline the point you’re making. You are not suggesting anything other than the fact—other than questioning how big this network is. It certainly seems as though these individuals are Islamic terrorists.”

This is when Kayyem protested: “…those are two separate words at this stage, because I think after 9/11 we have this fear of tying a Muslim with terrorism. We shouldn’t do that.”

Perhaps this mind-set explains why she made headlines as the highest ranking former Obama official to urge U.S. cable and satellite providers to carry Al Jazeera into American homes.

In her column, “Let US see Al Jazeera,” Kayyem termed Al Jazeera English “the cousin to the powerful Qatar-based world news network,” without any reference to its service on behalf of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. It was a strange omission by someone supposedly interested in the truth about Islamic terrorism and the dangers it represents.

Writing at the American Thinker about Kayyem’s campaign for Al Jazeera, Ed Lasky wrote, “What could go wrong? What harm could more inflammatory misinformation cause? Have we not learned anything the last few years about how people such as Nidal Hasan can be driven to kill by propaganda?”

Hasan was not “self-radicalized,” as Kayyem might put it, but indoctrinated and incited to violence by foreign jihadists who want to kill Americans.

Hasan carried out the massacre at Fort Hood after communicating with jihadists abroad, mostly through the Internet. Al Jazeera would bring these incendiary and anti-American messages into 40-50 million Americans homes, including Detroit, known as the Arab capital of North America, through the new “Al Jazeera America.”

Nevertheless, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) is letting the deal go through without any hearings.

Dr. Judea Pearl, the father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, supports an investigation of the deal and says, “Al Jazeera weaves the ideological structure and combustible angers from which Jihadi recruits eventually emerge.”

Do we want to increase the dangers of more Boston massacre-type bombings in America by letting “Al Jazeera America” establish “news bureaus” in Detroit and 11 other American cities?

  • Call Rep. McCaul at 202-226-8417 and demand that he open hearings into the “Al Jazeera America” deal.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Elizabeth Warren, Socialist Part 1: Liz Warren and the Heather Booth/Democratic Socialists of America Connection

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

Freshman Massachusetts Senator Elizabet Warren appears to be at least as socialist as her predecessor, Ted Kennedy.


Like the “Lion of the Senate,” Warren is also enmeshed in the U.S. socialist movement. Unlike Kennedy though, her ancestry doesn’t make her quite so untouchable. Like Kennedy, she almost certainly has presidential ambitions.

Democratic Socialists of America is big in Massachusetts. America’s largest Marxist group is entrenched at Harvard, controls the Bay State’s labor movement and commands the allegiance, or at least respect, of a whole swathe of municipal, county, state and federal politicians.

Ted Kennedy was deeply entrenched in DSA and Liz Warren is too.

Elizabeth Warren is particularly close to well known Democratic Party activist Heather Booth, one of the most important “progressive” operatives in the country. Booth has been working for a socialist USA since the 1960s, though is very loathe to use the “s’ word herself.

Heather Booth

Heather Booth

Booth has questioned whether it is “useful in an American context to focus attention on socialism, given its anti-democratic record. Instead she has argued that a radical definition of democracy has a greater chance of changing minds and political practice in the United States.”

Booth has been a key trainer of Democratic activists, most recently for DSA friendly Barack Obama, but starting in 1993, Heather Booth worked on electoral campaigns and with the Democratic National Committee and was the Training Director for the Committee during the Clinton administration.

Booth honed her skills while running Chicago’s infamous Midwest Academy, a DSA-controlled school for “community organizers’ based on the principles of radical agitator Saul Alinsky. Booth has stated “Alinsky is to community-organizing as Freud is to psychoanalysis.”

While never publicly admitting to DSA membership herself, Booth has a 40-year history with the organization.

According to the December 29, 1979, issue of Information Digest, the “initiators” of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (forerunner of Democratic Socialists of America), formed in 1973 as a result of a split within the Socialist Party USA, largely over the issue of cooperation with communists, included Julian Bond, John Conyers, Ronald Dellums, Doug Fraser, Joyce Miller, William Winpisinger, Jerry Wurf and Heather Booth.

Booth has worked with DSA since then and is often described as a “friend” of the organization.

More tellingly, her husband Paul Booth, a top AFSCME official, has been confirmed as a “paid up” DSAer.

Heather Booth’s main connection to Liz Warren come through her latest “front” group, Americans for Financial Reform.

On January 28, 2010, Booth wrote in the Huffington Post:

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Obama reinforced his ambitious agenda to fix the economy and enact financial reform, including measures to hold Big Banks accountable for their reckless actions that led to our financial crisis and the loss of millions of jobs:

The House has passed financial reform…And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back.

At Americans for Financial Reform, we are fighting to make this possible. Financial reform will protect working families and small businesses by reining in the greedy, reckless behavior of big banks on Wall Street and will crack down on the abuses committed by credit card companies and the mortgage lending industry. These reforms will hold Wall Street accountable and prevent another financial crisis.

Members of AFR’s Advisory Board include Alan Charney, a former DSA National Director; AFSCME official Richard Ferlauto, a one time Connecticut DSAer; and Robert Kuttner, an Obama biographer, from DSA aligned “think tank” Demos and himself a long time DSA supporter.

Circa 1990 Los Angeles DSA poster

Circa 1990 Los Angeles DSA Poster

Right from the start, Elizabeth Warren was AFR’s best friend.

As far back as 2009, Booth and Warren were working together to promote a Consumer Finance Protection Agency.

According to Dave Johnson, a fellow with the DSA co-founded Campaign for America’s Future, writing in October 2009:

I was on a blogger call today with Elizabeth Warren to discuss this bill. This call was hosted by Heather Booth, Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of 200 organizations fighting for this other reforms of our banking and financial system. Warren is Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel – COP – but was not on the call in that capacity. She was on the call to explain why we need the CFPA. Warren originally proposed the idea of a CFPA,

In 2010, AFR circulated an online petition asking President Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a rap song urging the same —― Got A New Sheriff, by the Main Street Brigade, also appeared.

“Elizabeth Warren is one of the great experts in the country on the economics of middle class families and supporting them and protecting them” said Heather Booth, head of Americans for Financial Reform. “There’s no one who has a background with the depth on the issues and the willingness to stand up to those biggest banks.

Booth invoked her labor union (read DSA) support in order get President Obama to appoint Warren to head the new agency.

According to 2010 Huffington Post article:

In July 2010, a coalition of groups fighting to reform the nation’s financial system formally endorsed Harvard Law professor and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Americans for Financial Reform, an alliance of more than 250 organizations that has spent the past year advocating for financial reform legislation, said that Warren is the “most experienced, effective and independent person” to serve as the critical first chief of the new agency.

AFR includes top labor groups and progressive advocacy organizations with deep ties to the Obama administration, including AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union.

“[Elizabeth] Warren has shown a steadfast and tireless commitment to protecting consumers throughout her distinguished career and is without question the best candidate to run the new CFPB,” Heather Booth, AFR’s director, said in a statement.

“We join many others in encouraging the White House to quickly move to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” Booth added.

On April 6th, 2010, Americans for Financial Reform and its radical ally, Americans for Fairness in Lending, hosted a special webinar discussion with Professor Warren and AFR Director Heather Booth for the general public. It focused on “where things stand in the movement for financial reform and how everyday citizens can get involved in the fight to rein in the big banks and get the economy back on track.”


  • Find out about reform efforts in Congress-including the Senate bill currently being debated and the House bill which passed in December.
  • Learn why we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect us from abusive financial products.
  • Ask Professor Warren and Heather Booth your question about financial reform.
  • Hear about ways to join the fight around the country and online.

Despite considerable pressure from AFR and other groups, Obama didn’t appoint Warren. Undeterred, Warren, backed by the DSA-controlled Massachusetts labor movement, decided to run for the U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Scott Brown in 2012.

Heather Booth was there to help her friend.

On March 21, 2012, a “Young Professionals Event” fundraiser was held at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Boston for Elizabeth Warren

The event was hosted by Alisha Bhagat, Heather Booth, her DSA husband Paul Booth, Institute for Policy Studies “arch progressive” Robert Borosage and Mike Lux, former Special Assistant to the President for Public Liaison in the Bill Clinton White House, former Obama Transition Team outreach to the “progressive” movement, influential blogger/consultant and one time Iowa Democratic Socialists of America member.

Elizabeth Warren was not slow in returning a favor to a comrade.

When Midwest Academy held its annual award ceremony on December 12, 2012 at the Eatonville Restaurant, Washington DC, Elizabeth Warren was guest speaker.


Pictured below, Warren mingles with Heather Booth and convicted felon, Democratic Party strategist and long-time DSA associate, Bob Creamer, and in the background, well known Chicago DSAer Roberta Lynch.

Bob Creamer, Heather Booth, Roberta Lynch, Elizabeth Warren

Bob Creamer, Heather Booth, Roberta Lynch and Elizabeth Warren

Creamer is the husband of Illinois Democratic congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who was also in attendance. Schakowsky too has been a confirmed DSA member.

Long time DSA member Julian Bond was given a “Lifetime Achievement Award,” while yet another one time DSAer, Mike Lux, was given a Progressive Leadership Award.

Mike Lux

Mike Lux

Elizabeth Warren no doubt enjoyed a great night mingling with her Marxist friends and comrades.

Part 2 coming soon…

This information has been brought to you by KeyWiki, a New Zealand hosted, online encyclopedia of the U.S. left.

If you want to get more of this information to the public, please contribute today.


Trevor Loudon is the author of “Barack Obama and the Enemies Within,” an oft referenced work that blew the lid off the President’s extensive Marxist background. He is also the Editor of this blog TrevorLoudon.com and of KeyWiki.org, an online encyclopedia exposing the covert side of U.S. politics.