Jill Carroll on Jihadist Television

The subtitle to the video: "The lies I tell to save my life"

“Did you think the American army or the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) would save you at any time,” a muffled male voice asked Ms Carroll in accented English.

“Sometimes I thought maybe that they might come, they might find me, they might find a way to know where I am and come get me,” she answered.

“Why did not they save you?” asked the interviewer.

“I think the mujahedeen are very smart and even with all the technology and all the people that the American army has here, they still are better at knowing how to live and work here, more clever,” she said.

“Does this mean something to you?” the man questioning her asked.

“It makes very clear that the mujahedeen are the ones that will win in the end,” Ms Carroll said in the video.

At the end of the eight and a half minute tape, the same man read out a statement in Arabic.
“The mujahedeen in the land of the two rivers announce the liberation of the journalist Jill Carroll... after the US forces and the CIA failed to find her making their ineptitude obvious to the whole world,” he said.

“We liberate this journalist today after the American government met some of our demands by releasing some of our women prisoners.”

See The video:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19858_The_Mujahideen_Interview_Jill_Carroll&only

The Revolutionary Muslim Madonna

Deeyah was raised in Norway, and became a pop-star in her teens. She ended up moving to the UK because of threats and disdain from offended Muslims who felt her 'provocative' act was somehow denigrating their religion. She's also received 'intimidating' phone calls in the UK.

http://akeelshah.blogspot.com/2006/03/deeyah-muslim-madonna.html

The Miracle Man

The scientific mind says this couldn't happen.

Sago Mine Survivor Leaves Hospital

Thursday , March 30, 2006

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. — Sago Mine survivor Randal McCloy Jr. was released from a hospital Thursday and offered gratitude for the support he has received since he was trapped almost three months ago.

"I'd just like to thank everybody for their thoughts and prayers," McCloy said during a brief appearance at a morning news conference, "I believe that's it." McCloy then left the room with his wife, Anna.

McCloy and Anna were expected to return to their Simpson home later in the morning.
"Our family is glad to be going home," Anna McCloy said. "Today is another part our miracle, just three months after the accident.

"However, there are 12 families who are in our thoughts and prayers today and every day. The families of Randy's co-workers and friends are celebrating with us today just as we continue to mourn with them. Please keep all of us in your thoughts and prayers."

McCloy is considered a medical miracle because he survived after being exposed to carbon monoxide for more than 41 hours.

In recognition of that, Gov. Joe Manchin announced that the rural road where the McCloys live will now be named "Miracle Road."

"Randy is unbelievable how he has come through this ordeal," Manchin said. "Today, I'm happy to say that the time has finally come for Randy to return home."

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, McCloy said he had "no explanation of how I escaped it and survived."

"It's just crazy how that ended up being like that."

After the blast, which the mine's owner says was caused by a lightning strike, some people speculated McCloy survived because he was deeper in the mine, farther from the bad air. He said he wasn't.

Nor does he believe a crushed lung limited the carbon monoxide he inhaled. If he'd been in pain, he figures, he'd have inhaled even more.

What McCloy does know is that he's strong and healthy now because of 24-hour support from his wife and brother-in-law Rick McGee, who have barely left his side for three months.
"What I believe is that the people who are there for you tend to create a world where you can get better," McCloy said. "It's love, really."

McCloy's memories of the 41 hours underground are "not much really," just fragmented images he'd rather forget. When he thinks of his fallen friends, he pictures them elsewhere.

"I try to leave out all the gory details and stuff like that because I don't like to look at them in that light and that way," he said. "I just like to picture them saved and in heaven, stuff like that.

"That's really the best way you can remember somebody."

Doctors say McCloy was perhaps minutes from death when he was pulled from the coal mine Jan. 4 with kidney, lung, liver and heart damage. He was in a coma for weeks, suffering from severe brain injuries.

McCloy is about 5-foot-10 and thin, down from a normal 160 pounds to just 135. His throat still bears a deep purple mark from a long-since removed feeding tube, but his voice is clear and soft.

He smiles often and seems frustrated only by his limitations, mainly a right arm that remains weak.

"My hands, my grip, is not as good as I want it to be, but I'm going to try to exercise and stuff like that," he said.

Anna is providing an incentive. While he was in therapy, she ordered a present for his 27th birthday on April 14: a red 2006 Mustang to replace the family's Taurus.

"I wanted to give him something to work for," she said, "to make him really want to push himself."

In the pool at HealthSouth Mountainview Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, he does. He tosses a beach ball with a therapist to work on agility and reflexes. He springs from a therapist's cradling arms into an upright posture in one swift motion. He grips the stainless steel parallel bars underwater and pulls his legs to his waist.

When he gets home, he will continue to use weights to help speed up his therapy. He also will return to HealthSouth three days a week, four hours a day, for a few more months.
Someday, he'll start to think about work again. He's considering a vocational school, maybe electronics. He won't be going back underground.

"No, I done learned my lesson," he said. "The hard way."

In a few months, the McCloys will take their first family vacation, a trip to Disney World. For now, though, they're looking forward to peace.

"It'll be a vacation just getting home," said Anna, who will fire up the oven for the first time in three months to make a big pan of lasagna for family members.

Soon, Randal will start working through the thousands of cards and letters he has received — enough to fill a spare bedroom at a relative's house. He also hopes to meet with all 12 of the fallen miners' families in the coming weeks and months.

"It's a delicate situation and it should be handled delicately. It's not something you definitely want to dive right in," he said. "I am going to choose to be careful about what I say and how I word things for the families' sake. I just feel I should show them great respect."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189632,00.html

80% of Americans want tougher immigration policy!

Mexican Illegals vs. American Voters

By Tony Blankley

Washington Times

March 30, 2006

It is lucky America has more than two centuries of mostly calm experience with self-government. We are going to need to fall back on that invaluable patrimony if the immigration debate continues as it has started this season. The Senate is attempting to legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public. The Senate Judiciary Committeemen — and probably a majority of the Senate — are convinced that they know that the American people don't know what is best for them.

National polling data could not be more emphatic — and has been so for decades. Gallup Poll (March 27) finds 80 percent of the public wants the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. A Quinnipiac University Poll (March 3) finds 62 percent oppose making it easier for illegals to become citizens (72 percent in that poll don't even want illegals to be permitted to have driver's licenses). Time Magazine's recent poll (Jan. 24-26) found 75 percent favor "major penalties" on employers of illegals, 70 percent believe illegals increase the likelihood of terrorism and 57 percent would use military force at the Mexican-American border.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (March 10-13) found 59 percent opposing a guest-worker proposal, and 71 percent would more likely vote for a congressional candidate who would tighten immigration controls.

An IQ Research poll (March 10) found 92 percent saying that securing the U.S. border should be a top priority of the White House and Congress.

Yet, according to a National Journal survey of Congress, 73 percent of Republican and 77 percent of Democratic congressmen and senators say they would support guest-worker legislation.

I commend to all those presumptuous senators and congressmen the sardonic and wise words of Edmund Burke in his 1792 letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe: "No man will assert seriously, that when people are of a turbulent spirit, the best way to keep them in order is to furnish them with something substantial to complain of." The senators should remember that they are American senators, not Roman proconsuls. Nor is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee some latter-day Praetor Maximus.

But if they would be dictators, it would be nice if they could at least be wise (until such time as the people can electorally forcefully project with a violent pedal thrust their regrettable backsides out of town). It was gut-wrenching (which in my case is a substantial event) to watch the senators prattle on in their idle ignorance concerning the manifold economic benefits that will accrue to the body politic if we can just cram a few million more uneducated illegals into the country. ( I guess ignorance loves company.) Beyond the Senate last week, in a remarkable example of intellectual integrity (in the face of the editorial positions of their newspapers) the chief economic columnists for the New York Times and The Washington Post — Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson, respectively — laid out the sad facts regarding the economics of the matter. Senators, congressmen and Mr. President, please take note.

Regarding the Senate's and the president's guest-worker proposals, The Post's Robert Samuelson writes: "Gosh, they're all bad ideas ... We'd be importing poverty. This isn't because these immigrants aren't hardworking, many are. Nor is it because they don't assimilate, many do. But they generally don't go home, assimilation is slow and the ranks of the poor are constantly replenished ... [It] is a conscious policy of creating poverty in the United States while relieving it in Mexico ... The most lunatic notion is that admitting more poor Latino workers would ease the labor market strains of retiring baby boomers ? Far from softening the social problems of an aging society, more poor immigrants might aggravate them by pitting older retirees against younger Hispanics for limited government benefits ... [Moreover], [i]t's a myth that the U.S. economy 'needs' more poor immigrants.

"The illegal immigrants already here represent only about 4.9 percent of the labor force." (For all Mr. Samuelson's supporting statistics, see his Washington Post column of March 22, from which this is taken.) Likewise, a few days later, the very liberal and often partisan Paul Krugman of the New York Times courageously wrote : "Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the [government] benefits they receive ? As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, 'We wanted a labor force, but human beings came.' " Mr. Krugman also observed — citing a leading Harvard study — "that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants 'do jobs that Americans will not do.' The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants." Thusly do the two leading economic writers for the nation's two leading liberal newspapers summarily debunk the economic underpinning of the president's and the Senate's immigration proposals.

Under such circumstances, advocates of guest-worker/amnesty bills will find it frustratingly hard to defend their arrogant plans by their preferred tactic of slandering those who disagree with them as racist, nativist and xenophobic.

When the slandered ones include not only The Washington Post and the New York Times, but about 70 percent of the public, it is not only bad manners, but bad politics.

The public demand to protect our borders will triumph sooner or later. And, the more brazen the opposing politicians, the sooner will come the triumph.

So legislate on, you proud and foolish senators — and hasten your political demise.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21851

VIVA MEXICO!

They know how to treat illegal immigrants!

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) --

Mexico's federal Human Rights Commission acknowledged on Wednesday that the country uses some of the same methods in dealing with illegal migrants that it has criticized the United States for employing.

The admission comes as Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez called on Latin American countries to unite against a U.S. House of Representatives bill to toughen border enforcement.

The bill, which passed on Friday with a 239-182 vote, would make illegal entry a felony, and enlist military and local police to help stop illegal entrants.
But officials of Mexico's federal Human Rights Commission acknowledged that Mexico already employs both tactics in its own territory.

"As a matter of fact, (Mexico's) population law does include prison terms for illegally entering the country ... and this is something that has been the subject of constant complaints," said Mauricio Farah, a national inspector for the rights commission.

Jose Luis Soberanes, president of the rights commission, said that Mexico also uses many government agencies, such as the police and the military, to detain undocumented migrants, even though Mexican law technically doesn't allow that.
"One of the saddest national failings on immigration issues," Soberanes told a news conference, "is the contradiction in demanding that the North (the United States) respect migrants' rights, which we are not capable of guaranteeing in the South," along Mexico's border with Guatemala.

But Soberanes slammed another provision of the U.S. immigration bill that would build 700 miles of additional fences or walls along the U.S.-Mexico border, calling it "absurd."

Derbez said in a news conference that Mexico has asked several governments in the region to denounce the fence proposal.

Many Mexicans, especially those who have worked in the United States, feel the proposal is a slap in the face to those who contribute to the U.S. economy.

Amnesty International's Mexico office said earlier in statement that a border wall would be "a historic setback for human rights" and "will multiply the loss of life" by making border crossings more dangerous.

The commission also acknowledged that Mexico mistreats many migrants — mostly Central Americans who cross Mexico in a bid to reach the United States — and called for improvement on that front.

The human rights commission also presented a report on Wednesday that found overcrowding and bad conditions at about three-quarters of Mexico's 51 immigration detention centers and 68 other holding facilities.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/12/21/international/i183134S63.DTL

Needed: A Muslim Martin Luther. Please Apply Within

I have been thinking along these lines too.

A Muslim Reformation is long past due.

I wish the Austrian-Iraqi Association for Development the best of luck!

In January 2006, the Austrian-Iraqi Association for Development held its first conference on extremism and terrorism around the world, in Vienna. The conference was attended by Arab, Muslim and European researchers, intellectuals and diplomats. In the closing statement, the participants made the following recommendations: to present the humane and rational side of Islam which calls for co-existence and acceptance of the other; to condemn all forms of violence and terrorism; to promote dialogue and cooperation among all the world's cultures; and to call upon religious scholars to halt the spread of extremism. The participants also emphasized the Palestinian people's right to an independent state, and called to consolidate Iraqi national unity based on citizenship, democracy, and peaceful co-existence between all sectors of Iraqi society, while preserving the country's Arab and Islamic character.

The Conclusion:

"If the Muslims are serious about presenting the radiant face of Islam, they must drop this false, hollow arrogance, and acknowledge their dark past and their even darker present. They must establish a global judiciary council whose function will be to punish any sheikh that issues a fatwa encouraging or permitting violence - whether physical or ideological... They must also re-interpret the Koran, putting the warlike verses - the verse of the sword and similar hadiths - in historical perspective as verses that are no longer valid... Perhaps they should take an example from those who follow the Koran alone and do away with all the hadiths and with the sunna..."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP112806

"I don't need no stinking passport, Amigo!"

Right Wing News

March 30, 2006

Answering 13 Frequently Asked Questions About Illegal Immigration

The article concludes:

If we properly staff our border patrols, build a wall, use sensors, remote controlled drones, and radar stations, we can slow the raging flood of illegal aliens coming over our border down to a trickle. It's not "impossible," in fact, it probably wouldn't even be all that difficult, we just haven't made an effort.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_03_26.PHP#005455

Don't Do Business With Walden Books!

Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited.

"What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression," said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. "Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy."

Bingham said the decision was made before the magazine arrived at the company's stores. Borders Group, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., operates more than 475 Borders and 650 Waldenbooks stores in the United States, though not all regularly carry the magazine.

"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

The cartoons, which were reprinted in European and American papers in January and February, sparked a wave of protests around the Islamic world. Protesters were killed in some of the most violent demonstrations and several European embassies were attacked.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/03/29/national/a163611S00.DTL&type=printable

New York University Surrenders To Muhammed

NEW YORK, March 29, 2006—In violation of its own policies, New York University (NYU) is refusing to allow a student group to show the Danish cartoons of Mohammed at a public event tonight. Even though the purpose of the event is to show and discuss the cartoons, an administrator has suddenly ordered the students either not to display them or to exclude 150 off-campus guests from attending. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is urging NYU’s president to reverse course and stand up for freedom of speech.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010789.php

Rape Is Okay Under Islam

On the topic of rape:

You cant show me an islamic sharia law legal source where rape is considered an across the board illegal act. It doesnt exist. It doesnt exist in the quran therefor making such a declaration would be bid'a. The concept of 'rape is rape' doesnt exist in islam.

From: Islamic Twisted Logic

http://islamreview.blogspot.com/

Raving Leftist Moonbat Congresswoman In Action

FOX NEWS:

According to the sources, McKinney was walking into the building at about 2:30 p.m. EST and went around the metal detector, which is customary for lawmakers. The police officer apparently did not recognize McKinney and asked her to stop and walk through the metal detector. McKinney ignored the officer's requests more than once, the sources said, and the officer placed his hand on McKinney's shoulder.

The sources said that McKinney then turned around and hit the officer in the chest with her cell phone.

McKinney has refused to respond to reporter's questions, but sources tell FOX News that McKinney is telling people close to her that she merely bumped into the officer, and that she did not strike him.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004872.htm

Smiling on the outside.... Crying on the Inside.

U.S. Muslim Gets 30 Years for Plot to Assassinate President Bush

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — American Muslim was sentenced Wednesday to 30 years in prison for joining Al Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President Bush.

Prosecutors had asked for the maximum — a life sentence — for Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen who was born to a Jordanian father and raised in Falls Church, Va.
"The facts of this case are still astonishing," prosecutor David Laufman said. "Barely a year after Sept. 11 the defendant joined the organization responsible for 3,000 deaths."

But U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee said 30 years was sufficient punishment. He compared the Abu Ali case to "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, who received a 20-year sentence.

Abu Ali's actions "did not result in one single actual victim. That fact must be taken into account," the judge said.

Abu Ali, wearing a green prison jumpsuit, declined to speak before his sentence was imposed. Defense lawyers said they plan to appeal.

Prosecutors said Abu Ali traveled to Saudi Arabia and joined Al Qaeda out of hatred for the United States. The Saudis arrested Abu Ali in June 2003 as he was taking final exams at the Islamic University of Medina.

Ali was convicted in November of conspiracy to assassinate the president, conspiracy to hijack aircraft and providing support to Al Qaeda, among other crimes. The charges carried a mandatory sentence of at least 20 years behind bars.

Abu Ali gave the Saudis a statement in which he said that he joined Al Qaeda and discussed with some of the most senior Al Qaeda members terror plots, including Bush's assassination, and plans to establish an Al Qaeda terror cell in the U.S.

He claimed that the Saudis had extracted a confession from him through torture. Prosecutors denied he was mistreated.

Abu Ali said he had the scars on his back that proved he was whipped or beaten by the Saudis. Pictures were taken of his back, and doctors for both the government and the defense examined him, coming to different conclusions.

The jury in the three-week trial saw a videotaped confession Abu Ali gave to the Saudis in which he said he joined Al Qaeda because he hated the United States for its support of Israel.
In February, defense lawyers asked for a review of the conviction in light of the disclosure that the Bush administration had eavesdropped on suspected terrorists' conversations without search warrants. Abu Ali's lawyers said they suspected, but had no firm evidence, that Abu Ali had been a target of the surveillance program.

The government's response was not made public, but the judge decided to go ahead with the sentencing after receiving it.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,189535,00.html

Lying is Okay for Muslims: It's In The Hadith!

Honest Muslim Terrorist Moussaoui Explains Islamic Law To The Court:

He seemed to enjoy telling his war stories and explaining Islamic law. He professed that he used the alias "Shaquille" because it is a Muslim name, but also because of "Shaquille O'Neal the basketball player." He said Islam allows lying in three instances: in jihad, to bring reconciliation between Muslims, and in marriage, "if a wife asks her husband, 'Am I beautiful?' and she is 60 years old."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701449.html

Indeed, the Hadith reads:

Humaid b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Auf reported that his mother Umm Kulthum daughter of 'Uqba b. Abu Mu'ait, and she was one amongst the first emigrants who pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him), as saying that she heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries to bring reconciliation amongst people and speaks good (in order to avert dispute), or he conveys good. Ibn Shihab said he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them). (Sahih Muslim book 32, no. 6303)

More:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010779.php

Two Can Play At This Game: Patriot Day is April 19th

I join millions of Americans who were shocked and outraged by the anti-USA and pro-Mexico mass demonstrations by many thousands of Mexican-Americans and illegal immigrants from Mexico. These demonstration didn't just happen out of the blue, but were organized by Spanish language radio stations as a protest against sanctions being placed on illegal aliens in the USA. This entire sorry affair smells of treason against the United States of America and is a slap to the face of any loyal American citizen of any ethnic background.

I say an effective way to a respond to the disloyal and criminal among us in real time is to do to them what they did to us in reverse: A national USA counter demonstration of patriotism and loyalty to the Republic.

So Let national conservative Talk Radio personalities -- such as Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- organize these counter demonstrations timed to occur on this year's Patriots' Day celebration on April 19th; let the streets be flooded with millions of Americans proudly carrying Old Glory; let the parks be filled with orators denouncing the lack of security at our borders and the army of parasites camped illegally in our country; let our Congress be forced to pass the legislation necessary to secure our borders.

In short, let treason be destroyed by the righteous anger of the American People!

Spanish Media Organized Nationwide Mass Protests

(AP) LOS ANGELES The marching orders were clear: Carry American flags and pack the kids, pick up your trash and wear white for peace and for effect.

Many of the 500,000 people who crammed downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to protest legislation that would make criminals out of illegal immigrants learned where, when and even how to demonstrate from the Spanish-language media.

For English-speaking America, the mass protests in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities over the past few days have been surprising for their size and seeming spontaneity.
But they were organized, promoted or publicized for weeks by Spanish-language radio hosts and TV anchors as a demonstration of Hispanic pride and power.

In Milwaukee, where at least 10,000 people rallied last week, one radio station manager called some employers to ask that they not fire protesters for skipping work. In Chicago, a demonstration that drew 100,000 people received coverage on local television more than a week in advance.

"This was a much bigger story for the Latino media," said Felix Gutierrez, a professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication. "If the mainstream media had been paying better attention, there would not have been the surprise about the turnout."

Adrian Velasco first learned of House legislation to overhaul immigration policy on Los Angeles' Que Buena 105.5 FM. Over two weeks, the 30-year-old illegal immigrant soaked up details about the planned march against the bill from Hispanic TV and radio. On Saturday, he and three friends headed downtown.

"They told all the Hispanic people to go and support these things," Velasco said. "They explained a lot. They said, 'Here's what we're going to do."'
One of those doing the most talking was El Piolin, a syndicated morning show radio host who is broadcast in 20 cities.

El Piolin, whose real name is Eduardo Sotelo and whose nickname means "Tweety Bird," persuaded colleagues from 11 Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles to talk up the rally on air.

He said he devised the idea of telling protesters to wear white and carry flags to symbolize their peaceful intent and love of the United States. He also urged parents to bring their children to minimize chances of violence and reminded everyone to bring plenty of water and trash bags.

"I was talking about how we need to be united to demonstrate that we're not bad guys and we're not criminals," said Sotelo, 35, who crossed into the United States as a teenager and became legal in 1996.

In Milwaukee, the Spanish-language station WDDW 104.7 made a point of publicizing the House legislation and the protest against it on its morning and drive-time shows two weeks ahead of time.

Operations manager Armando Ulloa said his goal was at least 10,000 people -- and police estimated that was what the rally attracted. After the march, Ulloa said, he called some employers and asked them to be lenient on protesters who missed their shifts.

In Los Angeles, 10 prime-time Spanish-language news anchors filmed a promotion urging demonstrators to show respect, said Julio Cesar Ortiz, a television reporter who covers immigration.

"The Spanish media said, 'Do it in a proper way. Do it in a way where's there's pride behind it when you're done,"' Ortiz said.

Telemundo Chicago, a Spanish-language TV station, began its coverage blitz 1 1/2 weeks before a recent rally, though there was no urging that viewers attend, said news director Esteban Creste.

"We just told them what was going on," Creste said. "While we were not trying to mobilize people, it might have prompted people to decide to go there."

The protests continued Tuesday in at least four states, with thousands of students leaving school again in California, Arizona, Texas and Nevada.

In Los Angeles, the numbers were far smaller than the tens of thousands who marched Monday. Authorities thwarted efforts to block freeway traffic, rounding up some youngsters and issuing truancy citations.

In Phoenix, students marched to the state Capitol for the second day in a row. In Las Vegas, they rallied near the Strip after being directed away from casinos.

And in Dallas, students crowded in front of City Hall, waving Mexican and Salvadoran flags and shouting "We can do it" in Spanish.

The protests jammed roads. A Dallas school district spokesman said a girl's hand was severed when the sport utility vehicle she was in sped into an intersection and overturned.

http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_087231321.html

Patriot's Day April 19th

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot

The Republic Turned Upside Down

I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington. The image of the American flag subsumed to another and turned upside down on

American soil is already spreading on Internet forums and via e-mail.

The battle for borders and immigration laws that actually mean something, however, hasn't even begun.

--Malkin

Follow the links below for the real story and more pictures:
http://www.michellemalkin.com/

The Islamic Threat Is Greater Than German and Soviet Threats

The Islamic threat is greater than German and Soviet threats were

By Dennis Prager

Mar 28, 2006

Only four types of individuals can deny the threat to civilization posed by the violence-supporting segment of Islam: the willfully naive, America-haters, Jew-haters and those afraid to confront evil.

Anyone else sees the contemporary reality -- the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan; the widespread Muslim theological and emotional support for the killing of a Muslim who converts to another religion; the absence of freedom in Muslim-majority countries; the widespread support for Palestinians who randomly murder Israelis; the primitive state in which women are kept in many Muslim countries; the celebration of death; the "honor killings" of daughters; and so much else that is terrible in significant parts of the Muslim world -- knows that civilized humanity has a new evil to fight.

Just as previous generations had to fight Nazism, communism and fascism, our generation has to confront militant Islam.

And whereas there were unique aspects to those evils, there are two unique aspects to the evil emanating from the Islamic world that render this latest threat to humanity particularly difficult to overcome.

One is the number of people who believe in it. This is a new phenomenon among organized evils. Far fewer people believed in Nazism or in communism than believe in Islam generally or in authoritarian Islam specifically. There are one billion Muslims in the world. If just 10 percent believe in the Islam of Hamas, the Taliban, the Sudanese regime, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, bin Ladin, Islamic Jihad, the Finley Park Mosque in London or Hizbollah -- and it is inconceivable that only one of 10 Muslims supports any of these groups' ideologies -- that means a true believing enemy of at least 100 million people. Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism? Outside of Japan, who believed in Japanese imperialism and militarism? And outside of universities, the arts world or Hollywood, how many people believed in Soviet-style totalitarianism?

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones.

But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.

The existence of an unprecedentedly large number of people wishing to destroy decent civilization as we know it -- and who celebrate their own deaths -- poses a threat the likes of which no civilization in history has had to confront.

The evils committed by Nazism and Communism were, of course, greater than those committed by radical Islam. There has been no Muslim Gulag and no Muslim Auschwitz.
But the threat is far more serious.

Dennis Prager is a radio talk show host, author, and contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

LINK:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/03/28/191502.html

The Same Old Saddam: Even In Prison

Al-Fayhaa TV Hoax: A Telephone Interview from Jail with Saddam Hussein Following are excerpts from an Al-Fayhaa TV hoax. The station faked an interview with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.The interview was aired on Al-Fayhaa TV on March 28, 2006.

Saddam Hussein: All 'Izzat Al-Duri ever wanted was to address the Iraqis as their leader, even if just for a few short minutes. Everybody remembers that he once addressed the Iraqi Women's Union without my knowledge. Do you know what I did to him?

Interviewer: We don't know. Tell us.

See Link Below for video and transcript:

http://www.memritv.org/#

Questions for Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

THE ANSWERS ARE ALL "YES" - ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF VIOLENCE!

Issues & InsightsReligion Of Peace?Posted 3/27/2006

War On Terror: In the wake of the cartoon jihad and mosque-on-mosque violence in Iraq, most Americans now think Islam has more violent believers than any other faith. Yet many still view it as a "peaceful religion."

Psychologists might call this cognitive dissonance — a state of mind where rational people essentially lie to themselves. But in this case, it's understandable. In our politically correct culture, criticizing any religion, even one that plots our destruction, is still taboo. And no one wants to suggest the terrorists are driven by their holy text.

Which explains a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that Americans are becoming more aware of the broader threat (58% associate terrorists with Islam), but are still convinced terrorists are radicalizing Islam and not the other way around (54% don't think Islam itself encourages violence).

The new poll, however, still doesn't sit well with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group dedicated to improving public perceptions of Islam. It has denounced increasingly negative views as "Islamophobic" and vowed to redouble its "education" efforts.
Good. What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?

Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists' ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:

Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?

Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?

Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

There are other questions, but these should do for a start. If the answers are "yes," then at least Americans will know there's no such thing as moderate Islam, even as they trust that there are moderate Muslims who do not act out on its violent commands.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=3&issue=20060327

The Holy Muslim City of Liverpool

Another heart warming story from the "Religion of Peace" -- It would appear that a pair of Oscar fish will become objects of Muslim worship.

One wonders when the shrine will be built for the lucky fish couple? I understand that Saudi Arabia has uncounted billions available for such awesome projects of faith. Perhaps in time Liverpool will become the Mecca of Europe.

Meanwhile scores of Muslim pilgrims make their way to the soon-to-be Holy Muslim City.

Muslim worshippers are flocking to see a pair of fish in the British city of Liverpool which appear to bear the words "Allah" and "Mohammed", their owner said.

Ali Al-Waqedi, 23, who hailed the colored Oscar fish as a "message from God," said he had loaned them to a friend whose house was close to the local mosque so that worshippers could visit more easily.

"I would say at least one hundred people have been there since I bought the fish last week," Waqedi said.

Sheikh Sadek Kassem, imam of Liverpool's Al-Rahma mosque, said: "This is a proof and a sign not just to Muslims, but for everyone."

He quoted a passage from the Koran which suggested Allah will send signs. It reads: "Soon we will show them our signs in the regions, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the truth."

Waqedi said he went into a local pet shop to show his children the animals but he had not been planning to buy anything.

"We started to have a look at the Oscar fish because they had such an unusual colour. Then I saw that one of them had the word Allah. It was so clear, and it made me very happy," he said.
"Then we saw that another one had the word Mohammed, and that was even better. To see the Allah fish was exciting, but to have the Allah and Mohammed fish in the same tank was unbelievable."

Allah is the word for God in Arabic and Mohammed is the prophet who received the word of God, the Koran, through the angel Gabriel.

"I believe it is a message from Allah to me, a reminder, and it makes my faith even stronger," Waqedi said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060327/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionislam_060327195144

* No picture yet available of the sacred fish couple.

Barking Leftist Moonbats And The Global Warming Scare Again!

Yet another attempt by Barking Leftists Moonbats to scare the hell out of the public with junk science designed to curb technology progress.

The Doctor of Democracy, Rush Limbaugh, has the real story as usual.

RUSH: AP story. The headline here: "A Global Temperature Could Rise Eight Degrees By 2100." (Gasp!) "About 130,000 years ago, an ice age ended and there was a period of few centuries before the next one began. During this lull, Earth's temperature warmed, glaciers retreated and ice sheets melted. Sea levels rose by up to 20 feet. Scientists warn that this could happen again — and soon. But while the last great thaw was the result of a natural tilt in the Earth's axis towards the Sun, the next one will be caused by humans, some scientists argue."

The fact that the last warming of the earth was caused by a natural tilt in the earth's axis towards the sun is largely lost in this piece-of-garbage article. It's noted. I'll give them credit for noting it, but here's what the political article does not -- and this is not an economic or a "climate" article. The point is, this is a political article. It's purely politics. Any time somebody is going to add in, "This time the warning is not due to anything other than man. Nothing other than human beings are responsible." Well, that takes this out of the realm of science and puts it purely in the realm of politics -- and that's all global warming is, is a political issue.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032406/content/global_warming_update.guest.html

The Good News And Bad News About The Rahman Affair

KABUL, Afghanistan — A court on Sunday dismissed the case against an Afghan man facing possible execution for converting from Islam to Christianity, officials said, paving the way for his release.

The move eased pressure from the West but raised the dilemma of protecting Abdul Rahman after his release as Islamic clerics have called for him to be killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189131,00.html

Robert Tracinski commented on Friday:

Introducing a role for Islamic Sharia law, while also affirming religious freedom -- the ambiguity in both the Iraqi and Afghan constitutions -- was meant to evade the necessity for a head-on clash between Islam and secularism. The idea, apparently, was to delay a final choice between freedom and theocracy, in the hope that "moderate Muslims" would come to power and champion a liberal "interpretation" of Sharia. The article below spells out the result: from the beginning, Afghanistan has been convulsed by a series of rancorous conflicts between the more-liberal (and America-dependent) government of Hamid Karzai and Islamist judges, resulting in a series of blasphemy prosecutions that have been dropped or reversed by Karzai at the last minute, under Western pressure.

Remember the old adage about how a coward dies a thousand deaths? Similarly, in seeking to evade one big conflict, the pragmatist guarantees a thousand smaller, endlessly repeating conflicts later on.

http://www.tiadaily.com/

The National Review article recommended by Tracinski: Sharia Calling by Nina Shea.

Rahman is not the only case where execution has been threatened over beliefs and ideas in the new Afghanistan. Last year, an Afghan journalist who argued against the heresy law was found guilty of it, and escaped death after international pressure. Before then, a female cabinet member was charged with blasphemy for criticizing Islamic law, but was also spared after international protest erupted. Other journalists were imprisoned for blasphemy after debating the compatibility of sharia law with democracy, but then quietly allowed to leave the country. It is even reported that other Christian converts are in prison there but not much is known about them. The administration needs to rescue Rahman as he is determined not to be found “innocent” as Undersecretary Burns had hoped.

But this is about more than Mr. Rahman. This will be a persistent, recurring problem under Afghanistan’s sharia apostasy and blasphemy laws. The administration also needs to do more to ensure the reform Afghanistan’s judiciary. President Karzai must be encouraged to wrest it from the control of Islamists like Supreme Court Chief Justice Fazl Hadi Shinwari, who once told our National Public Radio that it is his duty as a judge to “behead” those who do not conform to Islamic law. Americans continue to give billions of dollars, and sacrifice their lives to support the Afghan government. It not only serves compelling humanitarian interests to use this leverage now, but it would be a betrayal of America’s deepest national values not to.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/shea200603240704.asp

March For Free Expression in London

March for Free Expression in London on March 25, 2006 --

The march is over, unfortuantely I wasn't able to attend but congrats to all the people who did (click the pics for full size images) :

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/03/march-for-free-expression.html

http://www.thatshot.org/march_for_free_expression_london.html

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/03/beware-thought-police.html

Abdul Rahman and the Future of Shari'a

Interesting article whose thesis is that Rahman Affair may prove to be a turning point in the separation of Mosque and State in the Muslim World.

March 24, 2006

Abdul Rahman and the Future of Shari'a

By Jay Bryant

The case of the Afghani morisco Abdul Rahman is being misinterpreted by many as suggesting the hopelessness of attempting to build civil societies in the Muslim world. If Afghanistan, generally seen as the policy's success story (as opposed to Iraq), is still going to execute a man like Rahman after we've kicked out the bad guys, the argument goes, what is the point of it all?

It's a serious argument, and a serious point. But we need to get past it, because, oddly enough, the Rahman case in fact represents progress. It has caused an uproar in the West. It has focused attention on the problem with the radical Islamic law code, shari'a. It has embarrassed moderate Muslims, and widened the gap between them and the radicals in their midst. It makes it more difficult for the moderates to do nothing about the problem.

In the end, Rahman himself will probably get off on some sort of technicality, such as finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. Critics will be outraged at such a verdict, but both their outrage and the verdict itself will be constructive.

What the case allows the West, and the moderates, to do is to give a name to the enemy, and the name is shari'a. Many Muslim nations have civil societies that are not run on the basis of shari'a, and historically, many others have been absolute models of tolerance - the Ummayad dynasty in Spain, for example, and the Abassids who founded the city of Baghdad. Both, in their day, were centers of learning that drew, and welcomed, scholars from Christendom as well as Islamia. And both, by the way, were overthrown by more radical Islamic movements - not by Christians.

The question thus becomes, which way is the current trend trending? In many ways, it seems the moderate Islamic states are on the defensive against the radicals. The Rahman case, by publicizing the most odious side of shari'a, will ultimately help move the trend in the right direction. Either the man will be martyred, or the authorities will have to back down. And if they back down, it will be clear that they, and the forces of radicalism and repression, have suffered a defeat.

There remains the question of the commitment of the West in midwifing civil society in those parts of Islamia where it does not now exist. The strength of that commitment will determine the length of time it takes to get the job done. If the West is resolute, a time frame of several decades may suffice - something comparable in duration to the Cold War, which has been the model for the Bush administration's commitment to the process ever since the days immediately following 9/11.

But if the West loses stomach - if the violence in Iraq and incidents like the Rahman case are interpreted wrongly, then we are potentially talking not about decades, but centuries.
The execution of Jesus of Nazareth is thought to have occurred in the year 33. The Prophet Mohammed died, by all accounts, in the year 632.

A lot can happen in 600 years. In those particular six centuries, for example, the Roman Empire, which had barely risen by 33 - Jesus was a younger contemporary of its founder, Augustus Caesar - fell into nonexistence in the west some two hundred years prior to 632.
Let's think about 600 years another way. Six hundred years ago, in 1405, Christendom had still to enter its Shari'a phase; the Spanish Inquisition wasn't founded until 1478. It lasted 348 years. A Valencia schoolteacher named Cayetano Ripoli has the honor of being the last person executed by the Spanish Inquisition. He was garroted in 1826 for poisioning his students minds with Deism. Estimates of the total number of people killed by the Inquisition vary enormously, and partly hinge on the question of whether you should count those who died in prison or just those actually sentenced and executed. A media number of about 32,000 has been recently suggested by some scholars.

While there may have been some people executed for convereting from Christianity to some other religion, the vast bulk of the early executions were of Jews and Muslims who had legally converted to Christianity, but whose sincerity in doing so was questioned - no doubt accurately in many cases.

The man most responsible for finally ending the Inquisition was Napoleon. He accomplished the feat by force of arms, but the Inquisition, by his day, was a mere shadow of what it had been in the time of Torquemada.

Ultimately, shari'a will suffer the same fate. The vast forces of history do indeed trend in that direction, however haltingly. How long it takes for the replacement of shari'a law with civil law remains to be seen, but the opportunity to hasten the process is alive and well now, if we have the courage and skill to seize it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/abdul_rahman_and_the_future_of.html

American Jihadist's Letter To Law Enforcement

The actions of this Muslim American speaks volumes for the need to consider all Muslims likely terrorists who should be closely watched by Homeland Security.

Of course, the most logical action by law enforcement in this country would be making mass arrests of all potential Jihadists and sending them back to their country of origin, or detention in concentration camps in the USA for the duration of the Global War On Terrorism.

It should be noted that Azar was simply following the dictates of the Koran.

Mohammed Taheri-Azar's letter to police:

The Herald-Sun

March 24, 2006

This is a transcript of the letter Mohammed Taheri-Azar left in his apartment for police to find after he drove into nine people with an SUV in The Pit at UNC on March 3:
In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.

To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.

I did intend to use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at the present, most likely due to my foreign nationality.

I am a servant of Allah. I am 22 years of age and I was born in Tehran, Iran. My father, mother and older sister immigrated to the United States in 1985 when I was two years of age and I've lived in the United States ever since.

I attended elementary, middle and high school in North Carolina and I was accepted into the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I began my college career in August 2001 and graduated in December 2005 with a bachelor's degree in psychology and philosophy with Allah's help.

I do not wish to pursue my career as a student any further because I have no desire to amass the impermanent and temporary fame and material wealth this world has to offer. However I made the decision to continue my studies and to graduate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so that the world will know that Allah's servants are very intelligent.

Due to the killing of believing men and women under the direction of the United States government, I have decided to take advantage of my presence on United States soil on Friday, March 3, 2006 to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world.

In the Qur'an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women. I know that the Qur'an is a legitimate and authoritative holy scripture since it is completely validated by modern science and also mathematically encoded with the number 19 beyond human ability. After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.

I have chosen the particular location on the University campus as my target since I know there is a high likelihood that I will kill several people before being killed myself or jailed and sent to prison if Allah wills. Allah's commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah's commandments must be obeyed. Those who violate Allah's commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah's will.

Sincerely yours,

Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar

http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-716750.html

Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda

Jawbreaker

Review by David Forsmark

FrontPageMagazine.com

March 24, 2006

Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA’s Key Field Commander By Gary Berntsen and Ralph Pezzullo Crown, $25.95, 328pp. Review by David Forsmark


The first thing you notice about Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA’s Key Field Commander is the big red starburst on the cover that proclaims, "THE BOOK THE CIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO READ!"

And if you're unaware of the way in which a significant wing of the Agency has been working to undermine the Bush administration, the first thing you will wonder when you finish the book is, "Why didn’t the CIA want me to read that book?"

Simply put, the tale of Operation Jawbreaker is the most positive story about the CIA in its nearly 60-year history.

Back in the days of Philip Agee and other traitorous or anti-American writers who exposed the "evils" of the CIA by revealing secrets and sources, it was obvious why the CIA would not want a book to be read. But Jawbreaker tells, in thrilling fashion, the story of what may be the CIA’s greatest triumph -- the joint operation of CIA paramilitary groups and military Special Forces that toppled the Taliban and put Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar on the run. Why wouldn’t the CIA want that story told?

The CIA signed off on the publication of Imperial Hubris:Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, in which Michael Scheuer (writing as "Anonymous" while still with the CIA) savaged President Bush in the heat of the 2004 election season. But author Gary Berntsen had to sue to get Jawbreaker approved, and even then portions -- large and small, significant and ridiculous -- are redacted by a CIA censor who seems determined to be intrusive only because he can. Face it, can it really matter if we know what kind of airplane the team investigating al-Qaeda's embassy bombing in Tanzania few in?

Judging this book by its cover, you might think Jawbreaker is just another Bush-bashing book about the "failure" of the war on terror. The good news is that liberals who read the whole book will find themselves with an education rather than the mental masturbation they are seeking.

The increasingly strange Michael Scheuer takes a break from spinning Zionist conspiracy theories to offer this hysterical blurb on the back of the dust jacket: "Read this heartbreaking book, keep it safe, and reread it after al-Qaeda detonates a nuclear device in America. You will then know who signed the death warrant for tens of thousands of your countrymen."

Sure, Mike, I’ll put it in the bomb shelter right behind the canned food and bottled water.

The biggest problem many in the CIA might have with Jawbreaker is that Berntsen, the CIA’s key field commander in Afghanistan, may be too complimentary of President George W. Bush.

Consider: Not only did the Agency approve the unprecedented publication of Imperial Hubris, but it also sent Joe Wilson, a John Kerry supporter, on a mission to Niger to investigate a key claim made by the White House about Iraq's attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

Wilson then became a media darling by falsifying the results of his half-baked investigation and essentially calling Bush a liar — while implying that Vice President Dick Cheney chose him for the mission. Next, the CIA demanded a Justice Department investigation when someone defending the administration noted that Wilson’s wife recommended him for the job, not Cheney. The Agency claimed Mrs. Wilson — AKA Valerie Plame — was an undercover CIA operative, whose exposure was a criminal act.

If being married to a public figure who calls attention to himself by attacking the president under false pretenses and using a CIA mission to do it is what the Agency calls "cover," that might explain a lot about the Agency’s inadequacies in the past 30 years.

Another indication that a hidden agenda is at work in what the CIA approves for publication is the fact that Gary Schroen's First In: An Insider's Account of How the CIA Spearheaded the War on Terror in Afghanistan sailed through the censorship process. First In is far more focused than Jawbreaker on settling bureaucratic scores and criticism of the Defense Department in favor of the CIA brass. With considerable sly humor, Berntsen corrects Schroen's account in several instances.

Berntsen opens his book with a warning that 90 percent of thrillers get the CIA and intelligence work exactly wrong. But he later sounds an awful lot like a Vince Flynn hero when he briefs his gung-ho crew in Afghanistan:

"We can’t unhook ourselves from NA [Northern Alliance] intel, just because you want to go to the front and start shooting guys in the head. Besides, we’re not going to win this war by killing guys one by one. There are only a few of us, so we have to use intel to identify large elements of the enemy and kill in the hundreds. If anyone wants a day off each week to go down to the front line and shoot guys, that’s fine. I know some of you live for that sh*t, but that’s not going to win the war."

Hoo-ah!

But before he gets to the point where he’s given the operational freedom under Bush to make such a speech, Berntsen details how the Clinton administration hindered every operation involving Al-Qaeda, offering such comments about the president and his CIA bosses as, "That will never happen, President Clinton doesn’t have it in his DNA to act that boldly," or "Clinton’s contempt for military action coupled with risk aversion on the seventh floor (the DCI’s office) makes it a nonstarter."

Berntsen reveals that, under Clinton and CIA Director George Tenet, aggressive operations officers transferred out of counterterrorism because they knew nothing they proposed would ever come to pass. When Clinton and Tenet claimed they had "declared war on Al-Qaeda," the news was treated with humorous contempt as everyone knew it was mere talk. "Thanks for sharing," was one officer’s response.

On his way to his first mission with the Northern Alliance in early 2000, Berntsen writes, he was enthusiastic: "I considered myself lucky to be living this great adventure in the company of brave men." But Tenet and Clinton pulled the plug on his operation just as two top Al-Qaeda lieutenants were about to be captured, leaving Berntsen disgusted and the Northern Alliance disillusioned.

Berntsen then was transferred to South America, where his station chief specifically warned him not to focus on any counterterrorist activity.

Everything changed after 9/11 and, Berntsen implies, the 2000 election. The complaints about the lack of political will to fight terrorism stopped, as did much of the animus toward the brass. Late in his tour in Afghanistan, while in the midst of a policy dispute on cornering Bin Laden, Berntsen offered a toast that was enthusiastically received by his men: "First a toast to our commander in chief. God bless him for not being afraid to fight."

But the meat of Jawbreaker is not political. This is a thrilling, action-packed, first-rate war memoir about how a handful of CIA paramilitary units combined with a few Special Forces detachments (a little help from the Air Force) toppled a nasty regime by forming an alliance with warlords the naysayers said could never be united. It is in a league with last year’s terrific Shooter and ranks as one of the best first-person narratives of the war against Islamofascism.

The lasting image readers will take from this book is of CIA agents and tribesmen charging on horseback after the devastation of a Daisy Cutter bomb decimates Taliban lines.

While Jawbreaker is being marketed as the story of how bin Laden escaped the American trap, it certainly wasn't as simple and clear cut as Sen. John Kerry’s incessant claims that "We had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora and let him get away" during the 2005 presidential campaign.

Kerry implied bin Laden's capture would have been a slam-dunk with the right determination, and he would have sent troops into the mountains. "George W. Bush outsourced the task of capturing bin Laden to Afghan warlords" was the catchphrase Kerry employed.

While Berntsen disagreed with some parts of the operation, he also shows this to be a wild charge that depends on the ignorance of its audience.

The detailed and exciting account of the four-man CIA team that followed al-Qaeda into the mountains gives us a view of the improbability of introducing large numbers of American troops into the vast area that is one of the most rugged places on Earth. Although he was not as comfortable with the Eastern Alliance forces in the Tora Bora operation as he had been with the Northern Alliance, Berntsen did used them willingly.

Berntsen called for Rangers to block the exits to the Tora Bora area near the Pakistan border in what he admits would have been a "daring" operation. However, he received no support from his CIA superiors, and CENTCOM never answered.

Unlike Scheuer's blurb on the dust jacket that refers to "uniformed bureaucrats masquerading as U.S. generals," Berntsen maintains a positive attitude about most — particularly Gen. Tommy Franks and eventual Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The notable exception is Gen. Dell Daley, who seems to have actively quashed Berntsen’s plan.

Berntsen also does not speculate about his sudden removal from the command of Operation Jawbreaker just as it was wrapping up, but before the bin Laden question was settled. The reader can only speculate that he lobbied a bit too hard and offended a few too many bureaucratic sensibilities.

The readers’ sensibilities are likely to be comforted by the fact that, as George Orwell wrote, "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men [like Gary Berntsen and his team] stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

It should bother us, however, that even after 9/11, softer men can still thwart their ultimate success.

NBC Producer Reamed at Rahman Rally

Another story ignored by the Leftist MSM (The Old Media) that was covered by the Blogsphere (New Media) complete with video.

This is also a story that speaks volumes about the decline of mainstream media news organizations who no longer have a monoploy of the news largely thanks to the Internet.

NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell's producer was given some basic instruction in humanity by conservative commentator Cam Edwards Friday. Mitchell's producer showed up at a rally for Adbul Rahman, the Afghan facing death for leaving Islam, outside the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. The producer was apparently trying to incite anti-Bush quotes from the protesters.

At some point, Edwards gave him an earful that probably won't make the Nightly News, as mainstream media types are inordinately averse to broadcasting uncomplimentary opinions of themselves. Even richly deserved uncomplimentary opinions.

Age of Hooper (The) got video of the exchange, which you can access here. AoH(T) also has photos of the rally. Here's a sample of what Edwards had to say to Mitchell's producer:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/165166.php

http://www.camedwards.com/

http://ageofhooper.blogspot.com/2006/03/abdul-rahman-update-one-installment-of.html

"Hey Bin Laden" & Other Songs Of Jihad

by Patrick Henry

http://www.patrickhenrysongs.com/

Christians Are Insane: A message From Afghanistan

I've just received this Email from the Embassy of Afghanistan in regards to Mr. Rahman who faces death for his conversion from Islam to Christianity. If I read correctly it would appear that Rahman will not be executed after all, but will be judged insane. The logic of this verdict would be that all Christians are insane.

From: Info@embassyofafghanistan

Subject: Re: Fwd: [The Freedom Fighter's Journal] Muslim Clerics Pray For Murder: Enough is Enough, I say

To: ronaldgenebarbour@yahoo.com

Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:20:04 +0000

The Embassy of Afghanistan greatly appreciates public concern about Mr. Abdul Rahman. We have received a significant number of inquiries about his case, which initially involved a civil lawsuit in child custody filed by his family.

Please note that the Government of Afghanistan is fully aware of and pursuing the best ways to resolve his case judicially. It is too early to draw any conclusion about the punishment, and we appreciate public understanding of the sensitivity of religious issues.

The Afghan judicial system is currently evaluating questions raised about the mental fitness of Mr. Rahman, the results of which may end the proceedings. Hence we kindly request that the judicial process be given time to resolve Mr. Rahman case. The Constitution of Afghanistan provides protection for freedom of religion. The Government of Afghanistan will ensure that the constitutional rights of its citizens, international principles, and the due judicial process are respected and implemented.

Muslim Clerics Pray For Murder: Enough is Enough, I say

At Friday prayers in Kabul, Afghanistan the Muslim clerics lead prayers that ask for the murder of an innocent man. The man in question is Abdul Rahman who converted to Christianity 15 years ago and is charged with no other "offense." This is totally unacceptable to civilized nations and people who have spent blood and treasury on behalf of Afghanistan.

What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."

March 24, 2006

Afghan Clerics, in Friday Prayers,

Call for Convert's Execution

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFAKABUL, Afghanistan, March 24 — Afghan clerics used Friday Prayers at mosques across the capital to call for death for an Afghan man who converted to Christianity, despite widespread protest in the West.

As the international pressure on Afghanistan grew, the clerics demanded the execution of the Afghan, Abdul Rahman 41, if he does not convert back to Islam. His conversion 15 years ago was brought to the attention of Afghan authorities as part of a child custody dispute.

The Bush administration and European governments have strongly protested the case as a violation of religious freedom.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reminded a questioner that she has already conveyed the concerns of the United States to Kabul "in the strongest possible terms" and that "we look to a favorable resolution of this case."

"It is a young democracy — I think that's worth saying — but it is a democracy," Ms. Rice said in a question-and-answer session with Mexico's foreign minister, Luis Derbez. "And that is very different than had we had this case come up in the context of the rule of the Taliban."

Mr. Rahman's case has drawn such a strong reaction in Afghanistan because many hard-line clerics believe there is no greater offense than apostasy.

One speaker, Mawlavi Habibullah, told more than a thousand clerics and young people who had gathered in Kabul that "Afghanistan does not have any obligation under international laws."
"The prophet says when somebody changes religion, he must be killed" he said.

He and others demanded that the country's political leaders and judges resist international pressure over the case, placing them squarely at odds with President Hamid Karzai, who has promised to bring democracy to Afghanistan.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told reporters today that she had received assurances from Mr. Karzai in a telephone call that Mr. Rahman would not be sentenced to death, The Associated Press reported.

The case has exposed the contradictions within Afghanistan's constitution, which promises freedom of religion on the one hand, and on the other declares Islam supreme. Secretary Rice acknowledged that problem today, when she observed that "Afghanistan is in its evolutionary state as a democratic state and will have to work to resolve these contradictions as they move forward," she said. "But we've been very clear. The freedom of religion is a fundamental principle of democracy."

Shiekh Asif Muhsini, a Shiite cleric, emphasized that the constitution says, "No law can contradict Islam and the values of the constitution."

The case had fueled feelings among many here of a sense of assault against Islam worldwide, coming after widely publicized cases involving the desecration of the Koran in Guantánamo Bay in 2004 by American soldiers interrogating prisoners and, more recently, cartoons published in Europe of the Prophet Muhammad.

Dr. Mohammad Ayaz Niyazi, an Egyptian educated in Islamic law, who attended one of the gatherings today, said, "There have been serial attacks on the Islamic world recently, starting with insulting the Holy Koran Quran, insulting the prophet of Islam, and now converting to Christianity by an Afghan."

Dr. Niyazi objected to warnings from Italian leaders, who threatened to protest the case by withdrawing from Afghanistan the forces who are part of an international security force here.
"Do your troops come to Afghanistan to incite apostasy?" Dr. Niyazi said. "We thought your troops were here for security."

David Stout contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/24/international/asia/24cnd-convert.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=3eb5e2f7675024d8&hp=&ex=1143262800&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Steyn: Will we stick our necks out for his faith?

By MARK STEYN

Fate conspires to remind us what this war is really about: civilizational confidence. And so history repeats itself: first the farce of the Danish cartoons, and now the tragedy - a man on trial for his life in post-Taliban Afghanistan because he has committed the crime of converting to Christianity.

The cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were deeply offensive to Muslims, and so thousands protested around the world in the usual restrained manner - rioting, torching, killing, etc.
The impending execution of Abdul Rahman for embracing Christianity is, of course, offensive to Westerners, and so around the world we reacted equally violently by issuing blood-curdling threats like that made by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack: "Freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy," he said. "And these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly."

The immediate problem for Abdul Rahman is whether he'll get the chance to "mature" along with Afghan democracy. The president, the Canadian prime minister and the Australian prime minister have all made statements of concern about his fate, and it seems clear that Afghanistan's dapper leader, Hamid Karzai, would like to resolve this issue before his fledgling democracy gets a reputation as just another barbarous Islamist sewer state. There's talk of various artful compromises, such as Rahman being declared unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity on the grounds that (I'm no Islamic jurist so I'm paraphrasing here) anyone who converts from Islam to Christianity must, ipso facto, be nuts.

On the other hand, this "moderate" compromise solution is being rejected by leading theologians. "We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," says Abdul Raoulf of the nation's principal Muslim body, the Afghan Ulama Council. "Cut off his head! We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." Needless to say, Imam Raoulf is one of Afghanistan's leading "moderate" clerics.

For what it's worth, I'm with the Afghan Ulama Council in objecting to the insanity defense. It's not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality. Afghanistan is supposed to be "the good war," the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

As always, we come back to the words of Osama bin Laden: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse." That's really the only issue: The Islamists know our side have tanks and planes, but they have will and faith, and they reckon in a long struggle that's the better bet. Most prominent Western leaders sound way too eager to climb into the weak-horse suit and audition to play the rear end. Consider, for example, the words of the Prince of Wales, speaking a few days ago at al-Azhar University in Cairo, which makes the average Ivy League nuthouse look like a beacon of sanity. Anyway, this is what His Royal Highness had to say to 800 Islamic "scholars":

"The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilized society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."

That's correct. But the reality is that our society pays enormous respect to minorities - President Bush holds a monthlong Ramadan-a-ding-dong at the White House every year. The immediate reaction to the slaughter of 9/11 by Western leaders everywhere was to visit a mosque to demonstrate their great respect for Islam. One party to this dispute is respectful to a fault: after all, to describe the violence perpetrated by Muslims over the Danish cartoons as the "recent ghastly strife" barely passes muster as effete Brit toff understatement.

Unfortunately, what's "precious and sacred" to Islam is its institutional contempt for others. In his book "Islam And The West," Bernard Lewis writes, "The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Quran is 'to command good and forbid evil.' It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid." Or as the Canadian columnist David Warren put it: "We take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him." In that sense, those imams are right, and Karzai's attempts to finesse the issue are, sharia-wise, wrong.

I can understand why the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would rather deal with this through back channels, private assurances from their Afghan counterparts, etc. But the public rhetoric is critical, too. At some point we have to face down a culture in which not only the mob in the street but the highest judges and academics talk like crazies. Abdul Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to, not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet.

What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" - the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. Gen. Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks, and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1070454.php