International Socialist, Communist and U.N. Connections
Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Committee on Un-American Activities, accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.
Out of Nowhere
Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won't find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama's most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as "left-leaning."
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned
This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That's not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks were posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."
It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
Another figure in the CCDS, Leslie Cagan, is an organizer of anti-Iraq War demonstrations through a group called United for Peace and Justice.
Former congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein, an expert on communist activities, said most of the members of the CCDS came out of the CPUSA, where they functioned as stooges of the Soviet Union until the fall of that dictatorship. He said it has "a close working relationship with the Stalinist remnants in the former East Germany, now called the Party of Democratic Socialism…" Romerstein said these were the people who ran the concentration camps and the Communist Party apparatus in East Germany. Romerstein also cited evidence that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks Cagan organized the first meetings to plan opposition to any United States military action against those responsible.
The Nature of the Threat
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..." Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis "was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party] - if not a member..."
In addition to Tidwell's book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis's Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was "deeply troubled" by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama's giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. "At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack's memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis' equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I'm sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside," he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a "socialist realist" who attacked the work of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record "and see if I could do something for them." The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson's contacts were "passed on" to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."
Is "coalition politics" at work in Obama's rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses.
"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."
Obama’s Secret Socialist Connections
Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.
Howard Dean’s Socialist Ties
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."
Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N. One of the claims made against Bolton was that he had yelled at somebody 20 years ago. The allegation was made by a specialist in "recovered memories."
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win,
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list reads like a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups. Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."
Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Cross posted from the TYGRRRR EXPRESS http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/i-dont-cair/#comment-9816
March 19, 2008 at 9:05 am (POLITICS)
I had the pleasure a couple days ago of witnessing a presentation by Attorney Reed Rubenstein on the danger that the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, poses to Western civilization. CAIR is not, as it claims, the “Muslim NAACP.” CAIR is a terrorist organization.
I had suspected this for some time, but the evidence presented by Mr. Rubinstein was overwhelming. I had planned to see his presentation in Atlanta, but I was unable to attend. Luckily, a good friend, Richard Baehr, informed me that he would be in Chicago three days later at the same time as me.
Before getting to the substance of the presentation, a pair of people at the presentation had relevant things to say.
The first gentleman shall remain nameless at his request. There are very few republicans in his neighborhood, and his safety is paramount. He was Barack Obama’s neighbor for several years, and he and Obama chatted about politics many times. While he considers Mr. Obama as “dangerous” for America, he made it crystal clear to me that he would only allow me to publish his comments if I also mentioned that as a human being, he liked Obama very much. I agreed.
He stated that Obama was always polite, gentlemanly, and friendly. Obama never interrupted him when he was speaking, although his wife Michelle did. He found Barack Obama down to Earth, but not Michelle. When offered a $200 credit per child, Ms. Obama sneered at the insignificance of $400 credited back for her two children. For this anonymous man, $600 for his three children was real money. Yet Barack Obama was a pleasant man through their entire interactions. He never got angry, although his wife did.
The statement that Barack Obama made that “chilled” this man was when he stated that “The United States must take a more ‘neutral’ and ‘evenhanded’ view of Israel and the Middle East.” Many do not and cannot understand this, but those are codewords that many see as antisemitic. There is no moral equivalence between the parties. One side is defending its right to exist, and the other side indiscriminately murders civilians.
So Obama is not “dangerous” because he is a bad person. Far from it. He is just naive and uninformed about the dynamics of the conflict. However, this same man made it clear that he wants to go after Obama on issues, which is what I want. He finds attacks on his character, such as the controversy over his middle name, distracting, and wrong.
He did offer one last humorous anecdote about Barack Obama. In 2004 Obama was driving a gas guzzling SUV. After John Kerry got caught driving one, and then trying to pass it off as his wife’s, it hurt his campaign. Two weeks after the Kerry campaign faced this flap, Obama, perhaps by complete coincidence, got rid of his SUV and bought a more environmentally friendly car.
Another person at this presentation in Chicago, as previously stated, was Richard Baehr of American Thinker. Like me, Richard wants to raise the level of political discourse. He is a sound political analyst and a good person, which is why I was troubled when the Daily Kos website took time out to launch a vicious smear against him. They even attacked me as well, although barely. I normally would never link to the Kossacks site, but I want people to see what pure hatred for a good person looks like. Also below is a link to my interview with Richard Baehr.
One comment on that hit piece is my response.
Nevertheless, one reason why men such as Richard Baehr are under attack is because Republican Jews are hated for their religion and their ideology. This hatred is also directed at non-Jewish republicans and Jewish liberals. Many on the far left see real threats where none exist. More importantly, they see no threat where a significant one exists. This brings things back to CAIR.
Reed Rubenstein was the attorney for Andrew Whitehead for the case of CAIR vs Whitehead. A similar case of significance was U.S. vs Holy Land Foundation. Part of Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation included a CD that contained documents in abundance. Mr Rubenstein did not want us to take his word for what he had to say. He challenged the audience in attendance to view every piece of documentary evidence.
He started by pointing out that the (Jayson Blair Times) New York Times, in an article on March 14th, 2007, wrote that “CAIR is partially funded by by donors closely identified with Persian Gulf governments.” The JBT also incorrectly stated that “Chapters of CAIR are franchises.”
The Justice Department sees it differently. Their documents states that “Moreover, from its founding, CAIR conspired with other affilaites of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.”
Additionally, the evidence in the case led Mr. Rubenstein to logically conclude that the National CAIR controls the branches.
The case that led to this lecture began when Andrew Whitehead, a retired military man enraged over 9/11, started a website called “anti-CAIR.”
CAIR then sent Whitehead a cease and desist letter, demanding he take his site down. To his credit, Whitehead refused to back down. He published the letter, and then CAIR sued Whitehead for defamation.
For those who have not figured it out, terrorist organizations try to use America’s tolerant laws against us. Yet in this case, the terrorists have miscalculated. Their strategy worked in Britain because England’s defamation laws put the burden of proof on the defendant. In America the plaintiff must prove their case. The process of discovery allows those accused to turn the tables and bury plaintiffs in document requests.
Mr. Whitehead’s lawyer, Mr. Rubenstein (whose firm took the case pro bono), sent 300 document requests to CAIR, asking for detailed information about every aspect of their operation. CAIR then filed an amended motion for judgment, which dropped most of the claims. The only claims remaining were those that claimed CAIR was a terror supporting front group, and that CAIR sought to overthrow the constitutional government of the United States.
When asked why CAIR quotes directly from the Hamas charter, they stated this was not true. When asked to prove this, CAIR stated that they could not find a single copy of the charter. Apparently CAIR does not know how to use the internet. They also denied that Hamas murdered innocent civilians, and that it was a “foreign jurisdictional issue.”
When CAIR is faced with a motion to compel them to produce more documents linking them to terrorism, they quickly decide to settle the case. Mr. Whitehead’s website is allowed to stay up, and he is not required to apologize for or retract any of his comments. It was a victory for Andrew Whitehead and a defeat for CAIR.
So what did the case turn up that CAIR is so desperate to keep out of court?
CAIR was set up as a cell of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have been intertwined with the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is closely allied with the Muslim Student Association. The Holy Land Foundation played a key role. CAIR encouraged people to donate to the HLF. The HLF then sent the money to Hamas.
The IAP has since been shut down, and the HLF was shut down after 9/11. CAIR handled the media, law, and politics. The IAP were the public relations people, handling education and organizing. The HLF were the money people, bankrolling the organizations. These organizations all have logos with crossed swords, not typical of groups truly committed to peaceful activities.
CAIR has top level people who have expressed that “The loss of Palestine in 1948 is second only to the loss of the Caliphate.” The rationale for CAIR was expressed in October of 1993, that being to “advance the brotherhood agenda, reduce Jewish influence, and mobilize all Muslims to join in anti-Israel activity.” On June 12th, 1995, a New Republic article described a meeting where a young holy warrior asked for a legal ruling with regards to killing Jews. The homicidal elder responded that “Killing Jews is a good deed, and does not require a legal ruling. Just bring the dead body.”
CAIR’s website on September 17th, 2001, listed three websites that people could donate to with regards to helping 9/11 victims. One of the links was the Red Cross, which was legitimate. Another link was the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.” No such fund existed. Clicking on that link took people straight to the HLF website. On September 26th, 2001, slight changes were made to CAIR’s site. The link listed as the fictitious NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund was replaced with a direct listing of the HLF site. The Red Cross site was still linked, as was another site labeled the “Global Relief Fund.” That link led to a place where people could make contributions, which went straight to funding Al Queda and the Taliban.
CAIR Rallies include people waving Hezbollah flags, and CAIR leaders wearing the Keffiyah (head covering) with the insignia of the Al Aqsa Marty’s Brigade.
The way to convict such terrorists living in America is usually by getting them on visa fraud. Many terrorists come here legally but the overstay their visas. Visa fraud is the mobster equivalent of tax evasion.
Also, as part of their aspirations, CAIR on one occasion offered a doctored photo outside the Capitol during their press conferences. Blondes become brunettes, and Muslim women without head coverings are given head coverings. Perhaps they do know how to use the internet, or at least Photo Shop.
CAIR claims that they condemn “terrorist attacks,” but they never once condemned Hamas, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, the Taliban, or any Muslim country.
CAIR has sued David Frum, National Review Online, and uses liberal media outlets to further their cause. They normally go through the JBT, the ACLU, and the National Council of Churches.
Whenever anybody criticizes any Muslim with either terror connections or suggestions that Jews immolate themselves through “dialogue” with terrorists, those on the wrong side claim anti-Muslim bigotry. For example, Congressman Keith Ellison wants Jews to “talk to CAIR.”
In 1993, worried about being recorded (which they were), CAIR people stated that “We cannot support Samah.” Samah is Hamas spelled backwards. In 1999 the head of CAIR endorsed suicide bombers in the name of Islam. In 2007, CAIR criticized “right wingers and ‘Neozionists.” Neozonionists is a way of confirming that “Neoconservatives,” or “Neocons” for short, are just Jews.
CAIR Action Alert # 508 is a false denial by CAIR that they wish to destroy the holy shrines of other faiths.
Also, CAIR plays the victim card to perfection when they are the ones promoting hatred, bigotry, and intolerance. Examples of this include Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to accept blind people with guide dogs as passengers because it violates their faith.
CAIR is also insecure. They feel compelled to compete with Jews and non-Muslims on every level. Since there are 6 million Jews in America, CAIR claims there are 7 million Muslims. This is not true. Pew research reflects only 2.5 million Muslims. Yes, there are Persians in Los Angeles, and plenty of Arabs in Dearborn, Detroit, and Minneapolis, but the 2.5 million number is accepted by reputable sources such as Pew.
2006 FBI statistics reflect that in that calendar year, their were 156 anti-Muslim crimes, and 967 anti-Jewish crimes. CAIR claims that Muslims are simply scared to report their crimes. CAIR claims 50,000 members on their website, but only lists 1700 members for IRS reporting purposes. It is unlikely that they are lying to the IRS, since the IRS can punish them in ways the media cannot. If the IRS digs, their operation crumbles. In 2000, CAIR reported $732,000 in dues. In 2007, dues were $58,000. In Maryland, gigantic Mosques are being built. The Mosques are empty. There are no parishioners inside. The Mosques are for appearances, and the illusion of strength in numbers. The bottom line is that CAIR is media savvy, but not a grassroots organization. They are a top down operation.
The problem in America is getting people to face the truth, and act on it.
The U.S. Government sends conflicting information. They label terrorist organizations as such, but then invite CAIR leaders to the White House under the banners of diversity and multiculturalism. The media ignores CAIR entirely. The JBT reporter that wrote the initial erroneous story about CAIR was offered to view the evidentiary documents, but refused. He was “uninterested in a civil issue.” The Washington Post was uninterested in the story.
Media diversity guidelines require referring to Muslim harassment victims in the same vein and proportion as purveyors of overt terrorist attacks that are Muslim. Terrorists are to be compared similarly to white supremacists and anti-abortionists. In keeping with a left wing agenda, environmentalist terrorists such as ELF are exempt from this.
65% of Muslims in America are first generation, most of them having arrived since 1990. This is not foreign infiltration. Homegrown terrorists are living among the Muslims that love America and Western values. The bad have blended in with the good so that an attack on CAIR is an attack on all Muslims.
One organization helping this along is the North American Islamic Trust. This organization is a Saudi front that finances 45-70% of the mosques in America.
“The big problem is political correctness and multiculturalism. In short, we do not have to respect CAIR’s beliefs. The fact that they may have an educational wing that is not into terror is irrelevant. If the Klan wanted to work with people on a clean streets initiative, we would refuse their help because they are still the Klan. This is not about stifling their right to speak. It is about preventing them from stifling the right of others to have free speech and criticize them.” They will use the power of American courts to sue people, hoping that once enough people roll over and surrender, CAIR will gain more power.
“They cannot win, but we can lose. We must demand accountability. We must hear Muslim voices for freedom. We must speak the truth.”
One questioner asked about the Michael Savage case, but Mr. Rubenstein differentiated the cases. Mr. Savage made comments about CAIR, CAIR pressured his advertisers, and the advertisers caved in. From a moral standpoint this is what we must try and prevent, but Mr. Savage’s suit against CAIR was tossed out because advertisers have a legal right to be cowards. Another questioner asked about the Mark Steyn case, but that was more a human rights case.
“The burden is on Moderate Muslims to find us, not the reverse. We must stop the Western guilt. Immigrants today, like all immigrants in decades past, must leave their baggage in the old country.”
“The Muslim per capita income is greater than the average per capita income of other Americans.”
“Jews, especially liberal ones, are part of the problem. They want to keep quiet on this issue. They want no part of it for fear of a backlash.” So CAIR threatens to silence all Jews, and Jews respond by staying silent.
“The Klan, Communists, Nazis, and CAIR are all heinous but legal. The goal is not to get CAIR shut down, but to get the facts out.”
“It is tough to shut down people who support terrorists because it is tough to define the word support. It is illegal to support terrorists financially, but not emotionally.”
Mr Rubenstein offered some final thoughts.
“CAIR is the Sopranos equivalent of the Bada Bing Club.”
“The Patriot Act without a doubt has saved American lives.”
“There is a media war, but only one side is fighting.”
Mr. Rubenstein’s presentation is sobering and disturbing, but less sobering and disturbing than the fact that many people will either remain ignorant of the facts, in some cases through willful blindness.
CAIR does not represent all Muslims. All Muslims are not terrorists.
CAIR are terrorists. For those who offer excuses…I just don’t CAIR.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Payment part of a total of $550 million US pledged to pay to PA over three years, part of a total of $7.7 billion in pledges from international donors made at Paris conference in December. Palestinian PM Fayyad says money to go directly to national treasury, to be used for running cash-strapped government (Yeah, Gimmee a break!)
The US is transferring $150 million in aid to the Palestinian government in coming days, the Palestinian Prime Minister announced Wednesday.
The payment is part of a total of $550 million the US pledged to pay to the Palestinians over three years, part of a total of $7.7 billion in pledges from international donors made at a conference in Paris in December.
Fayyad said the US money would go directly to the national treasury, to be used for running the cash-strapped government. Donors often prefer giving money for more prestigious development projects, rather than budget support, and Fayyad said it was significant that the US earmarked the money for government operations. (Yeah, Gimmee a break! ...government operations here means firing rockets at Israel...and the ignorant Americans pay...gimmee a break!)
Fayyad, an economist widely credited with cleaning up Palestinian Authority spending, said he considers the direct payment to the Treasury a show of support.
"We see this as significant, especially because it underscores the confidence with which our financial system is viewed internationally," he said at a signing ceremony with the US consul-general in Jerusalem, Jacob Walles.
Walles called on other donors to fulfill their pledges as well (And just when will that be?) . "A number have already provided assistance in this area (And we know that number to be Hammas and Saudi Arabia...providing more rockets), but we look forward to others following our lead in this as well," he said.
The US will also contribute $148 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which aids Palestinian refugees, and will disburse more than $200 million in development aid (Gimmee a break! Here we go again, more Palestinian rockets developed by US dollars) , Walles said.
The international aid is to help the Palestinians provide the economic underpinning for a future state, and to give a boost to the Palestinian private sector. However, the World Bank has warned that the aid will not be effective unless Israel eases restrictions on movement (Sure, so the suicide bombers can move about freely! Gimmee a break!), such as West Bank roadblocks and checkpoints, imposed eight years ago to rein in militants.
Fayyad said there's been little progress on the issue. The Palestinians are still waiting for Israeli approval to move ahead with two West Bank industrial parks, for example.
"We have to continue to try with the help of the international community to change the context, to remove restrictions, to make it possible for these big infrastructure projects (Which translates to huge rocket launchers inside school buildings...gimmee a break!) to be implemented," Fayyad said.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
How much more do you have to know before this guy has to go?
How he's fronted for the most vicious firms on Wall Street
February 23, 2008
By Pam Martens
Wall Street, known variously as a barren wasteland for diversity or the last plantation in America, has defied courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for decades in its failure to hire blacks as stockbrokers. Now it's marshalling its money machine to elect a black man to the highest office in the land. Why isn't the press curious about this?
Walk into any of the largest Wall Street brokerage firms today and you'll see a self-portrait of upper management racism and sexism: women sitting at secretarial desks outside fancy offices occupied by predominantly white males. According to the EEOC as well as the recent racial discrimination class actions filed against UBS and Merrill Lynch, blacks make up between 1 per cent to 3.5 per cent of stockbrokers - and this after 30 years of litigation, settlements and empty promises to do better by the largest Wall Street firms.
The first clue to an entrenched white male bastion seeking a black male occupant in the oval office (having placed only five blacks in the U.S. Senate in the last two centuries) appeared this month on a chart at the Center for Responsive Politics website. It was a list of the 20 top contributors to the Barack Obama campaign, and it looked like one of those comprehension tests where you match up things that go together and eliminate those that don't. Of the 20 top contributors, I eliminated six that didn't compute. I was now looking at a sight only slightly less frightening to democracy than a Diebold voting machine. It was a Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government.
Why is the "yes, we can" candidate in bed with this cartel? How can we, the people, make change if Obama's money backers block our ability to be heard?
Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consist of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.
These seven Wall Street firms are (in order of money given): Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse. There is also a large hedge fund, Citadel Investment Group, which is a major source of fee income to Wall Street. There are five large corporate law firms that are also registered lobbyists; and one is a corporate law firm that is no longer a registered lobbyist but does legal work for Wall Street. The cumulative total of these 14 contributors through February 1, 2008, was $2,872,128, and we're still in the primary season.
But hasn't Senator Obama repeatedly told us in ads and speeches and debates that he wasn't taking money from registered lobbyists? Hasn't the press given him a free pass on this statement?
Barack Obama, speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, on January 22, 2008:
"Washington lobbyists haven't funded my campaign, they won't run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of working Americans when I am president".
Barack Obama, in an email to supporters on June 25, 2007, as reported by the Boston Globe:
"Candidates typically spend a week like this - right before the critical June 30th financial reporting deadline - on the phone, day and night, begging Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs to write huge checks. Not me. Our campaign has rejected the money-for-influence game and refused to accept funds from registered federal lobbyists and political action committees".
The Center for Responsive Politics' website allows one to pull up the filings made by lobbyists registering under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 with the clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and secretary of the U.S. Senate. These top five contributors to the Obama campaign have filed as registered lobbyists: Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, et al; Jenner & Block; Kirkland & Ellis; Wilmerhale, aka Wilmer Cutler Pickering.
Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists? Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms, he's not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.
Far from keeping his distance from lobbyists, Senator Obama and his campaign seems to be brainstorming with them.
The political publication, The Hill, reported on December 20, 2007, that three salaried aides on the Obama campaign were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations. (The Obama campaign said they had stopped lobbying since joining the campaign.) Bob Bauer, counsel to the Obama campaign, is an attorney with Perkins Coie. That law firm is also a registered lobbyist.
What might account for this persistent (but non-reality based) theme of distancing the Obama campaign from lobbyists? Odds are it traces back to one of the largest corporate lobbyist spending sprees in the history of Washington whose details would cast an unwholesome pall on the Obama campaign, unless our cognitive abilities are regularly bombarded with abstract vacuities of hope and change and sentimental homages to Dr. King and President Kennedy .
On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.
Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:
"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights..".
Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway. The AGs wrote: "State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions..."
The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:
"Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law".
This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign. "The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill", says Public Citizen.
One of the hardest-working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.
According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown's class-action lobbyists included "Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La)."
While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)
Senator Obama graduated Harvard Law magna cum laude and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials, one assumes that he understood the ramifications to the poor and middle class in this country as he helped to gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms. The class-action vehicle confers upon each citizen one of the most powerful rights in our society: the ability to function as a private attorney general and seek redress for wrongs inflicted on ourselves as well as for those similarly injured that might not otherwise have a voice.
Those rights should have been strengthened, not restricted, at this dangerous time in our nation's history. According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion, for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:
"According to federal data, people of color are three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites".
If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower. "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."
Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.
So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?
Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.
Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer.
Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Monday, March 17, 2008
Any Catholic who supports/votes for Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama is a hypocrite.
If I have to explain it, then they are NOT Catholics!
Americans are among the world's least informed voters...most likely the dumbest!
Catholic voters are the most hypocritical among them...
Further. Many Catholics vote as if Catholicism were a racial ethnicity, rather than a religion. For example: Some people refer to themselves as half French and half Irish (or any other combination). The vast majority of Catholics vote as if they were half Catholic and half Democrat regardless of parental lineage. They have what we call an examination of the conscience prior to going to the confessional but fail to examine a candidate prior to going to the polls. As long as the candidate has a “D” next to their name it’s a viable choice and conscience doesn’t enter the selection process. They also have an innate tendency to believe what a candidate says during the campaign…especially the smooth talkers like Bill Clinton. (Hillary is no different.) And yet, Bill Clinton is the source of many of the problems besetting America today. Neither Clinton has one drop of patriotic blood in their seditious veins yet many (I should say all) Catholic voters who cast their votes for traitor Bill and his equally seditious wife do not have a clue to the Clinton’s objective; a socialist one-world order…just like Hitler.
And these, my friends, are undisputable facts. If it were my opinion, I could change things around a bit…but facts are facts and Mother Nature can’t change them. (N. Hooben March 17, 2008)
Candidates Court Catholics
Bloc's Support May Be Key in Pennsylvania; 'Nun Theory' at Work?
By AMY CHOZICK March 17, 2008
SCRANTON, Pa. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton often evokes her Methodist faith on the campaign trail. But it is Catholics who make up one of her most reliable groups of supporters and could help her defeat Sen. Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary.
The Clinton campaign argues that its strength among Catholics in the primaries could mean Sen. Clinton is a stronger candidate in the general election against presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.
On Saturday, Sen. Clinton joined the annual St. Patrick's Day parades in Pittsburgh and Scranton, an effort to reach out to some of the more than four million Catholics in Pennsylvania -- or one-third of all voters in the state.
"May the luck of the Irish be with us all. God bless you," Sen. Clinton yelled at the crowd of around 260,000 gathered for the Pittsburgh parade.
Exit polls show that Sen. Clinton captured 63% of the Catholic vote in Ohio and 65% in Texas. Even in states in which she has lost to Sen. Obama by double digits the New York senator has in some cases won among Catholics.
The Obama campaign is trying to show that its message resonates with Catholic voters. In the coming weeks in Pennsylvania, the campaign says it will send mailings to religious voters and launch a Catholic-specific phone-banking system. The campaign recruited Vicki Kennedy, the wife of Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy -- an Obama supporter and perhaps the country's best-known Catholic Democrat -- to hold roundtable discussions with Catholic women before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary.
"We will only be doing more of this important outreach to communities of all faiths, including Catholics, so we expect his performance among Catholic voters to be strong," says Joshua DuBois, national director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign.
Religion has taken a higher profile in the heated race for the Democratic presidential nomination, as the Obama campaign deals with the fallout from controversial comments made by outgoing spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
About one in four Americans is Catholic and while the anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage contingent has been vocal, a new wave of progressive Catholics focused on increasing minimum wage, ending the war in Iraq and implementing universal health care has emerged as a key Democratic bloc this election year.
In a recent survey of 19 states that have held presidential primaries this year, 63% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats compared with 37% for Republicans, a sharp increase from 2005 when 42% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats, based on polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky.
Catholic voters gravitate to Sen. Clinton for various reasons, including favorable memories of her husband's administration and her long-term emphasis on universal health care. Some of her positive showing among Catholics is a result of overlapping constituencies like white working-class voters and Hispanics.
In California, where Hispanics made up roughly one-third of all primary voters, 70% of all churchgoing Catholics voted for Sen. Clinton, compared with 26% for Sen. Obama.
Some Catholic Democrats say that Sen. Clinton's emphasis on specific solutions is similar to Catholic social teaching, which urges its followers to use the doctrine as a way of bring about positive social change particularly when it comes to alleviating poverty.
Meanwhile, some Catholic voters and politicians say Sen. Obama, who talks often about finding religion as an adult at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, now the center of the Rev. Wright storm, has a broader stump speech that is closer to a Baptist or evangelical sermon.
"We've got a history of not only having the faith but acting on it," says Bill Roth, director of the Catholic Democrats of California and a national spokesman for the group. "Maybe the action [Sen.] Clinton has shown in terms of putting forward proposals, whether they work or not, is motivating."
Another argument is the "nun theory," which holds that Catholics are more accustomed to strong-minded female leadership because of the prominent role of nuns. "I think Catholic Democrats...are accustomed to having female authority figures in the form of the sisters in our schools and Sen. Clinton, I think, benefits from that," says Christopher McNally, the Pennsylvania chair for the Catholic Democrats and an active Obama supporter.
The Clinton campaign has a simpler explanation. "It's really about common ground in two places: values and the economy," says Burns Strider, an evangelical Christian and the director of faith-based operations for the Clinton campaign.
As the Scranton parade ended, Clinton aides touted Sen. Clinton's role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, an important issue among the more than two million Irish-Americans in Pennsylvania, or more than 16% of the state's total population. The Obama campaign has said that Sen. Clinton is exaggerating her role in the Irish peace process.
The Obama campaign says any perceived disadvantage among Catholics has to do with lack of name recognition. Campaign aides point to Sen. Obama's victories among Catholics in Louisiana, Virginia and Wisconsin. "The more [Catholic voters] learn about Sen. Obama, the more they'll resonate with that message," says Obama supporter and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, who is reaching out to Catholics in Pennsylvania on behalf of the campaign.
Write to Amy Chozick at email@example.com
We are a group of Muslim apostates who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that the religion of Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us had taken a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, reflect and contemplate on this religion of our birth. Having scrutinized this religion with meticulous attention, we concluded that Islam is not at all a religion of peace as touted by many smooth-talking, self-serving Islamists and the Islamic apologists. The core of Islam, that is, the Qur'an, Hadis and Sharia are filled with unbound hatred for the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant and exceptionally cruel and merciless to those who dare to deviate an iota from its doctrine. We discovered that Islam is beyond alteration, because Muslims who attempt to modernize and reform its unremitting bigotry, mindless rituals and its barbaric and draconian punitive measures are targeted for annihilation. Our verdict was that the only way to escape from the tyranny of Islam is to leave it for good. That is why we discarded Islam from our lives-to be free, to enjoy a normal, pleasant and humane life, in complete harmony with all people on earth irrespective of their religion, race or creed.
As we thoroughly understood through our meticulous investigation for years to decades that Islam was nothing but a lie, we left Islam silently because of the fear for our lives. Then we felt that it was a responsibility on us to make the 1.4 billion world-Muslims to be aware of the falsity of Islam and its cruelty so that they can also leave Islam and live with love, respect and harmony with rest of the world. As Islamic terrorism overwhelms the world, we also felt it incumbent upon us to let the civilized world recognize the reality about Islam and take timely precautionary measures against this religion of terror, hate and mayhem. We want to tell the world that the current Islamic terrorism is not an aberration of the so-called 'peaceful Islam', rather it is the real Islam preached and practiced by the alleged Prophet Muhammad. This can be confirmed from a thorough study of the Qur'an and Hadis. We, therefore, have launched this website to expose the real Islam-the Islam that is determined to replace the current civilization with the 7th century Arab Bedouin barbarism, which is peddled as the Islamic Civilization. Let the world watch Islam through http://www.islam-watch.org/index.html and be warned.
Islam Watch is run by a bunch of Muslim apostates. Hailing mainly from South Asia, some of us left Islam after the 9/11. As explained above, we realized that Islam is false and felt that Islam need to be emasculated, marginalized or eliminated al-together if Muslim world wants to come out of its current backwardness and quagmire, characterized by poverty, corruption, illiteracy, violence, misrule and tyranny, in which they have been thrown in due to Islamic indoctrination.
To learn more about why some of us have left Islam, please read the testimonies of:
Why I left Islam - Ali Sina
Making of an Unbeliever - Abul Kasem
Also see our Leaving Islam page
Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims Monday March 17, 2008
Islamic Voodoos: Women, Part B - Abul Kasem
Allah Frowns over Abstaining from Sex with Slave Girls - Ayesha Ahmed
The Iranian Cultural and Natural Heritage Year - Amil Imani
The ABCs of dhimmitude - Denis Schulz
History of Jihad against the Turks (650-1050) - History of Jihad
Harvard: America’s 'Hub' For Sharia - Andrew Bostom
Wafa Sultan: The Koran is but a terrorist teaching manual - Ibn Misr
Islamic Voodoos: Women, Part A - Abul Kasem
False claim of the American Islamists finally exposed; American Muslim population is only 1.8 millions in total! - Syed Kamran Mirza
Jihadist or Not? - Alamgir Hussain
Debating Islam: Tips on Format and Techniques for Muslims - Ayesha Ahmed
Taqiyya and the Universal Islamic Liars Club - Denis Schulz
European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia - Fjordman
Speed of Light in the Quran? - Ali Sina
A Muslim’s Way Out of Islam - Hossain Salahuddin/Jamie Glazov
Islam is Terrorism - Alie Siraj
Islamic Voodoos: Toilet - Abul Kasem
CAIR Pulls Wool over Infidel Eyes on ABC News - Ayesha Ahmed
After Death Assurances - Ali Sina
The Silent Seismic Revolution: Muslims Leaving Islam - Ali
Slouching Toward Sharia - Juhdi Jasser
Islamic Voodoos: The Soul, Part B - Abul Kasem
Mohammed "Cartoon Crisis" Goes Global - Adrian Morgan
From Salman Rushdie to the Cartoons–and the courage of our Danish friends - Ibn Misr
Training Video For Islamic Schools - Ayesha Ahmed
The Archbishop's Road to Dhimmitude! - Denis SchulzPetition to World Court: "BAN ISLAM"
Islamic Marriage and Legalized Prostitution - Sujit Das
Does Sharia Promote Human Rights? - James M. Arlandson
Archbishop’s Message: Let Sharia Law Govern Women’s Lives, Amen! - Azar Majedi
Is the Quran Pure? - Harvard House
Islam will lose, so will the West - Mumin Salih
Poisoning the Infidels with Faeces in UK and US - Ayesha Ahmed
Islam and the War against Freedom of Expression - Adrian Morgan
The Muslim Brotherhood's Infiltration of the West - Fjordman
Islamic Voodoos: The Soul, Part A - Abul Kasem
Islamic Multiculturalism: Abul Kasem in Interview - Abul Kasem/Jamie Glazov
Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding Sharia in UK: Read Islam-watch and Faithfreedom - Dom
Rampant Islamic Jew-Hatred in Europe - Andrew Bostom
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 16, 2008; A01
Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.
The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.
"This may be one of the only cases in our lifetime when the Supreme Court is going to be interpreting the meaning of an important provision of the Constitution unencumbered by precedent,'' said Randy E. Barnett, a constitutional scholar at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And that's why there's so much discussion on the original meaning of the Second Amendment.''
The outcome could roil the 2008 political campaigns, send a national message about what kinds of gun control are constitutional and finally settle the question of whether the 27-word amendment, with its odd structure and antiquated punctuation, provides an individual right to gun ownership or simply pertains to militia service.
"The case has been structured so that they have to confront the threshold question," said Robert A. Levy, the wealthy libertarian lawyer who has spent five years and his own money to bring District of Columbia v. Heller to the Supreme Court. "I think they have to come to grips with that."
The stakes are obviously high for the District, which passed the nation's strictest gun-control law in 1976, just after residents were granted the authority to govern themselves. It virtually bans the private possession of handguns, and requires that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock.
The law's challengers -- security guard Dick Anthony Heller is the named party in the suit -- say the measure has been an abysmal failure at cutting crime or stanching the city's homicide rate, and a success only in depriving the law-abiding of a ready weapon for protection. The District contends that banning handguns is a logical decision in an urban setting, where more guns would result in more killings.
The city's lawyers argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an individual right and that, even if it does, the amendment is not implicated by legislation that concerns only the District of Columbia.
The case could be a revealing test of the court headed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Roberts came to the bench saying justices should decide cases as narrowly as possible, but last year he was part of a slim majority that made bold breaks with the court's jurisprudence in cases both recent and old, on issues such as school integration and abortion.
Clues to the justices' interpretations of the Second Amendment are scant and cryptic, and Roberts said during his 2005 confirmation hearings that the last time the court considered the issue -- in 1939 -- it "sidestepped" the fundamental questions.
That is part of the reason that the outcome -- not expected until near the end of the court's term in late June -- will be so intriguing, said Suzanna Sherry, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.
"It is very rare that the justices write on a clean slate," she said. "In some ways, it gives them great freedom."
Levy and lawyers Alan Gura and Clark Neily were able to persuade the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year to do what no other federal appeals court had ever done: strike down a local gun-control ordinance on Second Amendment grounds.
The amendment says that "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,'' and all but one of the circuits that had considered the issue previously had interpreted it as providing a gun-ownership right related only to military service.
But Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative icon, wrote for a 2 to 1 panel that the amendment provides an individual right just as other provisions of the Bill of Rights do. And because handguns fall under the definition of "arms," he wrote, the District may not ban them.
The Supreme Court's endorsement of an individual right would be a monumental change in federal jurisprudence, but perhaps not surprising. Even a small but growing group of liberal constitutional scholars -- "against my political instincts," in the words of Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe -- have endorsed the individual-right view.
But even fundamental rights are subject to government restrictions, and whether the justices are ready to decide on the reasonableness of the District's ban could be the crucial question of the case.
The city received an unlikely lifeline from the Bush administration, which told the court that the amendment provides an individual right but that the appeals court erred in deciding that the District's ban was automatically unconstitutional.
"If adopted by this court," Solicitor General Paul D. Clement wrote in the government's brief, "such an analysis could cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation prohibiting the possession of certain firearms, including machineguns."
Clement said that the District's law may well be unconstitutional, but that the case should be returned to lower courts for "application of a proper standard of review" and to permit "Second Amendment doctrine to develop in an incremental and prudent fashion."
Gun rights supporters were furious about the government's position, and Vice President Cheney went so far as to join a friend-of-the-court brief that specifically rejects the administration's view. Levy said returning the case to lower courts would be a "death knell," and his team has urged the court to apply "strict scrutiny" to any government action that would restrict gun ownership.
Said Gura: "What we want to do is take prohibition off the table."
The case is complicated by the District's secondary argument that the Second Amendment is not implicated by legislation that applies only to the District of Columbia.
The challengers have received a broad array of political support, signs of the strength of the gun rights movement: More than 31 states and a majority of the House and Senate have signed friend-of-the-court briefs.
Among the presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain signed on, while Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton did not. Both Democrats have looked for a middle ground, saying they believe the Second Amendment preserves an individual right, but one that is subject to government restrictions.
That position would seem popular. A Washington Post poll shows that 72 percent of the public believes the Constitution provides an individual right, but respondents were evenly split on whether it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns or to control gun ownership.
Nearly 60 percent said they would support the kind of law in question.
But nationally, it is hard to find many laws as restrictive as the one in the District, partly because of the gun rights lobby's vigilance. More than 40 state constitutions have gun ownership guarantees. Maryland's is one of the few that does not.
As a result, it is difficult to know what gun-control legislation across the country would be at risk even if the Supreme Court upheld the D.C. Circuit's decision.
Levy said the next targets will be handgun laws in Chicago and New York City, although the court has never held that the Second Amendment is applicable to states. And one legal theory is that the provision is a restriction only against the federal government.
Both sides agree that the court's decision could send a powerful message beyond the District.
Tribe, whose support of the individual right is often cited by gun rights supporters, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal recently that said the District's law could still be upheld and urged the court to decide the case narrowly.
But he acknowledged in an interview that the justices might "jump at the opportunity" to write broadly when they finally have a chance to put their mark "on a part of the Constitution that isn't already paved over with layer upon layer of judicial precedent."
'way to go girl!