Friday, June 29, 2012

A solution to Fast & Furious "Eric Holder and Barack Obama you are under arrest!" ...but if only the Congress had the stones

Congress has the authority to arrest Eric Holder and Barack Obama... (see below)

If the House REALLY wants to have press the contempt issue... (from Of Arms and the Law )
Posted by David Hardy · 28 June 2012
There is the "inherent contempt" power, where the House orders the arrest of the defendant, and can try him then and there, and pass sentence. It hasn't been used since 1934, when the Senate sentenced a fellow who destroyed evidence to ten days in jail. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935). ("Here, we are concerned, not with an extension of congressional privilege, but with vindication of the established and essential privilege of requiring the production of evidence. For this purpose, the power to punish for a past contempt is an appropriate means.") The House sends out its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the defendant, he is tried on the spot, and the House decides whether to convict.
All the more ironic, in that not too many years ago the Demos were suggesting its use against a Republican administration. One pointed out that the the Capitol has an unused jail cell for just that occasion.
Hat tip to Jim Norell, a husband of the late Nancy Norell and a former Senate staffer who reminded me of the Capitol "dungeon."

Photo at right snipped from Sipsey Street Irregulars ~ Norman E. Hooben

Congress has the authority to arrest Eric Holder and Barack Obama...
Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who had allowed clients to rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
MacCracken filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.
Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure like the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."
See full article here

Thursday, June 28, 2012

We got a war to watch...Israel vs Iran

It would be highly unsusal for Israel to attack Iran anytime soon...that is, any time soon after the talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin.  If in fact these recordings are legitimate then you and I are not the only ones reading this precursor to an attack.  Iran would not only have read it they would put a dent in the harbinger's plans and be setting up defensive measures that would hamper Israel's offense.  In any event the tete-a-tete sheds some light on Putin's opinion of Obama.  He doesn't come right out and say it, but to make a long story short Obama is nothing but a's Putin's words:
Nobody, but nobody in the Middle East believes this American president has the will to fight effectively for his friends or allies. ~ Russian President Vladimir Putin
The only question I have regarding this, "Who are Obama's friends?"  Oh, you're thinking ahead of me now aren't you...well let's see, there's the Muslim Brotherhood who wants to destroy our culture and then there's the pair of dolts in the U.S. Congress, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...well enough about Obama's friends we got a war to watch. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following PJ Media
The Vlady-Bibi Tapes

Posted By Michael Ledeen

I dunno, maybe they should be called vladybibileaks, in keeping with current nomenclature, but whatever you call them, I’ve obtained a recording of (parts of) the conversation between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. They met in Jerusalem on Monday, and the tapes arrived here late Tuesday night by courier.
PJ Media spares no expense, you know.
The recording is pretty good, but it seems the machinery stopped a few times, so the text is a bit disjointed. Nonetheless I think it provides a useful insight into the real world, as opposed to the stuff we read about so often in the popular press. The early part is just pleasant chit-chat, as Putin expresses satisfaction at being in Israel, nominally for a celebration of Red Army victories over Hitler’s army in the Second World War. Whereupon they segue into the main topics of the day:

BIBI: “We commemorate Nazi defeats here, you know.”
VLADY: “Yes, but even so it’s rare for me to be invited to an event honoring the Soviet military. Once upon a time, rulers in the Kremlin spent a lot of time flying around the satellite countries for such parties, but now nobody in those places honors our sacrifices.”

BIBI: “Don’t get me started on ingratitude. We Jews know all about that one!”
VLADY: “Hah! Well you are designated scapegoats, after all. And it’s time for you to play your designated role once again.”

BIBI: “It’s always time, and we don’t have to do anything; they do it to us.”
VLADY: “Of course. But now you should do something to show them it’s a mistake to trifle with Jews.”

BIBI: “You talking about Iran or Syria now?”
VLADY: “Iran, of course. You must leave Syria to us, as I told Mr. Obama.”
[missing section]

BIBI: “Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying you think we should go after your friends in Tehran?”
VLADY: “Some friends! You can’t imagine the problems with them. After all I’ve done, we still can’t get our invoices paid in a reasonable amount of time.”

BIBI: “Well maybe you shouldn’t have built that nuclear reactor, or arranged for them to get your antiaircraft missiles.”
VLADY: “I didn’t sell them antiaircraft missiles.”

BIBI: “You sold the missiles to Chavez in Venezuela, and he sent them to Iran, as you well know. That was the deal, wasn’t it?”
VLADY: “We gave you the jamming instructions for them, didn’t we? And the reactor still doesn’t work.”

BIBI: “So why should we do anything about it?”
VLADY: “Because it’s too dangerous to take chances with them. They’re crazy, but they’re smart, too, and eventually they will figure it out. We can’t have those crazy people with atomic bombs. And you’re the first target, so what are you waiting for?”

BIBI: “You know what? That’s precisely what the Saudis say. Word for word. ‘What are you waiting for?’ Interesting that the atheists and the Wahabbis say the same thing, don’t you think?”
VLADY: “It’s not a religious question, you know.”

BIBI: “Really? Have you tested that theory on Supreme Leader Khamenei?”
VLADY: “No. His predecessor tried to convince one of my predecessors to convert to Islam, haha.”

BIBI: “So what will you do to help us if we decide to do something?”
VLADY: “What did the Saudis offer?”

BIBI: “What do the Russians offer? I assume you will denounce us within hours, and call for the usual international conference to save the world from Zionist imperialism…”
VLADY: “Of course. If the Iranians suspect we’re helping you, things might get even worse. This way, I’ll have at least some control over the Persians.
What will we do for you? We’ve already promised that the Israeli Air Force doesn’t have to worry about Russian missiles, if you follow our instructions.”

BIBI: “How about placing some homing devices in the middle of their secret centrifuges?”
VLADY: “We might consider that.”

BIBI: “Some offer! You’re asking us to run the risk of massive retaliation and promising to lead the denunciation chorus when we do what you want. You’d better be willing to do more than enable us to beat the antiaircraft system.”
VLADY: “I understand how you feel. But, as I told that nice Spanish man, Aznar, I really don’t have to do anything about Iran, because you’re going to have to take care of it anyway.”
[Missing section]

BIBI: “I take it you don’t want the Americans involved?”
VLADY: “And you do, of course.”

BIBI: “You answer first.”
VLADY: “I don’t want them involved, but not for the reason you likely imagine. I’m not worried about America expanding its influence. That’s unthinkable these days. Nobody, but nobody in the Middle East believes this American president has the will to fight effectively for his friends or allies.
My concern is that if the Americans get involved, they’ll make a mess of it. Yes, they’ve got amazing weapons, and wonderful soldiers. But they can’t make political decisions and so they can win the fighting on the ground and then find a way to leave their enemies stronger than before.”

BIBI: “Like Iraq, you’re thinking?”
VLADY: “And Libya. And of course Egypt, where they have enabled the Brotherhood–declared enemies of the United States–to become the premier political force. And they seem quite happy about it, too. Amazing.”

BIBI: “I just want the Americans to help us with some technical matters, but I agree with you that they seem to have an odd desire to see their proclaimed enemies succeed, and their declared or would-be friends defeated. It’s hard to explain.”
VLADY: “They think that past presidents have caused the basic problems in the region by supporting the wrong sort of regimes, and they believe organizations like the Brotherhood have a legitimate complaint against America.”
[section missing]

BIBI: “So where do we stand?”
VLADY: “You need to confirm that you’re going to solve this problem as quickly as possible. I will try to find some way to hold Syria together, even if the regime in Tehran falls, and then we will work together to limit Turkey’s power in the region.”

BIBI: “But what if the sanctions work?”
VLADY: “Do you think your sabotage of the nuclear program can delay the day of judgment long enough to test the theory? Can you risk that? We of course will help the Iranians beat the sanctions, and so will our dear Chinese friends, and the Indians will both support and evade the sanctions. You’re looking at several more years, at a minimum.”

BIBI: “And revolution in Iran?”
VLADY: “Yes, that’s the wild card. Who knows? At least we can be sure that neither the Americans nor the Europeans will do anything to encourage it. The Arab revolutions aren’t working out well for them, and they are more determined than before to solve things with the ayatollahs.”

BIBI: “OK, VLADY, I think we understand each other. You owe me an answer on Russian assistance if we decide to do something, and I owe you a head’s up on our decision.
Now what shall we say to the press?”
VLADY: “How about I insist that everyone except us stay out of the Syrian mess, and that neither military force nor harsher sanctions should be used against Iran?”

BIBI: “OK, and I’ll say that we want peaceful solutions to both problems, but that tougher sanctions must be imposed on Iran.”
VLADY: “Done! And we’ll be in touch.”

BIBI: “Yes. You holding a ceremony to celebrate the liberation of Auschwitz? I might accept an invitation…”

Related...from the Jordan Times

Netanyahu urges action on Iran after meeting Putin 
OCCUPIED JERUSALEMIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday it was time to ramp up sanctions against Iran to try to curb its nuclear programme after discussing the matter with visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In his first public comments on the inconclusive round of talks in Moscow last week between world powers and Iran, Netanyahu repeated Israel's three core demands.
"I believe two things must be done now: strengthening the sanctions and also boosting the demands," Netanyahu said, without mentioning the possibility of Israeli military action should diplomacy fail.
The international community must call for the cessation of all uranium enrichment in Iran, the removal of all enriched uranium from the country and the dismantling of the Furdow underground nuclear facility, he added.
At the Moscow talks, Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France and Germany set no date for further political negotiations.
Last month, and again in the Russian capital, world powers asked Iran to close the Furdow facility where uranium is being enriched to 20 per cent fissile purity, and to ship any stocks out of the country, demands that come close to those of Israel.
Israel wants all Iranian uranium enrichment to stop, but is uneasy about the West's current focus on halting only higher-percentage enrichment close to a level needed to produce material for nuclear bombs.
Oil embargo
European governments on Monday formally approved an embargo on Iranian oil to start on July 1. Debt-ridden Greece had pushed for a delay because it relies heavily on Iranian crude to meet its energy needs, but EU governments said the embargo would go ahead as planned.
"We had an opportunity to discuss the negotiations under way between the international community and Iran," Netanyahu said of his meeting with Putin.
"We agree that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran represents a grave danger, first of all to Israel, but also to the region and to the entire world," he said.
Putin, in his own comments to reporters at Netanyahu's residence, said they discussed Iran's nuclear programme and the situation in Syria "in great detail". He did not elaborate.
Russia takes a softer tack than the Western nations and opposes any further sanctions against Iran. Putin has said Russia has no proof that Tehran, which denies it is seeking atomic weapons, intends to become a nuclear-armed power.
His trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories and Jordan is seen as an effort to increase Russia's clout in the region at a time when the West and some Arab nations have criticised Moscow for opposing their efforts to force out Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The visit, officially billed as an opportunity to dedicate a memorial in central Israel to the Red Army's battles against Nazi Germany in World War II, began a day after the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Mursi was declared the winner of Egypt's presidential election.
The outcome of the poll in Egypt, which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, has raised concerns in Israel.
On Syria, Russia has brushed aside US and Arab calls to stop sending weapons to the government there, saying it supplies only defensive arms. It has also used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to protect Syria.
Assad has helped Russia keep a foothold in the Middle East by buying billions of dollars worth of weapons and hosting a maintenance facility for the Russian navy, its only permanent warm-water port outside the former Soviet Union

Effect Of The U.S. Supreme Court Decision, 28 June 2012...a time that will live in infamy.

Matthew Hart, Zoe Strauss, et al commit unforgiveable sins as Obama looks the other way.

Above photos from Mail On Line

Source for the followingThe Western Center For Journalism
I Don’t Mean To Be Politically Incorrect, But…
Michael J Nellett

I recently read an article that absolutely made my blood boil. The article stated that Obama’s White House invited members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community to celebrate “Gay Pride Month”. While in the White House, a couple of the hardcore members decided to stand in front of the portraits of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and flip them off, give them the middle finger, diss them, etc. (I hear in the back of my mind that we should respect the office of the President even if we don’t respect the man just before my anger explodes at this blatant example of vulgar disrespect.)
Here, we have people who have voluntarily CHOSEN and accepted a lifestyle that is completely against the norm of human relations. Yet, these people want the tolerance and respect for that lifestyle that they themselves are NOT willing to give others. They are not willing to accept the fact that Christianity holds God’s truth that He made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! They are not willing to believe that God did NOT make a mistake when He made them a man or a woman, contrary to what some of these “psychoanalysts” might tell them. Bisexual people are apparently worried to death about being left without a date; therefore, they swing both ways to cover all their bases.
Those gays who mind their own business, keep their sexual activities to themselves, and treat everyone else with decency and respect are some of the nicest people I have ever met. Their militant counterparts are nothing more than vulgar, disrespectful, intolerant morons. I do not have to accept the crap spewing out of their pie-hole because some SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE says that I should. I for one am tired of hearing that my Christian beliefs make me a bigot, racist, or whatever. I will answer to God Himself, not you politically correct dimwits. If you want to believe you’re the “enlightened ones”, feel free, but you only get one chance to get this life right.
If you took all the gays and lesbians and put them on a very large island somewhere, within a hundred years, there would be few if any of them left. If you did the same with heterosexuals, you would need a bigger island. I guess if you’re the leader of an overpopulated country, turning most of your people into homosexuals would be the most successful kind of birth control that you could imagine. No procreation, no population problems….simple. Darn those pesky humans!
Why would the President turn a bunch of militant gays loose in his White House (his words, not mine) to disgrace themselves and the President this way? Obama obviously thinks that he is above the decorum and the respect reserved for past occupants of the White House that the American people demand. As a side note, if those people in that picture think it would make a good fundraising tool….I would think twice if I were you, but thank God, I’m not!
On top of all the other problems that Obama has, he sure didn’t need this one. Is there NOTHING that Obama won’t do to trash American beliefs and culture? Why are the poll numbers between Obama and Mitt Romney so close? Romney is a good and decent man compared to this composite person named Barack Hussein Obama Sorento. Romney has a history that can be followed from cradle to present day. Can the same be said of Obama? I’ve even heard that an author of one of his biographies is claiming that it was made up?
What’s next for Obama’s White House? Hey, how about a mass “pardon party” for the 11 MILLION illegals in this country out on the South Lawn and half of Washington D.C.? The White House staff could put up pinatas with Reagan’s and Bush’s faces on them to appease the crowd? After cake, ice cream, and burritos, Obama could just wave his almighty hand and pardon everyone of them! Hurry, Mr. Obama; the election is coming quickly, and you’ll need time to plan this (or at least your staff will. They work, you get the credit….perfect.)
Hey, get your gay friends to be the servers; that should make it really interesting. Good luck, and Happy 4th, people!

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Fast and Furious... Fraudulent and Foolish...Fraudulent, Fraudulent, Fraudulent !

Fraudulent and Foolish: ATF Agent on the Run from U.S. Government, Not Cartels
by Gary Fleming Jr. 

Reckoning day is quickly approaching for the debacle known as Fast and Furious, but not soon enough for the family of CBP Agent Brian Terry and many other victims of the doomed federal gun sting operation, but it will get here soon.

People closely related to the investigation have said that Fast and Furious was all part of an agenda that this administration had from the day Obama took office. The President made no secret of his desire to reinstate the assault weapons ban and other firearm restrictions, and he was going to do that by any means necessary. As it turns out, the drug war in Mexico was just the vehicle he needed.
Like a chess game, the pieces started moving into place when President Obama came out with the statement that “90% of the weapons the cartels use are coming from the United States,” referring to a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico.
I remember where I was when I first heard this; I had been in Juarez all day and was about to drive over the Bridge of the Americas back into El Paso when I listened to a press conference on my radio where Secretary of State Clinton made this statement. I had just taken a swig of water and when she said that; I spit all over my dashboard and through my nose in disbelief. “Are you kidding me?!!” I yelled. I’m sure the boys at the port of entry thought I was a crazy man because I was talking to myself and screaming at the radio all at once.
Any of us that have covered the cartels for the past few years knew that assertion was “90% B.S.” The statement was proven many times over to be false and misleading, but that really didn’t seem to matter to anyone in the administration. However, they did quit talking about it in public.
Then comes Fast and Furious. I have spoken to many of the agents and other insiders directly related to the F&F investigation, including one of the agents overseeing the OP. Every ATF agent I have spoke to has told me virtually the same thing--that to allow those “guns to walk” went against everything they had ever been trained or taught to do. And, in fact, they were not made aware that these guns were going to be allowed to walk until the last moment. The operation was deliberately designed and executed as to not allow anyone, including the agent in charge, to know the end game.
Several ATF agents have since left the agency. Some were quickly transferred and promoted to Washington and other parts of the country—even Mexico. The point is, if the agents on the ground were allowed to talk, which two have so far, it would lead to the steps of the Attorney General Holder’s office and, as it turns out, the White House, as evidenced by the President claiming Executive Privilege over the matter.
I have a source that works for the Juarez cartel and its subsidiaries--Barrio Azteca gang, La Linea, etc. At the that time, he was in charge of weapons procurement, and more recently he worked with ATF agents on the F&F operation as an ATF informant. He carries dual citizenship and spends a great deal of time in El Paso, but he will not anymore.
When I met with him to talk about the F&F Op, he told me that he would not be crossing over back into the U.S. When we did finally meet outside of Juarez, he explained to me that his involvement with the F&F Op had put his life and the lives of family in danger. Oddly enough, it wasn’t the cartel he’s afraid of. He’s more afraid of what the U.S. government will do to him because of the information he has. Nearly one half of the weapons that were allowed to walk came thru the El Paso corridor, and he was instrumental in that process. But now he’s on the run from the same people that paid him to do what he did.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where all of this is going. The Constitution of the Unites States is slowly but surely eroding at the hands of the very people that swore to protect and defend it. I can only hope that enough of us will stand up in November and take the power away from those that are abusing it to enact their own agendas.

To read or leave comment(s) on the above article please click here.

Further reading...
This from ABC News in 2009
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."

In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

It ain't no rumor !'s their modus operandi !

 If this "rumor" is correct, that policy decision will be the most gigantic, monumental strategic mistake made by the US since the end of WWII.
Hillary approves it, Obama approves it as does the main stream media because they know "...there does not exist such a thing as even one moderate Islamist."; it's their modus operandi!

Source Gatestone Institute
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: Personal, to Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton

American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI

Here's a situation that riles up American citizens and when the cops obviously side with the enemy then the cops become the enemy...and there lies the danger of American citizens turning on the cops...and when that happens, the citizens will win.  If the cops haven't figured out that the Muslims want to take over the world, then they are on the wrong side of history. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: Pamela Geller

"Allahu Akbar": American Muslims Stone, Pelt Christians in Dearborn, Michigan
Here is the news report of American Muslims attacking peaceful Christians at an Arab [Muslim] Festival in Dearborn this past Father's day weekend.
Here's what the media didn't air. Why did the police do nothing? And worse, the police threaten the Christians, telling them to leave or they "will cite you for disorder."
Their presence is inciting the Muslims. Got that?
This from our man, David Wood, in Dearborn. The Muslim war on non-believers in America takes to the streets. Low grade civil war.
American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, MI
The Dearborn Saga continues.

There's no questioning the fact that Ruben Israel's group came to the Dearborn Arab Festival to provoke a response from Muslims. But their actions were protected by the U.S. Constitution. The violent response they received from Muslims, however, was illegal. Every bottle, rock, or milk crate thrown was an assault.  ~ ...Continues here

A Constitutional Crisis ! ...End of state sovereignty

"It’s a stunning decision that once again illustrates how out of touch – and even contemptuous – the majority of the Supreme Court is with the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people and concepts such as state sovereignty."
Arizona case: End of state sovereignty
Exclusive: Joseph Farah says high-court decision moves us one more step toward tyranny
"America took another step toward tyranny Monday"
As usual, Justice Antonin Scalia is exactly right about the Supreme Court muddled decision over Arizona’s power to police its own territory and enforce existing laws on immigration.
In his dissent on a ruling that strictly limits what states can to do protect their own citizens and enforce its own laws, Scalia wrote that the decision “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.”
It’s a stunning decision that once again illustrates how out of touch – and even contemptuous – the majority of the Supreme Court is with the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the people and concepts such as state sovereignty.
Understand what this case was about: Arizona was enforcing existing federal law. It was challenged for doing so. Why? Because Barack Obama and his political followers don’t approve of existing federal law. Obama most recently announced his decision to revise federal law with the stroke of a pen – invoking a power he does not possess under the Constitution.

Yet, the Supreme Court, the body we count on as American citizens to be an ultimate arbiter of constitutional intent, ignores this contravention of the law and rules on behalf of the lawbreakers.

“We are not talking here about a federal law prohibiting the States from regulating bubble-gum advertising, or even the construction of nuclear plants,” Scalia writes. “We are talking about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude.”
Citing case law, Scalia paints a coherent picture of a new power grab by the federal government – one unprecedented in U.S. history.

Rejecting the argument that the federal government has pre-emptive authority because immigration affects foreign relations, Scalia writes: “Though it may upset foreign powers – and even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers – the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.”
Scalia makes a forceful case that Arizona has every right to do what its duly elected legislature and governor determined to do in the interest of the people of that state.

“The most important point is that … Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’ – including a more rigorous enforcement policy – so long as that does not conflict with federal law,” Scalia writes. “The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that ‘it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.’ It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona.”
The point here is that Washington, through non-legislative channels – meaning the presidency and the court – is attacking the most essential benchmark of state sovereignty. The intent is clear: To render states subservient to the federal government – a notion that is anathema to the Constitution and the great tradition of America.

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed ‘federal priorities,’” Scalia continues. “Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona. The State’s whole complaint – the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen – is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition.”
And here’s the conclusion that all Americans should ponder.

“So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” he asks. “A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test.”
Scalia says the decision means we need to cease referring to Arizona – and presumably the other 49 states – as sovereign.

Are you ready to accept that?
Put another way, America took another step toward tyranny Monday.

The Cartoon Says It All... Ain't that the truth!

Source: Yid With Lid

Is Obama Heeding Turkey's Demands To Isolate Israel?

O fie! 'tis an unweeded garden, That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature ... Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Marcellus in Act I, Scene IV of Hamlet

There are some strange coincidences happening in regard to the United States/Israel counter terrorism cooperation--Israel seems to be losing its importance and it is being replaced by the newly Islamist Turkey.

The latest post from the Gatestone Institute builds a compelling case about the Obama administration heeding the demands of Turkey which is to push Israel out of cooperative security agreements.
In light of increased sensitivity to intelligence leaks, it seemed innocuous – or even admirable – when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) asked the Senate to remove a few words from the US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act: the "sense of the Senate" part of the bill included the sentence, "Expand already close intelligence cooperation, including satellite intelligence, with the Government of Israel;" ODNI wanted the words "including satellite intelligence" to go.

An ODNI spokesman said it was "simply a matter of clarifying the intelligence aspects of the bill and being sensitive to the level of specificity of the language…nothing nefarious here, just more clear language."
The real question is whether they were trying to clear up the language or are they trying to keep arm's distance from Israel, especially after the White House leak regarding the joint development of the Stuxnet and other viruses attacking Iran's nuclear weapons development. 
Despite Israel's status as a Major Non-NATO ally, a NATO "partner" country, and a member of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue, Turkey is increasingly insistent that Israel be isolated and cut out. This surrender to Turkey -- which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has for years been aggressively making ever more fundamentalist -- coincides nicely with the Administration's increasingly open courtship of Turkey's Islamist-leaning and virulently anti-Israel Prime Minister and what appears to be the desire of the Administration to enhance security relations in the Arab-Muslim world as it dials back visible cooperation with Israel.
This "distancing" will eventually be seen as an open invitation to threaten/attack attack Israel by the Muslim countries wishing to see her destroyed.
Turkey bluntly objects to sharing intelligence information with Israel – specifically the intelligence from NATO's Turkey-based, U.S.-run X-Band early warning radars. At a NATO meeting in Brussels, Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz told reporters, "We need to trust states' words. This is a NATO facility and it shouldn't be used beyond the scope of this purpose." The "state" in question was clearly the U.S., and "beyond the scope" referred to sharing information with Israel. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta replied, "Clearly, the NATO members are the ones that will participate in the program and access information produced by the missile defense system." In a meeting in February, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen parroted the Turkish formula. "We do stress that data within this missile defense system are not shared with a third country. Data are shared within our alliance, among allies, it is a defensive system to protect the populations of NATO allies," Rasmussen said.

Agreeing publicly to keep intelligence information from Israel – a more likely target of Iran than Europe/NATO – at the behest of Turkey is a serious diminution of the U.S.-Israel security relationship as well as the Israel-NATO relationship, and elevates Turkey to the role of spoiler.

According to one source, Turkey assured Iran that the X-Band radars were not aimed at the Islamic Republic and that a Turkish military officer was in charge of receiving the intelligence information. Here the U.S. appears to have balked, telling Israel that Americans were in charge of the information, but not reassuring Israel on the subject of information sharing. Further, since the station in Turkey also acquires information from the X-Band radar based in Israel, it raises Israeli concerns that Turkey will have access to security information from Israeli skies.
NATO's snub of Israel at the meeting in Chicago in May was simply waved away: "Israel is neither a participant in ISAF nor in KFOR (Afghanistan and Kosovo missions)," said Rasmussen, even as he acknowledged that 13 other "partner" nations would attend because, "In today's world security challenges know no borders, and no country or alliance can deal with most of them on their own."

It was said then that Turkey used its NATO veto. But Israel was similarly not invited to the inaugural meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum in Istanbul -- not a NATO meeting.
One of President Obama's talking points to supporters of Israel is the military and intelligence cooperation between the two nations have never been stronger. That may very well be true as most of those cooperation programs were set up by the Bush administration. The disturbing trend in the second half of the Obama administration is the our accepting the demands of an increasingly Islamist Turkey and the isolation of the Jewish State.

The Evils of the Muslim Brotherhood Approved By Jimmy Carter (Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of World' as ultimate goal )

"...the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed; only Western opinion of it has. As it was since its founding in 1928, the group is committed to empowering and spreading Sharia law—a law that preaches hate for non-Muslim "infidels,"..." ~ from IPT
"Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage." ... ~ from Raymond Ibrahim

Egypt's longtime banned Muslim Brotherhood—the parent organization of nearly every subsequent Islamist movement, including al-Qaeda—has just won the nation's presidency, in the name of its candidate, Muhammad Morsi. That apathy reigns in the international community, when once such news would have been deemed devastating, is due to the successful efforts of subversive Muslim apologists in the West who portray the Brotherhood as "moderate Islamists"—forgetting that such a formulation is oxymoronic, since to be "Islamist," to be a supporter of draconian Sharia, is by definition to be immoderate. Obama administration officials naturally took it a step further, portraying the Brotherhood as "largely secular" and "pluralistic."
Back in the real world, evidence that the Brotherhood is just another hostile Islamist group bent on achieving world domination through any means possible is overwhelming. Here are just three examples that recently surfaced, all missed by the Western media, and all exposing the Brotherhood as hostile to "infidels" (non-Muslims) in general, hostile to the Christians in their midst (the Copts) in particular, and on record calling on Muslims to lie and cheat during elections to empower Sharia:
Anti-Infidel: At a major conference supporting Muhammad Morsi—standing on a platform with a big picture of Morsi smiling behind him and with any number of leading Brotherhood figures, including Khairat el-Shater, sitting alongside—a sheikh went on a harangue, quoting Koran 9:12, a favorite of all jihadis, and calling all those Egyptians who do not vote for Morsi—the other half of Egypt, the secularists and Copts who voted for Shafiq—"resisters of the Sharia of Allah," and "infidel leaders" whom true Muslims must "fight" and subjugate.
The video of this sheikh was shown on the talk show of Egyptian commentator Hala Sarhan, who proceeded to exclaim "This is unbelievable! How is this talk related to the campaign of Morsi?!" A guest on her show correctly elaborated: "Note his [the sheikh's] use of the word 'fight'—'fight the infidel leaders' [Koran 9:12]; this is open incitement to commit violence against anyone who disagrees with them…. how can such a radical sheikh speak such words, even as [Brotherhood leaders like] Khairat el-Shater just sits there?" Nor did the Brotherhood denounce or distance itself from this sheikh's calls to jihad.
Anti-Christian: It is precisely because of these sporadic outbursts of anti-infidel rhetoric that it is not farfetched to believe that Morsi himself, as some maintain, earlier boasted that he would "achieve the Islamic conquest (fath) of Egypt for the second time, and make all Christians convert to Islam, or else pay the jizya."
Speaking of Christians, specifically the minority Copts of Egypt, in an article titled "The Muslim Brotherhood Asks Why Christians Fear Them?!" secularist writer Khaled Montasser, examining the Brotherhood's own official documents and fatwas, shows exactly why. According to Montasser, in the Brotherhood publication "The Call [da'wa]," issue #56 published in December 1980, prominent Brotherhood figure Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah al-Khatib decreed several anti-Christian measures, including the destruction of churches and the prevention of burying unclean Christian "infidels" anywhere near Muslim graves. Once again, this view was never retracted by the Brotherhood. As Montasser concludes, "After such fatwas, Dr. Morsi and his Brotherhood colleagues ask and wonder—"Why are the Copts afraid?!"
Lying, Stealing, and Cheating to Victory: In a recent article titled "The Islamist Group's Hidden Intentions," appearing in Watani, the author Youssef Sidhom exposes a document "which carries the logos of both the Muslim Brotherhood and its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party." Written by the Deputy to the Supreme Guide, Khairat el-Shater and addressed "to all the Brotherhood branches in the governorates," the memo calls on Muslims to cheat, block votes, and "resort to any method that can change the vote" to ensure that Morsi wins, which, of course, he just did—amidst many accusations of electoral fraud. El-Shater concluded his memo by saying, "You must understand, brothers, that our interest lies wherever there is the Sharia of Allah, and this can only be by preserving the [MB] group and preserving Islam."
In short, the Muslim Brotherhood has not changed; only Western opinion of it has. As it was since its founding in 1928, the group is committed to empowering and spreading Sharia law—a law that preaches hate for non-Muslim "infidels," especially Islam's historic nemesis, Christianity, and allows anything, from lying to cheating, to make Islam supreme. Now that the Brotherhood has finally achieved power, the world can prepare to see such aspects on a grand scale.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

Muslim Brotherhood Declares 'Mastership of World' as Ultimate Goal

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jihad Watch

Although many Muslim leaders openly articulate their efforts as part of a larger picture—one that culminates in the resurrection of a caliphate adversarial by nature to all things non-Muslim—many Western leaders see only the moment, either out of context or, worse, in a false context built atop wishful thinking.

Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose long-term purpose is reflected in the word "prepare" appearing in their motto.
Among other things, this myopia causes virtually all Western politicians to overlook long-term threats and focus exclusively on violence and terror, the tangible and temporal—those things that may coincide with their tenure.
This narrow-sighted approach sometimes leads to absurdities, such as when Homeland Defense's Paul Stockton, being questioned by Dan Lungren at a recent hearing, refused to agree that al-Qaeda "is acting out violent Islamist extremism," insisting instead that the group merely consists of "murderers." In doing so, he divorced reality from any meaningful context, thereby living up to the Obama doctrine of not knowing your enemy.
Of course, all Islamists have the same goal: the establishment of a sharia-enforcing caliphate. The only difference is that most are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion—step by step, phase by phase, decade after decade—are much more effective for securing their goals than outright violence. Then, once in power, "they will become much more savage."
Accordingly, thanks to the so-called "Arab spring" and its Western supporters, more and more clerics feel they are nearing their ultimate goal of resurrecting the caliphate, the capital of which is to be Jerusalem. This sheikh, for instance, recently boasted that the caliphate will soon be restored and the West will pay jizya—tribute and submission, via Koran 9:29—"or else we will bring the sword to your necks!" So too this sheikh, citing infidel Germany as an example. And of course calls for jizya from Egypt's Christian Copts are growing by the day.
Now, consider the clear, unequivocal words of Dr. Muhammad Badi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Al Masry Al Youm (as translated by Coptic Solidarity):
Dr. Muhammad Badi, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, said: "The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system [based on Islamic sharia], with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world." Badi added in his weekly message yesterday [12/29/11]: "When the Brotherhood started its advocacy [da'wa], it tried to awaken the nation from its slumber and stagnation, to guide it back to its position and vocation. In his message at the sixth caucus, the Imam [Banna] defined two goals for the Brotherhood: a short term goal, the fruits of which are seen as soon as a person becomes a member of the Brotherhood; and a long term goal that requires utilizing events, waiting, making appropriate preparations and prior designs, and a comprehensive and total reform of all aspects of life." The leader of the Brotherhood continued: "The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world" [emphasis added].
Even so, it matters not how often and openly Islamic leaders like Badi articulate their grand agenda for the world to hear. Western leaders have their intellectual blinders shut so tight, frozen before the word "democracy"—even if "Arab spring" people-power leads to fascism (which, after all, will be someone else's problem after they leave office).
Thus, here is former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, who not only is "very pleased" with Egyptian elections—despite widespread allegations of voter-fraud against the Muslim Brotherhood—but, when asked if the U.S. should be concerned about the Islamist victory, said "I don't have any problem with that,and the U.S. government doesn't have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed."
Accordingly, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its offshoots can rest assured that, so long as they do not engage in direct terrorism, they can continue unfettered on their decades-long march to resurrecting the caliphate, which—if history and doctrine are any indicators—will, in its attempt to claim "mastership of the world," be a global menace.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Obama's "Project" begins to take shape

Posted by Norman E. Hooben

With the recent and fraudulent elections in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood takes another step forward in their quest for world domination and all this with the public approval by Barack Husein Obama. (see Obama congratulates Egypt's new president-elect)
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent and Merciful
Towards a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy
(Points of Departure, Elements, Procedures and Missions)
This report presents a global vision of a worldwide strategy for Islamic policy...
~ Quoted from The Project
And less we forget (or don't bother to read the entire document) here are a few recommendations from The Project:

  • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals; (Note: Exactly what is going on in Egypt now!)
  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law (Emphasis mine N.E.H.)
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;

  • The Muslim Brotherhood "Project"
    by Patrick Poole ~

    One might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.

    If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.
    In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
    Now FrontPage readers will be the first to be able to read the complete English translation of The Project.
    What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
    The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al-Taqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.
    Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth” – identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
    What makes The Project so different from the standard “Death of America! Death to Israel!” and “Establish the global caliphate!” Islamist rhetoric is that it represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the “cultural invasion” of the West. Calling for the utilization of various tactics, ranging from immigration, infiltration, surveillance, propaganda, protest, deception, political legitimacy and terrorism, The Project has served for more than two decades as the Muslim Brotherhood “master plan”. As can be seen in a number of examples throughout Europe – including the political recognition of parallel Islamist government organizations in Sweden, the recent “cartoon” jihad in Denmark, the Parisian car-burning intifada last November, and the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London – the plan outlined in The Project has been overwhelmingly successful.
    Rather than focusing on terrorism as the sole method of group action, as is the case with Al-Qaeda, in perfect postmodern fashion the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West. The following tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project:
    • Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
    • Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
    • Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
    • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
    • Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
    • Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
    • Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
    • Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
    • Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
    • Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
    • Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
    • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
    • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
    • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
    • Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
    • Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
    • Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
    • Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
    • Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
    • Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
    • Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
    • Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
    • Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
    • Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
    • Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
    • Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
    In reading The Project, it should be kept in mind that it was drafted in 1982 when current tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. In many respects, The Project is extremely prescient for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades.
    At present, most of what is publicly known about The Project is the result of Sylvain Besson’s investigative work, including his book and a related article published last October in the Swiss daily, Le Temps, L'islamisme à la conquête du monde (Islamism and the Conquest of the World), profiling his book, which is only available in a French-language edition. At least one Egyptian newspaper, Al-Mussawar, published the entire Arabic text of The Project last November.
    In the English-language press, the attention paid to Besson’s revelation of The Project has been almost non-existent. The only mention found in a mainstream media publication in the US has been as a secondary item in an article in the Weekly Standard (February 20, 2006) by Olivier Guitta, The Cartoon Jihad. The most extensive commentary on The Project has been by an American researcher and journalist living in London, Scott Burgess, who has posted his analysis of the document on his blog, The Daily Ablution. Along with his commentary, an English translation of the French text of The Project was serialized in December (Parts I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion). The complete English translation prepared by Mr. Burgess is presented in its entirety here with his permission.
    The lack of public discussion about The Project notwithstanding, the document and the plan it outlines has been the subject of considerable discussion amongst the Western intelligence agencies. One US counterterrorism official who spoke with Besson about The Project, and who is cited in Guitta’s Weekly Standard article, is current White House terrorism czar, Juan Zarate. Calling The Project a Muslim Brotherhood master plan for “spreading their political ideology,” Zarate expressed concerns to Besson because “the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that worries us not because it deals with philosophical or ideological ideas but because it defends the use of violence against civilians.”
    One renowned international scholar of Islamist movements who also spoke with Besson, Reuven Paz, talked about The Project in its historical context:
    The Project was part of the charter of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was official established on July 29, 1982. It reflects a vast plan which was revived in the 1960s, with the immigration of Brotherhood intellectuals, principally Syrian and Egyptians, into Europe.
    As Paz notes, The Project was drafted by the Muslim Brotherhood as part of its rechartering process in 1982, a time that marks an upswing in its organizational expansion internationally, as well as a turning point in the alternating periods of repression and toleration by the Egyptian government. In 1952, the organization played a critical support role to the Free Officers Movement led by Gamal Abdul Nasser, which overthrew King Faruq, but quickly fell out of favor with the new revolutionary regime because of Nasser’s refusal to follow the Muslim Brotherhood’s call to institute an ideologically committed Islamic state. At various times since the July Revolution in 1952, the Brotherhood has regularly been banned and its leaders killed and imprisoned by Egyptian authorities.
    Since it was rechartered in 1982, the Muslim Brotherhood has spread its network across the Middle East, Europe, and even America. At home in Egypt, parliamentary elections in 2005 saw the Muslim Brotherhood winning 20 percent of the available legislative seats, comprising the largest opposition party block. Its Palestinian affiliate, known to the world as HAMAS, recently gained control of the Palestinian Authority after elections secured for them 74 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its Syrian branch has historically been the largest organized group opposing the Assad regime, and the organization also has affiliates in Jordan, Sudan, and Iraq. In the US, the Muslim Brotherhood is primarily represented by the Muslim American Society (MAS).
    Since its formation, the Muslim Brotherhood has advocated the use of terrorism as a means of advancing its agenda of global Islamic domination. But as the largest popular radical movement in the Islamic world, it has attracted many leading Islamist intellectuals. Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric.
    As one of the leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual figures and radical Islamic preachers (who has his own weekly program on Al-Jazeera), Qaradawi has been one of the leading apologists of suicide bombings in Israel and terrorism against Western interests in the Middle East. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project, which predates Qaradawi’s Priorities by eight years. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate. It is speculated that The Project was either used by Qaradawi as a template for his own work, or that he had a hand in its drafting in 1982. Perhaps coincidentally, Qaradawi was the fourth largest shareholder in the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, the director of which, Youssef Nada, was the individual in whose possession The Project was found. Since 1999, Qaradawi has been banned from entering the US as a result of his connections to terrorist organizations and his outspoken advocacy of terrorism.
    For those who have read The Project, what is most troubling is not that Islamists have developed a plan for global dominance; it has been assumed by experts that Islamist organizations and terrorist groups have been operating off an agreed-upon set of general principles, networks and methodology. What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades. Equally troubling is the ideology that lies behind the plan: inciting hatred and violence against Jewish populations around the world; the deliberate co-opting and subversion of Western public and private institutions; its recommendation of a policy of deliberate escalating confrontation by Muslims living in the West against their neighbors and fellow-citizens; the acceptance of terrorism as a legitimate option for achieving their ends and the inevitable reality of jihad against non-Muslims; and its ultimate goal of forcibly instituting the Islamic rule of the caliphate by shari’a in the West, and eventually the whole world.
    If the experience over the past quarter of a century seen in Europe and the US is any indication, the “Islamic researchers” who drafted The Project more than two decades ago must be pleased to see their long-term plan to conquer the West and to see the Green flag of Islam raised over its citizens realized so rapidly, efficiently and completely. If Islamists are equally successful in the years to come, Westerners ought to enjoy their personal and political freedoms while they last.