Tuesday, September 29, 2009


Alan note: I wonder to what extent our Homeland Security is trying to handle all this?  Other than hiring these people or their similars into high, policy making positions. With Oba-Hussein doing the same.

One of the best papers I have seen in a long time - and worth the time to go through it and devote the time to check out the links.



What I am about to tell you, is not a Science Fiction or a Murder Mystery plot, but it is the harsh reality! Right at this moment, not only one but many Hezbollah IRI Lobby Groups on the payroll of IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) are actively lobbying in United States of America, and not only that, but they have the nerves to use “Thug Tactics” (popular inside Iran), now in United States! Right at this moment, Trita Parsi, a Mercenary of IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) and his Gang NIAC, on the payroll of IRI have managed to intimidate, bully and push around VOA (Voice of America Broadcasting in Persian) and sue Hassan Daioleslam an investigative author in United States. Trita Parsi had also managed to fraud the US Congress in to handing him a grant! No, this is not a Science Fiction or a Murder Mystery plot occurring inside Iran! This is a true story happening right now and right here in our own backyard, United States of America! The only question is: What are you as Iranian Americans and Patriotic Americans are going to do about it?

Mercenaries of IRI
As a front business for Hezbollah, the servant and mercenary of IRI, Jahanshah Javid the publisher of “The Iranian” Website has a mission in United States. His mission is to provide a tribune for Hezbollah IRI Mercenaries and Lobby Groups to propagate their agenda. Please notice that every single petty servant of IRI on the payroll of Tehran also happens to be an Iranian.com author! Coincidence? What are the odds?





5 more nuke plants spotted in Iran - Intel agents describe guarded operations buried in mountains


Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

LONDON – Deep-cover MI6 agents who have described the workings of the once-secret underground uranium enrichment plant near the Iranian city of Qom now have discovered a staggering five more similar operations, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

They, like the Qom facility, are buried deep inside the mountains of north Iran and are guarded by divisions of Revolutionary Guards.

The details were sent this weekend to some G20 leaders who met in Pittsburgh when the Qom facility was revealed to the world.

The MI6 agents have established that, like Qom, the new plants are staffed by nuclear scientists from Iran's main weaponization program. It is known by the acronym Metfaz, and is headquartered at 180 Western Avenue in the Pars district of eastern Tehran.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Details of the MI6 discovery were hand-delivered to Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, over the weekend by Sir John Scarlett. They contained a detailed picture of what was being built at the five new plants.

A senior intelligence source said the data came from "an Iranian nuclear scientist's smuggled laptop, defectors and satellite imagery."

The highly unusual indication of the source material is seen as a deliberate attempt by Western intelligence to rattle the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that a further vital part of his nuclear plan has been discovered.

Sunday, September 27, 2009



Once again, Oba-Hussein has used his Chicago style thuggery (instantly cutting off all financial aid to Honduras) to try to protect and reinsate a Communist Zelaya, who wanted (as does Obambi) to remain President by force, beyond his legal term. And to continue to run drugs.

All with the added support of Commie friend, Chavez of Venezuela.

He was Constitutionally and legally removed from office by the Honduran Parliament, was exiled, sneaked back in and is being protected by the Brazilian government and by US "president" Obama. 

So the Honduran government has decided to flush him out by removing the diplomatic immunity of the Embassy and to refuse to allow Brazile to have an embassy in Hoduras. The sovereign right of Honduras to disallow. 

More details: The Honduran chancellor Carlos Lopez Contreras has stated a few minutes ago that there are orders to all ambassadors that refuse to recognize the current govt to give back their credentials, their special car plates and their tax exemption forms imediately and leave the country.

Also there is a request to the embassies of Mexico, Argentina, Spain and Venzuela to retire the coat of arms of their respective countries from the embassies as a sign of break of diplomatic relations.

The govt has made it clear, the ambassadors of Mexico, Argentina, Spain and Venzuela will not be allowed in the country again, and if in 10 days Brazil doesn't define the state of Zelaya it will lose its right to have a representation in the country.



Obama: I shaved my legs for this? Part II

In his most powerful statement to date, Obama warned Iran that it must demonstrate how peaceful it is after discovery of a covert nuke facility at Qom, halt its "disturbing pattern . . . of evasion" and "cooperate fully" with the IAEA or else . . . or else . . . we'll hit you with serious, meaningful dialogue!

And if the nuclear mullahs STILL refuse to live up to their responsibility to be nice men, strong and powerful president Obama will force them to face the consequences -- another round of harsh talks! Without preconditions. Backed by a sternly-worded, gravely-concerned rebuke. Don't make me resort to the ultimate weapon -- staring at you with sullen discontent! Mixed with self-flagellation. That'll do it.

In response to this powerful ultimatum, the mullahs broke out singing, 'Mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama!'

To Obama's credit, he has not taken off the table the one action that would force Iran to stop laughing and take us seriously -- playing the "We are the world" song really, really loud.

Despite bailing on Israel, bailing on the Poles and Czechs and surrendering to the Russians and the Taliban, people for some reason think Obama is weak. After his UN speech, Obama was stunned and shocked that Tehran's homicidal Islamic maniacs bent on bringing on nuclear Armageddon would be 'evasive'. And that they're still being mean to him.

After all, Hugo Chavez says that now with Obama in the White House, he smells hope, not sulfur at the UN podium.

Always concerned with America's best interests, Muammar Gaddafi says he wished Obama could be president for life. Gaddafi spoke at the UN for nearly 100 minutes during his allotted 15 minutes. He praised the Taliban as awesome, called the Iraq war "evil" and demanded trillions in reparations for colonialism, ticking off a list of other points from the Democrat Party platform.

Remarking on Obama's UN speech, world-renown climate expert, Fidel Castro, praised Obama for accusing America of being slow to act on unproven climate theories. Castro said no other American president would be "brave" enough to say such derogatory things about his own country -- apparently forgetting about Jimmy Carter.

Turning up the heat on Iran regarding the Qom nuke site, administration honchos told ABC News' Jake Tapper that military action would be counterproductive. And really scary because "One: The goal of the U.S. government is not to close this one facility at Qom, but rather to convince the Iranian government" that will stop at nothing to acquire nukes to stop "their nuclear ambitions writ large." And end world hunger and disease. And let me eat as much as I want without getting writ large. "Second: Bombing the facility might only make the Iranians more determined, whereas if Western intelligence agencies catch them violating their agreements every time they cheat -- and this is the third time since 2002 -- the Iranians may conclude, ultimately, that any aspirations for nuclear weapons are futile." We won't bomb you because you'll get more determined to acquire the nukes that would prevent us from bombing you, so stop it now! Or we'll send Hans Blix!

If you're looking for the briefest summation of Obama's Iran policy, it's: Surrender your nukes in 3 or 4 months, mullahs! If not, don't worry. We'll give you another 3 or 4 months to comply. Everybody and his cousin knew for years about Iran's second top-secret nuke plant at Qom which is being called a "discovery". Even our intelligence agencies knew. Yet, in November of 2007, right around the time pressure on Iran was building and U.S. military action looked like a go, they crank out an NIE that claimed "with high confidence," based on zero evidence, that Iran's nuclear mullahs had been out of the nuclear weapons business since the fall of 2003. Pressure was off, mullahs off the hook. Then, six minutes after Obama's elected, the intel community suddenly "discovers" the Qom nuclear plant is dangerous, coincidentally while in cover-your-arse mode. The IC chaps figured president-elect Pusillanimous would respond to this intel of Iranian provocation by doing absolutely nothing about it and for once they got it right.

If -- as the Kool-Aid impaired media seem to think -- Obama's disclosing the Qom plant was a diplomatic trap he was laying, it's a trap he sprung on himself. After a grip 'n' greet with Israel's Netanyahu in New York last week, president Transparency decides to come clean on Qom -- a coincidence! Even whackjob Ahmadinejad knew the Israelis knew, so the IAEA gets a private letter last Monday in which Iran 'reveals' construction of this harmless little heavily protected "new pilot fuel enrichment plant" inside a mountain. Obama is shocked that Russia and China seem unmoved by his Qom 'revelation' after he declared the era of American leadership over on his watch. Yet, even as Obama heralds a new world lacking American leadership, the days of Iran's nuke program are still numbered. Happy hunting, Israel.

Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...

Monday, September 21, 2009


(Alan note: so far it is still a "Clash of the Mullahs" but this has provided the populace an opportunity to sense a weakness and to emerge - not yet with a vengeance but in numbers. Repression has been tempered by the clerics fighting and fearing each other rather than fearing the people.  Yet!

The reaction of protesters rushing the thugs trying to impose the Khamenei regime's authority is the first signal of the of the beginning of the end and the precursor of the crowds hitting the streets with a vengeance!

Neither Supreme Leader Khamenei or his son Mojtaba (the defactor ruler) will survive, nor Ahmadi-Nejad,  nor will his main ally the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the obese Major-General called the Piggy (khuki) by Iranians on both sides of the divide.

But will the Mullahs/Ayatollahs be replaced?

Moussavi, Hatami, Rafsanjani, Karoubi are all Islamist and have achieved some power from the street demonstrations but will they commit political  suicide? And perhaps risk being hanged for their prior support and participation in the slaughter of tens of thousands of opponents at all levels during the preceding decades? Which has stained their hands with rivers of blood?

By Michael Ledeen

Marx would have delighted in the events of the 18th, all over Iran. Groucho, that is, for on the 18th the supreme leader and all his co-conspirators were transformed from figures of awe to objects of ridicule. As Machiavelli likes to remind us, the most dangerous thing for any leader is to earn the contempt of his followers, and the Iranian people made it luminously clear that they would no longer be intimidated. The regime had launched a vicious repression following the challenges to the “election results” of June 12th. For a hundred days they had killed, raped, tortured and threatened. In the runup to the 18th, the stern face of the leader of the Revolutionary Guards had appeared on television and his confident voice had been heard on the radio, warning that anyone who dared wear green, or carry protest signs, or chant criticism of the Islamic Republic, would be treated “very harshly.” His words were like so much spittle in a storm; among the many chants in the streets that day, you could hear “rape, murder and torture will not silence us.”

When a tyrannical regime dies, you can see the symptoms in the little things. Late Friday afternoon, after millions (yes, millions–this according to Le Monde, France 2, and L’Express, with the BBC saying that the demonstrations were bigger than those at the time of the Revolution) of Greens mobbed the streets and squares of more than thirty towns and cities to call for the end of the regime, there was a soccer game in Azadi Stadium in Tehran. It holds about a hundred thousand fans, and it was full of men wearing green and carrying green balloons. When state-run tv saw what was happening, the color was drained from the broadcast, and viewers saw the game in black and white. And when the fans began to chant “Death to the Dictator,” “Death to Russia,” and “Death to Putin, Chavez and Nasrallah, enemies of Iran,” the sound was shut off. So the game turned into a silent movie.

But the censors forgot about the radio, and the microphones stayed open, so that millions of listeners could hear the sounds of the revolution. And in Azadi Stadium, as in most parts of the country, the security officers either walked away or joined the party.

You will not have heard such stories, nor read about them in our “media,” which have raised denial of the day’s major events to an art form of late. Rather like the Iranian regime, which used to have an enormous influence on the way citizens thought, the major broadcasters and dead-tree scribblers have also become objects of ridicule. On Sunday morning, Supreme Leader Khamenei proclaimed that the demonstrations had been an enormous success for the regime, but anyone looking at the pictures could see that he was short on sleep. So would you if you had heard the thunderous shouts of “Death to the Dictator” during the night. Khamenei’s claim was greeted with ridicule.

Sunday also brought open contempt from some of the most revered leaders of the Shi’ite world. Khamene’i had declared Sunday the end of Ramadan, a day of feasts and prayers, one of the most joyous of the Muslim year. Such a proclamation is supposed to be canonical, for Khamene’i speaks in the name of all Muslims. But fifteen Grand Ayatollahs like Sistani (from Najaf, Iraq), Montazeri, Taheri and Sanei rejected Khamenei’s reading of the moon, and said that the feast could not begin until Monday. No one could get away with such an open challenge to the supreme leader’s theological authority unless there were a considerable consensus that his rule was illegitimate. And it’s even worse for him: across the country, many mosques were closed on Sunday. The faithful were told to go home and fast, and come back the next day for prayer.

No wonder Khamenei looks tired. And in keeping with the avalanche of errors, today the Revolutionary Guards’ favorite newspaper kept the whole thing going, insisting that the supreme leader was right after all. Stupid and irrelevant, a classic example of people in a hole who keep digging deeper.

These little stories illustrate a great event, indeed a world-changing event: the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and the rest of the evil empire in Tehran, are all dead men walking. We don’t know the schedule for the funeral yet, but Iranians know it’s on the agenda. One will get you ten at my betting window that, aside from a very thin veneer of top officials (for whom there is no hope, for they will fulfill the demand of the nightly rooftop chants), anyone who is anyone in Iran today is trying to make a deal with Mousavi and Karroubi. They are all whispering that their hearts are green, and always were green.

Khamenei & Co. certainly know this, as they know they are being betrayed by some very high-ranking people. And the exodus is under way; by the end of the week we will see some important representatives of the Islamic Republic resign their posts, for they do not wish to be associated with it any longer.

Look at what didn’t happen in the streets last Friday. Not a shot was fired at the millions of demonstrators in Tehran. There are YouTubes of police fraternizing with the Greens. There are stories of Revolutionary Guardsmen helping the demonstrators, and even the Basij didn’t dare to attack or arrest, with a handful of exceptions (one of which is notable: in Tabriz, if I remember correctly, they started to round up some people, and the crowd turned on them, freed the would-be victims, and beat the Basijis to death).

And look at what else didn’t happen: nobody tried to arrest Mousavi or Karroubi. Somebody tried to stab Khatami in the street, but it was thwarted, and Karroubi has been told to show up at a Revolutionary Tribunal to respond to charges of spreading false claims of rape and murder in the prisons. But this subpoena, which previously terrified the recipient, is no longer threatening. Karroubi has proclaimed it is good news, for it will give him the opportunity to present the evidence, which is iron-clad, and can no longer be destroyed (copies of documents, audios and videos are now in the hands of Green supporters in Europe and the United States).

So we have a regime of zombies in Tehran, but they can still do a lot of damage, to Iranians and to us. Early last week Khamenei summoned Afghan terrorist chieftain Gulbadin Hekhmatiar to Tehran, and told him to step up attacks against American and other Allied forces. Other Iranian-supported terrorist groups have received similar instructions.

Under the circumstances, you’d think that your government would be talking to the Greens. But you’d be wrong. Perhaps Hillary Clinton thought she was telling the truth when she claimed, a few days after the insurrection of June 12th, that “behind the scenes” we were helping the Iranian opposition. If so, she shouldn’t have said anything about it, but I don’t think she was well informed. There are no contacts between the American Government and the leaders of the opposition. One should not expect the new government to look kindly upon a President Obama who publicly sweet-talked the Tehran butchers, and all but begged Khamenei for a few minutes of his precious time. The same applies to the Europeans, all of whom scrambled for oil and other commercial contracts, and none of whom talked to the Green leaders.

As so often, Martin Luther King Jr. summed it up perfectly: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Sunday, September 20, 2009


It is now well established that Barack Obama was linked to the Hawaiian Communist Party network through his boyhood/teenage mentor Frank Marshall Davis.

It is also well known that after moving to Chicago, Obama linked up with the local communist networks.

Manning Marable, a leader of the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism claims that Obama “understands what socialism is. A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists. There are a lot of people like that in Chicago who have worked with him for years...”

This leads to two key questions.

A Were the Hawaii and Chicago networks connected?

B Did Obama’s connection to Frank Marshall Davis in any way influence his progress up the Chicago political ladder?

If the answer is yes to both, there are significant implications.

It means that that the Communist Party USA was watching Obama from an early age and was willing to help his political career.

Frank Marshall Davis was active in the Chicago Communist Party until he moved to Hawaii in late 1948.

I speculated in this post that Davis may have known left wing journalist Vernon Jarrett in post war Chicago. A connection would be significant because the Jarrett family has played a very important role in Obama’s rise to power.

Both Jarrett and Davis worked in the communist dominated South Side Community Art Center and on the communist influenced Chicago Defender newspaper, in late 1940s Chicago.

I have since found conclusive evidence that Davis and Jarrett not only knew each other, but worked together in another Communist Party dominated organisation-The Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers.

“organized to support the united packing-House workers of America C.I.O. now on strike”

The letter above is dated April 12, 1948. Note that CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) was at the time a communist controlled labor federation.

To the left is a partial list of Citizen’s Committee to Aid Packing House Workers officials.

Note the names Oscar C. Brown (Treasurer) and Louise T. Patterson (Assistant Treasurer), F.M. Davis and Vernon Jarrett.

To confirm the connection, below is a close-up of the committee’s publicity committee. Note that it is chaired by Vernon Jarrett and includes Frank Marshall Davis.

That the Citizen’s Committee was communist influenced is beyond doubt.

Louise T Patterson was the wife of Illinois Communist Party vice-chairman and attorney William Patterson and a prominent Party member in her own right. Louise Patterson was still a leader of the Illinois Communist Party well into the 1970s.

Further down the page was list of the organization’s “Food and groceries committee”. Named among them was Ishmael Flory, a leader of the Illinois Communist Party from the late 1930s until his death in 2004.

Incidentally, one of the eulogists at Flory’s funeral was Timuel Black, a well known member of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy&Socialism and a long time friend and political supporter of Barack Obama.

Oscar C Brown-later a famous jazz musician under the name Oscar Brown jnr, was also at the time a Communist Party member. he joined in 1946 and was expelled around 1954.

In 1948 Vernon Jarrett left his job as journalist at the Chicago Defender to start a black oriented radio show “Negro Newsfront” with Oscar Brown.

Jarrett was clearly on the far left and almost certainly, like his colleague Frank Marshall Davis, a covert member of the Communist Party.

Jarrett worked hard promoting socialist causes including the communist controlled Progressive Party.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009


Below is the letter that Rep. Myrick sent to the President regarding September 11th and how his Administration is ignoring that we are, in fact, at war with an enemy that seeks to destroy those who oppose them.

September 10, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attack on our nation is a moment where we are reminded that we are confronting a worldwide network of Islamic terrorists, overseas and at home, who adhere to one global ideology that legitimizes and orders attacks against the United States and other countries who oppose them.

As jihadists and Islamists have stated, their goal is to topple any country that does not practice their ideology, including moderate Muslim states, and establish on their ashes a vast Islamic state that forces people to adopt their ideology, beliefs and practices.

Your Administration has failed to state this. In fact, this is the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks where our nation lives under a government that has abandoned identifying the enemy we are fighting and its ideology.

It is important to remain clear in who we are fighting and why. Clarity is, in fact, national security because only as an educated people can we identify our enemies and work to defeat them.

That is why I am troubled that eight years after jihadists brought the fight directly to our shores, your Administration has been moving backward in its clarity on who our enemies are, what they believe and what they want. In his remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on August 6, 2009, your Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism advisor, Mr. John O. Brennan, laid out new concepts and words your Administration has chosen to adopt. These words and concepts are ill conceived and are erroneous.

In the search to create a new linguistic vocabulary to use with the American people in defining the enemy, Mr. Brennan called it a "transnational challenge that poses one of the greatest threats to our national security—the scourge of violent extremists who would use terrorism to slaughter Americans abroad and at home".

While our enemy clearly states they are at war with America, here, your Administration has abandoned the term “war” and labeled our response a mere “transnational challenge”. Further, your Administration said it does not want to describe this as a "global war" because it could show that "the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world".

I have no idea what a “transnational challenge” is; neither do the American people.

This unfortunate naive phrase misses the overwhelming fact that we are deploying many forces around the world, engaging terrorists in multiple countries, operating in alliance with dozens of other militaries, fighting heavy wars in multiple battlefields and acting militarily on a daily basis, as reported daily by the media.

This war we are fighting wasn’t started by us, but it doesn’t make it any less of a war because you call it a “transnational challenge”. The fact is that we have established a very wide alliance against a very specific enemy. By claiming that we aren't in a global war against that enemy, we are handing them an unnecessary victory and confusing the American public and our allies.

Mr. Brennan also said you don’t see this battle as a fight against jihadists. He argued that "describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, "jihad," meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve". Instead of jihadists, you have adopted the term “violent extremists”.

This assertion shows a systemic failure in your Administration's understanding of the ideology behind jihadism. We called Nazis Nazis in WWII because that is what they called themselves. Terrorists call themselves jihadists in their own words through texts, videos, and recordings. It is clear your Administration has not listened directly to the enemy, but to their propagandists who camouflage their ideology by claiming that "jihad" is solely self-purification. Further, the government of the United States should refrain from officially endorsing a particular theological interpretation of any religious belief; jihad as a religious notion should not be defined by the US government.

The phrase "violent extremists" does not define the essence of the foe. Not all methods used by the jihadist enemy are "violent" inasmuch as not all methods used by previous enemies were always violent. The battlefield is but one part of war. There are also the economic and political arenas that this term doesn’t grasp and describe to the American public.

It is true that this is not a new definition and has been used by government officials and experts for more than a decade, including two previous Administrations. However, I strongly opposed the use of this definition when President George W. Bush’s Administration used it, and I continue to oppose it.

The "jihad" we are confronting is political, military and ideological in nature as defined by our enemies’ own words. They call themselves “jihadists” and say they are practicing “jihad”. Thus using the term "jihadists", as long as it identifies the enemy, is not only accurate but it is a duty to our citizens because it makes it clear who we are fighting.

Mr. President, I urge you to stop using confusing and fuzzy words when speaking about the war against jihadists and Islamic terrorists. Use clear language the American public understands so they are educated on who we are fighting and why.

Stop beating around the bush: We are fighting a war…against self-proclaimed jihadists.

The anniversary of September 11th reminds us of that very clear and very simple fact.


Sue Myrick

Member of Congress

Saturday, September 5, 2009


Caliphate or Republic?

The observations by Shireen Qudosi below reveal great insight into the competing value systems of Islamists and those of us in the West.

Qudosi writes about the recent “dust-up” in San Diego between ACT! for America’s San Diego chapter and CAIR-San Diego (Council on American-Islamic Relations). In a nutshell:

CAIR did a presentation at the public library;

ACT! for America’s local chapter asked for and was granted equal time to do a presentation;

CAIR then tried to prevent ACT! for America’s local chapter from doing the presentation, and when that failed, demanded ACT! for America include a Muslim representative to provide “equal time” in the ACT! for America presentation.
Double dipping in addition to their already used up equal time!


“Caliphate or Republic”

How the Exchange Between CAIR and ACT! For America Highlights the Importance of Free Speech and Conservative Values.

By Shireen Qudosi • August 28, 2009

http://qudosi.com /

On July 11, 2009, the San Diego Public Library hosted CAIR’s SD Director Edward Hopida’s presentation on Islam. During the presentation, Mr. Hopida took a moment to list a number of authors whose work he felt should be avoided because (according to him) their authors possessed “no expertise” on Islam and were published because they were exploiting 9-11. The list included Steven Emerson, Hirsi Ali, Noni Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Robert Spencer, and an array of other writers whose work is of a controversial nature within the Muslim community.

Whatever one’s opinion may be of these writers, we cannot ignore the grand irony of suggested book banning in a public library - an event that, at the end of the day, was sponsored by tax payers. Hopida’s actions also ignore the efforts dedicated to Islam pre 9-11. His dismissal of Ali, Darwish, and Gabrielle draws attention to a larger problem of the failure of such associations and ‘experts’ to value women as witnesses.

Having attended Hopida’s presentation, San Diego ACT chapter leader Mike Hayutin took it upon himself to offer a counter argument. He approached the San Diego Public Library Director Deborah Barrow and requested the same time and sponsorship to speak of radical Islam. Unlike Hopida, Hayutin was not on a payroll and invested his own time and resources to exercise his belief in balanced representation. The request was initially reluctantly received by Director Barrow, who had likely perceived CAIR as a civil rights group and was unaware of the controversy surrounding them. However, considerable community pressure and a call from the mayor’s office facilitated Hayutin’s request. Hayutin was finally granted his opportunity to present a two hour presentation on radical elements in Islam.

His appearance however was not appreciated by CAIR, which filed a complaint letter and submitted a one-sided press release on their disapproval of Mr. Hayutin’s presentation, as well as his association with ACT, which Hopida labeled as peddling stereotypes by labeling Islam as incompatible with the West. Somehow, in midst of all this bashing, he seemed to forgotten CAIR’s own dodgy associations. CAIR also contacted the library and insisted they put a “Muslim expert” on the podium with Hayutin, rather than Hayutin hosting the event on his (as Hopida did).

The alternate seminar, accurately entitled “Caliphate or Republic”, offering an alternate view to Hopida’s original presentation, took place August 15th from 2-4 pm at the San Diego Public Library. The auditorium was packed and a healthy debate ensued, mixed with both hard core conservatives and local Muslims attempting to make the case for Islam. For the most part the Muslim representation was quite positive, and I had the opportunity to speak with a few of them post event. However, my advice to them is two-fold: 1) Don’t ambush the speaker; it makes you look desperate, and 2) if you get the chance to speak, present a solid counter argument rather than promoting your Muslim bake sale or food drive; no one is going to come to your bake sale if they still think you’re a terrorist.

All in all the event went smoothly, brought together a diverse mix that still at the end of the day agreed to disagree on most issues. A standing room only crowd also indicates an audience the library may have been overlooking. The presentation and the subsequent talks that carried on well past the event, reflected the delicate system of equality in America where both sides have a right to the soap box, to assemble freely and have their case be heard – to have a tolerant ear even if not a sympathetic ear.

However, in light of the struggle for local resident Mike Hayutin to secure the podium, and in light of Reuters picking up CAIR’s press release and passing it as ‘legitimate’ news (with no attempt to contact the other party), the clear issue is the increasing fragility of our right to free speech and the increasing subjectivity of news agencies.

The business of subjective information from authority sources doesn’t just rest with the media. When asked why Mr. Hayutin took an interest in radical Islam, he noted attending a local university panel on yet another chapter on the entanglement between Palestine and Israel. The panel, hosted by three well-respected professors and attended by hordes of students, was (according to Hayutin) completely bias in nature and presented the case in a most politically appeasing pro-Palestine format with absolutely no counter argument. Appalled and concerned for the lack of balanced information, Hayutin took it upon himself to be a source of alternate information.

Meanwhile, Hopida’s attempts to regulate free speech at a public forum is another demonstration of Muslim interest groups attempting to regulate what can and cannot constitute as valuable discussion. In short, anything that is subjectively offensive is considered insensitive and racist. As the track record shows, particularly among such Islamists, if it doesn’t favor a marginal Muslim agenda and if it in fact challenges Islamism in any context, it cannot be extended any measure of freedom. As we have seen time and time again, through protests, petitions and outright violence, if an act is critical of any element in Islam, it is not tolerated.

In San Diego, via hundreds of angry So Cal residents and at the behest of the mayor, free speech prevailed…today. However, one must stop and consider the environment we would be in were this a Caliphate in which no alternate view was tolerated. This is not such a far fetch considering the contortionist movements by law makers (both in the states and in Europe) to extend discriminatory version of ‘equality’ to Muslims – acts that immediately segregate communities and outrightly discriminate against non-Muslims.

Lawmakers insist on cultural and religious sensitivity, but since when did anything get achieved through sensitivity and mass mollycoddling?

So what is one to do when faced with a very real wolf but with no one hearing your cries? You start with those who are willing to listen. Start with think-tanks who don’t believe news should be fictional story telling, with well-networked lobbies, and the few remaining academics that are not easily swayed by university politics. Connect with a political party that appreciates the issue and doesn’t grey-wash threats as paranoia of hazy near-forgotten days of 9/11 – a recent past that somehow has been shuffled so far back in history that it’s cataloged with myths of minotaurs, mermaids and other fantastical creatures; a reality that has been been butchered by perception into a non-reality.

However, if as a society we continue to stomp and stampede, with banners of equality rattling in air, we ensure the inevitable forfeit of freedoms that are the touchstone of not just the Republicans or the Democratic ideals, but are the sacrament of what it means to be American.

ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org

Thursday, September 3, 2009


Hey, America! Take a look at this and see what you can use against the Marxist-Islamist Oba-Hussein-Khomeini administration.

Here it is, the liberals guide for political warfare as developed by Saul Alinsky. Read them , learn them and apply them daily. Beat the socialist with their own game!

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)