ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER SEDITIOUS OBAMA APPOINTMENT: KAGEN
Name one, one!, good, rational appointment that Hussein has made. He is beyond governing from the far left. He is governing from an enemy's perch.
Lady Sheepdog over at American Sheepdogs has the goods on Kagen here:
Now in 2009, there is the potential that a nominee for the position of U.S. solicitor general, Elena Kagan, a Harvard Law School dean, may be appointed by President Obama and, if so, it would be a travesty for all who believe in and support our military.
Dean Kagan has called military recruiting “discriminatory,” “deeply wrong,” “unwise,” and “unjust.” This nominee for solicitor general believes the military should be banned from campus. Kagan fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate a federal law known as the “Solomon Amendment,” denying qualified students the opportunity to serve our country and infringing upon their constitutional rights.
For those not familiar with the Solomon Amendment, this law was passed in 1995 and signed by former President Clinton and, in essence, denies schools that bar military recruiters from campus any funds from the Department of Defense. The following year in 1996, Congress extended the law’s reach to include funds from the Departments of Education, Labor and Health & Human Services.
In 2002, the Solomon Amendment was strengthened further by interpreting it to require revocation of federal grants to an entire university’s subdivisions (its law school, for example). In 2005, Congress amended the law to explicitly state that “military recruiters must be given equal access to that provided other recruiters.”
Believe it or not, and you can believe it because it is a fact, this possible appointee to the critical position of U.S. solicitor general, Elena Kagan, stood at the forefront of the fight against the Solomon Amendment. Kagan filed amicus briefs with the Third Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court to try to justify institutional discrimination against the military. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down this argument. The court stated that “the Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funds.”
The question is … how can anyone with the established anti-military record of Kagan, a nominee who was labeled by the Washington Times as an “anti-military zealot,” be considered for such an important post as U.S. solicitor general? And since it is the primary responsibility of the U.S. solicitor general to see that the laws of the United States are enforced, how could Dean Kagan serve in this capacity when it comes to defending a law, the Solomon Amendment that she thinks is immoral and says she doesn’t believe in?
========================
Obama to promote relationships with radical Islam
(Center for Security Policy) On Friday, President Obama reiterated for the umpteenth time his determination to develop a "new relationship" with the Muslim world. On this occasion, the audience were the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Unfortunately, it increasingly appears that, in so doing, he will be embracing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization dedicated to promoting the theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah and that has the self-described mission of "destroying Western civilization from within."
As part of Mr. Obama's "Respect Islam" campaign, he will travel to Turkey in early April. While there, he will not only pay tribute to an Islamist government that has systematically wrested every institution from the secular tradition of Ataturk and put the country squarely on the path to Islamification. He will also participate in something called the "Alliance of Civilizations."
The Alliance is a UN-sponsored affair that reflects - as, increasingly do most things the United Nations is involved in - the views of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC is made up of 57 Muslim-majority nations. Thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and its proxies, the Muslim Brotherhood has become a driving force within the Conference and their agendas largely coincide.
More...
Shariah's Brotherhood
By Frank Gaffney, Jr. http://204.96.138.161/p17940.xml
As part of Mr. Obama's "Respect Islam" campaign, he will travel to Turkey in early April. While there, he will not only pay tribute to an Islamist government that has systematically wrested every institution from the secular tradition of Ataturk and put the country squarely on the path to Islamification. He will also participate in something called the "Alliance of Civilizations."
The Alliance is a UN-sponsored affair that reflects - as, increasingly do most things the United Nations is involved in - the views of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The OIC is made up of 57 Muslim-majority nations. Thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and its proxies, the Muslim Brotherhood has become a driving force within the Conference and their agendas largely coincide.
For example, in 2005 a communiqué issued after a summit in Mecca declared: "The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism."
Ominously, as part of its bid to "criminalize" Islamophobia, the OIC is seeking "deterrent punishments." It insists that not only freedom of expression but all human rights be circumscribed by the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which concludes with the caveat that, "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shariah." Translation: Liberties enshrined in the UN's foundational Universal Declaration of Human Rights are largely rendered null and void.
The demand that no criticism of Islam be permitted is the preeminent feature of the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in the West. In fact, it is but the leading edge of the Brothers' bid to suppress public awareness of the threat posed by their program in societies that pride themselves on religious tolerance, thereby facilitating seditious penetration and influence operations by the Shariah-adherent.
A playbook for the latter can be found in a publication issued last Fall by the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project that is being aggressively promoted to the Obama administration and Congress by a number of its non-Muslim participants. Notably, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently effusively presented the Project's book entitled Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Former Congressman Vin Weber did the same at Grover Norquist's weekly meeting of conservative activists last week.
Underwritten largely by George Soros' and other left-wing foundations, Changing Course seems to reflect predominantly the recommendations of groups the government has established are Muslim Brotherhood fronts, such as the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Both are represented in the Engagement Project's "Leadership Group." Accordingly, its book calls for:
- "engagement with groups that have clearly demonstrated a commitment to nonviolent participation in politics" (read: the Brotherhood);
- "not equat[ing] reform with secularism, nor...assum[ing] that reformers who advocate some form of Shariah as the basis for the rule of law will inevitably abuse human rights or adopt anti-American policies";
- "not supply[ing] additional ammunition to extremists by linking the term ‘Islam' or key tenets of the religion of Islam with the actions of extremist or terrorist groups";
- Launching "an education program comparable in scale" to "the more than $7 billion" invested in the "post-Sputnik U.S. commitment to math and science education" to "education on Islam and Muslims, sustained over a decade or more, focused on teacher training and curriculum in middle and high schools, and colleges."
Emboldened by the promise of this influence operation and the apparent willingness of the Obama administration to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda - in part, if not in its entirety - the organization's assorted fronts in America are becoming ever more audacious. In response to a long-overdue decision taken by the FBI last year to terminate "sensitivity training" of its agents by one of the most prominent of these fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), assorted Brotherhood groups and operatives reportedly intend to announce that Muslims will henceforth cease any and all cooperation with U.S. law enforcement until CAIR is rehabilitated.
Such a step would not only call into question the patriotism of the many Muslims in America who do not embrace the Brotherhood's Shariah agenda - something that would, presumably, be as offensive to them as it would be troubling to the rest of us. It could also expose those engaged in it to criminal charges of "misprision of felony," conspiring to withhold information from the authorities concerning terrorist operations and activities in the Muslim community.The message should go forth: Friends of the Muslim Brotherhood are no friends of America. We follow their guidance at our peril.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.
BLUEPRINT FOR US SURRENDER TO ISLAM: THE US MUSLIM ENGAGEMENT
The left, as its history painfully shows, has always aligned itself with the totalitarian ideology du jour. The jihad could never have made such enormous strides into Western society without the leftards carrying their water.
Those on the right considered themselves safe from dhimmitude and oppression. Wrong.
Defenders of America have been acutely aware of the infiltration of Political Islam into Conservative circles. It's why I along with Robert Spencer, Dr Bostom, and David Horowitz brought Geert Wilders to CPAC. It was the only event at the largest gathering in CPAC history that spoke to Islamic Supremacism, freedom of speech and the war on jihad.
What is the next phase in the Muslim Brotherhood's prject to overtake America? And how is America caving to Islam? It's happening right before your very eyes.
Read this document US MUSLIM ENGAGEMENT - Changing the Course". It's the absolute Obama blueprint. It's all George Soros money and the usual cast of suspects - Madeline Albright, Richard Armitage, Ingrid Mattson, Lugar, Ross ... the obvious cast of craven quislings.
The proposal for "reducing distrust"? Surrender. The document is deeply informed by the objectives of the OIC and the ummah. It is a blueprint for our dhimmitude. It's the basis for Kerry's hearing taqiyya and that garbage Fareed Zakariah article (cover) in Newsweek on how we have to accept Islamic governments and shariah.
Take a look at page 80 and what they are doing with your infidel dollars:
SPUDNIK!? vis a vis Islam?
Wait -- and if that were't disastrous enough. They are recommending Homeland security reduce the rejection rates for applicants from Muslim countries.
This document needs to be fisked - carefully. I have only just begun to fisk!
Gates of Vienna has this:
But yesterday it was Mr. Norquist’s turn to be briefed.
A few days ago I wrote about John Kerry’s speech on the Senate floor touting the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. Yesterday Mr. Norquist’s group was briefed by Vin Weber, a member of the leadership group of the same U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project.
According to several attendees who were present at Grover Norquist’s Wednesday meeting, the participants — presumably including members of Congress — were offered paperback copies of the “Changing the Course” document (pdf), which outlines the steps needed to help the United States achieve reconciliation with the Muslim world.
Unfortunately for non-Muslims in the United States, this prescription involves more engagement and more appeasement. It calls for yet more dialogue with and respect for Islam, and includes a special emphasis on removing Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups so that they can be recognized as legitimate negotiating partners.
The involvement of Mr. Norquist’s group raises questions about of the extent of Islamist infiltration throughout the conservative NGO groups.
If anyone is curious why this year’s CPAC — which has just folded its tents — didn’t have a single panel on radical Islam or the war on terror, remember that Grover Norquist is on the board of the ACU, which sponsors CPAC.
CPAC conservatives have now fallen into line. They don’t use words like jihad, nor do they associate Islam with terror. They have their ACU marching orders.
What’s more, attendees at Mr. Norquist’s meeting yesterday received the Muslim Brotherhood-approved game plan for the Obama administration.
No, not to critique it.
No, not to oppose it.
To get in line and support it.
What is it, exactly?
- - - - - - - - -
As I mentioned above, paperback copies of the how-to manual for American appeasement “Changing the Course” were distributed to attendees, along with a helpful lecture from Vin Weber (Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA and Weber’s colleague on the US-Muslim Engagement Project, was sadly absent).
Mr. Norquist is making sure that conservatives have the “politically correct” position — that is, Obama’s position. The same position held by Ingrid Mattson and the Muslim Brotherhood. Which, coincidentally, is also the position of Senator John Kerry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who testified to Kerry’s committee under her US-Muslim engagement project affiliation on February 26.
If we lived in a sane world, revealing all of this to the American public would cause a stir.
But this is not news. It’s a “dog bites man” story.
Still, it’s a damned dangerous dog — and from time to time it still bites.
If you want to learn more about Grover Norquist and his inside-the-Beltway operations, Paul Sperry’s website and his book Infiltration are recommended reading.
I’ll just include a few excerpts from his supporting documents:
8.1a Canceled checks for major donations to GOP powerbroker Grover Norquist’s nonprofit Islamic Institute from now-convicted terrorist Abdurahman Alamoudi, who provided seed money for the controversial Washington think tank, which has a stated goal of “promoting the appointments of Muslims to positions of influence.” 8.1b Check for donation to Norquist’s Islamic Institute from the Safa Trust, an alleged terror-underwriter based just outside Washington. It is part of the notorious Safa group, which investigators believe runs a terror-support group using Muslim charities and think tanks as cover. […] 8.2a Norquist’s Islamic Institute was a sponsor of the 2000 anti-Israel rally at the White House in which Muslim leaders such as Alamoudi shouted their support for terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. This press release called a “Friday Brief” — which has been removed from the institute’s website — shows that it strongly advised Muslim members to attend the event. It directs questions to the institute and also to Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, which has staffed much of the institute
For additional documentation, see the Sperry Files.
No doubt Grover Norquist and his Wednesday meetings will continue, and Washington Republicans will become even more well-informed about the benefits — both spiritual and financial — that Islam brings to the United States and its elected representatives.
UPDATE: Chew on this too: How George Soros Financed Obama
=====================
(WaTi) After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
More...
Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.
The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.
Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”
Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.
Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.
Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.
Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.
Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.
Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?
Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?
=============
Posts
