It's the law, Stupid.

[Warrior-Mentor]

It’s the Law, Stupid.
Thomas Paine
5 June 2009

Yesterday, President Obama said “…America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”[1] Human rights and freedom of speech issues aside, I’d like to raise a couple legal issues with the President’s speech yesterday.

As a graduate of Harvard Law, a former Constitutional Law Professor, and as the President of the United States preparing to give a speech on Islam, you might expect that he’d be interested in at least a cursory investigation of Islamic Law before making proclamations in front of a world audience about that religion. Perhaps he’d even want to ensure his statements were supported by the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

The President continued: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.”[2]

Zakat.

By Islamic law, Zakat means “growth blessings, an increase in good, purification or praise. In sacred law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be payed [sic] to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions below.”[3]

Sounds a lot like charity right? More like a religious tax – because zakat is a mandatory annual payment required of every free Muslim man woman and child.[4] “It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients, one-eighth of the zakat to each category.”[5]

The categories?

1. The poor,
2. Those short of money,
3. Zakat workers,
4. Those whose hearts are to be reconciled (including those “…who fight an enemy for us at considerable expense or trouble to themselves.”[6])
5. Slaves who are purchasing their freedom,
6. Those who have debts…
7. THOSE FIGHTING FOR ALLAH. “H8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the Army roster. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses.”[7]
8. the traveller in need of money.

Keep in mind that it is a sin for a Muslim not to pay the zakat.[8] So by Islamic law, every Muslim is religiously obligated to financially support Jihad – and the President of the United States just announced that he’s going to help them do just that.

Does it bother you that the President of the United States just promised to help fund Jihadis?
As a Citizen, a Patriot and a Service Member whose friends are in the line of fire, it disturbs me deeply.

But wait, didn’t the President just swear an oath in January to "…solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”[9]?

Did he get the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make this Treaty? Maybe he didn’t need it.

If “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”[10] can the President do so by executive proclamation? Should he? Did he even stop to ask this question?

Since when do we “…consider it part of [his] responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."[11]?

Is he going to fight negative stereotypes of Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism? The Church of Scientology?

Is this insanity? Or is he leading us towards dhimmitude[12]?

And while he’s off fighting negative stereotypes, who is going to be performing the duties of the President?

Would it be a negative stereotype to quote the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) from Islamic Law?

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them.”[13]

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not20what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.”[14]

As a graduate of Harvard Law, a Constitutional Law Professor and someone who has received a daily threat briefing for at least the last six months – he’s either naïve to the point of professional negligence, or he’s subversive to the point of impeachment.

I don’t know. But from someone who has promised us unprecedented transparency in his administration,[15] we should find out.

Perhaps it’s time the President take look around the White House Office of Legal Counsel and figure out whose head needs to roll.

If he won't do that, then maybe he needs to go back and re-read Article II, Section 4:

“Disqualification: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Because unless he's secretly amended our Constitution, Article VI still commands that:
"This Constitution...shall be the supreme law of the land."[16]

________________
Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, the Rights of Man and The Crisis, is the inspiration for this piece.


[1] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994) p246.(h1.0)
[4] Ibid, p246.(h1.1)
[5] Ibid, pp266-267. (h8.7)
[6] Ibid, p271. (h8.14(2))
[7] Ibid, p272. (h8.17)
[8] Ibid, p247. (h1.3)
[9] U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
[10] U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1.
[11] President Obama; Cairo, Egypt; 4 June 2009.
[12] http://www.dhimmitude.org/ the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to Islamic rule. Dhimmi was the name applied by the Arab-Muslim conquerors to indigenous non-Muslim populations who surrendered by a treaty (dhimma) to Muslim domination.
[13] Keller, p599. (o9.0(3))
[14] Koran 9:29
[15] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...penGovernment/
[16] U.S. Constitution, Article VI

[Warrior-Mentor]

Deciphering Obama in Cairo
Center for Security Policy | Jun 05, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

By and large, President Obama's address yesterday in Cairo has been well received in both the so-called "Muslim world" and by other audiences. Nobody may be happier with it, though, than the Muslim Brotherhood - the global organization that seeks to impose authoritative Islam's theo-political-legal program known as "Shariah" through stealthy means where violence ones are not practicable. Egyptian Muslim Brothers were prominent among the guests in the audience at Cairo University and Brotherhood-associated organizations in America, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), have rapturously endorsed the speech.

The Brotherhood has ample reason for its delight. Accordingly, Americans who love freedom - whether or not they recognize the threat Shariah represents to it - have abundant cause for concern about "The Speech," and what it portends for U.S. policy and interests.

Right out of the box, Mr. Obama mischaracterized what is causing a "time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world." He attributed the problem first and foremost to "violent extremists [who] have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims."

The President never mentioned - not even once - a central reality: The minority in question, including the Muslim Brotherhood, subscribes to the authoritative writings, teachings, traditions and institutions of their faith, namely Shariah. It is the fact that their practice is thus grounded that makes them, whatever their numbers (the exact percentage is a matter of considerable debate), to use Mr. Obama euphemistic term, "potent."

Instead, the President's address characterized the problem as a "cycle of suspicion and discord," a turn of phrase redolent of the moral equivalence so evident in the Mideast peace process with it "cycle of violence." There was not one reference to terrorism, let alone Islamic terrorism. Indeed, any connection between the two is treated as evidence of some popular delusion. "The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust."

Then there was this uplifting, but ultimately meaningless, blather: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity."

More often than not, the President portrayed Muslims as the Brotherhood always does: as victims of crimes perpetrated by the West against them - from colonialism to manipulation by Cold War superpowers to the menace of "modernity and globalization that led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam." Again, no mention of the hostility towards the infidel West ingrained in "the traditions of Islam." This fits with the meme of the Shariah-adherent, but not the facts.

Here's the irony: Even as President Obama professed his determination to "speak the truth," he perpetrated a fraud. He falsely portrayed what amounts to authoritative Islam, namely Shariah Islam, as something that is "not exclusive," that "overlaps" and "need not be in competition" with "America. Actually, Shariah is, by its very nature, a program that obliges its adherents to demand submission of all others, Muslims (especially secular and apostate ones) and non-Muslims, alike.

This exclusiveness (read, Islamic supremacism) applies most especially with respect to democratic nations like America, nations founded in the alternative and highly competitive belief that men, not God, should make laws. Ditto nations that stand in the way of the establishment of the Caliphate, the global theocracy that Shariah dictates must impose its medieval agenda worldwide. In practice, Shariah is the very antithesis of Mr. Obama's stated goal of "progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Its "justice" can only be considered by civilized societies to be a kind of codified barbarism.

At least as troubling are what amount to instances of presidential dawa, the Arabic term for Islamic proselytization. For example, Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to "the Holy Koran." It seems unimaginable that he ever would ever use the adjective to describe the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Then, the man now happy to call himself Barack Hussein Obama (in contrast to his attitude during the campaign) boasts of having "known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." An interesting choice of words that, "first revealed." Not "established," "founded" or "invented." The President is, after all, a careful writer, so he must have deliberately eschewed verbs that reflect man's role, in favor of the theological version of events promoted by Islam. Thus, Mr. Obama has gone beyond the kind of "respectful language" he has pledged to use towards Islam. He is employing what amounts to code - bespeaking the kind of submissive attitude Islam demands of all, believers and non-believers alike.

Elsewhere in the speech, Mr. Obama actually declared that "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Note that, although he referred in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict to "vile stereotypes" of Jews, he did not describe it as "part of his responsibility as President" to counter anti-Semitic representations.

Unremarked was the fact that such incitement is daily fare served up by the state media controlled by his host in Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak, by the Palestinian Authority's Mahmoud Abbas and by every other despot in the region with whom Mr. Obama seeks to "engage." Worse yet, no mention was made of the fact that some of those "vile stereotypes" - notably, that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" - are to be found in "the Holy Koran," itself.


Perhaps the most stunning bit of dawa of all was a phrase the President employed that, on its face, denies the divinity of Jesus - something surprising from a self-described committed Christian. In connection with his discussion of the "situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs," Mr. Obama said, "...When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer."

Muslims use the term "peace be upon them" to ask for blessings on deceased holy men. In other words, its use construes all three in the way Islam does - as dead prophets - a treatment wholly at odds with the teachings of Christianity which, of course, holds Jesus as the immortal Son of God.

If Mr. Obama were genuinely ignorant about Islam, such a statement might be ascribed to nothing more than a sop to "interfaith dialogue." For a man who now pridefully boasts of his intimate familiarity with Muslims and their faith, it raises troubling questions about his own religious beliefs. At the very least, it conveys a strongly discordant message to "the Muslim world" about a fundamental tenet of the faith he professes.

Finally, what are we to make of Mr. Obama statements about America and Islam?

Since he took office, the President has engaged repeatedly in the sort of hyping of Muslims and their role in the United States that is standard Muslim Brotherhood fare. In his inaugural address, he described our nation as one of "Christians, Muslims and Jews." Shortly thereafter, he further reversed the demographic ordering of these populations by size in his first broadcast interview (with the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya network), calling America a country of "Muslims, Christians and Jews."

Yesterday in Cairo, the President declared that "Islam has always been a part of America's story." Now, to be sure, Muslims, like peoples of other faiths, have made contributions to U.S. history. But they have generally done so in the same way others have, namely as Americans - not as some separate community, but as part of the "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one) that Mr. Obama properly extolled in The Speech.

Unfortunately, a pattern is being established whereby President Obama routinely exaggerates the Muslim character of America. For example, at Cairo University, he claimed there are nearly seven million Muslims in this country - a falsehood promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its friends - when the actual number is well-less than half that. Shortly before The Speech, in an interview with a French network, Mr. Obama said, "If you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

[CONTINUED]

[Warrior-Mentor]

Incredible as these statements may seem, even more astounding is their implication for those who adhere to Shariah. The President's remarks about America as a Muslim nation would give rise to its treatment by them as part of dar al-Islam, the world of Islam, as opposed to dar al-harb (i.e., the non-Muslim world).

Were the former to be the case, Shariah requires faithful Muslims to rid the United States of infidel control or occupation. And we know from last year's successful prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation - a so-called "charity" engaged in money-laundering for one of the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist operations, Hamas - that such an agenda tracks precisely with the Brothers' mission here: "To destroy Western civilization from within America, by its own miserable hand."


This reality makes one of Mr. Obama's promises in Cairo especially chilling. Near the end of his address, the President expressed concern that religious freedom in the United States was being impinged by "rules on charitable giving [that] have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation." He went on to pledge: "That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

Let us be clear: Muslim charities have run into difficulty with "the rules" because they have been convicted in federal court of using the Muslim obligation to perform zakat (tithing to charity) to funnel money to terrorists. At this writing, it is unclear precisely what Mr. Obama has in mind with respect to this commitment to "ensure [Muslims] can fulfill zakat." But you can bet that the Brotherhood will try to translate it into the release of their imprisoned operatives and new latitude to raise money for their Shariah-promoting, and therefore seditious, activities in America.

I could go on, but you get the point. The Speech contained a number of statements about the laudable qualities of America, the need for freedom in the Muslim world, about women's rights and the desirability of peace. But its preponderant and much more important message was one that could have been crafted by the Muslim Brotherhood: America has a president who is, wittingly or not, advancing the Brotherhood's agenda of masking the true nature of Shariah and encouraging the West's submission to it.

_____

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. An abbreviated version of this article appeared in Newsmax, June 5, 2009.
The Center's Publications

Frank Gaffney's Policy Descision Briefs are released weekly and sent directly to policy makers, coallitions, and the media for immediate action. Mr. Gaffney's weekly column is printed in The Washington Times on Tuesdays, and is also available at Townhall.com, Jewish World Review, and other websites.

Several times per week, the Center issues National Security Forum papers to inform and enliven the debate on issues vital to our national security.

The Americas Report is the featured product of the Center's Menges Hemispheric Security Project. Published weekly, it features in-depth, original articles on subjects not regularly covered by the American press.

The Center's Occasional Paper Series is an instrument for quick publication and dissemination of original research by CSP research staff and associates and the national security research and policy community beyond that.

While most of the Center's work is done behind the scenes, it does from time to time issue Press Releases on significant accomplishments, noteworthy events, or to set the record straight as a matter of public record.

[Richard]

VDH's thoughts on the Cairo speech.

Richard

The Age of Middle East Atonement - Therapeutic efforts to disguise the truth never really work.
Victor Davis Hanson, 6 Jun 2009

President Obama made an earnest effort — as is his way in matters of discord — to split the difference with the Islamic world. His speech essentially amounted to: “We did that, you did this, tit-for-tat, now we’re even, and can’t we all just get along?” He should be congratulated for expressing a desire for peace and for gently reminding the Muslim world of the way to reform, even if he did so while inflating Western sins.

But the problem with such moral equivalence is that it equates things that are, well, not equal — and therefore ends up not being moral at all.

To pull it off, one must distort both the past and the present for the presumed higher good of getting along. In the 1930s, British intellectuals performed feats of intellectual gymnastics in trying to contextualize Hitler’s complaints against the Versailles Treaty, assignment of guilt for the First World War, and French bellicosity — straining to overlook the intrinsic dangers of National Socialism for the higher good of avoiding another Somme. Over the short term, such revisionism worked; over the longer term, it ensured a highly destructive war.

Whatever a well-meaning President Obama thinks, occasional American outbursts against Muslims are not analogous with the terrorism directed at Westerners or the hostility toward Christianity shown in most of the Muslim world. Try flying into Saudi Arabia with a Bible, as compared to traveling to San Francisco with a Koran. One can easily forsake Christianity; one can never safely leave Islam. European worries about headscarves are not the equivalent of the Gulf states’ harassment of practicing Christians. Sorry, they’re just not.

Pace Obama, Arab learning in the Middle Ages, while impressive, did not really fuel either the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. If anything, the arrival in Europe of the learned of Byzantium fleeing Islam over two centuries was a far stronger catalyst for rediscovery of classical values, while enlightened European sympathy for Balkan peoples enslaved by the Ottomans rekindled romantic interest in Hellenism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Colonialism and the Cold War — both of which have now been over for decades — do not account for present Arab pathologies. The far more pernicious Baathism, Nasserism, Pan-Arabism, and Islamism were all efforts, in varying degrees, to graft ideas of European socialism and Communism onto indigenous Arab and Muslim roots.

Today, Russia and China are much harder on Muslims than is the West. (Consider Russia’s actions in Chechnya and China’s treatment of the Uighurs.) Neither country pays any attention to Muslims’ grievances, and therefore Muslims respect and fear Russia and China far more than they do the United States.

There are no Arab coffeehouse discussions today about the nearly 1 million Muslims killed over two decades by the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Russian government in Chechnya, yet there is constant haranguing over Abu Ghraib, where not a single inmate was killed by rogue American guards. In short, neither logic nor morality is in abundance on the Arab Street, and conjuring up American felonies will not change that.

“On the one hand, on the other hand” — what Greek rhetoricians knew as men/de — when delivered in mellifluous tones, can suggest a path to reconciliation. But denial of fundamental differences leads nowhere. Our problems with the Middle East will dissipate, as have to varying degrees our problems with Japan, Southeast Asia, South Korea, and South America, when the region adopts, in part or in toto, open markets, consensual government, and human rights. Until then, we are in an uneasy and dangerous waiting period.

Conflating Western misdemeanors with Middle Eastern felonies is classical conflict-resolution theory, and laudably magnanimous. But privately the world knows that Muslims are treated better in the West than Christians are in Muslim countries. That Muslims migrate to the lands of Westerners, and not vice versa. That disputes over a border between Palestinians and Israelis do not explain the unhappiness of the Arab masses, suffering from state-caused poverty and wretchedness. That American military assistance to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia, direct aid to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians, and moral condemnation of Chinese, Russian, and Balkan treatment of Muslims, coupled with a generous U.S. immigration policy, are not really cause for apology or atonement.

In short, few Arab leaders wish to give a “speech to the West.” They would have to take responsibility, directly or indirectly, for either fostering or appeasing radical Islam, while denying their culpability for its decades of mass murdering. They would also have to lament the global economic havoc caused in part by oil cartels and energy price-fixing.

President Obama’s intent is noble, but therapeutic efforts to disguise the truth never really work. We will see how the short-term good created by his therapeutic speechmaking compares to the long-term harm caused by telling the Muslim world, once again, that its problems were largely created by us — and, therefore, that we are largely responsible for providing the remedies.

Neither is true.

[Warrior-Mentor]

Where's RL & AL when you need 'em?

...and it looks like we've found one of the lawyers who isn't fully advising the President of all aspects of the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dh-fvwGUuE

Skip to 1:03.

[Roguish Lawyer]

WM:

I think you are doing just fine without us!

RL

[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

Where's RL & AL when you need 'em?

...and it looks like we've found one of the lawyers who isn't fully advising the President of all aspects of the law:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dh-fvwGUuE

Skip to 1:03.

AUGUST 4, 2009
White House Counsel's Job at Stake
BY EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON -- Obama administration officials are holding discussions that could result in White House counsel Gregory Craig leaving his post, following a rocky tenure, people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Craig, the top lawyer at the White House and a close aide to President Barack Obama, has helped lead the administration's efforts on several national-security issues that once enjoyed popularity but have since become become political liabilities for Mr. Obama.

President Barack Obama meets with White House counsel Gregory Craig, right, in the Oval Office in June.

These include the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the release of Bush administration-era national-security documents, and efforts to find legal ways to indefinitely hold some detainees who can't be put on trial.

The decision to close the Guantanamo facility became a political problem for Mr. Obama when concerns arose that some of the detainees would be released into the U.S. and the public soured on the move.

Mr. Craig didn't respond to questions about his job as White House counsel for this article.

The people familiar with the matter said a final decision hasn't been made.

In a statement, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina said: "We've addressed these rumors before. They are nothing more than typical Washington parlor games. It's disappointing that while we are focused on reviving the economy and fighting two wars, others spend their time pointing fingers in an attempt to promote their own status."

Mr. Craig has come under criticism from inside the administration and in Congress for a perceived failure to manage the political issues that have originated from Mr. Obama's decision to close Guantanamo, according to officials in the administration and in Congress. This criticism has drawn focus away from president's priorities, such as health care and energy.

One administration official involved in Guantanamo matters defended Mr. Craig, saying he has been responsive and helpful when consulted. One member of Congress who has worked with Mr. Craig on detainee issues, called Mr. Craig "a smart guy who understands Congress very well."

As an example of the difficulties Mr. Craig faced, the officials cite the president's move in May to reverse a decision that would have led to the release of photos showing abuse of terror detainees during the Bush administration.

Weeks earlier, Mr. Craig brought Mr. Obama plans to release Justice Department memorandums detailing the Bush administration's policies on terrorism detainees. Some Obama national-security officials complained they hadn't been consulted, people familiar with the matter said, and the objections prompted weeks of debate inside the administration.

Mr. Craig and Attorney General Eric Holder won the fight to release the memorandums, with minimal redactions, but the White House had to move quickly to limit political damage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney sharpened criticism of Mr. Obama during a televised speech that followed Mr. Obama's own address intended to explain his national-security vision.

At around the same time, the administration was running into trouble with plans to move to northern Virginia at least some Chinese Muslim Uighurs who remain detained at Guantanamo despite being cleared for release. The furor over the possible release of former suspects in the U.S. led Congress to overwhelmingly pass new restrictions, including barring spending to close the Guantanamo prison.

Mr. Obama signed executive orders during his first week in office to close the Guantanamo prison, to review the cases of the more than 200 detainees there and to draw up possible changes to detention and interrogation policies.

At the time Mr. Obama enjoyed public support for his Guantanamo plans, polls showed. Six months later that public support has dissipated, polls show.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), one of the administration's allies on the Guantanamo closure, faulted the White House handling of Guantanamo. "Announcing the closure without a plan has put in jeopardy the ability to close Guantanamo. Now public opinion has turned," Mr. Graham said Monday.

Mr. Craig, 64 years old, was with Williams & Connolly, a prominent Washington law firm, before joining the Obama campaign. President Bill Clinton tapped him in 1998 to lead his defense during congressional impeachment proceedings against the president.

Mr. Craig has built a White House counsel's office of formidable size, with 41 lawyers, according to the administration's most recent filings. Mr. Bush left office with about 30 lawyers in his counsel's office.

In response to earlier questions about why he had built such a large office, Mr. Craig said: "We have the best new law firm on the planet." He noted that the Obama administration faced an economic crisis and major national-security issues.

[frostfire]

Today, Russia and China are much harder on Muslims than is the West. (Consider Russia’s actions in Chechnya and China’s treatment of the Uighurs.) Neither country pays any attention to Muslims’ grievances, and therefore Muslims respect and fear Russia and China far more than they do the United States.

There are no Arab coffeehouse discussions today about the nearly 1 million Muslims killed over two decades by the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Russian government in Chechnya, yet there is constant haranguing over Abu Ghraib, where not a single inmate was killed by rogue American guards. In short, neither logic nor morality is in abundance on the Arab Street, and conjuring up American felonies will not change that.

I bet this snippet falls under non-PC disposition. I brought it up once even in a moderately conservative crowd and was instantly labeled war monger.

[Bordercop]

Here's the link...

http://www.newsmax.com/frank_gaffney...09/223061.html


Perge Sed Caute