top left - Stella and Dagny get a hug from Minnie at Disney
middle left - Blake at Disney
middle right -Blake, Dagny and Stella at park near Grandpa/Grandma Nelson's home in Clermont, Fl.
Bottom Left - Girls ( Emily [ number two granddaughter], Abby, Lynn and Amy [Emily's mom] in kitchen preparing Thanksgiving fixings!
Bottom Right - Stella and Dagny playing house
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
Some pictures from Thanksgiving family gathering in Orlando. Prefer these postings to those I send of Obama.
===
An "Olive" provides food for thought! (See 1 below.)
===
I repeat what I have said time and again - bring Arabs together for unity and you eventually create dis-unity.
Their tribal mentality and hatred and dis-trust of each other does not allow for unity for very long. (See 2 below.)
===
Sharyl Attkisson writes for American Thinker. She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles. Her latest book: Stonewalled, is an account of her struggles as an investigative reporter. To still her voice she was investigated by the current administration.
The thrust of Attkinsson's book is about how Obama has manipulated the media and that the American people are not getting the truth because of inherent media bias. (See 3 below.)
===
We now are two nations - thank you Progressives!. (See 4 below.)
===
Should you care about "CAIR?" (See 5 below.)
===
Obama's indifference regardingt who he offends may boomerang! (See 6 below.)
===
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
2)
Olive Schreiner, is a South African novelist and social activist who
wrote the following:
"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in
the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The
Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.
They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a
democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.
They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally
out of proportion to their actual numbers They gave the world the
Bible and even their "savior."
Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to
transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the
Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to
draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews... And while their
subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.
They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the
need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences... It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.
So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their'
way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that
Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.
All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even
protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of
Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.
Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a
struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their
own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so a to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.
When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they
can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews' uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.
The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us
one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way
dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the
nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their
own curse."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| Hamas announced on Sunday that the unity government established with Fatah over the summer has ended. The unity government’s six-month term has expired, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said at a press conference in Gaza City, adding that talks would take place regarding a future government, Palestinian News Agency Ma’an reported. Hamas "isn't interested in incitement, but rather seeks to maintain national unity," he said. Hamas also responded to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who accused Israel and Hamas of secretly negotiating, and claimed that only Hamas is responsible for Gaza. Zuhri said that Hamas "does not control the Gaza Strip at all. ... If the national consensus government doesn't want to take responsibility for Gaza, this doesn't mean the government is exempted from this responsibility," Ma'an reported. Zuhri also accused Abbas’s forces of arresting its members for political reasons. In response to the accusation by Abbas that Hamas has been negotiating with Israel, Hamas called on the Palestinian president to stop spreading lies, Israel Radio reported. Abbas said in a report on Sunday that Hamas is completely responsible for Gaza, and not the joint Fatah-Hamas unity government. "The Palestinian Authority does not exist in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is responsible for the Gaza Strip," he said. Abbas continued, saying that he will not negotiate over land with Israel, and accused Israel of holding secret negotiations with Hamas. "I won't give up one inch of [land past the]1967 [borders]; I have evidence that Hamas and Israel are conducting negotiations," Abbas said. According to an interview Abbas gave to an Egyptian TV station, Hamas and Israel were directly negotiating in secret and reached “understandings,” Channel 10 reported. The Palestinian president claimed in the interview that Israel offered Hamas control over 50 percent of the West Bank and that negotiations would be held over 15 years to decide on control for the rest. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Stonewalled: A Conversation with Sharyl Attkisson
Sharyl Attkisson’s book, Stonewalled, is a riveting account of her struggles as an investigative reporter. There are a number of different issues covered in this book ranging from Benghazi and Fast and Furious to the state of journalism today. American Thinker had the privilege of interviewing her about the book.
The most fascinating part of the book is her discussion of media bias. She exposes what most people believe, that there is a difference between the way Democratic and Republican administrations are covered. Chapter One takes a look at the mainstream press as a whole, and how it lost its "mojo", which she describes in the book as the press's "ability to serve vigorously and effectively as the Fourth Estate (and be the) watchdog to government and other powers that may otherwise overstep their bounds."
In many cases, reporters have allowed the government under the Obama administration to bully them into submission. She documents how the Obama presidency has become an enemy to openness and is one of the least transparent administrations in American history. In fact, after reading what she had to go through, President Obama makes Richard Nixon look like Mother Teresa.
In Stonewalled, Attkisson talks about what she refers to as “controversializing,” where a propaganda campaign is launched by surrogates and sympathizers in the media to divert from the damaging facts by focusing on personalities instead of the evidence. She told American Thinker, “There was a successful campaign to ‘controversialize’ Chairman Darrell Issa. It should not matter if you like a politician or not. If his committee is turning up important documents why would you not report on them. My colleagues were saying ‘you don’t want to be a Darrell Issa mouthpiece’ and my thoughts were ‘you are falling for their attempt to have us not go there.’ The story should be based on the facts, not where the reporter wants to go with it. That is what I tried to point out in my book.”
Another element she writes about in her book is the “substitution game.” Showing that bias might exist, she wishes journalists would be aware of how their own prejudices can affect their stories. What Sharyl recommends is for reporters to exchange people using the same scenario. Commenting directly, “Reporters should be treating the story the same no matter what name is inserted. I noticed, since Republicans won the Senate majority in the midterms, the narrative is changing in subtle ways, with some reporters portraying Democrats in a positive light, as wanting to compromise. In ‘substituting’ I don’t recall the same reporters implying that Republicans wished to compromise when the Democrats controlled the Senate, and yet there were indeed some Republicans who expressed that sentiment. The focus, instead, was on portraying some Republicans as uncompromising even as the Democratic leader Harry Reid was refusing to let Republican-passed bills be voted on in the Senate. ”
Probably the most outrageous point Sharyl makes is the administration's lack of respect for freedom of the press. At CBS, there are two glaring examples where there is strong potential for conflicts of interest: Mike Morrell, a high-ranking CIA official during Benghazi, and David Rhodes, the brother of Ben Rhodes, a key advisor to President Obama. Attkisson told American Thinker, “I argued at CBS that we needed to disclose the potential conflicts of interest for our own protection. Morrell was a CBS consultant but also has a paid position with the Hillary Clinton-dominated PR firm. In my view, disclosure is our friend, because people then can’t say we hid a relationship. This way people can make up their own minds.”
Part of the problem is with the press itself, since it does not circle the wagons when one of their own is threatened and harassed. She noted, “All administrations try to keep secrets and push back against inquiries. But there is now a consensus among many journalists that the Obama administration has displayed a new level of aggression as they have perfected the ability to use propaganda and social media to “controversialize” reporters who put out stories the administration perceives as negative to their interests. One way they do this is by threatening to withhold access to future interviews and information. But if all the news organizations responded to threats of denied access by saying ‘we don’t care, because we have a job to do’ this administration would not have news outlets for its propaganda. Instead, the threats seem to work with some in the media. They shape their stories, or they self-censor them entirely to remain in favor with the administration. One example of this is cited in Chapter One. C-Span was going to air an interview with the president at a time that the White House felt it would be harmful for various reasons. After C-Span refused to succumb to pressure to withhold the interview, this administration apparently made good on its threat to retaliate. C-Span claims they have not been given an interview with the president, the first lady, or other top administration officials since then, and that was four years ago.”
What directly happened to her regarding government surveillance could be a plot straight out of a Vince Flynn or John Grisham novel. Unfortunately, the bad guys are not Islamic terrorists but those in government today. Instead of using guns and bombs, they use intimidation and harassment. Attkisson has been targeted by a government agency or official that infiltrated her computer and cell phone and placed classified information on it. They are not listening to terrorists plotting to kill Americans, but are trying to find out what information this CBS reporter has that will be damaging to them.
Sharyl pointed out, “For a reporter to have classified information is not a crime in itself. What could be a crime, if the person who took them and handed them over broke the law. My sources have theorized that perhaps they could put something in someone’s computer for some pretense to justify a legal wiretap at some point. The long story short, they could then get a court order, frame a federal source, or frame the owner of that computer. Whoever did this to me is very sophisticated. I have decided to pursue it to let them know I was not just going away and to make the public aware. It is almost humorous that people think my accusations are outlandish and they call me paranoid. It is part of the propaganda campaign. This is not a figment of my imagination if you look at the undeniable forensic reports and the CBS press release.”
Concerning the General David Petraeus scandal, she wonders how much sense it made “that the president supposedly was not told about the affair, the FBI investigation into it, and the FBI plans to take no action regarding it. Yet, when Petraeus wasn’t toeing the party line on Benghazi, only then did the news of his affair become public, which ultimately led to his resignation. Surveillance of citizens by the government makes one wonder, as many officials have speculated to me aloud, if people, including government officials and politicians, could be blackmailed about information. The timeline of Petraeus certainly raises that question.”
She wants Americans to understand that the press self-censors the news regarding public issues. In future articles American Thinker will discuss her comments on Benghazi and Fast and Furious, but she warns, “there are many ground level reporters and producers who do want to report on the issues, but the ‘gatekeepers’ in the news have kept many important stories from getting the coverage they deserve. For example, for a couple of weeks all the networks heavily covered ObamaCare. All of a sudden the light switch went off and there was very little critical media coverage even though millions have been displaced from their insurance plans, enrollment figures were lackluster, and problems still existed with rising premiums, unaffordable deductibles, and the inability to continue to see their own doctors. There are still questions that remain: What are the exact numbers of those affected by the rate increases and the benefit decreases? What about this new class of people who had insurance and are now going without due to the Obamacare changes? I tried to explain in my book the sophisticated strategies that corporate and political interests use to manipulate the public through the press and social media. It’s as if we are wearing foggy glasses and need to take them off to see things more clearly. I try to offer some strategies in the book.”
Stonewalled needs to be read so Americans can understand that this administration is targeting journalists and the sources. But a word of warning: anyone can be targeted. This book shows how corporate and political interests try to manipulate public opinion. They add some obstruction, some intimidation, and some threats and an alternate reality is created. Attkisson’s chronicles her journey in a fascinating manner.
Sharyl Attkisson’s book, Stonewalled, is a riveting account of her struggles as an investigative reporter. There are a number of different issues covered in this book ranging from Benghazi and Fast and Furious to the state of journalism today. American Thinker had the privilege of interviewing her about the book.
A quote from another author and award-winning journalist, Kathleen Antrim: “If the press doesn’t report the truth, the people don’t get the truth,” best represents Attkisson’s beliefs. She seeks out the facts, not caring if those affected are Democrats, Republicans, or corporations, and is motivated, not by her own views, but by where the story leads. Unlike many of her colleagues, she sees her role as making sure government and corporations are held accountable, seeking out fraud and hypocrisy. She will continue the fight through freelance work and stories on her website.
In many cases, reporters have allowed the government under the Obama administration to bully them into submission. She documents how the Obama presidency has become an enemy to openness and is one of the least transparent administrations in American history. In fact, after reading what she had to go through, President Obama makes Richard Nixon look like Mother Teresa.
In Stonewalled, Attkisson talks about what she refers to as “controversializing,” where a propaganda campaign is launched by surrogates and sympathizers in the media to divert from the damaging facts by focusing on personalities instead of the evidence. She told American Thinker, “There was a successful campaign to ‘controversialize’ Chairman Darrell Issa. It should not matter if you like a politician or not. If his committee is turning up important documents why would you not report on them. My colleagues were saying ‘you don’t want to be a Darrell Issa mouthpiece’ and my thoughts were ‘you are falling for their attempt to have us not go there.’ The story should be based on the facts, not where the reporter wants to go with it. That is what I tried to point out in my book.”
Another element she writes about in her book is the “substitution game.” Showing that bias might exist, she wishes journalists would be aware of how their own prejudices can affect their stories. What Sharyl recommends is for reporters to exchange people using the same scenario. Commenting directly, “Reporters should be treating the story the same no matter what name is inserted. I noticed, since Republicans won the Senate majority in the midterms, the narrative is changing in subtle ways, with some reporters portraying Democrats in a positive light, as wanting to compromise. In ‘substituting’ I don’t recall the same reporters implying that Republicans wished to compromise when the Democrats controlled the Senate, and yet there were indeed some Republicans who expressed that sentiment. The focus, instead, was on portraying some Republicans as uncompromising even as the Democratic leader Harry Reid was refusing to let Republican-passed bills be voted on in the Senate. ”
Probably the most outrageous point Sharyl makes is the administration's lack of respect for freedom of the press. At CBS, there are two glaring examples where there is strong potential for conflicts of interest: Mike Morrell, a high-ranking CIA official during Benghazi, and David Rhodes, the brother of Ben Rhodes, a key advisor to President Obama. Attkisson told American Thinker, “I argued at CBS that we needed to disclose the potential conflicts of interest for our own protection. Morrell was a CBS consultant but also has a paid position with the Hillary Clinton-dominated PR firm. In my view, disclosure is our friend, because people then can’t say we hid a relationship. This way people can make up their own minds.”
Part of the problem is with the press itself, since it does not circle the wagons when one of their own is threatened and harassed. She noted, “All administrations try to keep secrets and push back against inquiries. But there is now a consensus among many journalists that the Obama administration has displayed a new level of aggression as they have perfected the ability to use propaganda and social media to “controversialize” reporters who put out stories the administration perceives as negative to their interests. One way they do this is by threatening to withhold access to future interviews and information. But if all the news organizations responded to threats of denied access by saying ‘we don’t care, because we have a job to do’ this administration would not have news outlets for its propaganda. Instead, the threats seem to work with some in the media. They shape their stories, or they self-censor them entirely to remain in favor with the administration. One example of this is cited in Chapter One. C-Span was going to air an interview with the president at a time that the White House felt it would be harmful for various reasons. After C-Span refused to succumb to pressure to withhold the interview, this administration apparently made good on its threat to retaliate. C-Span claims they have not been given an interview with the president, the first lady, or other top administration officials since then, and that was four years ago.”
What directly happened to her regarding government surveillance could be a plot straight out of a Vince Flynn or John Grisham novel. Unfortunately, the bad guys are not Islamic terrorists but those in government today. Instead of using guns and bombs, they use intimidation and harassment. Attkisson has been targeted by a government agency or official that infiltrated her computer and cell phone and placed classified information on it. They are not listening to terrorists plotting to kill Americans, but are trying to find out what information this CBS reporter has that will be damaging to them.
Sharyl pointed out, “For a reporter to have classified information is not a crime in itself. What could be a crime, if the person who took them and handed them over broke the law. My sources have theorized that perhaps they could put something in someone’s computer for some pretense to justify a legal wiretap at some point. The long story short, they could then get a court order, frame a federal source, or frame the owner of that computer. Whoever did this to me is very sophisticated. I have decided to pursue it to let them know I was not just going away and to make the public aware. It is almost humorous that people think my accusations are outlandish and they call me paranoid. It is part of the propaganda campaign. This is not a figment of my imagination if you look at the undeniable forensic reports and the CBS press release.”
Concerning the General David Petraeus scandal, she wonders how much sense it made “that the president supposedly was not told about the affair, the FBI investigation into it, and the FBI plans to take no action regarding it. Yet, when Petraeus wasn’t toeing the party line on Benghazi, only then did the news of his affair become public, which ultimately led to his resignation. Surveillance of citizens by the government makes one wonder, as many officials have speculated to me aloud, if people, including government officials and politicians, could be blackmailed about information. The timeline of Petraeus certainly raises that question.”
She wants Americans to understand that the press self-censors the news regarding public issues. In future articles American Thinker will discuss her comments on Benghazi and Fast and Furious, but she warns, “there are many ground level reporters and producers who do want to report on the issues, but the ‘gatekeepers’ in the news have kept many important stories from getting the coverage they deserve. For example, for a couple of weeks all the networks heavily covered ObamaCare. All of a sudden the light switch went off and there was very little critical media coverage even though millions have been displaced from their insurance plans, enrollment figures were lackluster, and problems still existed with rising premiums, unaffordable deductibles, and the inability to continue to see their own doctors. There are still questions that remain: What are the exact numbers of those affected by the rate increases and the benefit decreases? What about this new class of people who had insurance and are now going without due to the Obamacare changes? I tried to explain in my book the sophisticated strategies that corporate and political interests use to manipulate the public through the press and social media. It’s as if we are wearing foggy glasses and need to take them off to see things more clearly. I try to offer some strategies in the book.”
Stonewalled needs to be read so Americans can understand that this administration is targeting journalists and the sources. But a word of warning: anyone can be targeted. This book shows how corporate and political interests try to manipulate public opinion. They add some obstruction, some intimidation, and some threats and an alternate reality is created. Attkisson’s chronicles her journey in a fascinating manner.
4) Two Americas Why did it take until 100 years after the Civil War, until 1964, to pass a Civil Rights Act? Because the Democratic Party would not take its boot off the neck of the black man until Martin Luther King made the black vote a political force. Dedicated to being in power above all else, the Democrats had to make a U-turn on their race policy in the 1960s and join the Republicans in passing the Civil Rights Act because they realized that after the black vote was counted, they were not going to win any more national elections without it. But there was a problem. How was the Democratic Party going to overcome its deplorable record on race? It was the party of slavery, segregation, lynching, and the Klan.
What to do now? Get back in front of history with comprehensive rather than palliative welfare -- the Great Society. The Democratic Party would become the friend of the black community by giving it things it wasn’t asking for, but were hard to resist.
But there is a big problem with comprehensive welfare: it destroys the role of men in the community and this was disproportionately true of the black community. There is nothing worse than taking away a person’s mission in life, making that person unnecessary and thus unwanted. That is evil. And today we see the results of that evil. Single mothers can cope, but the family as a force in the community cannot flourish without men as a responsible presence. Without men, there is nobody to show boys how to behave, have someone to look up to and emulate, to set them straight when they go off the path, to show them how to be men. This has been true of every civilization in history. But over the last 50 years, the Democratic Party wiped out the black family by wiping out the role of black men in order to stay in power. The black family had withstood 250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow, but was destroyed by 50 years of Liberalism. In 1960, the illegitimacy rate in the black community was 30%. Now it is 78%. And as Star Parker has pointed out, there is nothing unique about blacks. Whites are now where blacks were in 1960 and are on the same path. What is the result of this devastation? There are now two Americas -- Welfare America and Enterprise America. The Democratic Party is the party of Welfare America and the Republican Party is the part of Enterprise America. Enterprise America is that part of America that is hands-on in its affairs. That does not mean the top managers of big business, which either out of necessity or out of temperament, in many cases cozy up to Big Government. There is also the billionaire effect, where billionaires, unaware of the wellspring of their own success, do not preach what they practice and support Welfare America for reasons of social standing. Let’s compare the cultural attributes of Enterprise America and Welfare America.
I am sure that AT readers can contribute many more. The larger point is that if you have no expectation of getting ahead in life, what used to be called “bettering yourself,” then you have no need to cultivate the habits, attitudes and practices that lead to achievement. In fact, people who do cultivate those traits are seen as prey, as losers, as inauthentic. One of the most damaging aspects of Welfare America as it relates to the black community is that the attitudes of Welfare America have come to be taken as the “authentic” black culture. That is why people with real achievement and the attitudes that created that achievement – Herman Cain, Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr, Ben Carson, Allen West – are seen as “not really black.” Welfare America is part of the Liberal/Left movement in America. The problem with Liberalism is that, as Margaret Thatcher observed, reality is conservative. Therefore Liberalism has to live on lies – lies of intent, lies of policy, lies of outcomes, lies of interpretation, lies of statistics. We saw that in ObamaCare. We see that in Ferguson today. Michael Brown fit the description of an APB that was put out after the robbery of the convenience store, which, in fact, he had committed. When Darren Wilson came across him, he fit the description of the APB and in fact had the stolen goods on him. Wilson had every reason to stop Brown. But those facts are not permitted in the public presentation of the case. Liberal lies are presented instead. And when rage flares up, what happens? Welfare America attacks Enterprise America. Businesses with no relationship to the altercation are burned down because they are not seen as an authentic part of the community. QED But things are changing. New winds are blowing, new voices being heard. Where are our businesses? Where are our jobs? The Republican Party on its way out? Not hardly. Enterprise America is finding its political voice, which it did not think necessary to express but now sees it is. What is going to happen over the next 50 years is that there is going to be a migration in the black community from Welfare America to Enterprise America. The first step is education -- vouchers. It tells you all you need to know about where Obama -- an avatar of Welfare America -- is coming from that his first act upon entering the White House was to cancel the very successful voucher program in Washington D.C. The significance of vouchers is not only in education itself, but that they involve families in the education of their children. There is a cultural impact beyond the educational impact. The role of men in the community has to be restored. How this is to be done is not clear, but seeing the need to do it is a start. We live in hope. |
by Daniel Pipes
We who follow the Islamist movement fell off our collective chair on Nov. 15 when the news came that the United Arab Emirates' ministerial cabinet had listed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as one of 83 proscribed terrorist organizations, up there with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS.
6)-With executive action, Obama risks losing Chief Justice John Roberts
President Obama always knew his plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation would enrage Republicans on Capitol Hill who oppose most of what he does.
But Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has shown an increasing skepticism toward what conservatives call Obama's tendency to overreach.
At issue is whether the administration must abide by one provision in the healthcare law, which says subsidies may be paid to those who enrolled in state health exchanges, or whether the president can extend those benefits to include people who signed up on the federally run exchange.
The administration argues the healthcare law, read as whole, shows Congress intended to make the subsidies available nationwide. But critics are appealing to Roberts and the court's conservatives, arguing the president and his advisors have no power to unilaterally change a law passed by Congress.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush enjoyed broad support for his "war on terrorism." But when Bush brandished his power as commander in chief and insisted he alone set the rules for detained terrorists, the high court turned against him.
This came as a surprise because the UAE authorities themselves have a record of promoting Islamism; because CAIR has a history of raising funds in the UAE; and because the UAE embassy in Washington had previously praised CAIR.
On reflection, however, the listing makes sense for, in recent years, the Islamist movement hasgravely fractured. Sunnis fight Shi'is; advocates of violence struggle against those working within the system; modernizers do battle against those trying to return to the seventh century; and monarchists confront republicans.
This last divide concerns us here. After decades of working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and its related institutions, the Persian Gulf monarchies (with the single, striking exception of Qatar) have come to see the MB complex of institutions as a threat to their existence. The Saudi, Emirati, Kuwaiti, and Bahraini rulers now view politicians like Mohamed Morsi of Egypt as their enemies, as they do Hamas and its progeny – including CAIR.
Can a Washington-based organization with ties to the Obama White House, the U.S. Congress, leading media outlets, and prestigious universities truly be an instigator of terrorism? CAIR can rightly be so characterized.
|
While the Gulf monarchs have not become any less Islamist, they have acquired a clear-eyed appreciation of the harm that MB-related groups can do.
Having explained why the UAE listed CAIR on its terror manifest, we must pose a second question: Is the listing warranted? Can a Washington-based organization with ties to the Obama White House, the U.S. Congress, leading media outlets, and prestigious universities truly be an instigator of terrorism?
CAIR can rightly be so characterized. True, it does not set off bombs but, as the UAE's foreign minister explains, "Our threshold is quite low. … We cannot accept incitement or funding." Indeed, CAIR incites, funds, and does much more vis-Ã -vis terrorism:
Apologizes for terrorist groups: Challenged repeatedly to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups, CAIR denounces the acts of violence but not their sponsors.
The Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas front group, made an early $5,000 donation to CAIR to help establish it.
|
Is connected to Hamas:
Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. and many other governments, indirectly created CAIR and the two groups remain tight. Examples: in 1994, CAIR headNihad Awad publicly declared his support for Hamas; and the Holy Land Foundation (HLF), a Hamas front group, contributed $5,000 to CAIR; in turn, CAIR exploited the 9/11 attacks to raise money for HLF; and, this past August, demonstrators at aCAIR-sponsored rally in Florida proclaimed "We are Hamas!"
Settled a lawsuit: CAIR initiated a libel lawsuit in 2004 over five statements by a group called Anti-CAIR. But two years later, CAIR settled the suit with prejudice (meaning that it cannot be reopened), implicitly acknowledging the accuracy of Anti-CAIR's assertions, which included:
- "CAIR is a terrorist supporting front organization that is partially funded by terrorists";
- "CAIR … is supported by terrorist supporting individuals, groups and countries";
- "CAIR has proven links to, and was founded by, Islamic terrorists"; and
- "CAIR actively supports terrorists and terrorist supporting groups and nations."
Includes individuals accused of terrorism: At least seven board members or staff at CAIR have been arrested, denied entry to the US, or were indicted on or pled guilty to or were convicted of terrorist charges: Siraj Wahhaj, Bassem Khafagi, Randall ("Ismail") Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Rabih Haddad, Muthanna Al-Hanooti, and Nabil Sadoun.
Is in trouble with the law: Federal prosecutors in 2007 named CAIR (along with two other
Islamic organizations) as "unindicted co-conspirators and/or joint venturers" in a criminal conspiracy to support Hamas financially. In 2008, the FBI ended contacts with CAIR because of concern with its continuing terrorist ties.
On learning of the UAE listing, CAIR called it "shocking and bizarre," then got to work to have the Department of State protest and undo the ruling. Nothing loath, department spokespersonJeff Rathke noted that the U.S. government, which "does not consider these organizations to be terrorist organizations," has asked for more information about the UAE decision. The UAE minister of state for Foreign affairs replied that if organizations can show that their "approach has changed," they are eligible to appeal "to have their names eliminated from the list."
Pressure from the Obama administration might reverse the UAE listing. Even so, this will not undo its lasting damage. For the first time, an Islamist government has exposed the malign, terroristic quality of CAIR – a stigma CAIR can never escape.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)-With executive action, Obama risks losing Chief Justice John Roberts
President Obama always knew his plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation would enrage Republicans on Capitol Hill who oppose most of what he does.
But by claiming the power to forge ahead based on his executive authority, the president may well lose the one conservative he still really needs: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Two years ago, the chief justice surprised many by joining liberals on the court to uphold the constitutionality of Obama's Affordable Care Act. And he probably holds the deciding vote in a second legal challenge to the healthcare law — one that seeks to eliminate government insurance subsidies to low- and middle-income enrollees in two-thirds of the nation.
But Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has shown an increasing skepticism toward what conservatives call Obama's tendency to overreach.
In June, the high court ruled Obama exceeded his power when he made temporary recess appointments during a brief Senate break. Roberts joined Justice Antonin Scalia in a separate opinion that would have gone further by banning nearly all such appointments. They asserted "all presidents have a high interest in expanding the powers of their office" and it was the court's duty to keep them in check.
The same week, a 5-4 majority that included the chief justice ruled that the administration went too far when it required Christian business owners to pay for certain contraceptives for female employees.
When Obama announced his executive action on immigration last month, it set off another furor on the political right, where it was denounced as an abuse of power befitting a "monarch" or an "emperor."
Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer for the libertarian Cato Institute, said the immigration order is the "starkest example" of what he called the president's "pattern of lawlessness."
The question now is whether the president's immigration action will influence the thinking of the justices, and particularly of Roberts, as they consider in the upcoming healthcare case whether the president exceeded his authority.
At issue is whether the administration must abide by one provision in the healthcare law, which says subsidies may be paid to those who enrolled in state health exchanges, or whether the president can extend those benefits to include people who signed up on the federally run exchange.
Experts say that legally the healthcare case is a close call. If so, the outcome may turn on whether the justices are inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt, or whether they believe it's time to rein him in.
Their argument echoes the criticism voiced over Obama's immigration directive, accusing the president of trying to fix a broken system by acting on his own rather than waiting for Congress.
Obama's bold decision to press ahead with his immigration order in the wake of the GOP victories in the midterm election will not escape the attention of the court's conservatives.
Shapiro said the new immigration plan will "confirm the chief justice's view" that the court should not allow the administration to revise laws passed by Congress.
Many presidents have been stung when the Supreme Court turned against them for overstepping their powers.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush enjoyed broad support for his "war on terrorism." But when Bush brandished his power as commander in chief and insisted he alone set the rules for detained terrorists, the high court turned against him.
Bush suffered three defeats over his efforts to hold detainees without a hearing at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba. "A state of war is not a blank check for the president," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican appointee who faulted Bush's go-it-alone approach.
President Clinton had long been beset by rumors over his personal life when the Supreme Court cleared the way for lawyers for Paula Jones to question him under oath in her sexual harassment lawsuit. The decision helped trigger impeachment proceedings against Clinton.
President Truman was in deep political trouble when the high court rebuked him for using the military to seize steel mills during the Korean War. And President Nixon resigned in 1974 shortly after the court ruled he must turn over the Watergate tapes.
Obama's presidency is not at stake before the high court, but a defeat in the healthcare law dispute of King vs. Burwell could cripple the program.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito voted to strike down the law entirely in 2012. When the case comes up for argument in March, Obama's lawyers will be hoping the chief justice is not ready to join them this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment