Those Whom We Must Take Back the Memorial FROM

Thursday morning, 30 June 2005, Debra Burlingame was interviewed by Tony Snow on his radio talk show. Apparently the New York Post has looked into what the Leftist hijackers of the 9-11 Memorial plan, and it is worse than anything we have heard previously. At this moment, those data are not available to us, but we will look for them and ask any readers to send us links, please.

Another important idea that came out of the interview this morning with Debra Burlingame was a reminder. Recall that the "historian" for this Leftist abortus is Eric Foner, of Columbia University. I knew that I had heard that name before the issue of the 9-11 Memorial hijacking, but I had forgotten a crucial detail. Alas, it became crystal clear when listening to Ms. Burlingame.

Eric Foner is best know for his public comments at Columbia University that America deserves "a million more Mogadishus."

Go, sign the petition at Take Back the Memorial. Let's get rid of these scum. Where are the tar, feathers, and rails when you really need them?

Update on Al-Jazeera's Plan to "Cover the Border"

Al-Jazeera kills Arizona border reports

"I am a professional journalist. They think bin Laden himself is sending me out there," he said. "I find it a little bit racist."

Funny how the old chessnut, the accusation of "racism" seems to pop up whenever certain people don't get their way. Last time I looked, Islam is not a race and Muslims come in all shapes and colors.

The Arab television network Al-Jazeera pulled the plug Monday on a series of news reports about the Arizona-Mexico border amid criticism that the information could help terrorists slip into the United States.
 
Al-Jazeera planned to launch the series this week with coverage of a Phoenix rally by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a volunteer civilian border-watch group that has attracted international media attention.
 
"I wanted to cover the story from the human point of view," said Nasreddine Hssaini, the Washington, D.C.-based Al-Jazeera reporter behind the series. "I wanted to go to Tombstone and Sasabe. I wanted to tell the story of democracy in action."
 
The network canceled the project, Hssaini said, after Minuteman organizer Chris Simcox refused to cooperate and then notified the Border Patrol and members of the state's congressional delegation about Al-Jazeera's plans.
 
"They decided it wasn't worth it," the reporter said.
 
Al-Jazeera has attracted millions of viewers throughout the Arab world with its coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its airing of tapes of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
 
But Al-Jazeera's growing popularity has brought greater scrutiny. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused the Qatar-based network of encouraging militants by airing hostage executions.
 
For Simcox, Al-Jazeera and al-Qaida are virtually one and the same. They wanted to come to Arizona "to do reconnaissance," he said. "I will not have a part in that. I will not work with the enemy."
 
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., noting that Al-Jazeera has been known to broadcast messages from the al-Qaida leadership to terrorist cells around the globe, was outraged that the network planned to visit Arizona.
 
"It is insane policy to allow Al-Jazeera to film Arizona's unsecured border with Mexico and then broadcast it to the very people who perpetrated 9/11," Franks said. Hssaini, who described himself as a Moroccan-born citizen of Canada working legally in the United States, dismissed the suggestion that his motive for coming to Arizona concerned something other than journalism.

Al-Jazeera doesn't need to show the way. Hundreds of Middle Easterners are caught every year attempting to cross the southern and northern borders. The Border Patrol estimates that one out of four is caught. Nevertheless, such coverage would be insane.

WorldNetDaily: Souter suitor wants real hotel company

Bless World Net Daily for keeping the Supreme Court property rights abrogation on the front burner. A couple of days ago, WND published the breaking story of Logan Darrow Clements putting the move on Justice David Souter's home in Weare, NH, to demonstrate the meaning of the Leftist assault on liberty by Souter and the other Leftists on SCOTUS. (See our blog).

LOOK OUT. What started as sparks is turning into an inferno. Americans are furious, and well they should be.

Stay with these stories--the revolution against SCOTUS as well as this particular story about Souter's property. Today, WND published an update, which we excerpted below.

WorldNetDaily: Souter suitor wants real hotel company, Wednesday, June 29, 2005

New Hampshire town inundated with support to take justice's home

Logan Darrow Clements, the man looking to oust Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his New Hampshire home following last week's ruling on eminent domain, says he's willing to turn over his effort to professional developers. "To make this project more viable," he said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, "to let you know that it's not a prank, that it's a real project that's gonna go forward, I want to hand this project off to an actual hotel-development company that has actually built hotels in the past, and I'll simply act as the spokesperson."

His statement comes as the town of Weare, N.H., has reportedly been inundated with calls in support of the proposal since WND first publicized the story. "There are so many people who have come out of the woodwork to support me," Clements said. "Government has just gotten far too big and far too powerful. ... We're trying to make a larger point that we're losing freedom so fast in America that we have to stop what we're doing and take a stand and fight it."

Monday, Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of Weare, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," Meany told the Associated Press. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

When asked by television host Rich Lowry, who was filling in for Sean Hannity, why he didn't go after Justice John Paul Stevens' abode as well, Clements responded, "There are such things as hotel chains, and so we can certainly have other locations."

"Logan Darrow Clements," whose name is fabulous (whether original or assumed), gave an impressive appearance on the Hannnity and Colmes program last evening. Stay attuned to Fox News Channel programming because Mr. Clements, et and al, will not be on any of the failing networks, and you really should not miss a beat of these developments (a pun, again) as they unfold.

Yesterday, Dr. Walter Williams in his column in Jewish World Review closed with this wonderful statement: "I think the socialist attack on judicial nominees who'd use framer-intent in their interpretation of the Constitution might also explain their attack on our Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why? Because when they come to take our property, they don't want to risk buckshot in their but-s."

This righteous rage is going to turn this 4th of July into the most meaningful in years. That meaning is original intent of the Founders. We shall not lose their legacy!

Being Taken Seriously, and Not

Yesterday afternoon, while engaged in some overdue physical labor out in the back of my home, I heard the radio newsreader report that another aircraft had violated the Washington, D.C., No-Fly Zone. This time, it was a much more powerful and speedy aircraft of the corporate variety. At least part of the government evacuated. Then, to my astonishment, the lady newsreader said that this was the THIRD AIRCRAFT THIS DAY TO VIOLATE THE CAPITAL NO-FLY ZONE.

All sorts of things ran through my mind. First and foremost was this so-called "war on terror." Right behind it came the issue involving the aircraft. My mind matched them and told me why.

First, let me ask the rhetorical question of why we are having such a hard time being taken seriously in the world. The truly bad guys, e.g., jihadists and their sponsors Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria really laugh at us. In fact, so does that caricature figure in North Korea. China is wary but still plays us like a Wurlitzer. Many other countries look at us with disregarding disdain, including those self-appointed saints populating "old Europe."

Now, leap ahead a bit to the Washington, D.C., and the "invading aircraft" issue.

The last big public kerfuffle involved two persons flying with Lindbergh era technology over the capital, coming dangerously close to the capitol before we spent a jillion dollars scrambling two 21st century military aircraft to "advise" these "Maryland hillbillies" to veer away. A few more seconds, and they would have been right over Nancy Pelosi who had already panicked right out of her pumps. You can imagine how a dropped "trucker bomb" filled with Sarin might have stirred the fleeing "sand crabs."

Much, much too much, talk followed. Fingers pointed. Tongues wagged. And, "at the end of the day," to cite another contemporary cliche', not a damned thing changed. The guys flying the "Ma and Pa Kettle Express" got into a heap of trouble, and they took the hit for all the others who managed to make it to the cover-your-a__ dispenser just in time to fog up the issue beyond recognition or management.

Later, it comes out that over 60 incidents per month like this happen. All the king's men and all the king's horses can't stop Humpty Dumpty from repeating this stuff at an average of twice a day. And what is the "national response"? It goes something like this: You know, we have the full authority to shoot you from the sky many miles away from the Capitol, when you enter forbidden air space. You know this because it has been disseminated to all airports, flight schools and businesses, airlines, newspapers, and all other electronic and print news media. And, stern warnings have gone out over and over and over and over and over; well, you know, a whole bunch. Don't you ever, ever, ever do this again, or we might just refer you to the U.N. Security Council for a "stern resolution."

Guess what happens? No change, that is what happens. Why does nothing happen? It is really very simple: No one who flies takes our government seriously.

The same thing goes on internationally. We find endless ways to insert our national head deep into our rectum and tell ourselves that no one can see anything. At least we can't hear them laughing at us while our head is so placed.

Everybody in government has talked enough. Everybody in America as well as everybody all over the world knows our principles. No further education is needed. We have been speaking softly while saying we have the big stick. Now it is time to shut up and thump with the big stick, over and over until we get the results that matter to us.

Try this on. Tomorrow, every airplane violating the Washington no-fly security zone is shot down within the first two miles of entering the forbidden zone. If three doufuses trespass, then three doufuses learn about air-to-air missles. Everybody else learns that WE MEAN WHAT WE SAY.

Now, guess what happens the day after? Why, bless my soul, no more aircraft violate the zone. It will be a cold day in hell before another plane "forgets."

Now, suppose we let our Marine, Navy, Air Force, and Army pilots use anything in Syria for target practice one day. We tell the old eye doctor that this was really just scrimmage; we plan to turn these guys loose the next day and the days to follow unless his support of all this jihadic crap ceases permanently. He, of course, will look at our past behavior and laugh at us. But, the next day, our guys carve up Syria into four zones and come in from the Mediterranean and Iraq, just itching to try everything they have ever wanted to try. Syria goes silent because no one is left to speak for it.

Then we ask Saudi Arabia and Iran if they "feel lucky." When they laugh, we thank them for "making our day," tomorrow. Then we provide them a sample of what that means.

Guess what? The "insurgency" in Iraq goes very quiet, and Iraq gets on with the business of updating itself from the 7th century C.E. Our men and women stop dying, as well as the Iraqis, and we start getting the hell out of there.

The old principle is "mean what you say," along with its counterpart, "say what you mean."

All the politicians, bureaucrats, academics, journalists, etc., make everything much too complicated. They "nuance" life into morasses, impasses, and total constipation. Think of what would happen, given the moral chimeras of today:

The ClapTrap-o-Crats arise in unison, become like Dervishes, chanting their prepared scripts while whirling mindlessly. The White Rabbit Republicans grab their quarters and head for the Compromise-for-Every-Occasion vending machine. Every cabinet department turns its spin cycle to high. All of the bore-you-to-death news networks book everybody they can find who has a negative opinion, in hopes that someone, other than their staff members, will watch. Fox runs the same damned story every five minutes around the clock until people begin throwing brickbats at their televisions. Every windbag lawyer who can find a television camera bleats, sounding like an ailing bagpipe. Every "people's organization" lights up its internet websites. Everybody scares everybody else into total stagnation. Nothing gets done.

Tomorrow, the planes violate D.C. airspace, and every worthless tyrant in every worthless country laughs at us anew.

The solution is not hard to understand. All it takes is opening one's eyes, seeing the facts of reality, identifying the principles involved, and acting in accordance with those principles. It is called morality.

"Respect the decision of the Supreme Court?" SAY WHAT?

President Bush's press marshmallow, Scott McClellan, said the wrong thing at the wrong time, big time. Tom Ambrose of World Net Daily reported on how McClellan was able so deftly to insert his foot into his mouth. Mr. McClellan was asked about that infamous Supreme Court decision of 6-23-05 which abolished one of the key Constitutionally protected Rights of Man-- the right to property:

Amidst a lot of doublespeak, McClellan had a moment of clarity:

I think the president has made his views clear when it comes to private property rights. In terms of Supreme Court decisions, we obviously have to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Tom Ambrose rose in high dudgeon to say so much so well about this awful fifth column third of three powers of the American government. Read his entire article. It is wonderful. I must restrict myself to only a smidgen of its flavor:

It's past time for all of us to wake up. Prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock said, "We must be unanimous, there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together." "Yes," replied Ben Franklin, "we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Is this not so now?

Will you join me now so we can save America while it is still possible?

He "gets it" and gets it well.

More and more Americans are arising in frank revolt against this decision made by the Supreme Court. Some televised coverage on 28 June 2005 featured residents of New London, Connecticut, who plan every form of legal resistance.

With the 4th of July almost upon us, what is happening across America adds significantly to my pride as an American. We must revolt, and it looks like that is what more and more of us are doing.

No, we do not need to take up muskets and fire at the Supremes in their red coats, not yet. We have legal options we have not begun to tap.

For example, a year or so ago, the Tennessee governor and legislature tried to ride roughshod over Tennesseans to institute an income tax, after vowing NOT to do so. A Nashville talk radio host served as fuse striker to a mentally well-prepared populace. Reminiscent of the peasants with torches and pitchforks in the movie, Frankenstein, Tennesseans flooded into the capital city with automobiles, trucks, tractors, and whatever other motorized conveyances they could find. The drove around the capitol blowing their horns and blinking their lights.

You know what? They scared the legislators sh__less. Thus ended the Tennessee takeover by the governor and legislature.

This was fully legal, and the legislators "got it."

I do not know what other local revolts are coming, but I do know of one national revolt that we should all get behind. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has introduced Senate Bill S. 1313, The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005. His website offers the the bill text as a pdf file. The intent of his bill is to "... prohibit ... transfers of private property, without the owner’s consent, if federal funds were used, and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use."

Right now, this is the best course available to us citizens. It is unrealistic, probably, to expect the kind of fuller thinking and language our Founders might put into a bill, but Senator Cornyn's bill goes far toward rectification. We must support S. 1313 and Senator Cornyn. Reach him by his website and via his District Office, Washington DC, 517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.Washington, DC 20510, Tel: 202-224-2934, Fax: 202-228-2856.

In addition, we must animate our own legislative garden slugs hiding in the dark, wet corners of Washington and who just raised their own salaries (doubtless as a reward for all their good works), to get behind S. 1313 and "git 'r done'! Whether by telephone, or by fax, or by email, FEDEX, or barging into their offices, we must animate our representatives and senators to nullify the 23 June 2005 Supreme Court decision. We have no time to waste, and our cause could not be more important for the long-range future of America and the freedom of Americans.

We can do it. The citizens of Tennessee did it, and there are jillions of other examples. Once raised, our voices not only deafen elected officials and bureaucrats, but we scare them into doing what is right. The worst course we can do is follow the White House press marshmallow's malaise of "... we obviously have to respect the decisions of the Supreme Court." Why must we? They are wrong, morally wrong!

N.Y. Times Comes Out Against Pataki

The fight for the 9-11 Memorial is not over. Those that want to create an exhibit that shows all the blemishes of America's past are on the offensive.

Gov. George Pataki's decision to side with increasingly vocal critics of the cultural plans for the World Trade Center site is not surprising, but it is alarming. The governor has been deeply and rightly sensitive to the concerns of the families of the victims of 9/11. Like all of us, he honors their loss and their grief. But by bowing to some of the survivors' growing hostility to any version of 9/11 except their own, Mr. Pataki is doing a disservice to history and to the very idea of freedom.

The protesters have objected to the proposed International Freedom Center, which they fear might someday sponsor discussions that cast America in a negative light, and to the Drawing Center, one of the cultural institutions invited to move to ground zero, which has displayed art that appears to criticize the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

The protesters - and the governor - seem to have little faith in the emotional power of the memorial to the victims, which will be the central focus of ground zero, emotionally, politically and architecturally. The memorial's force will not be diminished by any other activities at the site, and it will inevitably serve as a locus of grief and remembrance for everyone who was touched by 9/11. But it is meant to remember something more than a day of tragedy. It's meant to remember the lives of those who died there, lives that were rich, complex and politically and culturally divided.

I reiterate: Freedom of speech allows haters of America to voice their opinion. However the 9-11 Memorial is not the proper venue. The purpose of a memorial is to remember the dead and the occasion on which they died. The offensive display of the proposed Freedom Center is not a memorial to the dead from that occasion. Put the Freedom Center somewhere else.

New York Imam Ahmad Dwidar: In 1995, I Heard Sermons Calling on Muslims to March on the White House and Turn It into the Muslim House

The Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI) provides insightful glimpses into the the minds of Middle Eastern Muslims. They offer a variety of servicesincluding reports on "Sermons from Mosques in the Middle East" and "Suicide (Martyrdom) Operations." They also give clips of various videos, some of which are directly from television news broadcasts. The following is the transcript of an interview with an Imam living here in the United States.

Hattip: JihadWatch

6/9/2005
Clip No. 730

Dwidar: In 1995 I heard some sermons, saying that Muslims should march on the White House from some of the mosques.

Host: What do you mean by "march on the White House"?

Dwidar: One cleric said in his sermon: "We are going to the White House, so that Islam will be victorious, Allah willing, and the White House will become into the Muslim house."

Host: How? I don't understand.

Dwidar: This is simply a slogan. I'm only saying this to...

Host: Are they going to occupy the White House or what?

Dwidar: No, they say that through the domination of Islam and its ideas, the White House will change.

Host: This will happen one day, but not this way. Islam will be victorious, no doubt, but not this way.

Dwidar: It will not happen unless the Muslims abandon their slogans and become a role model. If a Muslim doctor who invents a cure in the hospital or performs an important operation successfully – all the media will broadcast it live and announce it worldwide. The Muslim who makes do with breaking the wooden podium, with screaming, and with patronizing, condescending rhetoric that "Islam is coming, and it will change the face of the earth," while at the same time he cannot even change the face of the Islamic capitals, which overflow with garbage – this path will lead to no good.

Muslims do believe that Islam will indeed rule the world. They truly believe they have earthly rights conferred upon them simply because the Muslim that include the ownership and use of all the world's assets and the right to the use and benefit of the world's human capital if not the outright ownership of some of them.

Their confidence will not be shaken and the fact that they really don't care how some Muslims or their enablers achieve this ultimate goal is sobering and frightening. For them the ends justify the means, and any means necessary is a common slogan. The sacrifice of some of their lives and many of ours is irrelevant because world domination is the brass ring that they intend to have at any cost.

We notice that they Imam speaking above doesn't allude to violence. Implied is that the "White House will be changed" through other means such as: Da'wa, the calling to Islam; economic means through trade (oil?) or installing the Muslim commercial system; through demographics -- through immigration or natural increase that would put political pressure on the White House, perhaps through the election of a American President that is a Muslim backed up by Muslim Congressmen. Conquest doesn't always include violence.

As people, individual Muslims do seem decent enough. But as a group, from history and from "history's first draft," current events, we know how dangerous they are to freedom and the Western way of freedom -- freedom of speech, thought, religion, action, and so on. Freedom is antithetical because freedom and free will is incompatible with the will of Allah. Allah provides the explanation for the need of every thought, word and deed, and variance from the will of Allah is unacceptable and a punishable offense.

From the conversation with Muslims of every caste and from the writings of scholars, historians, and from the the transcripts of Friday Sermons and interviews with Imam, such as this one, we have come to know what they are thinking. They are thinking about triumphalism and we know they hold us in disdain and hate us for our disbelief. Even though so do keep such opinions to themselves they are hate mongers a because they refuse to repudiate Jihad and the acts of the jihadists. They are terrorists, bigots and slavers in their hearts, for to hold the sentiment is only a step away from actualizing the activity, and all activities whether evil or good begin with the first impulse within the human mind.

Supreme Court justice faces boot from home? WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

This is hot off the presses and is rich in irony, humor, and a sense of justice (yes, that can be taken as a pun). We did not delete a single, delicious word...

WorldNetDaily: Supreme Court justice faces boot from home?

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND
Developer seeks
Souter's property
Looks to build 'Lost Liberty Hotel' at home of Supreme Court justice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 28, 2005
1:45 p.m. Eastern
By Ron Strom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.

Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clements, the proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, "featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America." Instead of a Gideon's Bible in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site – "being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans."

"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Strom is a news editor for WorldNetDaily.com.

WE MUST GET BEHIND THIS LEGISLATION, RIGHT NOW!

Not a single one of us can afford not to rally behind this bill introduced by Senator Cornyn. It is how we reverse that infamous Supreme Court decision of 23 June 2005, which abolished property rights (and rights, period). We cannot expect the legislators of today to see deeper than the literal words on the Constitution, but that they can get that far should delight us. Let's take this because it will accomplish the overthrow of that SCOTUS decision!

WRITE, EMAIL, PHONE, WHATEVER, your Representatives and Senators.

Outrage Lingers Over Property Rights Ruling -- 06/28/2005, By Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Senior Editor, June 28, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - ...[A] property rights ruling handed down last week still has many Americans shaking their heads -- including some lawmakers, who plan to do something about it.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) has introduced a bill, the Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005, in response to last week's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London .

The Cornyn legislation, introduced Monday, would prohibit transfers of private property without the owner's consent if federal funds were used; and if the transfer was for purposes of economic development rather than public use.

"It is appropriate for Congress to take action...to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain," Cornyn said.

In remarks on the Senate floor Monday, Cornyn said the protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizure is "a fundamental principle and core commitment of our nation's Founders." He noted that the Fifth Amendment specifically provides that "private property" shall not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment, he emphasized, permits government to seize private property only "for public use."

Sen. Cornyn currently chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, and in the last Congress he was chairman of the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights subcommittee. A former Texas Supreme Court justice, Texas attorney general, and Bexar County District judge, Cornyn is the only former judge on the Judiciary Committee.

(Emphases mine)

What George Bush Should Talk About Tonight

Iran has gone from bad to worse, just has Syria has. Why? Because we, among others, are letting them. This new president of Iran is Saddam Hussein reincarnate.


MEMRI:

Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 229
June 28, 2005 No.229

Iran's "Second Islamic Revolution": Fulfilled by Election of Conservative President
By: A. Savyon*

Introduction

The victory of conservative president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad over rival candidate and past president 'Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani in the second round of voting in Iran's presidential election took Iran, and the rest of the world, by surprise. With approximately 17 million votes, Ahmadi-Nejad garnered about 62% of the runoff vote, while Rafsanjani, with 10 million votes, took about 33%. In all, 27.5 million voters, or 60%, turned out for the election. [1]

With the results of this election, the "Second Islamic Revolution" of Iranian Leader 'Ali Khamenei and his conservative followers is complete. Prior to this, the military apparatus, the judicial system, and the religious establishment were already in the hands of the conservative circles. After winning the municipal elections two years ago, and the Majlis (parliament) elections earlier this year, the conservatives now have total control of the centers of power at all levels; no reformists remain in any top posts.

The Reformist Election Boycott and the "Second Islamic Revolution"

The "Second Revolution" came about, in part, due to the voting pattern of the supporters of reform over the past two years – that is, boycotting elections to protest against the reform movements' failure to make good on their promises in the sphere of individual and political freedom. Along with reformists' political protests in the form of boycotting elections, it appears that the reform-supporting electorate is disappointed, alienated, and indifferent – particularly in light of the repressive measures employed by the conservatives.

These measures include closing some 100 reformist newspapers over the past four years; imprisoning journalists and bloggers for criticizing the regime; charging reformists who called for renewing relations with the U.S. with treason; and disqualifying reformist candidates – some in office at the time – from running in elections. As a result, the various students' and intellectuals' organizations announced that they would boycott the presidential elections. [2]

In the February 2003 municipal authority elections, and in the February 2004 elections for the Seventh Majlis, voter turnout was only about 50%. Reform-minded voters stayed away from the polls because of Iran 's Guardian Council's mass disqualification of reformist candidates, and also following the conservatives' judicial measures against Tehran 's mayors. [3]

The Poor People's Vote and the "Second Islamic Revolution"

A further pattern in electoral protest in the presidential election was seen amongst the poorer classes, who apparently refused to support Rafsanjani despite mass public support for him from the reformist political camp and from the reformist press following the first round of voting. Reformist politicians such as Mehdi Karroubi and Mostafa Mo'in (who dropped out in the first round along with Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf); members of reformist movements such as Iran's Islamic Participation Front, the Islamic Republic Mojahideen Organization, the Association of Combatant Clerics, and the Qom Seminary Teachers; ayatollahs such as Ayatollah Taheri Esfahani; and intellectuals, journalists, and artists all called unanimously to support Rafsanjani against conservative candidate Ahmadi-Nejad. However, the poor voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadi-Nejad.

Rafsanjani, who was an ally of the father of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, is also a billionaire and a highly influential senior politician, and is apparently identified with the current corrupt regime by the poorer classes in Iran. Despite his campaign promise last week to provide unemployment benefits of $100-$135 a month to every unemployed person in Iran, [4] and despite his commitment to advancing reforms in Iran, he could not persuade the have-nots, the unemployed, and the supporters of reform to vote for him. [5]

In contrast, the conservative Ahmadi-Nejad succeeded in enlisting regime apparatuses – the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij – to assure support for his candidacy, and also used the network of mosques across Iran by having Friday prayer leaders call to vote for him.

Ahmadi-Nejad presented himself to the public as a conservative with clean hands who would fight the corruption that had spread throughout Iran 's government apparatuses. In addition to this was his socio-economic platform, which underlined the values of justice and Islamic morality, social justice, fairness, integrity, and modesty – all in accordance with the principles of the Islamic Revolution. [6]

Another part of Ahmadi-Nejad's election platform was presenting himself as in touch with the people. One example of this was a verbal clash between him and outgoing president Mohammad Khatami, in late April 2005 when Ahmadi-Nejad was mayor of Tehran. Arriving late at the degree awards ceremony at Tehran University, where he was to receive an honorary PhD, President Khatami blamed Tehran traffic jams and told the audience, "T hose in charge of running the city are unable to fulfill their obligation properly… I apologize to you on behalf of those who are incapable of running this city." In response, Ahmadi-Nejad advised Khatami to "take a bus," saying that had Khatami remained in his downtown office instead of moving to a complex in the fashionable and wealthy northern part of the city, he would be more in touch with the people's everyday problems. He pronounced himself "delighted to see that the president got stuck in Tehran traffic at least once, in order to experience up close what it feels like." [7]

The Changing of the Guard – The Rise of the "Middle Generation" of the Revolution; No Reformists Left in Top Positions.

Ahmadi-Nejad, as well as Majlis Chairman Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, are among the younger members of the "middle" generation of the Islamic Revolution who are faithful to the revolution's values, and who grew up in the establishment apparatuses. Unlike some in the "old guard," they are not clerics. Ahmadi-Nejad is a former Revolutionary Guards commander, and had the support of the conservative bloc in the Majlis and of the prominent conservative party, The Coalition of Iran's Developers (Abadgoran). [8]

The country's executive positions are now also being held by "middle-generation" conservatives. Despite statements by Iranian Leader Khamenei that the regime is based on two "wings," i.e. the reformist and the conservative, all branches of the government are now in the hands of the conservatives. [9] It seems that the conservative regime prefers its own followers – who grew up in the institutions of the regime – over members of the founding generation such as Rafsanjani and Mehdi Karroubi.

If up until now Iranian reformists had some representation – even if only nominal – in the form of figures such as outgoing President Mohammad Khatami, they now have no representation at all.


Was There Electoral Fraud?

Three questions remain regarding whether there was electoral fraud:

1) On the morning of June 18, the day after the first round of voting, the conservative daily Kayhan (which is close to Iranian Leader Khamenei) published the results of the very close race between Ahmadi-Nejad and Karroubi – even though the outcome of the count was not officially released until that evening. How did Kayhan know in advance?

2) Ahmadi-Nejad jumped from 5.7 million votes in the first round to over 17 million in the second round – a jump that seems suspicious.

3) The number of votes cast for Ahmadi-Nejad in the second round (17 million) exceeded (by nearly 6 million) the total number of votes (11.4 million) cast by the entire conservative camp. [10]

A Brief Bio of Ahmadi-Nejad

Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, 49, was born in Garmsar, southeast of Tehran, and was the fourth of eight children. His father, a blacksmith, moved the family to Tehran when Ahmadi-Nejad was one year-old.

In 1980, he was active in the revolutionary student gatherings which brought about the Islamic Revolution. At the onset of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, Ahmadi-Nejad joined the Iranian fighters on the western front.

In 1986 he joined the Revolutionary Guards, playing a role in covert operations in Kirkuk, Iraq. Later, he became chief engineer of the Revolutionary Guards' Sixth Army, and corps staff head of the Revolutionary Guards in the western provinces.

Ahmedi-Nejad received his doctoral degree in traffic and transportation engineering and planning from the University of Science and Technology in 1987.

Ahmadi-Nejad served as governor of Maku and Khov, two cities in the province of Western Azerbaijan, for four years in the 1980s, and as advisor to the governor-general of Kurdistan province for two years.

In 1993, while serving as advisor in the Ministry of Culture, he was appointed governor-general of the northwest province of Ardebil. He was chosen "exemplary governor" for three years running.

With the end of his gubernatorial term in 1997, Ahmadi-Nejad joined the scientific board of directors of the Civil Engineering College of the University of Science and Technology. In 2003, he was elected mayor of Tehran. [11]

* Ayelet Savyon is Director of MEMRI's Iranian Media Project.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] IRNA (Iran), June 25, 2005.

[2] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 226, "The Upcoming Presidential Elections in Iran (Part II)," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA22605#_edn28; June 16, 2005.

[3] In the election for the Seventh Majlis, the Guardian Council disqualified over 2,000 reformist candidates, including some who were in office at the time. Over the course of several years, conservatives obstructed several reformist Tehran mayors and accused them of financial corruption, ultimately forcing them to resign. These measures led to a 15% voter turnout in the 2003 municipal elections, and Ahmadi-Nejad was elected mayor.

[4] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 22, 2005.

[5] Iran(Iran), June 22, 2005.

[6] Sharq (Iran), June 20, 2005; Aftab-e Yazd(Iran), June 21, 2005.

[7] Iran Daily (Iran), May 1, 2005.

[8] Sharq (Iran), June 21, 2005.

[9] See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 226, "The Upcoming Presidential Elections in Iran (Part II)," http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA22605#_edn28; June 16, 2005.

[10] The votes of the conservative camp in the first round of voting: Ahmadi-Nejad, 5.7 million; Qalibaf, 4 million; Larijani, 1.7 million; the total was 11.4 million votes cast. In the first round, Rafsanjani garnered about 6 million votes; Karroubi, 5 million; Mo'in, 4 million, while Mehralizadeh got 1.2 million; the total votes cast for reformists in the first round numbered 16 million. In contrast, in the second round, Rafsanjani garnered only 10 million votes.

[11] Aftab-e Yazd (Iran), June 26, 2005.

Your castle no more--Commentary

Your castle no more-Commentary-The Washington Times, America's Newspaper , By Edward Hudgins, Published June 27, 2005

The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a local government to kick out of the house in which she was born 87-year-old Wilhelmina Dery and her husband who has lived there with her for 60 years. Why? The government wants to seize their property, bulldoze their house and many others and sell the land to businesses and developers for private uses.

One must very carefully choose words in political discussions but must not mince them either. This decision in the Kelo v. New London case is another giant step toward classical corporatism or fascism in America.

In this case the city council of New London, Conn., decided to condemn and take the homes and businesses of a number of citizens, including the Derys and Susette Kelo, who filed the case, in the name of economic development.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows governments to take property by eminent domain, as long as just compensation is paid, but only for public uses. These uses have always been understood to be necessary government-provided infrastructure such as courthouses or roads.

Otherwise, property should be sacrosanct. Individuals, businesses or governments might seek to purchase it, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is his or her right -- meaning one need not secure the permission or blessing of neighbors, government or "society"to own property.

But in recent decades politicians have made increasingly brazen elitist attempts to remodel our lives and communities. They more and more have welded eminent domain to seize private homes and enterprises in order to turn them over to different businesses or developers they believe will use the property in ways that better serve the community.

Now the Supreme Court has undermined fundamental private property rights by ruling, in effect, that governments can pretty much seize property for any reason they see fit.

Thus we have a situation in which, unlike under socialism, individuals can still hold title to their own property. But unlike a free-market system, they do not own their property by right. They hold it at the discretion of political authorities who can yank it away at a whim. This is the economic principle of the classical corporatist or fascist regime.

To call it corporatist or fascist is no mere epithet. It designates a system that maintains the veneer of property while political authorities have extensive powers to limit rights in the name of economic planning. This system necessarily means political conflict is the normal state of affairs -- either in open elections and legislation or closed-doors deals between lobbyists and politicians. It means no one's property is truly secure.

Some pundits complain Americans are too apathetic about politics. Yet in a corporatist regime, everyone will be politically involved but for all the wrong reasons. Many individuals, whether through misplaced idealism, pandering paternalism or pure predation, will threaten the liberties of their neighbors while others will face a never-ending battle to defend their lives, liberties and property. Everyone will need be on guard against his neighbors. Instead of a peaceful society, we will have a war of all against all.

Pundits complain our society has become too nasty and uncivil, with every issue in life a partisan political battle. That is the nature of our corporatist system. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision stirs the conflict down to the grass roots.
What are the Derys and Ms. Kelo to think of their city council members? What are they to think of their neighbors who failed to stand up for their property rights and denounce these politicians, shun them like the plague and vote them out of office? The only moral feelings they can have are resentment, and a sense of violation and deep injustice.

The Kelo decision is a wakeup call for restoring property rights. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to protect the rights of citizens against abuses by state governments, the U.S. House and Senate could pass new civil rights legislation to protect citizens' Fifth Amendment property rights. Congress could limit eminent domain to narrow public purposes and bar takings for ultimately private uses.

Good fences make good neighbors. The right to private property is the cornerstone of any peaceful and prosperous society that respects individual rights. In this battle, there can be no fence-sitters. There's no better case than the Kelos' to demonstrate that property rights are civil rights.

Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center.

As good as this commentary is, and it is good, it does not go underneath the property issue to what this means to your right to life.

Cleaning Up America Includes Ending Tenure

On 10 June 2005, we published an article on this blog, If you are not "getting" postmodernism and its fifth column role with the jihadists, try this:. In that article, we highlighted a thoroughgoing illustration of postmodernism at a major American university.

We also emphasized how various funding sources--parents, alumni, and other donors--actually keep in business all of these people who are virulently anti-American, anti-academic, and utterly Nazi-like/Soviet-like/Islamic-like in their hatred of and suppression of dissent. We pointed out that these are postmodernism-influenced professors, wall-to-wall in the liberal arts (i.e., "humanities"--a term that is truly a cruel joke). These professors pour poison copiously into our culture through incessant pollution of America's (impressionable) youth herded into their clutches.

We also addressed that the continued existence of nonsense courses and nonsense professors at our colleges and universities keeps costs artificially high. In short: Get rid of the nonsense and its purveyors, and watch costs begin to fall (obviously this is not the sole source of exorbitant college and university costs). And, yes, "nonsense" can be OBJECTIVELY determined--said to forestall the objection of 'who is to say what is free speech?'

It is now time to take up another important element, namely tenure.

Ending tenure puts the freeloader professors and their courses on the same level as the productive teachers and objectively worthwhile courses. Ending tenure cuts costs while improving college and university educational quality. The benefits to our culture cannot be overstated.

In a recent article in Jewish World Review, revered historian and contemporary cultural analyst, Victor Davis Hanson, takes on tenure, a policy which enables professors, who, having met pitifully minimal standards, get lifetime appointments to their institutions, rather like judges to federal benches. No matter how corrupt and worthless these professors become after receiving tenure, they become just like civil servants--impossible to get rid of.

Dr. Hanson says: "Professors, ... after an initial probationary period of six years, win the equivalent of lifelong employment from their peers. Why does this strange practice linger on? The standard rationale is that the stuff of higher education is unfettered inquiry. Only by enjoying shelter from the storm of politics can professors be bold enough to take up the tough task of challenging young minds to question orthodoxy."

What tenure has entrenched is the complete opposite of "unfettered inquiry." "Tenure became part of protecting this strange culture in which the ends justified the means: Bias in the classroom was passed off as "balance" to an inherently prejudiced society. Academia came to resemble the medieval church that likewise believed its archaic protocols were free from review, given its vaunted mission of saving souls."

Aside from causing the shutdown of all viewpoints differing from professors' and administrators' own postmodernistic, pro-socialist, anti-capitalist, and above all, anti-American ideas, tenure COSTS big money. To put it another way, it wastes big bucks. "Perennial part-time lecturers, many with the requisite Ph.D.s, often teach the same classes as their tenured counterparts. Yet they receive about 25 percent of the compensation per course and without benefits." And, these teachers, particularly those who teach objectively, must move on. They become academically homeless itinerants, who have been denied tenure by a crowd entrenched by law, not by morality. The good teachers are denied any voice whatsoever, because they lack tenure. They have been shut out fully. Guild socialism in the middle ages and labor unions can only look on with envy.

What are some of the practical results of tenure? "The cost of university tuition continues to creep higher than the rate of inflation. The percentage of cheaper classes taught by adjunct instructors is increasing as well. Yet the competence of recently graduated students is ever more in question. What is not scrutinized in this disturbing calculus is a mandarin class that says it is radically egalitarian, but in fact insists on an unusual privilege that most other Americans do not enjoy. In recompense, the university has not delivered a better-educated student, or a more intellectually diverse and independent-thinking faculty. Instead it has accomplished precisely the opposite."

The arguments in favor of tenure are too pitiful to deal with. There is no "up" side. Dr. Hanson sums up a rational, tenure-free future this way: "Reasonable people can debate what would be lost with the abolition of tenure. But the warning that, in our litigious society, professors would lack fair job protection is implausible. Renewable five-year agreements — outlining in detail teaching and scholarly expectations — would still protect free speech, without creating lifelong sinecures for those who fail their contractual obligations."

Something else we stated in our previous article is that we cannot win the war against Islam unless we win the war against postmodernism on our campuses as well. The reason is because both groups have formed a mutually beneficial "unholy alliance." This unholy alliance dedicates itself to destroying America and all of its values.

Just as co-dependents of alcoholics must stop providing support to their loved one's drinking, so we must stop our co-dependency with our universities. The infamous but far too well-known Ward Churchill is just one of many thousands just like him; only the others are much, much worse. Their continuation depends on our support directly and through our legislatures. (All emphases mine)

We must take back our universities and colleges!

Large Number of New Publications on Website

This afternoon, we not only did a lot of housekeeping on 6th Column Against Jihad, but we also put up many new articles. We have had the pleasure of publishing a number of authors new to the site as well. Visit. It will be well worth your time.

You Now Belong to the State. Thank the Supreme Court

We intend to keep working the issue of the 6-23-2005 decision of the Supreme Court to abrogate our right to property and its wider meaning of wiping out all of our fundamental rights. We are working toward defining rights and deriving them from the facts of reality. For now, let us examine what is meant by "ownership" and "property."

"Ownership" (from the Encarta dictionary):

3. law: right to own something: the right to own, possess, or use something

6. something at somebody’s disposal: something at the disposal of a person, a group, or the public community property


"Property" (from the Encarta dictionary):

1. right of possession: the legal right of possessing something

The Encarta dictionary gives most of the proper defining elements of both terms, but we must clarify a few aspects.

"Public" and "community" property are fuzzy terms. Just ask yourself who it is that constitutes the owner known as "public" and "community"? If it is "everybody," then is it "anybody"? Legal scholars may argue this as meaningful, but you just try to sell "public" or "community" property and see what entanglements you start running into.

That brings us to what is really meant by "ownership" of "property." "Property" refers to tangible things, from intellectual creations such as songs, to so many palettes of "widgets," or even a candy bar you just bought. If you "own" it, you possess all rights to it. No one may use it in any way whatsoever, unless you authorize it, and you might collect a fee for anyone using your property (e.g., renting a room in your home).

Your ownership of something means that you possess total control over its physical possession, and what happens to that entity called "your property." Not only may you use it any way you want, but you may dispose of it at any time and in any manner you choose. You, as owner, have the sole right to sell, rent, give away, or utterly destroy whatever it is that you own.

Ownership without control is not ownership. What social-political system thrives on the notion of your "owning" something but with the state controlling how you use it, including its disposition? FASCISM. Fascism is a variant of socialism which practices the deception of having all property in private hands but under total state control. To repeat, ownership without control is not ownership.

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America on 23 June 2005 deemed that you may possess your "property," which you "own," with title free and clear, UNLESS civil authorities deem that your "property" may be taken from you by the initiation of force to fulfill objectives stated by the civil authority. This means: You own it, but you do not own it (at the same time and in the same respect). It may be taken from you forcibly at any time. Ergo, BOTTOM LINE = you do not own it.

On what basis may the civil authority take your property from you? It may do so when it deems that there is a "greater economic good" to be obtained from transferring title from you for your property to someone else. The standard for "who benefits" is the community, and the decision involves others but NOT you! That benefit may include all sorts of "benevolent" goals such as greater tax revenue, site beautification (according to the standards of the civil authority). and nuisance riddance. What constitutes a "nuisance"? Anything or anybody that stands in the way of the wishes of the group, such as the civil authority.

Well, don't you receive "just compensation"? Who determines what is "just compensation"?

Suppose, for just one, made up example, that you have lived on landed property handed down for generations, as deeded from the King of England centuries ago. Your property supported generations of your blood line as they forged colonies, then an independent country, and now a great republic, the child of the Enlightenment. Let us say that you house is no longer so grand, and you get by selling a few crafts and seasonal fruit from very old trees. You now, however, stand in the way of a great, new, upscale development of homes and businesses. The developers and customers will pay many-fold greater taxes to the civil authorities than you do on your now, somewhat meager "estate." You dearly love this venerable old place and its few acres, and you are proud of it. You refuse to sell. The civil authorities take you to court, and the court finds for the civil authority because you are standing in the way of the "community good." Law officers force you off your property at gunpoint. The civil authority cuts you a check, one that meets what it considers "just compensation." Like the owner of the New London, Ct., home, you find that the check is pitifully small in monetary amount, but you realize that even if the check was for trillions, nothing could compensate for the loss of that which you have loved, that which will now be asphalted over.

That is the first "practical" result of this SCOTUS decision of 6-23-2005. Many persons will feel the pain from this fascist takeover of their property. Ownership, without control, is not ownership.

As you sit in your new tract home, in some development, somewhere, pining the loss of your beloved heritage, you begin to realize the morality involved in this action. You begin to realize that the "community" became the value overriding your value as former owner. Your "good" counted for nothing. The benefit to the community counted for everything.

This is the morality of altruism, an allegedly positive attribute of people. You begin to see it for what it really means. You were "sacrificed" for the community. Their alleged "good" counted; yours did not. You were too small to be anything but a cog in the service of the community.

You spent all of your savings, and borrowed against all that the "civil authorities" were offering you as "just compensation" for your property. However, the judge said that the needs of the many overrode the needs of any individual. He glibly quoted the 23 June 2005 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as his precedent. He cited "community rights."

Rights? What rights? The community has rights--the city, the county, the state, and even the federal government--all of these groups have "rights," because the Supreme Court declared such? Since when, you ask? By what Constitutional right, you ask?

You cannot awaken from this Orwellian nightmare, because it is not a nightmare. It is your new life. You scream in protest. You yell that you are you, a sovereign individual, that you have rights, and these rights supercede the state. The judge looks at you, snickers, and wisecracks that such ideas as yours are arcane. Only the state has rights, the judge says, so shut up and take your medicine. This will teach you to get in the way of the greater good. In fact, if you continue to protest the sovereignty of the state in all matters, you will be held in contempt of court and sentenced to prison.

Everybody chatters about "rights," including you, but everyone talks about something without ever defining it, when they chatter about "rights."

You now realize: Whatever country you just woke up to, this is not the same country you were born into. An old quotation from Rousseau comes to mind, but now in the real context, "Everywhere man is in chains." You realize that you now belong to the government. These are your new chains. This cannot be "right," you realize.

RIGHTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS--what are they? Where do they come from? How come it is right for someone to take my property but not right for me to keep what I owned with title free and clear because government says the community has "rights"?

You begin to realize, if they can do this to my means of supporting my life, what can they do next? Did we not fight a Revolution about such issues?

Schooled for Jihad

Although Indonesia is the country with the world's largest Muslim population, they are having their own problems with extremism. Where else will young men learn extremism but in boarding schools or even jails that immerse students students in Jihad philosophy.

It is visiting hour at Jakarta's Cipinang Prison and its most famous inmate, the Muslim preacher Abubakar Baasyir, sits on a wooden bench surrounded by a dozen acolytes, assistants and lawyers. Several prisoners attend to him, including a confessed terrorist who has become the cleric's servant and coordinates a team of six to wash his clothes and cook his meals without pay. Prison officials allow Baasyir to teach a class on Islam to fellow inmates four times a week; about 100 prisoners attend each session.

Hasyim Abdullah, Baasyir's right-hand man, is posted outside the prison to run errands for the cleric, buy his food and help the friends, family members and supporters who visit nearly every day. They give messages to the cleric and take directions from him to his followers on the outside.

Baasyir is holding court in prison instead of his home or office because Indonesian prosecutors have accused him of being the emir of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. In a 65-page indictment, they alleged that he was involved in "planning and/or encouraging other people to commit terrorism" including the 2003 bombing of the J. W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, where 12 people were killed, and the 2002 bombing of a resort in Bali, where 202 people were killed. A court cleared Baasyir in the Marriott attack and found him guilty of approving of (but not of ordering) the Bali bombings.

For the international community, the case is a litmus test of the Indonesian government's resolve in the war on terrorism. Despite the severity of the charges against him, Baasyir received only a 30-month sentence. His lawyers say the sentence ran out on June 4 and they are suing the government for his release.

But for me, Baasyir's case poses a different question. That's because he was a co-founder of the Islamic boarding school, Al Mukmin Ngruki, where I spent six years studying in sweltering classrooms. While I chose a career in journalism, many of my fellow students made a different choice. Dozens of Ngruki's alumni have been accused of taking part in a wave of terrorist attacks against Westerners in Indonesia. Security analysts and police investigators believe that the link is no coincidence. Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group has called my alma mater an "Ivy League" for Jemaah Islamiyah recruits.

All of which makes me wonder: Why did so many of my fellow students end up choosing terrorism while I ended up writing about them?

Why indeed?

"As Muslims, our allegiance is only to Allah (SWT) and His messenger and the Muslim Ummah (Community)"

The question: "Can true, observant Muslims be loyal?" has been asked.

How can they be when loyalty is pledged only to "Allah (SWT) and His messenger and the Muslim Ummah (community)"?

In their own words.

Countering the Jihad

The eminent Hugh Fitzgerald, a vice-president at JihadWatch reflects upon an interview with Oriana Fallachi and gives us eight ways to limit the damage of the present Jihad.

"When I ask her what "solution" there might be to prevent the European collapse of which she speaks, Ms. Fallaci flares up like a lit match. "How do you dare to ask me for a solution?" --- from a recent interview
The word "solution" is the wrong word. Had the reporter asked, or had Fallaci replied, that "what could be done to limit the damage, to contain or reverse the power of Muslims and the Jihad worldwide" then a coherent answer might have been offered, by Fallaci or by someone else.

The "containment of Communism" worked. Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, and before that in Eastern and Central Europe, and is now coming undone in China. Why? It collapsed because a sufficient number of people realized it was a farce and a failure, a failure in the very area -- the delivery of material wellbeing to the masses -- where it had most insistently promised it would be a success.

Who created the conditions for that failure to be perceived? The United States, and with the United States, other Western powers that countered Soviet propaganda and produced propaganda of their own, that did everything they could to check Soviet power once they came to their senses in the late 1940s (a little late for those countries already suffering Stalin's presence, or that of his local agents).

The Marshall Plan. NATO. Radio Free Liberty. Radio Free Europe. The Berlin Airlift. The suppression of Communist rebels in Greece. The Korean War. The money that went to non-Communist political parties all over Europe. The money that went to support newspapers and publishing houses all over Europe. The assistance or encouragement of various revolts inside the Soviet Union -- the "Forest Brotherhood" for example (the "Leshiye"). The bases everywhere. The anti-Communist propaganda. Decades of it, and trillions spent. And you know what? It worked. A group of people within the Soviet system came to some conclusions of their own about the moral and economic failures of Communism.

This can be done, more slowly, more deliberately, with Islam, and the Jihad that is central to Islam. The Infidel lands and peoples must first learn about Islam -- not from Muslims, or for that matter from non-Muslim propagandists, some of them hirelings, others ideologically wedded to Islam perhaps because it is now the most obvious vehicle of expressing one's hatred of, and alienation from, the Western world and, especially, the United States. They must thoroughly understand the texts. And then they must learn about Muslim conquest of non-Muslim peoples, and how those peoples were, in time and space, treated. And they must learn the kinds of things that Muslim apologists -- including those who are the most effective of all, the smooth-tongued "moderates" who, while seeming to denounce this or that terrorist act, will immediately be defensive about Islam itself, try to convince unwary Infidels that "Islam" has "nothing to do" with this, whether it is bombs going off, or the murder of apostates and others, or the mistreatment of women. Recently, on The Connection, all three of the "guests" -- one Hussein Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador, and the still-clueless-about-Islam Nicholas Kristof, and someone formerly in the State Department -- were quite insistent that the Pakistani lady, Ms. Bibi, who was gang-raped, suffered from people whose acts of course "had nothing to do with Islam." That's right, nothing: not the texts, not the attitudes those texts engender -- Muslims pervaded with Islam but whose actions "had nothing to do with Islam".

Basic Principles:

1. Recognition that the presence of large numbers of Muslims is a security threat and one which Infidels (read non-Muslims), need not inflict on themselves.

2. Recognition that the oil wealth that has provided Arab and Muslim OPEC members with nearly $10 billion in undeserved revenues since 1973 is what finances the world-wide Jihad.

3. Diminishing the oil wealth is not enough. All Infidel aid to Muslim countries, all transfers of wealth that have been based on a misunderstanding, and the belief that "Poverty" is the problem or at least, if Muslims are made richer (ideally, just like Muslims in Saudi Arabia) they will calm down, and turn to other things – all this must stop.

4. Make it impossible for the Arabs and Muslims to acquire major weaponry.

5. Let the rich Arabs and Muslims know that their property in the West is not permanently safe, and that it may be seized -- as the property of German nationals was seized by the American government in World War II.

6. Counter-Jihad: as the Americans during the Cold War paid for Encounter magazine, or for special publishing houses that produced emigre Russian literature (Editions de la Seine, for example), and subsidized Die Monat and other publications, they can do the same today.

(It is ironic that the Al-Jazeera, the anti-American mouthpiece of the Arab world, is now operating in the West as the Arab version of the Voice of America!)

7. Identify those populations whom the Muslim supporters of Da'wa have themselves identified as particularly vulnerable to being "turned" into agents of Islam, into those who will sign up for the Army of Islam, which -- at this point, after all that has happened -- is the only way one can properly view someone who now converts to Islam. Ten or twenty years ago, such conversion might possibly have seemed bizarre, but not necessarily a declaration of war on Infidels and their society. But that was then. And this is now.

8. Wherever there are natural fissures within Islam, or wherever such fissures can be created -- as by removing Western aid, and forcing Egypt, Jordan et al to go hat in hand to the rich Arabs of the Gulf, which can only increase intra-Arab tensions (think back to Nasser's hatred of the Saudis, and of how that played out in the early 1960s, with that proxy war in Yemen between left-wing Nasserites and monarchists backed by Saudi Arabia) -- let them widen. Do nothing to narrow them.

A worthwhile read.

9/11 Memorial Update

Good news. New York Governor Pataki vows "no U.S. bashing at WTC."

Gov. Pataki drew a line in the sand yesterday, declaring he will tolerate no America-bashing on the sacred soil of Ground Zero.
Hours after the Daily News disclosed that a museum set to rise on the site had displayed kooky and anti-American art, the governor said there can be no place where nearly 3,000 innocents died for an institution that attacks the United States and the heroes of 9/11.

His voice rising and his resolve steely as he compared the World Trade Center tract to the bloody beaches of Normandy and the black waters of Pearl Harbor, Pataki vowed:

"We will not tolerate anything on that site that denigrates America, denigrates New York or freedom or denigrates the sacrifice and courage that the heroes showed on Sept. 11."

What about the International Freedom Center?

The larger museum, the International Freedom Center, has sparked fears it will focus on acts of U.S. wrongdoing, like slavery and treatment of American Indians, while the Drawing Center, now based in SoHo, was exposed in The News as displaying graphic and vulgar art attacking America's war on terror.

"Sure, there can be debate," Pataki said when asked if his tough stance jeopardized free-speech rights. "But I don't want that debate to be occurring at Ground Zero."

Acting after a protest from family members - and word the Drawing Center had displayed art linking President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and portraying terror suspects as victims of American torture - the governor laid down the law to the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.: "Contact the cultural institutions on the memorial site. . . and get from them an absolute guarantee that as they proceed, it will be with total respect for the sanctity of that site." This was followed by a simple, stark threat: "I'm hopeful they are able to do that, and if not, then they shouldn't be there."

Pataki twice repeated his threat, saying the Freedom and Drawing Centers must respect sacred ground - or else.

"Period. Otherwise they won't be there," he said.

And we're hope that the governor and the rest will follow through with letter and the spirit of his statements.

Thank you, Governor Pataki.

Yes, yes, yes! And more.

A reader, Always On Watch, took the time to write comments in our 23 June blog about the attack on America by the Supreme Court. These words need more highlighting. For that matter, this whole 6-23-2005 Supreme Court decision needs the fullest possible publicity.

Since we have had this blog, almost a year now, we have dealt with many issues important to America. We have always stressed that the dangers to our great country go beyond just Islam. Islam, in many ways, is an external force, alien to America, although we have had plenty of subversive groups living amongst us throughout our history. Jihad, we have stressed, has both overt and covert components, and we do not want to lose focus on either.

We have also stressed the fact that America suffers internal rotting as well as that provided by Islam. There are very destructive forces coming from this chronic assault on the Enlightenment ideas and ideals which created America as the brightest spot in all of mankind's history. Currently, the handiest term to label these forces comes from the forces themselves, namely "postmodernism." "Postmodernism" literally wages war on "modernism," and "modernism" consists of recognition of the supremacy of reality over thoughts, wishes, and desires; the supremacy of reason over any alternatives; the supremacy of the individual and the Rights of Man over the group, the state, or the collective. Finally, "modernism" recognizes that the finest social, political, and economic system ever devised by man is capitalism, which creates and sustains freedom and improves well-being wherever it is tried. "Postmodernism" seeks to enchain peoples with socialism and all necessary to create socialist states and populaces.

We have also stressed that the Left, the sole repository of "postmodernism," has allied itself with jihadists in an unholy alliance, with the jointly held, single goal of destruction of the United States of America and the concepts of freedom, reason, and Rights. We have frequently called these internal forces of destruction America's fifth column, as many others have as well.

Until 6-23-2005, we dealt with the foregoing enemies of America because of their pervasiveness and persistence without becoming just another political blog. We have tried to present consistently the "whys" and explanations behind event. We have wanted to break through the ignorance and comfortable indolence of Americans who too often have been too willing to be comfortable with their ignorance and sound-bite "knowledge."

We have to add this decision by the Supreme Court and possible the court itself to our list of fifth column adversaries. This decision MUST BE REVERESED A.S.A.P.

The Supreme Court decision to erase property rights (on 6-23-2005) is more dangerous than anything we have written about over the past year. Superficial effects will show up soon as local and state governments create coercive monopolies resembling fascist corporativism of Mussolini. These, as terrible as they will be, will be the least damaging effects.

We pointed out in our 6-24-2005 blog that this Supreme Court property rights abrogation decision puts a dagger right through the heart of America, and right now NO ONE IS RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANCE at the right level. If one understands the nature, origin, and meaning of the Rights of Man, then he or she will see the real--and very practical--result of this "SCOTUS" decision, one that will come about long range in incremental steps, one which will wipe out this child of the Enlightenment, America.

We have repeated and will continue to do so that our Founders very properly recognized the four fundamental Rights of Man: Life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. They did not stress the right to property well enough, however.

The most fundamental right is that of life, which means that a living human has total sovereignty and responsibility for himself or herself. He and she need the right of liberty to sustain that life. That life itself is tangible and has very tangible needs, and every human needs tangibles--i.e., PROPERTY--to sustain and further his and her lives and to pursue happiness. That is why the right to property is almost sacred in its importance.

When you declare that right to property can be abrogated by any "legal" group (and the reasons do not matter), then you have blocked the means by which humans sustain their lives independently. In other words, you have blocked the means by which humans preserve, sustain, and experience their lives. Put another way, you have BLOCKED THE RIGHT TO LIFE of every American, in total defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What the 6-23-2005 decision does is replace the sovereign rights of the individual with so-called socialist "group rights." There are ONLY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Only in Orwellianism are there "group rights." What "group rights" means is legalized plunder by gangs, including the government. This inversion by the Supreme Court puts the individual at the mercy of the state. People live no longer BY RIGHT, but by permission, at the whim of the state (defined in part as the legal concentration of delegated power). The American government was established to preserve and protect the rights of its citizens, not become the instrument of their destruction. SCOTUS destroyed this on 23 June 2005--IF IT IS ALLOWED TO STAND.

If we do not reverse this decision, we will be looking at the last days of the Republic. Bring on Caesar.

Here are the fine words of Always On Watch:

Are you familiar with the analogy of the frog in the water? As long as the water is gradually heated up, the frog won't jump out; over time, he gets cooked and doesn't even know what's happened.

Yesterday's court decision will first be applied to New London, Connecticut and possibly to Anacostia, D.C. (the ballpark project). The average American will not be worried. "The revival of these areas benefit the community" will be the prevailing comment.

But, as you allude to in your commentary, once rights are eroded, bigger steps are taken over time. How long will it take for yesterday's decision to impact property owners in the suburbs?

I live on a lot which developers want to acquire, and a nicer home here would certainly bring in more revenue for the county. Can that increased revenue be justification for exercising eminent domain? Maybe not immediately, maybe not in my lifetime, but I predict that the likelihood is great that yesterday's decision will be extended to deprive individuals of the right to own private property in prime areas.

Now, maybe what I'm about to say is reaching a bit, but bear with me. Here where I live, many of the larger developers are Muslim-owned companies. Already, we county residents know that such developers have an "in" with the zoning board and can get approval of building projects when other smaller companies cannot. I know whereof I speak, because the only developers interested in my prime suburban lot are those which are Muslim-owned. And the house in which I live, my grandmother's house which dates back to pre-WWII days, doesn't fit in very well with the new McMansions which surround me now. Right now, I have the choice as to whether or not to sell to any developer. But will the day come when the county exercises eminent domain and forces me to sell? And at what price? Just who determines what is the fair price?

The decision of June 23 is a dangerous blow to our right to private property. Yet the news blabs on about other insignificant matters which won't matter a few years from now.

Lodi's Terrorism Link: Are Immigrants Loyal?

"The opinions of neighbors, family members or community and religious leaders regarding a suspect's character is not germane." What is important is not what they say about the suspect, it is what is revealed about the suspects character through investigation of behaviors.

One of Mohammed Atta’s Florida neighbors, immediately following 9/11, remembered him as "a nice guy, very intelligent and polite." Atta, we now know, was one of the masterminds behind the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

Neighbors of Waleed Alshehri, another of the 9/11 terrorists, recalled him as "a nice guy" who liked video games and rooted for the Florida Marlins. Alshehri helped Atta crash American Airlines Flight 11 into the north tower of the World Trade Center

Abdulaziz Alomari, on board AA #11 with Atta and Alshehri, lived "quietly" in Vero Beach with his wife and four children.

Nawaf Alhamzi’s landlord said his tenant was always "prompt" with the rent. Alhamzi hijacked American Airlines flight 77 and flew it into the Pentagon.

A family who rented a room to Hani Hanjur, another AA #77 terrorist, said he "was a kind and gentle man" who liked children.

I thought about these wildly incorrect character assessments—-compiled by CBS News—every time I read the dozens of stories about the five Lodi suspects arrested more than two weeks ago on terrorism related charges and immigration violations.

Are these favorable comments a reflection of how the men behaved or an attempt at a cover up? You just can't trust character statements.

What is the measure of loyalty? For true, observant Muslims, from the start, loyalty has never been to a monarch, empire, country, or political ideology, such as Communism or Democracy. Loyalty has always been to the Ummah, the world body of Muslims. For true, observant Muslims, nation states such as Indonesia, France, or even the United States, are only an address, a place to make a living and to raise a family, a place in which to scheme and agitate to further the aims of Islam, to make that place or maintain that place as an Islamic state in which Sharia is the law of the land.

Read the rest. The links lead to other interesting links.

Texans Near Border See Signs That Violence Is Closing In

With violent deaths and crime becoming commonplace, the border resembles the Wild West again.

Violence on the southern border is usually associated with human and narcotics trafficking. People living in the shadow of the Mexican border live with the fear that at any moment violence from Mexico will spill over. Entrants fleeing from poverty, discrimination, and this same violence often perpetrate property crimes, i.e. "living off the land," on residents, and sometimes kidnappings, rapes, and murders occur.

"When the people who wear uniforms are as bad as the drug dealers, who do you trust? No one's safe."

ZAPATA, Texas - (KRT) - Just three miles from the Zapata County Courthouse, Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez steers his truck off the pavement onto a twisting dirt road lined with mesquite and thorny brush as tall as a man. He points to Mexico, shimmering in the heat across a narrow spit of Lake Falcon.

"You can cross all day by boat and no one's going to see you. When the lake's down, you can almost drive across," Gonzalez said. "Drug loads come through here all the time. If they can boat marijuana bales, they can bring terrorists across the lake.

"It's no longer a question of when the violence is going to bleed over to Zapata. The narco-terrorist culture is already here. We're just worried it's going to get worse."

The explosion of drug killings and kidnappings that has wracked Nuevo Laredo, 50 miles upriver, resonates all too clearly in this sun-baked county of 16,000.

Zapata County residents who have lived all their lives in the shadow of Mexico now refuse to drive over to shop or see doctors because of the violence.

But for some, the threat of violence comes calling.

One Zapata businessman was threatened with kidnapping recently. And an influx of hundreds of Mexican citizens into Zapata over the past few years prompts Gonzalez to fear his town is becoming a safe haven for drug dealers and their hired guns, including members of the notorious Gulf cartel's enforcers, Los Zetas.

"We've seen a 35 percent increase in population over the past four or five years and they're all coming from Mexico," Gonzalez said. "They don't have jobs here, but they're building homes and buying new cars. They stay out of trouble, but you drive around and wonder who the hell they are and why they came to Zapata."

In much-larger Laredo, Texas, the brutality of the drug gangs already is tangible. Mayor Betty Flores blamed two recent deaths - people gunned down in Laredo businesses in broad daylight - on spillover violence.

Gonzalez's biggest fear is the possibility of terrorists taking refuge in the remote region, and the vulnerability of a network of natural gas lines that feeds the 294 billion cubic feet of natural gas produced in Zapata County each year for facilities in Houston.

"This county is the third largest producer of natural gas in the state, and it's no secret," he said. "An attack on the lines would be disastrous."

At the White House Restaurant, a group of old friends sit at their front table, drinking coffee and passing the morning. This day, their conversation centers on the troubles in Nuevo Laredo after drug gangs assassinated the police chief recently, barely six hours after he was sworn in.

There has always been an air of risk along the border, but the recent violence has upped the ante dramatically. Mexican authorities account for 60 people murdered in drug-gang killings in Nuevo Laredo since January. The FBI reports that drug gangs have kidnapped 32 Americans.

Even after the Mexican army arrived in Nuevo Laredo to restore order and weed out bad police officers, the drug killings continued with the shooting deaths of two people.

"It's a dangerous time. Over there, the police will stop you for any little thing, especially if you have a Texas license plate," said Hector Lopez, 78, a retired justice of the peace. "If you pay their bribe, your problems go away."

Read the rest.

A spotlight is on the border. Al-Jazeera, the Muslim broadcasting company with an anti-American bias, is coming to do an exposé on border violence and the ease with which ANYONE can cross over.

Al-Jazeera to Look at Open U.S. Border -- On the 4th of July!

Oh, no. The Arabs are coming, the Arabs are coming! Well, actually, the Arabs or Arabic speaking entrants have been coming across the southern border for some time. Observers can tell something about those that slip across the border by the character of the tons of refuse they leave behind. The countryside is littered with used diapers, food wrappers, clothing, the usual, but in the last few years, they have noticed prayer rugs and clothing that would be typically worn by Muslims.

Al-Jazeera, owned and operated by our "friends" in Qatar, and through "donations," has heard of the ease of slipping across the border and now wants everyone in the Muslims world to know. Known for being on the spot at the moment of dramatic occurrences, perhaps forewarned or even complicit, Al-Jazeera is definitely unfriendly toward the United States. Many don't know that Al-Jazeera now broadcasts to the United States in both Arabia and English, and, as expected, gives news a definite anti-American slant.

Now they have set their sights on our southern border:

The Arab TV news network criticized by the new Iraqi government and others for its anti-American bias and willingness to carry the messages of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, is headed for the U.S.-Mexico border to document how easy it is to enter America illegally.

Al-Jazeera has contacted Minuteman Civil Defense Corps leader Chris Simcox to try to arrange interviews. Simcox, who rejected the request for cooperation with the TV network, says al-Jazeera, seen by millions throughout the Arab world and elsewhere, is producing an hour-long documentary news special on lack of security at the U.S. southern border.

Al-Jazeera reporter Naisser Hssaini mentioned the increase in apprehensions of illegal aliens known as OTMs – other than Mexicans. These foreigners increasingly include Arabs, Muslims and others from the Middle East. The reporter also mentioned his familiarity with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement police of catching and releasing OTMS – particularly those not specifically known to be on any terrorist watch list.

Apprehension of illegal aliens to be caught and then to be released? This is a moment of cognitive dissonance, a surreal moment. To catch and then release those that will do us harm is beyond the pale.

"The group has been denied requests for interviews by Minuteman Civil Defense Corps organizers but they still insist on filming the groups’ activities along with the rest of the media during a July 4th weekend mission near Arivaca, Arizona," said Simcox.

Simcox has contacted the offices of Arizona's two Republican U.S. senators – John McCain and Jon Kyl – to invite them to do interviews with al Jazeera, "so perhaps they can explain to the viewers of this news outlet just how secure America's borders really are."

"The offices of the Arizona members of the United States House of Representatives will also be contacted to alert them to the presence and the intent by the al-Jazeera news crew to film the lack of security along the U.S. border with Mexico," said Simcox. "The office of the Department of Homeland Security will also be notified. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps also wonders just what DHS would tell al-Jazeera about the condition of our border security."

Simcox also mentioned the U.S. Border Patrol has already been notified.

"Would we allow Japanese or German television to film the unsecured border during World War II?" asked Minuteman spokeswoman Connie Hair. "These people broadcast to the enemies of America. It's not a news story, it's recon."

Why would Al-Jazeera's attention to our borders be a threat? We should consider Europe's cautionary tale. Borders were created and designed to protect the inhabitants from unfriendly people, contraband, and activities. Europe's borders are practically non-existent or seem irrelevant. They no longer serve as the requisite check. Eastern Europeans, North Africans, and refuges from South Asia poured in. Muslims are also increasing their presence in areas of Sub-Sharan Africa with predictable results -- demands for accommodation and the implementation of Sharia law. Terrorists are able to operate with impunity and dhimmi governments have caved in to their demands.

Now most of the world has had or is having an explosion of Muslim activity and rapid Islamization. Europe is rapidly becoming Eurabia, first through guest worker programs, the Arab-European Dialogue (EAD), and because of the influx on illegal immigrants, many of them Muslins. Are we to be the next target, vulnerable to a demographic invasion over our porous borders?

That our borders are insecure in no secret. Now the point will be driven home to everyone within earshot in the Arab world. This is an opportunity to beef up our borders. Perhaps now those within the beltway will take action before an unfortunate event occurs. It's incredible that citizens have to practically beg their governments to protect them from invading hordes of entrants. Many can't ... or won't. I pray that the U.S. Government finally will.