Islamic association preparing a Koran for Americans instructing them "how to deal with Islam"

from Dhimmi Watch

As well as providing "explanations of the Holy verses." "Islamic association seeks to teach Americans about the Quran," from the Yemen Observer, January 31:

An Islamic Association in Oklahoma has presented an impressive idea for non-Muslims in America to learn more about the faith.

The organization began in 2003 after the unfortunate treatment by American soldiers of the Holy Koran in the Guantanamo Bay prison facility.

The association decided to teach Americans about Islam and Muslims, and they recently decided to print the Holy Quran in English.

Almost sounds as if there are no English translations of the Quran. There are, of course; this one, however, appears to be written with an infidel audience in mind:

This English language version will come with explanations of the Holy verses, an introduction to Islam, the fundamental of Islam, and how to deal with Islam. This idea has yielded considerable success, and the organization has raised a lot of contributions from Muslims and non-Muslim Americans. The organization has said they have received many requests from non-Muslim Americans for a copy of the Holy Quran.

Congressman Tom Tancredo: The Perversity of DiversityTi

(Compiler's note: A must read - must hear talk.)

from Young American Foundation

Colorado Congressman and former U.S. Presidential Candidate Tom Tancredo discusses the problems of illegal immigration and multiculturalism run-amok. This speech took place at Young America’s Foundation’s Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California.

The Afghanistan Question and Force Restructuring

by Douglas Farah

The Toronto Globe and Mail has an interesting look at how increasingly complex the Taliban’s attacks in Afghanistan are, belying the notion that the group is somehow in retreat there.

This is, of course, due in no small measure to the Taliban’s enormous revenue stream from opium and heroin, a pipeline that insures the groups is not only well armed, but able to expand its arsenal, training and capabilities. It is also due, in part, to the Afghan government’s dismal performance in corruption and development, giving people little reason NOT to side with the rebel forces.

At the same time, the Obama administration is carefully considering how to define victory in Afghanistan in a way that will make it more attainable.

“One of the concepts we embraced in Iraq was recognition that you can’t kill or capture your way out of a complex, industrial-strength insurgency,” Petraeus said in an interview this month with Foreign Policy magazine. “The challenge in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq, is to figure out how to reduce substantially the numbers of those who have to be killed or captured.”

This debate is closely tied to the debate over the future of the military as we know it – that is, what kind of military do we need to fight the wars of the future?

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting column by Mackubin Thomas Owens looking at this question. While the answer he gives is the most obvious – one equipped to fight several different kinds of war, both conventional and small wars and insurgencies – he does remind us of some of the basic questions that need to be asked by advocates of the different camps.

As he points out, the idea that our technological advantages will allow us to fight wars remotely and at low human cost has been largely discredited by Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clearly, small, irregular wars do have a direct security importance to the United States (every major terrorist attack by Islamists-the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings, the 2000 Cole attack, and 9/11) were carried out by non-state actors operating out of stateless areas or failed states.

Yet, as Owens notes, others “fear that the Long War school’s focus on small wars and insurgencies will transform the Army into a constabulary force, whose enhanced capability for conducting stability operations and nation-building would be purchased at a high cost: the ability to conduct large-scale conventional war.”

The Obama administration will have to grapple with this balance, and Afghanistan will be a key forging ground that will have repercussions far into the future.

How deeply do U.S. forces get involved in counter-drug operations, given that the funds directly fund the enemy? How much responsible is the military for development projects and other non-traditional roles, when carrying them out will weaken the Taliban? Or do such activities lessen the military’s ability to carry out its core mission?

The Cold War has been over for almost two decades. We have had time to see the results of myriad conflicts, both conventional (Iraq I) and non-conventional. The world is what it is, not what we wish or imagine it is.

Our future rides on getting this right, and we have had time to learn. The threats are multi-faceted. The turns Russia has taken clearly show that state actors can increase their threat posture. But Afghanistan and Iraq show how important the asymmetrical threat remains. It can never be an either/or proposition.

The Biggest 2 Lies About E-Verify (arguments to keep hiring illegal aliens)

By Roy Beck

Senators are being pounded from seemingly every direction to keep E-Verify out of their Stimulus bill next week (after the House this week put strong E-Verify requirements in their bill to make sure illegal aliens don't get jobs created by the Stimulus).

The anti-E-Verify folks are relying on enough Senators believing arguments that are demonstrable lies.

You need to be armed to destroy these lies when you write letters to the editor, send faxes, call in to talk radio shows, visit with your friends or phone your Senators' offices this coming week.

AND THE 2 BIGGEST LIES ARE ........

LIE NO. 1: AMERICANS WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS DUE TO FAULTY DATABASE

The most outlandish claim by the anti-E-Verify forces has been that using E-Verify will actually lead to more unemployment among Americans.

NumbersUSA's claim, of course, is that the universal use of E-Verify would result in employing millions MORE Americans because that many otherwise employed illegal aliens would not be able to get a job, opening the way for American workers.

Which is it?

The anti-E-Verify forces claim that Americans will lose their jobs if companies are required to use E-Verify because the databases supposedly are full of so many errors. Typical is this quote in the paper today:

Sonia Ramirez, legislative representative for the AFL-CIO, said the program misclassified many U.S. citizens and legal workers. The program, which is used on a limited basis, is not "ready for prime time," Ramirez said.

-- Los Angeles Times, 31JAN09

Rosemary Jenks, the lawyer who heads up NumbersUSA's Capitol Hill Team, has repeatedly and publicly issued a challenge to the media and open-borders advocates to produce even one example of an American losing a job because the E-Verify system wrongly ordered it.

If it turned out that of millions of transactions a year, there were 10 or 20 mistakes, we would be concerned but also find that to be an understandably tiny problem.

But, to date, opponents have NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND an example of even ONE AMERICAN who lost a job due to problems with E-Verify.

A government investigation of E-Verify in 2007 found:

• 93% of employees queried through the system were verified within 5 seconds!

• another 1.2% were verified within 24 hours with no additional action required of either the employee or the employer

• Most of the 5.8% who received a tentative non-confirmation requiring more time turned out to be illegal aliens

• only 0.5% were U.S. citizens or authorized foreign workers who had to contact the Social Security Administration because of errors in the database

And let's be clear about that 0.5%. Many of the errors were ones that the workers themselves had made, such as a woman not notifying SSA of a change in last name after a marriage. And even if the error was the government's fault, going through E-Verify was a positive experience for most because they needed to know the error existed so they could clean it up before it caused problems down the line.

The 2007 study found that the accuracy rate of E-Verify was 99.5%.

Can any government program anywhere claim such a record?

And what the critics miss is that the system is set up so that when there is an error, nobody loses a job or is temporarily suspended from a job. The rules require that an employee who gets a tentative non-confirmation will continue to be employed until clearing up the discrepancy. (The illegal aliens, however, typically just don't show up for work after getting the first non-confirmation.)

An independent study between April and June of 2008 by Westat found:

• 96% of employees were verified instantly

• 0.4% had to contact the government to resolve record errors

• 3.5% received final non-confirmations, meaning they were illegal aliens not having the legal right to work

Nearly every reporter in the mainstream media allows open-borders leaders to be quoted saying the E-Verify databases are full of errors that lead to all kinds of mishandling of employees, but the reporters don't allow the statistics above to show up in their stories. The claims about errors are lies, pure and simple.

LIE NO. 2: MANDATING E-VERIFY WILL DELAY STIMULUS MONEY CREATING JOBS

Requiring businesses to enroll in E-Verify could only slow the influx of money and jobs into the economy, said Tyler Moran of the National Immigration Law Center. "It is going to delay the stimulus," she said. "It doesn't belong here."

-- Los Angeles Times, 31JAN09

How many lies are in that lie? Let me count the ways:

1. Even if a company happens to hire one of the around 5% of people who don't get an immediate confirmation, they not only are allowed to keep that person on the job, they are required to do so until E-Verify gives a final decision several days later. The flow of Stimulus money into the pockets of a worker is not slowed.

2. The main argument seems to be that companies and governments getting Stimulus money won't have time to get enrolled in E-Verify and will delay taking the Stimulus money because of that. But they don't have to wait until this bill passes. They can get on-line right now and get the enrollment finished long before any money will be flowing.

3. Furthermore, the enrollment process at most takes one staff person a couple of hours to complete. That is only once per company.

4. If a company or organization just feels hamstrung by the simple enrollment, they can pay a third-party company to handle the E-Verify process for them on all of their hires.

5. The Department of Homeland Security last year stated that it would have no trouble handling a doubling or tripling of enrollees and activity over a short time.

6. DHS had no trouble handling the growth from 3.27 million verification queries in FY2007 to 6.6 million in FY2008 and more than 2 million queries just through the first quarter of FY2009.

7. Throughout this rapid expansion, E-Verify has become more accurate, more user-friendly and faster.

Friends, a sign of the power of special interests to still dominate in Washington is that the two big lies about E-Verify continue to be the most common thing you see about the system in the nation's newspapers and from the mouths of the leaders of business, labor, religious and ethnic-identity organizations.

Only through the willingness of hundreds of thousands of you to carry the truth to the U.S. Senate this coming week will American workers have a chance to move ahead of illegal aliens to get any jobs that might be created if the Stimulus bill passes.

The Radical Muslims of Germany

by Dr. Sami Alabraa

"Jews are the enemy of Allah," declared Ismael Gharaballi during a service in a mosque in Bielefeld, Germany. "This is not only my belief, but also Allah's conviction," the Palestinian imam and Hamas activist declared, waving his Koran in the air. The congregation of about 200 thundered, "Allahu Akbar!"

Then Gharaballi turned to another page in the Koran and read,

"… and kill them [he explained this to mean unbelievers, especially the Jews] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you" (Surah 2, verse 191). "What are you waiting for?" he cried. "Allah Himself is telling us kill them. No peace can be made with the Jews."

After the prayers, I approached Gharaballi in the cafeteria of the mosque and asked him if he was serious about what he had preached. "Of course, I am. This is not any book. This is the word of Allah." Then I asked if he would kill a Jew here in Germany. He answered: "Yes, especially those Israelis who are occupying Arab land." I reminded him that this would be murder and for that he would land up behind bars. Ismael retorted angrily: "I don't care. The Koran is our law and constitution and anything else is just rubbish." Referring to Hitler, Ismael told me: "The man was a hero, almost a Muslim. I'm one of his fans."

Gharaballi is not unique in Germany's 3 million-strong Muslim community. Ibrahim el-Zayat, the head of an extremist Munich-based organization called The Islamic Community of Germany, told a meeting of fellow Muslims last month: "It is still premature to strike against the Jews and infidels in this country. However, at the lecture at a community center in Neukoeln, Berlin, which I attended, but where no media reporters were allowed access, he went on to assert: "But sooner or later we will strike against the enemies of Allah and Islam. We have to wait. Many Germans are converting to Islam, especially friends from the NPD [a neo-Nazi party]." When I asked a German reporter to verify this by calling el-Zayat, the latter denied having ever said such a thing.

El-Zayat was born in 1968 in Marburg, Germany, to an Egyptian imam and a German mother. He owns a construction company and receives huge sums of money from the Saudis to build mosques in Germany and in other European countries. He is an aggressive Muslim fundamentalist and has connections to various Islamists and terrorist organizations across the world. He is currently being prosecuted in Germany for supporting radical organizations.

El-Zayat is typical of most Muslim activists in Germany. In their schools and community centers, Muslim organizations incite hatred and violence against Jews and Christians. In public, however, and before the media, they deny preaching violence. El-Zayat, Gharaballi and the majority of radical Islamist imams, and officials of Muslim organizations receive big honorariums from the Saudis.

According to a study by Bielefeld University, over 30% of the Muslims living in Germany are radicalized. They reject the German Constitution and hope to establish Sharia Islamic law.

Many German politicians, in particular in the Green Party, often attribute radicalism among Muslims to social problems and lack of integration in German society. For all these problems they blame the German side. Former foreign minister Joschka Fischer stated, in an interview with German radio station WDR earlier this year that Muslims should be left alone to believe and act the way they please. "Other religions are not more liberal than Islam."

The German Home Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has met with heads of Muslim organizations and Islam experts several times over the last two years. I attended all these meetings. The heads of Muslim umbrella organizations tell the German government that they and their members accept the German Constitution. Back in their communities they preach hatred and violence. In mid-April 2008, the German police raided the properties of a dozen Muslim extremists and arrested nine of them. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. The German media and the public appear to be wary of antagonizing Muslim radicals. Very few media reproduced the Mohammad cartoons published in Denmark and they downplayed the recent anti-Islam Fitna film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Radical Islam inculcates in impressionable young minds verses from the Koran that are incompatible with modern values and human rights, such as inciting hatred towards Jews and Christians. Dalal, a 15-year-old girl who attends a Muslim school in Ulm, was proud to tell me that her teacher told her not to greet non-Muslims. It is haram (forbidden), she said. The radical Muslims also emphasize those passages that discriminate against women and incite violence against those who practice freedom of religion and speech.

Christianity and Judaism

also have passages in their holy scripts that are incompatible with human rights. But most Christians and Jews simply ignore these passages, consider them archaic, and instead apply more humane and rational ones. Most Muslims ignore the more liberal passages that do exist in the Koran.

The majority of Muslims in Germany are peaceful people. Radical Muslims are a minority. But this minority dominates. They are in key positions in the community and control mosques and organizations. There is no hate-crime law in Germany. The German government should enact such a law, like the one against Holocaust denial, making it an offense to incite to hatred and the violation of human rights.

Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure

from BreitBart.com

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.

"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

Iranian politicians frequently refer to the US administration as the "global arrogance", "domineering power" and "Great Satan".

Tensions with the United States have soared over Iran's nuclear drive and Ahmadinejad's vitriolic verbal attacks against Washington's close regional ally Israel.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.

The new administration of Obama has also refused to rule out any options -- including military strikes -- to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies any plans to build the bomb and insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at peaceful ends.

Auckland Muslim Women: Nowhere To Run, Nowhere To Hide…

(Compiler's note: Coming to a town near you.)

from Winds of Jihad

Women refuse refuge because of nearby mosque

The Qur’an sanctions the beating of disobedient women (4:34). In one New Zealand town, those who want to escape this abuse are afraid to do so because a mosque is next door to the shelter, and they could be recognized. Don’t these battered Muslim women know that Islam teaches peace and tolerance?

“Women refuse refuge because of nearby mosque,” by Esther Harward for the Sunday Star Times, via DW

Muslim women are staying away from a domesitc violence crisis centre since a mosque opened next door.

The Auckland Shakti Asian Women’s Centre in Onehunga helps women escape violent domestic situations but women are too scared to go because they may be recognised by their husbands or relatives attending the mosque.

The centre has an alternative premises but cannot move in because Auckland City Council has held back planning permission for more than a year.

Meanwhile, Housing New Zealand Corporation is paying $310 a week $4030 so far for security guards to keep vandals away from the empty building that the women could move into.

Centre spokesperson Shila Nair said victims were “really afraid” to go to the centre in Church St, Onehunga in case they were recognised by men worshipping at the Onehunga Islamic Mosque, which is over a boundary fence.

Women who visited the centre usually did so without telling their husbands, she said. “If their husbands, in-laws or any other family members or friends were to know that they have visited Shakti, life for them would be even more difficult. We have had instances of women who visited our Women’s Centre later accessing our refuge.”

Most were from Middle Eastern, Africa and Asian countries that don’t legislate against domestic violence. Staff tell them what their rights are under New Zealand law.

The crisis centre took 4800 phone calls last year on a 24 hour nationwide helpline of which 90% were about family violence. Of the calls, half of the women were recommended to visit for counselling, legal advice or training.

The housing corporation renovated another building for the women to move to after the mosque bought a building next door from the Jehovah’s Witness church. The women have been waiting for 18 months for the council to grant resource consent for them to use the house. Council resource consents team leader Ian Smallburn said the consent was “on hold” because of concerns about the impact of parking on neighbours, trees and stormwater. It was not known when the issues would be resolved.

The centre opened a decade ago and is the busiest of Shakti’s five branches in Auckland, Tauranga and Christchurch, which together they help 6000 women a year escape domestic abuse.