What's wrong with the US government? Can't they crack down on stuff like this? We can't win a war when we're funding our enemies within our own countries.

Posted by: S Perry at April 10, 2008 12:17 AM

"$69, 885.00, to be used to purchase security hardware for 23 mosques in Florida's largest counties, Broward, Palm Beach, Miami and Dade."

I'll bet no Christian church would get so much as a nickel to purchase security hardware for 23 churches. You would never hear the end of indignation on the part of Congress if Homeland security awarded money to a church or synogogue, for any reason.

With stupid people like Chertoff in charge of our security, we might as well throw ourselves off a cliff.

Posted by: rational at April 10, 2008 12:38 AM

Treason.

Posted by: senor doeboy at April 10, 2008 1:42 AM

"He is a long-time Islamist and a supporter of Hamas. The 501c3 which he runs, American Muslims for Emergency Relief [AMER] will be the beneficiary of the DHS award..."

A larger question:

Why does "American Muslims for Emergency Relief" have 501c3 status? What is it that makes "American Muslims for Emergency Relief," run by someone who (the article offers the kind of evidence no one can ignore) is a "long-time Islmaist and a supporter of Hamas" eligible for 501(c)(3) status?

Who's minding the store? Anyone? No one?

What about a member of Congress, determined to make of this an issue?

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2008 7:06 AM

Anyone know if your congressional representative or your senators on the DHS committees? If so, please forward this to them.

In fact, all US citizens should be forwarding this to their representatives and senators and to Rep. Sue Myrick. This idiocy on the part of our government has to stop.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at April 10, 2008 8:58 AM

You have got to be shi**ing me!

With apologies to Bill Buckley; I'd rather have DHS run by the first hundred names found in any American phone book than by the incompetent stooges running it now.

God help us.

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 9:26 AM

Jihadis need kevlar vests, too!

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 10, 2008 9:43 AM

Why is anyone surprised? After 9/11 wasn't it the mosques all across America that merited protection? Obviously there are SO many CHRISTIAN TERRORIST GROUPS out to destroy this mosque.
More than anything else, what this grant says about the rest of America should drive all Americans to vote out all incumbents in November.

Posted by: PMK at April 10, 2008 10:04 AM

Stories like this are providing fertilizer for the seeds of the homegrown "unregulated" militia movement in the US. Not since the founding of the United States has there been as much wide support for taking the matter of defense of the homeland into the hands of the citizens themselves. What a sad day for us all that the idiots in power do not have any clue that their ineptitude is fueling the smoldering embers of a popular reaction on a scale not seen since the resistance movements in Europe during WWII. There can be no joy for anyone in this development. The inevitable consequence is human suffering on a scale that may prove to be more horrible than all the wars of all history combined. Cursed are we that we may all personally experience the conflagration.

Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at April 10, 2008 10:40 AM

And speaking of enemy at the gates, is there any truth to the revelation about Reverend Wright's background - that he was at one time a muslim ?

Well, he has come some way.

Why now he is a much less toxic Marxist black liberation theology advocate and, former pastor to Obama for twenty years, and now advisor to the Obama campaign.

Was he the one referencing 'chickens coming home to roost' ?

We're screwed.

Again.

Posted by: dgene at April 10, 2008 10:48 AM

The story about Wright being an ex-Muslim is still developing, heard it on the way in this morning.

'Tis not yet time for our swords to be beaten into plowshares.

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 10:58 AM

As bad as the bureaucracy is behaving these days, can you imagine the new heights of obsequious pandering to Islamists that will occur should Obama or Clinton become our next Prez?

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2008 11:33 AM

undaunted -

We may make a man out of you, yet.

Posted by: HotSpur at April 10, 2008 11:34 AM

Should either of them win, I believe the sense of frustrated helplessness may grow and bring to pass waves of rage unlike anything we've ever seen.

Pray if you got 'em.

And DO something to be prepared, unerschrocken.

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 11:48 AM

"can you imagine the new heights of obsequious pandering to Islamists that will occur should Obama or Clinton...
-- from a posting above

These two candidates are not identical in their views of Islam, or in what we can glean about their beliefs as to how to best deal with the menace of Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2008 11:54 AM

True, Hugh.

But, given what we generally know about the liberal mind-set, can't we predict just a little bit how they'd deal with Islamic threats?

And, given that Muslims also know the liberal mind-set, what sort of general plan do they have to deal with the "menace" of the "great satan" under any liberal "leadership"?

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 12:12 PM

"...validation of their claims of moderation."

More smoke and mirrors - there are no moderates in Islam - it's a myth.

Posted by: champ at April 10, 2008 1:17 PM

Hugh,

Seconding undaunted's general observation about the liberal mind-set ... and factoring two troubling nuances to the Dem candidates: Obama's Muslim background and Hillary's Muslim advisor (the Muslim female that is rumored to also be her lover, as well as all the Arab money Bubba and his Presidential Library have sucked up) ... is not McCain the only choice for folks out here on the Jihad Watch pages?

Posted by: Paleologos at April 10, 2008 1:26 PM

OK Hugh....now that you've broached the subject, please enlighten us as to what you feel are the apparent differences between Clinton and Obama and their respective views of Islam. Please share with us anything encouraging you've heard from either one that would indicate an understanding of the issue that would transcend the conventional PC mindset that permeates the Democratic Party (Joe Lieberman excepted).

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2008 3:25 PM

When it comes to Islam, all three candidates so far are entirely unsatisfactory. But they are unsatisfactory in entirely different ways.

Obama does not disturb because of his "Muslim background." After all, Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq have Muslim backgrounds. It is the nature of that background. First, he has clearly decided to make his father, whom he never knew, into a figure of some importance, with the usual tedious "search for identity" that is absurd, for he was raised by his mother and his mother's family, that is by whites, but when he moved to Chicago, and already ambitious, and exploiting to the full the fact of having been elected (it was a vote for a Mr. Nice Guy, not a vote meant to recognize academic brilliance, as used to be the case)the "first black president of the Harvard Law Review," he decided to exploit his black ancestry and exploit it he has, for it was that which helped him get elected first to the Illinois state legislature, and then to the Senate, where bloc voting by blacks helped.

But if he wants to find out about his "Muslim" father he should also find out about how Arab slave traders operated up and down East Africa, keeping the slaves at Zanzibar and Pemba (once held by the Sultan of Muscat and Oman), before trans-shipment to Muscat, and thence to Arab slave markets. He should find out how Islam legitimizes slavery, how the Arab slave trade in Africa started nearly a millennium before, and ended -- where it did end, because of Western pressure -- much later, than the Atlantic slave trade. He should find out all kinds of things about this, but so far he has mentioned none of it. Were he to do so, and were he to speak out about it, it could be quite useful to setting historical records straight. Indeed, given the fantastic mortality rates from the Arab slave trade, because the Arabs specialized in seizing young black males and castrating them on site, and then marching them through the bush by slave coffle to the slave markets of North Africa or to those reached, by dhow, in Arabia itself, if ever
reparations" were justified, it would be those that the black African nations should demand of the fabulously rich Arabs, who for more than a thousand years took black Africans as slaves. And they do so today, too, in Mauritania, in the Sudan, and even, one hears, in darkest Saudi Arabia, where the slave trade ended, officially, only in 1962 (at the time there were hundreds of thousands of black slaves), but there is reason to believe that away from prying eyes, slavery continues to exist.

Obama may have memories of living in "Muslim" Indonesia but the school he went to was not a madrasa, he does not claim to know Bahasa Indonesya, and it sounds as if it were a school for foreign children. But he may think that because he spent a few years as a young child in Indonesia he "knows" what Islam is all about, and of course he doesn't. In the same way, Paul Wolfowitz thought that his experience as the American ambassador in Jakarta gave him special insight into the problems of Muslim societies, and into Islam itself, and then he also had some help from a special friend's pillow talk. But both Wolfowitz and Obama have not burned the midnight oil, have not consulted either the apostates who are ready to talk to them -- why has Obama not talked, not learned from, Ayaan Hirsi Ali? It would have been the most obvious thing in the world for him to have talked to her? -- and the Western scholars of Islam, the hundreds of them, who wrote before the age of the Great Inhibitioin set in?

And Obama's known advisers -- "Sam" Powers, who may be back after a short break, and the malign Zbigniew Brzezinski, who knows nothing but Islam but knows what he doesn't like (and he knows he doesn't much care for Israel, has no real sympathy for it, nor understanding of its permanent plight), and others are cause for alarm. Then there are all the reports of Obama's "learning about 'Palestine'" from none other than Rashid Khalidi, and a creature named Alu Abunimah, to whom Obama is reported to have said what he said to Rev. Wright. To wit: in the inerests of the campaign, I'm going to have to temporarily distance myself from you, but I'm sure you understand. Surely that should give anyone pause. Furthermore, Obama thinks about the Third World, about Africa. That is what he has decided is where his "identity" (whatever that is) must lie. He has shown no interest in, may in fact never lived in nor visited, Western Europe, and the history of the civilizational legacy of Western Europe -- its art, its science, its philosphy, its everything -- does not appear to be high on his list of things that must be saved. This too worries.

About Clinton, one worries as well. But her initial support for the war in Iraq was like that of many others in the Democratic Party who know blame her for not being "like Obama." What are they talking about? She was misinformed, as were others. Furthermore, she believed she was authorizing the use of military force, not authorizing American forces to remain in Iraq to transplant "democracy" and provide an instant makeover to a country of 27 million, a country riven by ethnic and sectarian hostilities that have their roots in the first century of Islam. She was not thereby voting for the Bush Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project. She is much more likely than Obama to promptly, even ruthlessly, remove American forces, and that is highly desirable.

Now, will she learn about Islam? She certainly must have observed her husband's folly, in his pursuit of the will-o'-the-wisp[ of an Arab-Israeli peace settlement, and she saw that Arafat was the most frequent foreign guest in Washington. Does she understand enough about Islam to shy away from the notion of a "solution" to the Arab-Israeli dispoute? Does she understand that the Arab Muslims will never accept, never permanently acquiesce, in the existence of an Infidel nation-state in the midst of Dar al-Islam, and that the only way for the peace (that is, an absence of open warfare) to be kept is to prevent Israel from surrendering more territory or making itself more obviously vulnerable by giving up control of the invasison routes from the east, or of the aquifers under the "West Bank." If you want Israel to survive, you have to stop prating about "two-state solutions" and allow the Israelis to permanently control what they now control. On the other hand, if you are like Michael Scheuer, and "don't give a damn" what happens to Israel, and fail to recognize that Israel's disappearance would lead to an unstoppable triumphalist surge in the Arab world -- not a temporary "surge" but a permanent one -- and if further you recognize what Muslim control of the Holy Land would mean for the world's Christians as well as Jews, then you have to support Israel, to the hilt. And that does not even reach the problem of Western morale, if the West let Israel go under, did not move heaven and earth to stop such a development, after all the effort and heroism that went into the resurrection, after almost 2000 years, of a Jewish commonwealth in the ancient Jewish homeland, a place that had been reduced to ruin and desolation by the Arabs and other Muslims who had seized it in the 7th century.

The influence, if any, of the Arab girl who is clearly close to Hillary Clinton, is unclear. No doubt it's a worry. Furthermore, the continued reliance on such Islam-less advisers as Samuel Berger, and Madeline Albright (whose latest book attempts to demonstrate her understanding of the "religious dimension" of the current conflict world-wide, but instead shows how confused Albright is about the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics about Islam) also worries. Richard Holbrooke, if he can see beyond his own atypical experience with Islam in the Balkans, is likely to be better.

The fact that Clinton voted to label a certain Iranian group as a "terrorist organization" was a good sign. One waits for more. In fact Clinton could, and should, be meeting with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It would be a sign. Why hasn't she? Why doesn't she?

Finally, McCain. His instincts are right. He knows Islam is a problem. He has so fair failed to see, or to label, the main instruments of Jihad other than "terror" or qitaal. These instruments of Jihad include the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest. McCain has yet to say a word about any of this, and he keeps talking about how the "surge is working" but does not explain what this means. The surge is not working. It is not achieving the goal of a unified Iraq, and there will be no unified Iraq. And furthermore, thank god the surge is not working, in a sense, because a unified Iraq is not in America's interest. An Iraq where the pre-existing fissures, ethnic and sectarian, widen, and those fissureseven cause others from outside Iraq to send men, money, volunteers to support their co-religionists, which may end up in Saudi Arabia and Iran fighting a proxy war in Iraq, is a good thing, just as the Iran-Iraq War was, from the Infidel point of view, a Good Thing.

Is McCain as stubborn as Bush, or is he open to a new way of looking at the war in Iraq -- the way that I have put up here, steadily, for more than four years?

I don't know. Who does?

Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2008 4:16 PM

Well, then... nice to see you're finally getting over your shyness, Hugh.

We were concerned there for a while.

Brilliant, as usual.

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 4:20 PM

Here's an article about Obama's grandmother. It seems to show Obama was less than accurate while 'throwing her under the bus'

Obama's description of his grandmother - "a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Other people who knew at the time said:
" I never heard Madelyn say anything disparaging about people of African ancestry or Asian ancestry or anybody's ancestry,"
"And she never swore."

Also 'in 1970s Honolulu, white people were routinely the target of discrimination.' because they were the minority.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-07-obamagrandma_N.htm

Posted by: Rob at April 10, 2008 5:01 PM

Biologically, Obams might be half White, Half Black, but mentally, he's all Black. The man didn't spend 50% of his time in a Euro-centric church, and the other 50% in an Afro-centric. He spent 100% of his time in an Afro-centric church, listening to sermons on the glories and moral superiority of African civilization, and the moral deprivity of European civilization.

Like his Pastor and spiritual adviser, Rev Wright, Obama is infatuated with the fictional glories of an Islamic and African past that never existed. It's no accident that Wright thinks Louis Farrakhan is a great man. They think alike, and Obama is right there with them.

Any thinking person would shudder at the thought of what our foreign policy would look like with a President Obama.

Posted by: rational at April 10, 2008 5:12 PM

Yea, what rational said.

Posted by: undaunted at April 10, 2008 5:26 PM

Hugh,

Interesting...but entirely speculative.

Like you, I've been looking for any signs from these three, subtle or not. Unlike Obama and Clinton, I've actually heard John McCain use the terms "radical Islam" and "Jihad".

I also admit it was very disappointing the other day when he was talking about hearts and minds and said something to the effect that "scholarships are more important than hatred." It showed an appalling ignorance.

But I know one thing....the Republicans have voices such as Tancredo, former Sen. Santorum, that Congresswoman whose name escapes me who is taking a lead on this issue and is actually a featured speaker at IFA week...and others in the Party who are unafraid to call a spade a spade.

There is no such component among the Dems. Lieberman appears to be the lone exception, and he barely qualifies as a Democrat anymore.

The choice - as imperfect as it is - is clear.

Posted by: Cornelius at April 10, 2008 6:09 PM

I'm with Hugh.. Hitlery is WAY better than the Big Empty.. who may not be so empty after all.. I think he is filled with islam and he is craftily hiding that inconvenient little fact..

*taquiyya* *kitman*

At least Hitlery coming off Air Force One will have those nasty SOWdi princelings fuming under their sweaty headgear.. having to stand at attention for her..

Though like any good lib she may "go native" on us and wear the scarf of submission and agree not to shake hands.

I hope her ego wins out over liberalism!

That said, the hatred of the military is legendary.. so I probably prefer the center-left MexiCain over either of the Dhimmicrats.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 10, 2008 6:57 PM

hey, Obama's grandmother is "only" a an average white woman.. it's quite OK to throw whitey under the bus.. even if whitey happens to be your grandma.

Proves your down 4 whateva...

That's the secret message behind that one!

Whitey's been so dumbed down he can't read between the lines anymore.

Obama President would be a disaster.

Hitlery or MexiCAIRn would still be bad enough, but the damage could be controlled and later corrected.

Imagine the number of "refugees" Obama will let into the country.. and you can imagine the "religion" they'll be adhering to.

Imagine the foot washing stations in the White House..

I've seen Youtube footage of O with Hit and J Ed standing all three while the Anthem was playing.. the camera showed Obama SANS flag lapel pin and his hands at his sides.

He can't even bear to ACT patriotic like the regular libs. he displays his hostility outright.

All you have to do is remove your glasses of wishful thinking that this "cool black dude" might actually be electable.

he is no more electable than those other two distinguished democrat candidates the "reverends" sharpton and Jackson were.

When Obama is elected.. will the thought police knock on my door for this one..?

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at April 10, 2008 7:06 PM

Hugh,

I know you can't get yourself to admit that McCain is the least of three evils, although your analysis seems to be gentler on him than Hillary or Obama.

I am not willing to take so discerning an eye with Obama's muslim background. To me, after 911 and all the countless bloody terrorist acts that followed, as with all the silent Jihad stuff, all of that with that colossal Islamic component ... ANY muslim connection is a deal breaker when it comes to presidential candidates. Now, if Obama renounced Islam in a thoughtful way, ... oh wait, that hasn't happened. Sorry if that makes me a bigot, but why take that chance with the most powerful office in the world? ... and oh yeah, not exactly on point, but there is that thing with his pastor of 20 years being a black supremacist.

Hillary's husband is already bought and paid for with Arab money, for me, another obvious deal breaker.

That leaves us with McCain, flawed to be sure, but he doesn't have the above GIANT WARTS that Obama and Clinton have, particularly concerning Islam.

Posted by: Paleologos at April 11, 2008 1:25 AM

Cornelius & Paleologos

McCain is the candidate who very recently stated that he respects 'the Islam' - there is nothing in his statements that indicates that he grasps the problem any better than Bush or Rice, or associates Islam with the problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. He is also the candidate who helped end water-boarding, and is not averse to terrorist tribunals moving from Gitmo to give Jihadis full access to US courts. He was also a major supporter of the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Anybody remembers whether McCain supported or opposed Bolton's nomination, when OH senator Voinovich kept sabotaging his nomination? (I admit I can't tell the difference between McCain and other RINOs such as Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Lindsey Gramm, et al) As the person who actively promoted the surge after all our goals were met, he is completely unacceptable as far as the policy on Iraq goes. All these are far bigger problems than his understanding of Sunni & Shia.

Hillary Clinton was the First Lady who not only was very close to Suha Arafat, but also influential in having her husband add Pakistan to his itenerary when he visited India in 2000 at the behest of Paki lobbyists. Really inspiring. Oh, and don't forget - she was the first US public figure to call for a Palestinian state when she was First Lady, long before Bush got into the act post 9/11. She's the one to thank for that bit of US policy

I read and understand Hugh's issues with Obama, but I fail to see how he's any worse than either McCain or Clinton. I do agree with him though that all 3 are unacceptable for varying reasons.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 11, 2008 2:19 AM

Cornelius & Paleologos

Take 2 - sorry if this post appears twice!

McCain is the candidate who very recently stated that he respects 'the Islam' - there is nothing in his statements that indicates that he grasps the problem any better than Bush or Rice, or associates Islam with the problems in Iraq or Afghanistan. He is also the candidate who helped end water-boarding, and is not averse to terrorist tribunals moving from Gitmo to give Jihadis full access to US courts. He was also a major supporter of the secession of Kosovo from Serbia. Anybody remembers whether McCain supported or opposed Bolton's nomination, when OH senator Voinovich kept sabotaging his nomination? (I admit I can't tell the difference between McCain and other RINOs such as Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Lindsey Gramm, et al) As the person who actively promoted the surge after all our goals were met, he is completely unacceptable as far as the policy on Iraq goes. All these are far bigger problems than his understanding of Sunni & Shia.

Hillary Clinton was the First Lady who not only was very close to Suha Arafat, but also influential in having her husband add Pakistan to his itenerary when he visited India in 2000 at the behest of Paki lobbyists. Really inspiring. Oh, and don't forget - she was the first US public figure to call for a Palestinian state when she was First Lady, long before Bush got into the act post 9/11. She's the one to thank for that bit of US policy

I read and understand Hugh's issues with Obama, but I fail to see how he's any worse than either McCain or Clinton. I do agree with him though that all 3 are unacceptable for varying reasons.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 11, 2008 2:19 AM

Infidel Pride,

I agree with you and Hugh that all three are unacceptable for varying reasons. Hell, if I had my way I would like to see Tancredo as president, and maybe Mark Steyn as his vp (is Steyn a US citizen?) We all know we are going to wind up with somebody who does not totally "get" the threat of Islam. That being said, there are still degrees of unacceptability, and McCain is certainly the least unacceptable. If you can get beyond Obama's muslim background (I obviously can't) and his 20 year relationship with his black supremacist pastor, what about his emphasis on dialogue with Iran, as though we are going to be able to drag Iran into peaceful coexistance with polemics? That is the main reason why any Democrat is no good right now, when we are at war. Democrats think you can talk your blood enemies out of trying to destroy you... same appeasement philosophy that has historically never worked with viral threats like Hitler, and isn't going to work today with Imadinnerjacket. (Oh btw, what is Dhimmi Carter up to right now, as we speak?) As noted by an earlier poster, at least the word "Jihad" has parsed McCain's lips.

I agree with your points on Hillary. Think Israel looks forward to President Hillary? I don't think so. Think they like Obama, with Louis Farrakhan in his corner? ... again, I don't think so.

All comes down to least of three evils. They are not all equally bad.

Posted by: Paleologos at April 11, 2008 1:03 PM