The Muslim Student Association is bringing Zaid Shakir to speak about the "Ft. Hood Tragedy" tomorrow in Pickford. I have already written on him before, butwhat follows is the research I have done on him and some of the more inflammatory statements he has made justifying violence in the name of Islam. Remember, imam Shakir is held up as a "moderate Muslim."
You might remember some of the MSA attacks on Ayaan Hirsi Ali earlier this year when they tried to hijack (pardon the phrase) the Q&A session.
They also spoke with James Yee, a former military chaplain, whose story of witnessing abuse at Gitmo is essentially made up. Yee returned to the U.S. with maps of the Gitmo prison facilities and lists of U.S. interrogators and Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees. The military only dropped charges against him to protect national security. Major General Geoffrey Miller said that the reason he was left alone was that there were "national security concerns that would arise from the release of evidence" if that case moved to trial. Several of his underling Arabic interpreters were convicted. As a classified Gitmo briefing reports, "three years of investigations have revealed the presence of pro-jihad/anti-Western activities among the civilian contractor and military linguist population serving Joint Task Force Guantanamo."
Thanks, Bonnie Snortum, for bringing him to the Ath! I sure felt safe!
Now MSA has brought CAIR supporter, Zaid Shakir, who according to a new book that investigated CAIR, actually supports the very violence that the Muslim Student Association says that he will speak against! (What follows is from the book I've linked to.)
CAIR continues to invite Zaid Shakir to its events, even though the FBI questioned him regarding a copy of one of his incendiary pamphlets found in the apartment of a suspect in the first World Trade Center bombing. The pamphlet justified the "armed struggle" that brought about the Taliban. Mr. Shakir also told The New York Times that he would like to see America become a Muslim country ruled by sharia law. Has he moved away from his jihadist views? Not at all: "I don't regret anything I've done or said," Shakir says.
Zaid Shakir reportedly told his Muslim audiences that, "jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad."
But the best quotation from him and the one that clearly gives him the least authority to speak about Islam and the military post-Fort Hood comes from a speech he gave to a Muslim only audience. "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people," he said. But, "If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else."
Even "old elderly men" and "women who are conscripted" are eligible enemy combatants in jihad, says Shakir in a transcript of one of the lectures from his CD recording, titled "Jihad or Terrorism?" A copy of that CD was found in the appartment of one of the World Trade Center bombers. (Shakir denies that Muslims were to blame for that attack: "The World Trade Center bombing of course was aided and abetted by our good friends at the FBI," he said.)
Shakir also gave a talk up in the San Francisco Bay area, where the contents of his talk called for the following: "The work we should be doing is laying the infrastructure -- the administrative, logistical infrastructure -- putting that into place, so that if Allah put us in a situation where we did have to fight, physically, we could translate that fighting into tangible political gains."
Yep, this is the guy who justifies attacks on U.S. soldiers is who the Muslim Student Assocation is bringing to campus after a Muslim just shot up his fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood. You can't make this stuff up.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
I hope you'll indulge me for writing about the state that is still very near to my heart, despite my distance from it. I know that I usually write only about Claremont news or about news tangentially related to Claremont, but I can't help myself from writing about a politician I consider to be the finest I have ever met: Scott Brown, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.
As many of you know, I'm a Massachusetts refugee (soon to be a Californian refugee, and maybe even an American refugee, as well, if things in this country aren't put in order fast), but I have to say that I think Democrats are wrong to think that they have it in the bag against Brown.
First, he's very likeable relative to Ms. Coakley and exudes the kind of calm, collectedness of a senator, rather than sleezyness of a lawyer (which, in point of fact, both Ms. Coakley and he are.)
Second, in recent years, few women have been elected to high office in Massachusetts. In 2002, Romney beat Shannon O'Brien for governor by five points. In 2006, Deval Patrick beat Kerry Healey by 19 points.
Third, this is an anti-incumbent year and Brown can win if he appeals to the independents that decide Mass. elections. He should channel Calvin Coolidge, the last Massachusetts conservative, when he goes up against Coakley and run as if he is that 41st vote that'll bring common sense to Washington D.C.
As for me, I'll be supporting Brown for the simple reason that he's trust worthy and sticks to his word. I was one of the three members of the Milton Academy Republicans -- that was actually a high number -- we invited him to a debate that we had organized with the 90 member strong, Democrats of Milton Academy. The Democrat bailed on us at the last minute, but Brown, true to form, decided to come anyways. The simple reason that he gave? "I said I would."
Andrew Sullivan has come to the Athenaeum twice in the last four years, so I'm blogging about this because it seems fair to assume that he'll be there again as he's a safe choice for the ideological Ath. He's a self-described ex-conservative, so the Ath gets the points for bringing a supposed conservative at the same time that that "conservative" trashes on the ideological movement of which he's supposedly apart.
For someone who wants to ask a lot of questions about Sarah Palin and the birth of her baby, Trig, people should definitely be asking some serious questions about Andrew Sullivan. Don't mistake me here, as I'm not a fan of Sarah Palin and think that there is some stuff to look up there.
I have no problem with people using internet sites to ask for dates, but soliciting gay, unprotected sex when you are HIV positive strikes me as disturbed to say the least. He favors letting HIV positive individuals come to our country and his conduct shows that he's not in the least concerned if the disease spreads.
His statement about fact checking is odd, too. There were eleven reporters at the AP that read it and fact checked it. They put zero reporters fact checking the books of Barack Obama.
I had the pleasure of meeting Joel Kotkin this weekend at the Claremont Institute's California Public Policy Conference. A self-described, "Harry Truman Democrat," Kotkin showed in his detailed, chart and graph, way how the California Left has effectively left the poor behind with its new found religion of climate change. He told us about this upcoming Forbes magazine article. Here are a few representative paragraphs:
You can get a glimpse of this future in high-unemployment California. Here a burgeoning regulatory regime tied to global warming threatens to turn the state into a total "no go" economic development zone. Not only do companies have to deal with high taxes, cascading energy prices and regulations, they now face audits of their impact on global warming. Far easier to move your project to Texas--or if necessary, China.
The notion that the hoi polloi must be sacrificed to save the earth is not a new one. Paul Ehrlich, who was the mentor of President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, laid out the defining logic in his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb. In this influential work, Ehrlich predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and "an age of scarcity" in key metals by the mid-1980s. Similar views were echoed by a 1972 "Limits to Growth" report issued by the Club of Rome, a global confab that enjoyed a cache similar to that of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
To deal with this looming crisis, Holdren in the 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Anne and Paul Ehrlich) developed the notion of "de-development." According to Holdren, poorer countries like India and China could not be expected to work their way out of poverty since they were "foredoomed by enormous if not insurmountable economic and environmental obstacles." The only way to close "the prosperity gap" was to lower the living standards of what he labeled "over-developed" nations.
Up until two years ago, The Claremont Colleges maintained a website, through HMC, of students who voluntarily released their phone numbers and campus addresses. On the CMC campus, ASCMC asked every student at Financial Registration to sign a release if they wanted to be included, and CMC staff removed the students who did not sign the release. The information was then sent to HMC, who posted it in the intranet (viewable only within the Colleges). Everyone who was included in this information, at least from CMC, gave ASCMC consent to do so.I will take down the link to everyone's phone numbers now.
Two years ago, we stopped participating on CMC's behalf because Facebook was doing the work for us; the website was no longer needed. Over time, other colleges have stopped also.
The page you happened on dates back to Fall 2007. This file was accidentally left on their server, and from what I understand, there is no active link to the page from the official HMC website. HMC has confirmed that they have now blocked access to the directory in question and are scanning for other materials that are public but should not be.
Cynthia Ann Humes