Saturday, September 23, 2006

Fighting enemies without, and within

Fighting enemies without, and within
By Martin L. Gross
Published September 22, 2006

The coming November election may well be the most important political contest of our history.
It is surely the most significant election since Lincoln's second term race in 1864 against the Democratic candidate, failed Union Gen. George B. McClellan, who sought a compromise peace with the slaveholding Confederacy.
Lincoln took only 55 percent of the vote, and even lost New Jersey to the appeaser. Had McClellan won, America might today be half slave and half free, and history would have sadly been turned on its head.
This November, we face another decisive contest, one in which the Democratic Party again threatens the security of the United States. Once more, the Democrats seek a so-called peace based on isolationism and defeatism.
Should the Democrats take the House in November, California's Nancy Pelosi will become House speaker, and our security will be subordinate to partisan politics.
Domestically, the Democratic Party intends to repeal the Patriot Act. This will surely dilute our terrorist intelligence, which has been largely responsible for the miraculous record of not suffering a single attack since September 11, 2001. Internationally, the consequences will be as tragic, and perhaps more so.
The best that can be said for the Democrats' foreign policy is that it is naive, even foolish. At worst, it aims to weaken our security and reduce America's role in the world, making it subservient to a United Nations controlled by China and Russia.
The Democrats do not want to understand the importance of a victory in Iraq. True, we did not find the weapons of mass destruction world intelligence believed we would. But now that we are there, victory is essential for geopolitical stability and to win the war against Muslim extremism. If we leave Iraq prematurely, as Democrats Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Carl Levin, John Murtha, Barbara Boxer, et al., insist, we will face unimagined dire consequences.
A bloody religious civil war will break out between the Sunnis and Shi'ities. Iran will intervene on behalf of their fellow Shi'ities, and once victorious in America's absence, will take virtual control of Iraq. As the new power in the region, they will even threaten our strategic place in Afghanistan.
What will the Democrats do? Only offer more defeatism and isolationism to play to the fears of the American people.
Iran is the ultimate enemy. With the Democrats controlling the purse strings in the House, America will be powerless to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. How will the president receive congressional approval for action to destroy Iran's nuclear sites before it is too late? Must he risk impeachment to defend America?
Democratic control of the House will halt American security in its tracks. Already, a California Democratic congresswoman is calling for surrender, claiming the administration is exaggerating the Iranian nuclear threat.
It is a surreal scenario, but one we must face with the threat of a Democratic victory in November
But what of the once-magnificent Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy that successfully fought World War II, then the Cold War? What of the great bipartisan alliance of Democrats with Republicans Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George Bush the elder that defeated the cruel Soviet Union? That is all ancient history as a new, dangerous Democratic Party has evolved to bedevil us.
That began in the 1950s, when I was a leader of the Stevenson movement in the Democratic Party. The discouraged left decided that to survive they had to infiltrate and take over the party. That was accelerated in the 1960s with the hippie/left dissent that rocked the nation. By 1972, the takeover of the party machinery was complete, culminating in the Democratic presidential nomination of George McGovern -- a man who planned to fight the Soviet Union by lowering America's defense budget by 30 percent.
Since then, we have had two Democratic Party presidents: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both weak on national defense.
Mr. Carter gave the shah his walking papers, facilitating return of the terrorist fanatic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni to power in Iran. Mr. Clinton turned the other cheek as terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, then killed our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, then bombed the USS Cole, only responding foolishly with a handful of cruise missiles against a country that harbored thousands of terrorists.
The new Democratic Party uses its activist primaries to ensure only isolationists receive the party's congressional nominations. Witness the primary defeat of liberal veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman by leftist Ned Lamont in Connecticut.
We now face a Democratic Party that does not wish America well. Proof positive? In 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the world rose in anger against the Iraqi dictator. The U.N. voted for action and scores of nations pledged troops -- including even Arab Syria and Egypt -- to help America free Kuwait.
Back home, what did the Democratic Party do? In the Senate, on the vote to endorse that first Gulf war, the great majority of Democratic senators defied the civilized world and voted against that vital campaign.
Unlike the Democrats, the Republican Party is patriotic. But it is not pristine. The working class has not done as well as possible in the last six years. And Washington Republicans have disgraced themselves with a spending deluge.
But if the people vote their frustrations with Iraq or their pocketbooks, we will once again be threatened with disaster. We cannot afford another George McGovern, or even another George McClellan, if we are to safeguard America and continue our destiny of making the world a better place.

Martin L. Gross is the author of the best-seller, the "Government Racket: Washington Waste from A to Z," and a former official of the Democratic Party. He is now writing a book on that party since World

No one wants a war, but ...

No one wants a war, but ...

Posted: September 23, 2006

By Henry Lamb

Once again, the U.N. is demonstrating how useless it is. Now that Iran has defied the U.N.'s demand to stop enriching uranium – or face serious consequences – the U.N. has decided that the "serious consequences" will be more talk about what to do. All the while, Iran continues to enrich uranium, saying that it is for peaceful use, to provide energy.

Well, maybe.

No one wants war. Russia and China are both deeply involved in economic relations with Iran, and do not want to jeopardize their own economies by supporting sanctions. France – well, France is France. The only thing that is certain about the French is that the U.S. cannot count on them. The two remaining permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and the U.S., even with Germany, could not impose economic sanctions with enough bite to slow Iran's enrichment processing.

No one wants war, but what are the options?

The U.S. could adopt the view that we should take Iranian President Ahmadinejad at his word and believe that Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only. This policy would certainly win the approval of the international community, as well as the anti-war forces at home. But then, would we not also have to take Ahmadinejad at his word when he says that Israel will be wiped off the map, that the U.S. should bow and surrender to Iran, that there will be cataclysmic events to remove Zionism from the face of the earth?

The U.S. could adopt the view that Ahmadinejad is a masterful liar who publicly proclaims to the U.N. and to the world that Iran seeks peace, while privately supplying weapons to terrorists in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran is a present threat to peace in Iraq and Israel. Ahmadinejad's public vows to destroy Israel and his steadfast refusal to honor the U.N.'s demands to stop enriching uranium present a serious threat to world.

The Bush administration has adopted this latter view; Bush critics want public policy to reflect the former view.

It is indeed ironic that when it comes to environmental threats, these same critics race to embrace the precautionary principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

In the face of a very real threat of catastrophic, irreversible nuclear degradation at the hands of people who daily demonstrate their absolute indifference to human life, Bush critics want no part of preventive measures.

There are no simple solutions to the conflict between Islamic rule and freedom. This conflict is the root cause of the terrorist attacks around the world. Ahmadinejad and others claim that the daily deaths in Iraq occur because the U.S. is occupying a foreign nation. It is this invasion and occupation, however, that prevents Islamic rule, and gives the hope of freedom for the people.

Islamic rule can be forced upon a nation with terror and military might; freedom cannot. Freedom has to be planted, nurtured, cultivated and allowed to grow. It cannot grow where it is not protected and defended. This is what the U.S. forces are trying to do in Iraq – give freedom a chance to take root and grow. This is a bold but costly effort to find a long-term solution to the basic conflict.

Many, perhaps too many, Americans do not subscribe to this point of view. "America should not be the world's policeman." "America should take care of its own problems and let the rest of the world do the same." "America should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations." These ideas have merit, and in a perfect world would be valid. This is not a perfect world.

In a perfect world, all people and all nations would be free. People and nations could enter into agreements that are mutually beneficial – or not – as they choose. When people or nations consider the world to be perfect only when people and nations are compelled by force to fit into a common economic, political or religious mold, freedom must be vanquished. This, of course, is the underlying conflict that has spawned wars across the ages.

No one wants war, but it may be inevitable. If the choice is to yield to Islamic domination or go to war to defend freedom, then war is inevitable. The evidence is mounting that Islamic extremists intend to impose Islamic rule as far as possible, using terror tactics as the primary weapon. The only unanswered question is how far it will be allowed to spread before the defenders of freedom stand up.

Islamic terror has already reached the U.S. mainland, and the threat has significantly reduced the freedom Americans have traditionally enjoyed. The threat will not be reduced by abandoning the battle in Iraq or ignoring the growing threat in Iran. The best hope of avoiding a war is to be totally prepared – and willing – to fight it, while doing everything possible to prevent it.

Friday, September 22, 2006



By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

September 22, 2006

Is it just me, or are people really getting meaner? It seems that much of what I hear and read these days indicates that people's actions and attitudes are increasingly rude, crude, and downright cantankerous. Has it always been this way? If it was, I don't remember it.

Granted, there is much to be upset about nowadays. People are being taxed out of their minds. Governmental meddling has never been more intrusive. Savings accounts are down. Indebtedness is up. Most newspaper headlines serve only to raise our blood pressure. Americans fear the IRS more than they do Osama bin Laden. Many Americans are working two and even three jobs just to make ends meet.

Hollywood used to provide respite from day to day pressures. No more. All they do now is contribute to raising stress levels. Ditto for most major league sports. And when is the last time we could trust anything our congressman told us? Come to think of it, we can't trust much of anything anybody tells us.

Egad! I'm getting angry just writing this column.

However, is it really obligatory that we lose our warmth and compassion? Is everyone who disagrees with us really our enemy? Can we not remain truly uncompromising for a principle without becoming a raving, sadistic madman?

Furthermore, it doesn't seem to matter in what "camp" one finds oneself. The story is the same. Conservatives can be just as mean-spirited as liberals and vice versa. Christians just as contemptuous as atheists. In fact, I know unbelievers whom I would far rather be around than some believers.

In addition, I used to believe that ladies were the "kinder, gentler" sex. No more. Heaven help the person who crosses some of these avant-garde females. And pity the poor man that marries one of these angry American women.

Even people who try to work with youngsters feel the wrath of an out-of-control, angry society. Sunday School teachers. Public school teachers. Christian school teachers. Private school teachers. Day care workers. Baby sitters. And especially Little League coaches. Those people take their lives in their hands!

Okay. So we're not all going to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya. Can we not at least be civil with one another? As my dad used to say, "Can't we disagree without being disagreeable?"

For the most part, Americans have developed a very unhealthy anger attitude. We have lost our sense of humor, not to mention our ability to forgive. Even Christians have become egotistical, proud, and arrogant. No wonder we have lost the propitious smile of Heaven.

For example, when people with whom we disagree get into trouble with the federal government or the mainstream media, we rejoice in their tribulation, not realizing that the same monster could turn against us with the flip of a coin (or administration). How is it that we cannot see that the same liberties and principles that we desire for ourselves must be granted to others, or we all lose?

The only people who benefit from this anger-addicted society are the power-brokers and controllers who desire to transform America into an international Monopoly game. You see, angry people are easy to manipulate, because they have lost their ability to reason. Even our Creator implores us to "reason together." However, objectivity is lost when anger controls our spirit. Rightly does the Scripture command us, "Be ye angry, and sin not."

Furthermore, is not inner peace and joy a gift of God, not dependent upon circumstances or the actions of others? Christians claim to know and worship the Prince of Peace. Why, then, can they not act like it?

© 2006 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Thursday, September 21, 2006



By Frosty Wooldridge
September 21, 2006

In the 60s, “Popeye the Sailor Man” guzzled spinach from a can in order to battle the bad guys. He became an icon of good health for those who ate vegetables and exercised.

As of this week across America, you don’t want to eat spinach nor any vegetables grown and picked by America’s newest slave class. Restaurants called for a ban on serving spinach salads. I’ll bet most Americans shy away from lettuce, cabbage and other leafy vegetables in the coming weeks. They’re all grown and harvested under the same conditions and same people.

Why? As of Wednesday, 146 citizens in 23 states suffered E. Coli infection and one died.

How do you think this disease outbreak occurred? To bring it into sobering focus, please understand that 20 million illegal aliens crossed into America in the past 20 years without any kind of health screening. They work picking our food, washing our dishes in restaurants and, as is the norm in Third World countries, rarely if ever wash their hands after using the toilet. Additionally, most of them suffer functional illiteracy. They do not practice personal hygiene or health habits most Americans assume as a normal aspect of living.

While on my 21st Century Paul Revere Ride this summer through 48 states, I saw thousands of illegal aliens working in fields the length of California. I rode through Salinas Valley where illegals cultivated crops. I noticed porta-potties sometimes and none at other times. I never saw hand washing facilities. Pause for a moment, and consider cleanliness habits of Third World people with a fifth grade education. Why does disease affect millions in the Third World? What happens when millions migrate illegally to our country? Might dozens or more do their morning constitutional amongst the crops for lack of a porta-potty? Might the contamination be spread across the fields by the common practice of “flood irrigation?” Would flooding spread the contamination further?

You never ‘hear’ the major TV networks address or experts talk about this aspect of the contamination of our foods. It’s a cover-up, plain and simple. They only report it when it breaks out beyond their ability to squelch it.

Remember Chi Chi’s Restaurants in Pennsylvania that killed several customers because the work staff suffered hepatitis infections? Remember the Center for Disease Control stating they thought the source originated in Mexican fields irrigated with sewage water?

Have you heard about the latest multi drug resistant tuberculosis outbreaks in Philadelphia, Atlanta and near Cleveland this summer? We’ve imported at least 16,000 cases of TB in the past five years according to latest reports. Before that, TB was virtually extinct in America.

Tuberculosis kills 2,000,000 people world wide annually. Where? In the Third World! Why? Illiteracy, contaminated water, limited food and lack of hospital care! We’ve imported 7,000 cases of leprosy in the past three years. It’s endemic to the northeast of the United States for the first time ever. Have you heard about it by the major networks? Not a chance!

In an April 25, 2004 front page story of the Santa Barbara News Press, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”, one illegal alien infected 56 others with tuberculosis. After he avoided police for months, they finally captured him and placed him in quarantine. In September, 2005, a school child in Fort Morgan, Colorado contracted tuberculosis while attending school. How? An illegal alien student suffered from the disease, but was not screened before attending school. Our national media silences these outbreaks.

Do you see a pattern here? It’s called Third World Momentum. All the consequences affecting the Third World now manifest in our country.

As millions of illegals import themselves into the United States, they bring diseases. They rarely change their sanitation habits or lack thereof. They work in our meat and chicken processing plants at $6.00 an hour. Do you think they bring any responsibility and pride to their work? As more corrupt CEOs bribe health inspectors and OSHA officials, our food sources suffer degraded standards.

Illegal aliens by the millions work in our restaurants. Last spring, a reader of this column from New York City reported, “Our manager last night ran cursing out the back door of the restaurant with a hand towel box in his hand…illegals had been using the toilet and threw their used toilet paper into the box because that’s what they do in Mexico because sewage systems can’t take tissue paper. The illegals had been throwing their used toilet paper into the hand towel box!” I traveled through Mexico and saw it myself. This story represents the tip of an ugly disease epidemic growing in America.

As a nation, what we’re facing is like a 50 car pile up on a foggy morning on an expressway in Pennsylvania. Everyone speeding into the blinding fog bank begins slowing down too late. Someone brakes hard when another car slows down abruptly. The cars behind can’t stop; the chain reaction pile-up begins.

Doesn’t anyone see what’s happening to America? Apparently not! Sixty-two of your 100 senators voted S.B. 2611. That bill assures our growth by 100 million in the next 34 years. However, that’s 100 million people mostly from Third World countries. That ensures pockets of poverty and disease already ravaging millions in those countries to be transplanted into America.

For all Americans, this E. Coli outbreak stands as a harbinger of things to come. When you degrade health standards, hire illegal aliens carrying multiple of diseases or disease provoking habits, you’ve got a national crisis in the making.

Ironically, even our U.S. Senators stand at risk as well as their families. Even if they live in gated communities, at some point in time, with these illegal aliens invading every nook and cranny of our society—everyone becomes vulnerable to disease, terror, death and fraud wrought by this invasion.

With this E. Coli outbreak, even Popeye may find himself headed for the emergency room. However, he’ll be forced to wait in line behind countless illegal aliens given free access ahead of him. Not only that, he’ll be paying for their doctor visits with his hard earned tax dollars. This time, at the end of the cartoon, he won’t be chortling with Olive Oil.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006



By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
September 6, 2006

THE HOLY BIBLE makes it clear that no one knows for sure the hour or the day of Christ's return in the End Times, but the current convergence of events may be one of the signs we are in the latter days. Relevant to this, one might take note of the activities of Javier Solana de Madariaga of Spain, whom I recently described in Part 2 of a NewsWithViews column about the Dialectic. Solana's grandfather was Salvador de Madariaga, who was chief of the League of Nations' Disarmament Section, Spanish Ambassador to the U.S., and militated for a united and integrated Europe.

As previously indicated, Rhodes scholars Bill Clinton, Strobe Talbott, and Richard Gardner were largely responsible for Solana's appointment as head of NATO in 1995. Currently, he is Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union (EU), and responsible for coordinating its military and foreign policy as well. On November 20, 1999, he also became Secretary-General of the Council of the Western European Union (WEU).

According to attorney Constance Cumbey, an expert on Solana, the EU was pushed by the World Federalists beginning in the late 1940s as part of a movement toward regionalization leading to a world government. President Clinton in 1993 wrote a letter to the World Federalist Association supporting world government (see letter here). And on October 17, 1997, he stated to reporters in Buenos Aires: "What I'm trying to do is to promote a process of reorganization of the world so that human beings are organized in a way that takes advantage of the new opportunities of this era....If we can prove that you can merge integrated economies and integrated democracies, then we'll be more likely to build a global system of this kind."

This "integration" of nations and their economies is an important part of Cecil Rhodes' plan "to take the government of the whole world," and Javier Solana has played a key role regarding European integration. He has also been a key player in the Middle Eastern peace process, with the "carrot" of a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone (including the availability of Libyan oil) by 2010 held out to participants.

The year 2010 also happens to be when the North American Union (integrating the U.S., Canada and Mexico) is to come into existence with a new currency called the Amero. You are probably saying Americans would never allow our country to be absorbed into a Union with 2 other countries. Actually, you will have nothing to say about it. The Amero will be adopted when the U.S. currency goes in the tank. And if you don't believe that can happen, just look at Laurence Kotlikoff's paper, "Is the United States Bankrupt?", in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis REVIEW (July/August 2006), which concludes "that countries can go broke" and "that the United States is going broke."

When the dollar dives, it eventually will be replaced by the Amero, which will then be replaced by the new world currency called the Phoenix in 2018 (see this new currency on the cover of THE ECONOMIST, January 9, 1988).

Regarding the current conflict in the Middle East, I have previously mentioned that according to a 1952 map, Sri Lankans are supposed to police this region when a world government is formed. And you may be interested to learn that 40% of the domestic servants in Lebanon today are Sri Lankans.

At this point, you might be saying Israel will never compromise its national sovereignty and be brought under a world government. But do you really think Israel went as far as it wanted to go in its attack against Hezbollah in Lebanon? No, it didn't, and it was because of strong pressure for a cease fire brought to bear by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Solana, who have been traveling together recently.

Just before Solana became head of NATO in December 1995, he structured the Barcelona conference for peace in the Middle East. According to Constance Cumbey, the resulting peace process goes into effect January 2007, and is a 7-year program which is reviewable midway (three years and six months). Does this sound Biblical? Remember that Daniel 9:27 foretold the breaking of a covenant with Israel in the middle of 7 weeks (symbolic of 7 years) with ensuing desolation in the End Times. [Order Constance Cumbey's book "The Hidden Dangers of The Rainbow" then scroll down to #25]

In the early 1960s, Lincoln Bloomfield prepared Study Memorandum No. 7 for Rhodes scholar Secretary of State Dean Rusk saying that "if the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." Applying this to the Middle East today, the strategy is "if the radical Muslim dynamic was greatly abated, Israel might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." Could this be why Israel is being prevented from crushing Hezbollah?

In the midst of the confrontations between Israel and radical Muslims (e.g., Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.), Javier Solana appeared, presenting himself to the Israelis as their friend. However, he was also quoted in the JERUSALEM POST (June 6, 2006) as remarking: "The EU continues to be the most important donor to the Palestinians....We will not let the Palestinians down." The Palestinians elected Hamas to lead their government.

Solana played an important part in negotiating a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah, but I predict the cease fire will not last. Remember that 1Thessalonians 5:3 states: "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them."

Solana's ambition is global, as he has also signed treaties with Argentina, Chile and Canada. The ultimate goal, as I have written many times before, is a World Socialist Government. And according to Constance Cumbey, many of Solana's planning sessions have occurred at the London School of Economics, which was founded by the Fabian Socialists.

Cumbey also said Solana has made clear his rejection of the concept "In God We Trust." Is this relevant to the fact that the WEU, which Solana heads, has 10 nations, and Revelation 17: 12-14 reveals that in the End Times, 10 kings will give their power and strength to the beast, who makes war against The Lamb of God, Jesus Christ?

This is followed by Revelation 17: 15, which explains that "the waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues." Is this relevant to the EU's choice of "Many Tongues, One Voice" as its slogan, which is displayed on a modern Tower of Babel (see pictures)? Javier Solana's office is in a building that looks like this. Also note the EU stamp shown here and its similarity to Revelation 17, which mentions a woman clothed round about, sitting on a beast on 7 mountains and many waters, and an angel!

I do not accuse Javier Solana of representing the beast of Revelation, and we may not be entering the 7-year period identified as being in the End Times. However, things which are occurring today and their resemblance to events foretold in Biblical prophecy should be of interest to everyone. And given what THE HOLY BIBLE says about those with whom we should not associate, why do groups such as The Carter Center (founded by Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Nations Foundation, Character Education Partnership, and Center for Global Ethics all belong to the New Group of World Servers (see They probably don't realize the NGWS was formed in 1925 by Luciferian Alice Bailey.

© 2006 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

Chavez Says U.S. Empire Will Soon Fall, Calls Bush 'Devil'

Chavez Says U.S. Empire Will Soon Fall, Calls Bush 'Devil'

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

UNITED NATIONS — The United States will soon lose its place as leader of the world, and the United Nations is a broken organization that is beyond repair, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday.

“The United States empire is on its way down and it will be finished in the near future, inshallah," Chavez told reporters, ending the statement with the Arabic phrase for "God willing."

Chavez said that the United Nations is a “deceased” organization because it was formed to bridge the differences between the United States and Russia, and a brand new international organization would have to be formed to replace it.

Earlier, Chavez initiated a verbal assault on President Bush, calling him "the devil" during an insult-riddled address to world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly.

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, gesturing to where Bush had stood during his speech on Tuesday. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."
He later said he was referring to President Bush when he spoke of the devil.

Chavez held up a book by American leftist writer Noam Chomsky "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance" and recommended it to everyone in the General Assembly.

He also lambasted the U.S. government for trying to block Venezuela's campaign for a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council. He said if chosen over U.S.-favorite Guatemala in a secret-ballot U.N. vote next month, Venezuela would be "the voice of the Third World."

The council currently consists of five permanent members with veto power — the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France — and 10 non-permanent members who serve two-year terms and have no power to veto resolutions. The 10 elected members do have the right to propose resolutions, chair committees and hold the rotating council presidency for one-month periods.

Five countries from different regions are elected every year by the General Assembly to replace five retiring ones.

The U.S. government warns that Chavez, a close ally of Iran, Syria and Cuba, would be a disruptive force on the council.

"The imperialists see extremists everywhere. No, we aren't extremists," Chavez said in his speech. "What's happening is the world is waking up." He said many in the world now subscribe to the battle cry: "Yankee empire, go home!"

Holding a rotating Security Council seat would bring Chavez a higher profile and a platform to challenge the U.S. on its stances in regions from the Middle East to Latin America.

The campaign is shaping up to be a formidable diplomatic test for Chavez, gauging his ability to lobby head-to-head against the U.S.

In the past few months, Chavez has crisscrossed the globe collecting promises of support, visiting about a dozen countries including Russia, Belarus, Iran, Vietnam, Qatar, Mali, Benin, China, Malaysia and Syria. His diplomats also have been busy, while top Guatemalan officials and U.S. diplomats also have been doing their own lobbying.

Chavez said he has the solid backing of the Caribbean Community, the Arab League, Russia, China and much of Africa, in addition to his allies across South America.

But winning a Security Council seat requires a two-thirds majority — 128 out of 192 U.N. members — and Guatemala says it has 90 votes secured. If neither side wins the necessary two-thirds, there could be more rounds of lobbying and voting next month, possibly followed by a search for an alternate candidate.

Chavez, in his drive to counter U.S. influence around the globe, is practicing a unique "diplomacy for show" that thrives on protagonism and confrontation, said Milos Alcalay, who was Chavez's U.N. ambassador until he resigned in 2004 amid differences with the government.

"A post for non-permanent membership in the Security Council has never been so politicized," Alcalay said. If Venezuela manages to win the seat, "it will be a rock in the shoe of the United States" and any other countries Chavez differs with, he said.

The Venezuelan leader, a close friend and admirer of Cuba's communist leader Fidel Castro, has sought to be a voice for poor countries and has warned that if the U.S. tries to block U.N. reform, Venezuela and others may eventually create a separate "United Nations of the south" to rival a body they no longer find democratic.

Chavez also said it might eventually be necessary to move the U.N. headquarters out of the United States.

He reiterated his accusations that the U.S. planned and financed a short-lived coup that briefly unseated him in 2002, and said with Washington's backing Israel had carried out a "genocide" in Lebanon.

Chavez's government still earns handsomely from oil sales to the U.S., Venezuela's top export market, but he has crusaded against its capitalist system, selling millions of gallons (liters) of heating oil at a discount to low-income American families.

Dozens gathered in a downtown square in Caracas to watch Chavez on a large-screen TV as the government took over all TV and radio channels to broadcast the speech live. The crowd in the square spontaneously broke into applause during some of his harsher criticisms of the U.S.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

One World Government Using American Bankroll to Develop Alliance with Iran, Axis of Evil -

One World Government Using American Bankroll to Develop Alliance with Iran, Axis of Evil -

By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

WASH—Sep 19—KIN--The so-called neutral, democracy-based United Nations, under the leadership of Secretary General Kofi Annan, appears to be developing an alliance with Iran and other rogue nations as the world struggles against terrorism and Islamofascism, and American money is funding Annan’s U.N. operation. Annan, who actively participated in the recent meeting in Cuba of the 118-nation group calling themselves the Non Aligned Movement, agreed with the communists, Islamic theocracies, and dictatorships that the United States had too much power on the U.N. Security Council. Annan said, "The Security Council must reform — for the sake of the developing world, and for the sake of the United Nations itself.”

Recent memory recalls Annan’s dirty little Food for Peace Program where China, Russia and France, along with top U.N. officials in Annan’s office were bribed by Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars to use the Security Council to line their pockets while helping Hussein build his military. And the same nations today are receiving billions from Iran for its nuclear program. Yet Annan agrees with the anti-U.S. nations that America has too much power on the Security Council. Annan went on to say that “The perception of a narrow power-base risks leading to an erosion of the UN's authority and legitimacy — even, some would argue, its neutrality and independence. I have in the past described this as a democracy deficit."

The Non Aligned Movement, headed by Fidel Castro’s brother and attended by Annan, North Korea, Venezuela, Islamic nations led by Iran, and a host of other world troublemakers, also adopted a 92-page declaration in support of democracy and terrorism. The group agreed that fighting against a foreign occupation is not considered terrorism. And since to Islam, all land that Islam does not control is considered under foreign occupation, then terrorism is a legitimate form of defense. And today, thanks to the United Nations, Iran’s madman president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be center stage in New York City. Ahmadinejad will try to appear to the world as a voice of reason, an alternative to the worldwide leadership of the United States.

It is clear that the type and shadow of the one world government is corrupt and morally bankrupt, seeing evil as having a legitimate and equal stake among the righteous nations. And this body is not only allowed to exist on the shores of the “one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all,” but it is also mostly funded by the United States and its allies. It is a twist of irony that the free nations who fight for liberty and justice may well usher in the one world government of the anti-Christ that Revelation 13:7 that says, “It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation.” Seek Christ and His righteousness.

Islam: 'Smoke arising out of the pit'

Islam: 'Smoke arising out of the pit'

Posted: September 20, 2006

By Samuel Blumenfeld
© 2006
The solemn memorial exercises at Ground Zero on Sept. 11 reminded us all that we are at war and that those who were killed by the enemy on that fateful day five years ago were the war's first official casualties. The names of the dead were read by their relatives, who still suffer their losses. And it is important that we should be reminded of that day, which destroyed our delusion that the fall of the Berlin Wall would usher in a new era of world peace and happiness. Instead, we now face, for the indefinite future, a new World War declared by radical Islam, and the next president may even have to impose the draft.

A PBS Frontline film showed, for the first time, people flying out of the windows of the World Trade Center, hurtling their bodies to sudden death. They had all gone to work that morning expecting nothing more than the usual minor decisions of the day – what to have for lunch, what movie to see that night, what to bring home for the kids. They had no idea that in less than an hour they would have to choose how to die: be burned alive or leap from the building. Not exactly your usual choices on an ordinary work day, courtesy of the religion of peace.

Several thousand people, unable to get out of the buildings, were faced with such biblical choices. Of course, hundreds were killed instantly when the planes plowed into the towers. Their lives were snuffed out before they even knew what hit them. That is how this new World War will be fought by the enemy.

The pope, in his call for dialogue, was trashed by Muslims worldwide because he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who minced no words about Muhammad's religion: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Can there really be dialogue with Islam?

The enemy has lots of names: radical Islam, jihadism, Islamo-fascism, Islamic terrorism. But there is no doubt that at the bottom of all of this is the religion of Islam itself. In his book "Signs of the Times," published in 1832, the Rev. Alexander Keith quoted Revelation 9:1-2, which states:

And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

Keith then commented: "Like the noxious and ever deadly vapors which the winds, particularly from the southwest, diffuse in Arabia, Mahometanism spread from hence its pestilential influence – arose as suddenly and spread as widely as smoke arising out of the pit, the smoke of a great furnace. Such is a suitable symbol of the religion of Mahomet, of itself, as compared with the pure light of the Gospel of Jesus. It was not, like the latter, a light from heaven, but a smoke out of the bottomless pit."

It is always necessary to revert to the Bible to understand the ways of evil in this world and how they manifest themselves in our high-tech civilization. All of the Islamist hijackers who flew the planes into the Twin Towers were driven by an ideology of death that calls itself a religion. Keith wrote further:

"A false religion was set up, which, although the scourge of transgressions and idolatry, filled the world with darkness and delusion; and swarms of Saracens, like locusts, overspread the earth, and speedily extended their ravages over the Roman Empire from east to west."

What Islam is doing today is merely resuming their war against Christianity and the West. But now they have the riches from their oilfields, which means they have the money to build nuclear bombs. And since they believe in a religion that reveres death, they will not be deterred by "mutually assured destruction." They are as ready as ever to sacrifice millions of their own people for victory over the infidel.

Anyone who understands the geopolitics of this war understands that the conflict in Iraq is very much a part of this World War. Meanwhile, the Democrats play irresponsible politics, the liberal media undermines the president and the war effort, and the American people don't quite know what to make of all of this. They are too busy trying to keep their heads above water. But they now know that incredibly stupid politics among our protective agencies let 9/11 take place. It was not just a bomb on a subway train or in a nightclub, but the destruction of the two tallest buildings in the first metropolis of the Western world and the destruction of four giant airliners resulting in the deaths of almost 3,000 people. The price for inept politics can be astronomical.

We are being told by liberals that it is the war in Iraq that is causing such hatred of America among the Muslims. So, I guess they loved us when they bombed the Marine barracks in Beirut killing over 200 Marines and bombed the embassies in Africa. Israel has been hated by the Muslims since it was created in 1948. Yet, Israel continues to exist and prosper. If we formulate our policies on the basis of how well we are loved or hated by others, we shall have surrendered our freedom and sovereignty and chosen to live as slaves to the whims of our enemies.

The terrorist with diplomatic immunity

The terrorist with diplomatic immunity

Posted: September 20, 2006

By Joseph Farah
© 2006
If Americans needed another reason to wave goodbye to the United Nations, they are getting it this week with the encore presentation of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Atomic Iran.

Many are asking why he isn't arrested on sight for his numerous crimes. But even a notorious, murdering, anti-Semitic, delusional terrorist is safe from prosecution from his crimes once he has established diplomatic immunity.

It's time for a little refresher course on Ahmadinejad.

He has been identified by at least six U.S. hostages as a ringleader in the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover.

He has been identified by former Iranian President Bani Sadr as Ayatollah Khomeini's liaison with the hostage takers.

He's been accused of the murder of Kurdish leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou in Vienna by officials in Austria who say they have compelling evidence and want an arrest warrant sworn for him

As mayor of Tehran, he was one of the principal forces behind a campaign to recruit and train suicide bombers specifically to attack the U.S., Israel and Britain.
All of the above I reported more than a year ago and carefully documented in my premium, online intelligence newsletter G2 Bulletin. All of the background material is still there in the archives available to subscribers and serious researchers.

But maybe, you say, that's all history. After all, Mike Wallace has testified to Ahmadinejad's good character, right?

Would it be fair, then, to judge the man by his own words over the last two years?

Oct. 26, 2005: "There is no doubt that the new wave (of terrorist attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this disgraceful blot (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world. ... As the imam (Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic revolution) said, Israel must be wiped off the map. Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

Dec. 8, 2005: "Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. ... Let's assume what the Europeans say is true. ... Let's give some land to the Zionists in Europe or in Germany or Austria. They faced injustice in Europe, so why do the repercussions fall on the Palestinians?"

Dec. 14, 2005: "Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets. If you (Europeans) committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? You have to pay the compensation yourself. This is our proposal: Give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country."

Jan. 5, 2006: "We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It's a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We must prepare ourselves to rule the world, and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return. If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier."

Jan. 14, 2006: "They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets."

Feb. 11, 2006: "I ask everybody in the world not to let a group of Zionists who failed in Palestine to insult the prophet. Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime. We ask, why do you insult the prophet? The response is that it is a matter of freedom, while in fact they are hostages of the Zionists. And the people of the U.S. and Europe should pay a heavy price for becoming hostages to Zionists. We ask the West to remove what they created 60 years ago, and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them. Do the removal of Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."

April 14, 2006: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm. Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

July 15, 2006: "Their (Israel's) methods resemble Hitler's. When Hitler wanted to launch an attack, he came up with a pretext. Zionists say they are Hitler's victims, but they have the same nature as Hitler."

Aug. 1, 2006: "They (Israelis) know no limitations or boundaries at all any more for killing people. Are these people still human beings or just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages? They have made all notorious criminals in the world get a good reputation again."
The so-called "war on terrorism," in which you were either for us or for the terrorists, became pretty much academic with Ahmadinejad's second trip to the U.N.

If we're going to let one of the ringleaders of our enemies into our country unmolested, where does the insanity stop?

Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva?

Are videotaped beheadings covered by Geneva?

Posted: September 20, 2006
6:20 p.m. Eastern

By Ann Coulter
© 2006
Sen. John McCain has been carrying so much water for his friends in the mainstream media that he now has to state for the record to Republican audiences: "I hold no brief for al-Qaida."

Well, that's a relief.

It turns out the only reason McCain is demanding that prisoners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and other atrocities – be treated like Martha Stewart facing an insider trading charge is this: "It's all about the United States of America and what is going to happen to Americans who are taken prisoner in future wars."

McCain, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John Warner – or, as the Times now calls him, the "courtly Virginian" ("fag-hag by proxy to Elizabeth Taylor" being beneath his dignity these days) – want terrorists treated like Americans accused of crimes, with full access to classified information against them and a list of the undercover agents involved in their capture. Liberals' interest in protecting classified information started and ended with Valerie Plame.

As Graham explained, he doesn't want procedures used against terrorists at Guantanamo "to become clubs to be used against our people." Actually, clubs would be a step up from videotaped beheadings.

Or as the New York Times wrote in the original weasel talking points earlier this summer: "The Geneva Conventions protect Americans. If this country changes the rules, it's changing the rules for Americans taken prisoner abroad. That is far too high a price to pay so this administration can hang on to its misbegotten policies."

There hasn't been this much railing about the mistreatment of a hostage since Monica Lewinsky was served canapes at the Pentagon City Ritz-Carlton Hotel while being detained by the FBI.

The belief that we can impress the enemy with our magnanimity is an idea that just won't die. It's worse than the idea that paying welfare recipients benefits won't discourage them from working. (Some tiny minority might still seek work.) It's worse than the idea that taxes can be raised endlessly without reducing tax receipts. (As the Laffer Curve illustrates, at some point – a point this country will never reach – taxes could theoretically be cut so much that tax revenues would decline.)

But being nice to enemies is an idea that has never worked, no matter how many times liberals make us do it. It didn't work with the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, Hitler or the North Vietnamese – enemies notable for being more civilized than the Islamic savages we are at war with today.

By the way, how did the Geneva Conventions work out for McCain at the Hanoi Hilton?

It doesn't even work with the Democrats, whom Bush kept sucking up to his first year in office. No more movie nights at the White House with Teddy Kennedy these days, I'm guessing.

It was this idea (Be nice!) that fueled liberals' rage at Reagan when he vanquished the Soviet Union with his macho "cowboy diplomacy" that was going to get us all blown up. As the Times editorial page hysterically described Reagan's first year in office: "Mr. Reagan looked at the world through gun sights." Yes, he did! And now the Evil Empire is no more.

It was this idiotic idea of being nice to predators that drove liberal crime policies in the '60s and '70s – leading like night into day to unprecedented crime rates. Now these same liberal ninnies want to extend their tender mercies not just to rapists and murderers, but to Islamic terrorists.

Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill had a different idea: Instead of rewarding bad behavior, punish bad behavior. How many times does punishment have to work and coddling have to fail before we never have to hear again that if we treat terrorists well, the terrorists will treat our prisoners well?

Fortunately, history always begins this morning for liberals, so they can keep flogging the same idiotic idea that has never, ever worked: Be nice to our enemies and they will reward us with good behavior.

Never mind trusting liberals with national security. Never mind trusting them with raising kids. These people shouldn't even be allowed to own pets.

If the Democrats and the three pathetic Republicans angling to be called "mavericks" by the New York Times really believe we need to treat captured terrorists nicely in order to ensure that the next American they capture will be well-treated, then why stop at 600-thread-count sheets for the Guantanamo detainees? We must adopt Shariah law.

As McCain might put it, I hold no brief for al-Qaida, but what would better protect Americans they take prisoner than if America went whole hog and became an Islamic republic? On the plus side, we can finally put Rosie O'Donnell in a burka.

Abandoning ship in the culture war

Abandoning ship in the culture war

Posted: September 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Judge Roy Moore
© 2006

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization ..."
– President Franklin D. Roosevelt, D-Day

On June 6, 1944, the largest armada ever assembled in American history had crossed the English Channel to begin the invasion of Normandy and to bring about the end of World War II. President Roosevelt publicly appealed to "Almighty God" for victory.

As I sat in a small courtroom at the Naval base in Norfolk, Va., Sept. 13 and heard the verdict of "guilty" pronounced against Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt, a chaplain in the United States Navy, my thoughts went back to that day over 60 years ago and how things have changed in America.

Chaplain Klingenschmitt had just become the latest victim in the culture war to remove the recognition of God from our land. He had fallen into disfavor with the Navy command because of his continued opposition to the new Navy policy prohibiting "sectarian" prayer in public, specifically those prayers uttered in the name of Jesus.

The views of the Navy are best reflected by the response to questioning of one of the potential jurors, a Navy officer, by one of the attorneys in the case. He related that he was "agnostic" and was personally offended by public prayer because he felt such prayer was "pushing" religion on him. In order to be "inclusive," the Navy has decided that God should remain generic so no agnostic or atheist will ever "feel" offended. Every chaplain or Navy officer who fails to comply will suffer a fate similar to that of Lt. Klingenschmitt.

But serious consequences follow when we remove the knowledge of God from our life!

A decline in our education system began in 1962 when the U.S. Supreme Court took prayer from our schools and, one year later, banned reading of the Bible in our classrooms. A drastic increase in violence and crime followed the Court's removal of the Ten Commandments from a Kentucky school in 1980 and the prohibition of teaching creationism in 1987.

The exclusion of God in our public life has had similar results. A loss of moral direction has affected our institutions and governmental operations. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that a Nativity scene on public property was appropriate only if surrounded by "secular" symbols; in 2005, it ruled that the Ten Commandments could only be displayed on government property if it is part of a historical menagerie mixed with other secular documents or displays.

Money, not faith in God, is now the engine that drives politics and our government. Politicians in both parties have abandoned public trust for the sake of power and privilege, resulting in a government full of corruption and empty of integrity.

The Allied commander on D-Day, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who later became the 34th president of the United States, commented in 1954: "Today ... there is a need for positive acts of renewed recognition that faith is our surest ... strength, our greatest resource." Regarding four military chaplains who heroically gave their lives when the troopship Dorchester sank in 1943, Eisenhower declared that "all the history of America bears witness to [the] truth ... that in times of test and trial, we instinctively turn to God."

In addition to the Navy turning away from the recognition God as our true source of strength, the Air Force has also issued recent guidelines stating that prayer "should not usually be part of routine official business," and that if it is included, it should be "non-denominational" and "inclusive." This drive to ensure that atheists and agnostics feel no discomfort or offense due to the recognition of God will inevitably affect our other branches of service. But the history of the military dictates otherwise. An 1853 U.S. Senate report observed, our forefathers never intended "to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends." With troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and various other potential "war zones," we should be particularly cognizant of this warning.

When asked about the Klingenschmitt case, a spokesman for President Bush replied, "The president believes that chaplains ought to be free to express their religious beliefs. He further believes in allowing the military to handle its own issues." However, this is not just a military problem, but a national one, and as commander in chief, President Bush is responsible and should take appropriate action to restore the freedom of our military to recognize God. The president should remember, as our second president, John Adams once observed, that "God Almighty has always been our General and Commander in Chief, and we have never had any other."

With our Pledge "Under God" in jeopardy and our national motto "In God We Trust" under attack, we cannot – we must not – allow our military establishment to succumb to a political correctness that has all but destroyed our education system and corrupted our politics. The survival of our nation and our future depends upon it!

Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington

Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.
Afghan terror commander hints at big attack on N.Y., Washington

Posted: September 17, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006

Adnan el-Shukrijumah

The new al-Qaida field commander in Afghanistan is calling for Muslims to leave the U.S. – particularly Washington and New York – in anticipation of a major terror attack to rival Sept. 11, according to an interview by a Pakistani journalist.

Abu Dawood told Hamid Mir, a reporter who has covered al-Qaida and met with Osama bin Laden, the attack is being coordinated by Adnan el-Shukrijumah and suggests it may involve some form of weapon of mass destruction smuggled across the Mexican border.

"Our brothers are ready to attack inside America. We will breach their security again," he is quoted as saying. "There is no timeframe for our attack inside America; we can do it any time."

As WND has previously reported, el-Shukrijumah is a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot who has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee cropduster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexicali to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S., according to Paul Williams, a former FBI consultant and author of "The Dunces of Doomsday."

"He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago," said Dawood. "We call him 'Jaffer al Tayyar' (Jafer the Pilot); he is very brave and intelligent. (President) Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people. Sheikh Osama bin Laden has completed his cycle of warnings. You know, he is man of his words, he is not a politician; he always does what he says. If he said it many times that Americans will see new attacks, they will definitely see new attacks. He is a real mujahid. Americans will not win this war, which they have started against Muslims. Americans are the biggest supporters of the biggest terrorist in the world, which is Israel."

Dawood said he was currently conducting operations in Afghanistan under the leadership of the Taliban. He warned of a series of upcoming suicide bombings there directed against government and coalition forces during Ramadan.

He is also quoted as saying the next attack in America will not be conducted by people like Atta.

"We have a different plan for the next attack," he told Mir. "You will see. Americans will hardly find out any Muslim names, after the next attack. Most of our brothers are living in Western countries, with Jewish and Christian names, with passports of Western countries. This time, someone with the name of Mohamed Atta will not attack inside America, it would be some David, Richard or Peter."

He said there will be another audio message from bin Laden aired within the next two weeks.

Mir reportedly interviewed Dawood Sept. 12 at the tomb of Sultan Mehmud Ghaznawi on the outskirts of Kabul. Dawood and the al-Qaida leaders who accompanied him were clean-shaven and dressed as Western reporters. The al-Qaida commander had contacted Mir by cell phone to arrange the meeting.

"You have witnessed the brutality of the Israelis in the recent 34-day war against Lebanese civilians," said Dawood. "9/11 was a revenge of Palestinian children, killed by the U.S.-made weapons, supplied to Israel. The next attack on America would be a revenge of Lebanese children killed by U.S.-made cluster bombs. Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair are the Crusaders, and Muslim leaders, like (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and (Afghani President Hamid) Karzai are their collaborators. We will teach a lesson to all of them."

El-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the firstborn of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife. In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.

The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."

In 1995, the Shukrijumah family relocated to Miramar, Fla., where Gulshair became the spiritual leader of the radical Masjid al-Hijah Mosque, and where Adnan became friends with Jose Padilla, who planned to detonate a radiological bomb in midtown Manhattan; Mandhai Jokhan, who was convicted of attempting to blow up nuclear power plants in southern Florida; and a group of other home-grown terrorists.

Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9/11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9/11. He also traveled to Trinidad and Guyana, where virulent al-Qaida cells have been established. The following month, he obtained an associate's degree in computer engineering from Broward Community College.

During this time, he managed to get passports from Guyana, Trinidad, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States, according to Williams. He also began to adopt a number of aliases, including Abu Arifi, Jafar al-Tayyar, Jaafar At Yayyar, Ja'far al-Tayar, and Mohammed Sher Mohammed Khan (the name that appeared on his official FBI file). He traveled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, where he met with Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other members of the al-Qaida high command. He also spent considerable time within al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan, where he received training in explosives and special operations.

Following 9/11, el-Shukrijumah was reportedly singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America. One plan was for a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

"Muslims should leave America," said Dawood. "We cannot stop our attack just because of the American Muslims; they must realize that American forces are killing innocent Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq; we have the right to respond back, in the same manner, in the enemy's homeland. The American Muslims are like a human shield for our enemy; they must leave New York and Washington."

Mir, the journalist, has reported previously that al-Qaida has smuggled nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S.

"I am saying that Muslims must leave America, but we can attack America anytime," he said. "Our cycle of warnings has been completed, now we have fresh edicts from some prominent Muslim scholars to destroy our enemy, this is our defending of Jihad; the enemy has entered in our homes and we have the right to enter in their homes, they are killing us, we will kill them."

Palestinian TV encourages suicide attack of Jewish 'monkeys and pigs'

Music video: 'Martyrs' get paradise with maidens
Palestinian TV encourages suicide attack of Jewish 'monkeys and pigs'
Posted: September 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein

© 2006

Image from Palestinian music video
JERUSALEM – Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' state-run television the past few weeks has broadcast a music video in which viewers are encouraged to "martyr" themselves in exchange for eternal paradise and beautiful "maidens."

The Israeli-based monitor Palestinian Media Watch reports the video, airing on television controlled by Abbas' Fatah party, depicts a Palestinian woman who is shot in the back by Israeli soldiers. The woman then is transported to "paradise" where she joins white-robed "maidens" dancing in water while waiting to marry a male Palestinian who "martyrs" himself.

In the next scene, according to PMW, a grieving Palestinian man is shot in the back by Israeli troops while visiting the grave of the woman killed at the start of the video. The man immediately is brought to "heaven" where he is rewarded with several white-robed "maidens," including the original woman he was mourning.

"This recurring image of the martyr being rewarded by receiving the Maidens [is] part of the multifaceted Palestinian Authority campaign glorifying and encouraging terror, and promoting suicide terror as idyllic," states a PMW report.

PMW cites other recent instances in which Palestinian television encouraged suicide terrorism for the reward of paradise ripe with beautiful women.

In one recent video, a Palestinian about to blow himself up among Jewish civilians is depicted reciting a prayer hoping for "paradise."

"Angels of mercy, escort our souls to Heaven after we fulfill this duty of crushing the descendents of monkeys and pigs. Dear father and mother, blessings of honor and respect to you, while you escort me to the Maidens of Paradise as a Martyr," states the soon-to-be suicide bomber.

In a sermon broadcast on PA television, Ismail al-Radouan, a prominent Palestinian sheik, declares, "When the Shahid meets his maker, all his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood. He is exempted from the torments of the grave; he sees his place in paradise, he is shielded from the great shock, and marries 72 Dark Eyed (Virgins)."

In an interview recently broadcast on Palestinian television, the mother of a real life suicide bomber explains how she had hoped her son would "martyr" himself.

"He (my son) would always dream of Shahada, it was his first and last goal in life. I told him, 'Dear, we all want to be shahids.' He said, 'In this entire world, I can't think of anyone to marry. I want to marry the Dark Eyed [Virgins or Maidens of Paradise].' I said if these are his thoughts, I wish him Shahada (martyrdom)."

Muslims demand pope convert to Islam 'Religion of peace' threatens destruction otherwise

Muslims demand pope convert to Islam
'Religion of peace' threatens destruction otherwise

Posted: September 19, 2006
9:46 p.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2006

London reaction (Photo from catholiclondoner)

Christian churches in the Middle East are vandalized, a Catholic nun in Africa is killed and Muslims have demanded that the pope convert to Islam – all because he read a quote from a medieval text that described Islam as "evil and inhuman."

The pope has issued an apology for even referencing the historic text, emphasized that those views are not his, but still many in the Islamic world are demanding blood.

A new group called "The sword of Islam" contacted reporters and said it had fired gunshots at a Christian church in the Middle East during a demonstration over the comments.

"We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza's churches," the group said in a report.

The controversy arose a few days ago while Pope Benedict XVI was speaking in Germany, and he referred to the conclusions of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, in which he made the reference to Islam being violent.

The pope, according to a Vatican statement, was simply reflecting on the "theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come."

But Muslims reacted to what they apparently perceived as an attack on their religion, and started vandalizing Middle East Christian churches, with seven so far sustaining varying levels of destruction.

In Africa, a nun was shot and killed, with indications the attack may have been a reaction to the statements.

And now, a report in the Jerusalem Post said that Muslim religious leaders in the Gaza Strip are warning the pope that he must "accept" Islam if he wanted to live in peace.

One Muslim cleric, Imad Hamto, said the pope must "repent and ask for forgiveness" and Hamto referred to a phrase taken from letters sent by the founder of Islam to the chiefs of tribes in his times – when he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam in order to keep their lives.

While President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who himself has publicly called for the destruction of Israel and has denied the Holocaust without significant reaction, suggested that the pope has satisfactorily "modified" his remarks, others said they did not agree.

"Either apologize or don't come," read banners at a protest in Turkey, where the pope is scheduled to visit in November. And in Libya, a son of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi said the pope needs to change.

"If this person were really someone reasonable, he would not agree to remain at his post one minute but would convert to Islam immediately," the son, Mohammad Qaddafi, said.

The New York Times reported that the pope had issued condolences to the family of Sister Leonella Sgorbati, who was shot and killed in Somalia with her bodyguard.

"In repeating a firm condemnation of all forms of violence, his holiness the pope hopes that the blood shed by a such a faithful follower of the Gospel will become a seed of hope to build an authentic brotherhood between peoples," said a Vatican statement.

The Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation said it plans a joint statement later with Catholic organizations over the pope's statements.

In the blog world, the "catholiclondoner" posted a number of photographs indicating that Muslims in the United Kingdom perhaps are not ready to move past the comments.

"Thought I'd refrain from posting anything substantial about his uproar …" he wrote. "Unfortunately after Mass today at Westminster Cathedral it was shoved in my face."

He said about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans in front of the church, including "Pope Benedict go to Hell," and "Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way."

"It was a pretty nasty demonstration," he said.

"You have also given a witness to the hypocrisy of those Muslims who complain about being insulted on the one hand while giving grievous offence on the other. Well done," said one comment from "dunadan" on the Londoner's blog

"As a British citizen, I really hope that our government will now do something about the threat from Islam and Islamism – not just in words, but in deeds," said another.

"God Bless you brother in the Lord and friend for being a true witness to your faith. I am not surprised that there is protest. The pope simply cited the historic record. The Muslims have to face up to their history, they cannot forever live in deniel (sic)," said bigcatlady.

"You have helped expose the hatred and hypocrisy rotting beneath the polished 'Religion of Peace' façade," said emlin. "They feel free to curse and insult the Pope – but if you speak the truth about their beloved war-mongering Mohammed, well then a little jihad should help you feel the real peace of islam."

Pakistan's Parliament also approved a resolution criticizing the pope for his "derogatory" remarks. And Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said the comments were "ugly."

The words that the pope quoted were: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

A report at said it traced the development of the furor and found a series of media reports contributing to the situation.

The report said the day after the speech, there was almost no reaction. A day later, however, there was a headline, "Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger."

As that headline spread through the Muslim world, the report said, the furor became real.

"On Sunday, Toronto-based columnist, David Warren, wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on the media-instigated uproar that has led to retaliatory attacks in Israel against Christian churches and clergy and the murder of a nun in Somalia," the report said.

"By manipulating the event, Warren says, the BBC was 'having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world.'"

North American merger topic of secret confab Meeting on integration of U.S., Mexico, Canada brings together top officials

North American merger topic of secret confab
Meeting on integration of U.S., Mexico,
Canada brings together top officials

Posted: September 20, 2006
11:55 a.m. Eastern

© 2006

WASHINGTON – Raising more suspicions about plans for the future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

While the conference took place a week ago, only now are documents about participants and agenda items leaking out.

Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.

The Canadian event is just the latest of a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."

Nevertheless, opposition is mounting. And it's not just coming from the tinfoil hat brigade.

Perhaps the most blistering criticism came earlier this summer from Lou Dobbs of CNN – a frequent critic of President Bush's immigration policies.

"A regional prosperity and security program?" he asked rhetorically in a recent cablecast. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are – we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is – I mean, this is beyond belief."

What has Dobbs and a few other vocal critics bugged began in earnest March 31, 2005, when the elected leaders of the U.S., Mexico and Canada agreed to advance the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

No one seems quite certain what that agenda is because of the vagueness of the official declarations. But among the things the leaders of the three countries agreed to work toward were borders that would allow for easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries.

Coming as the announcement did in the midst of a raging national debate in the U.S. over borders seen as far to open already, more than a few jaws dropped.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. and the chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus as well as author of the new book, "In Mortal Danger," may be the only elected official to challenge openly the plans for the new superstate.

Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement that has no authorization from Congress.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minutemen, welcomed Tancredo's efforts.

"It's time for the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist said. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

Phyllis Schlafly, the woman best known for nearly single-handedly leading the opposition that killed the Equal Rights Amendment, sees a sinister and sweeping agenda behind the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

"Is the real push behind guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" she asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'"

She accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate U.S. borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of U.S. corporate interests.

"Bush meant what he said, at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the U.S. middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet, for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals."

That's unusually harsh criticism of a Republican president from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.

At least one of the nation's daily newspapers has officially weighed in opposition to the mysterious plans for closer cooperation in security, commerce and immigration between the three North American nations.

Recently, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review questioned the unchallenged momentum toward merger.

"Will Americans trade their dead presidents for Ameros?" the newspaper asked in an editorial last month.

The paper chided efforts at replacing the U.S. and Canadian dollars and Mexican peso with "the amero" – a knockoff of the euro – along with the building of "a looming NAFTA-like superstate." Citing the meeting between the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, the editorial warned: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective countries should be concerned."

The Tribune Review editorial saw synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the ambitious agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations – seen by many as a kind of secretive, shadow government of the elite. The CFR issued a bold report in the spring of 2005, shortly after the joint announcements in Waco by Bush and his counterparts.

"The Council on Foreign Relations published a report in May – "Building a North American Community" – calling for, among other things, redefining the borders of the three nations, creating a super-regional governance board and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing," said the paper. "Must the Bush administration happily sacrifice every shred of American sovereignty for the greater good of the New World Order?"

In fact, the CFR report is a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Some see it as the blueprint for merger of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It calls for "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for efforts to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for efforts to "harmonize entry screening."

In "Building a North American Community," the report states that Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005, at that meeting in Waco, Texas.

Alan Burkhart, who describes himself as a free-lance political writer, cross-country trucker "and proud citizen of one of the reddest of the Red States – Mississippi," is another critic seething over these plans that seem to have a life of their own – with little or no real public debate.

"As time passes, American corporations will find it unnecessary to move their facilities out of the country," writes Burkhart. "Our already stagnant wages will be just as low as those of Mexico. The cultures of three great nations will be diluted. Our currency will be replaced with the 'Amero.' And, we'll be one giant step closer to the U.N.'s perverse dream of a one-world government."

The Amero is not a new concept. It was first proposed by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, in a monograph titled "The Case for the Amero" in 1999.

In June, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America made one of its most visible and public moves since it was first announced last year. In Washington, June 15, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier joined North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council. It was a major development that showed the March 2005 meeting was no fluke – and that the plans announced by the three national leaders then were continuing to take shape. The NACC was first announced by Bush, Harper and Fox.

Made up of 10 high-level business leaders from each country, the NACC will meet annually with senior North American government officials "to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy."

Officially, the council has the mandate to advise the governments on improving trade in key sectors such as automobiles, transportation, manufacturing and services. The three countries do more than $800 billion in trilateral trade.

Gutierrez said the Bush administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about its implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan. 1, 2008.

The U.S. executives involved in the NACC include: United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; Frederick Smith, chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, chief executive of Mittal Steel USA; Joseph Gilmour, president of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co. Inc.; David O'Reilly, chief executive of Chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric Co.; Lee Scott, president of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp.; Michael Haverty, chairman of Kansas City Southern; Douglas Conant, president of Campbell's Soup Co. and James Kilt, vice-chairman of Gillette Inc.

The concerns about the direction such powerful men could lead Americans without their knowledge is only heightened when interlocking networks are discovered. For instance, one of the components envisioned for this future "North American Union" is a superhighway running from Mexico, through the U.S. and into Canada. It is being promoted by the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, a non-profit group "dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."

The president of NASCO is George Blackwood, who earlier launched the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. In fact, NAITCP later morphed into NASCO. A NAIPC summit meeting in 2004, attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard from Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community," a book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the amero as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso.

Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional government. He was also prominent on the guest list in Banff.

Israel Calls Iran Its Greatest Threat

Israel Calls Iran Its Greatest Threat
Sep 20 9:28 PM US/Eastern

Associated Press Writer


The Israeli foreign minister on Wednesday warned that Iranian leaders pose the biggest threat to the world's values because they "speak proudly" of their wish to destroy Israel and pursue weapons to achieve that objective.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the annual U.N. General Assembly session that the international community must stand up against Iran, which she claimed is pursuing the weapons to destroy Israel, a reference to its suspect nuclear program.

"There is no greater challenge to our values than that posed by the leaders of Iran," Livni said. "They deny and mock the Holocaust. They speak proudly and openly of their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective, to imperil the region and to threaten the world."

She said Iran's support of the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in south Lebanon showed the threat it poses to the region. The world must ensure that it enforces the U.N. Security Council resolution that ended more than a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Livni said.

"There is no place for such a regime in the family of nations," she said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in the past he wants to wipe Israel off the map and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth. In his own speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad said Israel was created by driving millions of people from territory that was rightfully theirs, something he called "a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history."

He also harshly criticized Israel's policies, saying the country was a source of insecurity in the Middle East that was "waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries."

While Livni spoke, a lone Iranian diplomat sat in the back row of the section of six seats reserved for the Islamic republic in the General Assembly hall. After her speech ended, the diplomat moved up to the front row to listen to the following official, from Belgium.

Livni struck a more conciliatory tone toward the Palestinians, saying the two did not necessarily have to remain at odds and the only way to resolve their conflict was at the "bilateral negotiating table."

"We have no illusions about the difficulties before us _ we must face them and not ignore them," she said.

Livni met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the U.N. a day before the General Assembly session began, and both described the meeting as positive. In her speech, she reiterated their desire to reopen a serious dialogue, including with the creation of a permanent channel "to pursue ways to advance together."

On the sidelines of the summit on Wednesday, President Bush called Abbas a "man of courage" for trying to revive Mideast peace talks despite a continued political stalemate with Hamas militants. Abbas has been weakened since January when Hamas, which seeks the destruction of Israel, won the Palestinian elections.

Prospects for a return to active peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have looked dim this year, partly because the political upheaval in both governments kept leaders' attention focused inward.

Israel has new leadership too as Ariel Sharon remains incapacitated after his sudden massive stroke on Jan. 4. The new prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is on the defensive at home because of widespread dissatisfaction with the conduct and outcome of Israel's summer war against Hezbollah.

The Associated (with terrorists) Press

The Associated (with terrorists) Press

Posted: September 19, 2006
8:16 p.m. Eastern

By Michelle Malkin
© 2006
The Associated Press proudly calls itself the "essential global news network" and a "bastion of the people's right to know around the world." But when it comes to the "people's right to know" whether Associated Press employees are cooperating with terrorists overseas, the "essential global news network's" motto is: Bug off.

On April 12, I learned from military sources that an Associated Press photographer in Iraq, Fallujah native Bilal Hussein, had been captured in Ramadi in an apartment with insurgents and a cache of weapons. This was news. I asked the AP for confirmation. Corporate spokesman Jack Stokes informed me that company officials were "looking into reports that Mr. Hussein was detained by the U.S. military in Iraq but have no further details at this time." After reporting the alleged detention on my blog, I followed up several more times with AP over the past five months for status updates on Hussein. No reply.

On Sept. 17, the Associated Press finally acknowledged that Hussein was being detained. The AP's overdue revelation was likely part of an attempt to drum up sympathy for Hussein, who has made critical public statements against our troops in Fallujah and Bush administration interrogation efforts involving military detainees. The AP article not only confirmed Hussein's capture, it also revealed (buried deep in the story) that it knew of Hussein's capture from at least May 7 – when it received an e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner revealing bombshell details:

"The military said Hussein was captured with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. 'He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces,' according to a May 7 e-mail from U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Jack Gardner, who oversees all coalition detainees in Iraq."

In fact, the Pentagon said on Monday, after three separate independent reviews, the military had deemed Hussein a security threat with "strong ties to known insurgents ... involved in activities that were well outside the scope of what you would expect a journalist to be doing in that country." Hussein "tested positive for traces of explosives."

Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al-Qaida leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: "The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach."

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don't do any "real" reporting and have no concern for the "public interest." But as in the case of the Reuters photo-faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices – not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away – who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications. Well before I reported on Hussein's capture, military bloggers and media watchdog bloggers had raised persistent questions over the past two years about Hussein's relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were staged in collusion with our enemies. (For a thorough overview, see The Jawa Report.)

Hussein's up-close-and-personal insurgent propaganda photos include a Pulitzer Prize-winning image of four terrorists in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms at our troops in November 2004, several chilling photos with terrorists before, during and after the Iraqi desert execution of kidnapped Italian civilian hostage Salvatore Santoro, and repeat images of Sunni locals in Theater of Jihad poses.

In an investigation of war photo staging and fakery earlier this spring, National Journal's Neil Munro exposed another dubious Hussein photo taken in October 2005 of a purported funeral image outside Ramadi. An accompanying article claimed the U.S. had bombed the crowd including 18 children. But according to the military, video footage of the air strike against terrorist roadside bombers in that incident showed only what appeared to be grown men where the bomb struck. Munro reported: "AP officials declined to make Hussein available for an interview."

The Hussein case may be the tip of the iceberg. In December 2005, AP television footage was used to spread bogus reports (see Rantingprofs) of a fake "uprising" in Ramadi. Earlier this spring, independent milblogger Bill Roggio identified another suspicious AP/Hussein-photographed scene in Ramadi. And blogger Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker recently highlighted an Iraqi intelligence document that bragged about "one of our sources (the degree of trust in him is good) who works in the American Associated Press Agency" (see ).

I e-mailed the AP yesterday to find out whether any other AP employees are currently in military detention. The people have a "right to know," don't they?