© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

CAIR

It seems that the Council for Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ¹ has been protesting too loudly about being an unindicted co-conspirator of another organization that was found guilty of funneling funds to the HAMAS terror organization.

The US Department of Justice has issued an opinion to a member of Congress regarding the CAIR-HAMAS link, which sums up the problem that CAIR has. According to the DOJ:

“Enclosed are … trial transcripts … contain testimony and other evidence … which demonstrated a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and HAMAS.” ²

On the other hand, CAIR might not need to protest about being an unindicted co-conspirator for much longer, as according to some reports there is a federal grand jury investigation into the matter.³

[Hat tip to www.investigativereports.org.]

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Islam Is... no query suggestions shown

Christianity Is... many query suggestions shown

One has to wonder who still buys the tagline from Google to not be evil?

It’s not too long ago that Google participated in censorship of the Internet for the Chinese government¹, so that the Communist leadership would accept Google. It seems that the Chinese keep Google on a relatively short leash, reminding them sometimes who’s the boss.²

Now it seems that an entire religion has hijacked Google, or Google is kowtowing to one. If one were to type “Christianity is“, “Scientology is“, “Judaism is” and many other terms followed by “is” into the Google search field, many query suggestions will be shown before the user hits the enter key, some offensive³, but reflective of common queries and search results.

However, if the typed term happens to be “islam is“, there will be absolutely no query suggestions presented. This is not normal behavior, as Google specifically states that the query suggestions are a typical feature unless disabled.⁴

This inconsistency was first publicized on Fox News’ website.⁵ According to the article Google explained the unusual behavior to be a very unique bug, but the same article continues to state that no clarification was provided by the company.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, as not much more needs to be said.

Don’t be evil? Yeah, right.

© 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Muslims of America

The Christian Action Network has published video from a “Muslims of America” training camp in the United States.¹ The video from this camp in Hancock, NY shows various types of combat training, and military-like conditioning.

The video is presented in a manner that makes the Muslims of America training camps appear to be preparing for terror activities at some future time. However, the distinction between these training camps and at least some other extremist groups that are non-muslim is not addressed in the video, nor the fact that the simple act of military style training is a specific Constitutional right that is exercised by many Americans.

An often-used argument to distinguish between muslim militia-like camps and others are the September 11 attacks. However, it is up to you, the reader, to decide if this is sufficient cause to limit someone’s Constitutional rights or not, especially in light of the unforeseen consequences of such restrictions.²

As an alternative, it might be more productive to focus on activity that is not protected by the Constitution. For example, freedom of speech does not allow one to plot violence against Constitutional institutions, or the overthrow of the Constitution itself.

A spokesperson on the video makes a claim that “We are 100% sure that muslims are the majority in America“, which is clearly delusional. On the other hand, the same person goes on to say that “We love our country… we will never carry out jihad against our country“, and then continues to discuss that they would not allow their country be destroyed by conspirators and terrorists, “both foreign and domestic“.

In the end, it is left to the viewer to form an opinion as to the purpose of these camps.

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

But what does it really mean to kick out past precedent and start anew?

For starters, it will be interesting to see what evidence the government can produce that passes the various legal requirements to be admitted at trial.³

Then it will be just plain scary to find out what means and methods will be compromised by the evidence that is submitted at trial. After all, terrorists aren’t dumb. They can figure out from clues who the turncoat is, or what technology the US is using to eavesdrop on them. How many future terror plots will go undiscovered when terrorists find out exactly how they are being monitored by American intelligence?

And not to be forgotten is the potential for the entire case to be thrown out for lack of evidence, or for some technicality, or reversed on appeal. How would you feel if a self-confessed terrorist who assisted in the murder of thousands on September 11 walks out free only because he was tried in an American civil court?⁴

© 2009 – 2010, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Super64 over Mogadishu

There are some interesting similarities between Obama’s Afghanistan and Clinton’s Somalia. Both new presidents inherited the foreign situation from their predecessor. Both have (or had) advisers who would rather pay off terrorists than fight them unless it brings political benefits.

When it came to Clinton, White House control — which inevitably meant changing missions and holding back military resources¹ — was a key contributor to the events that are well known from the book and movie Black Hawk Down.² After the events Clinton quickly turned tail and ran from Somalia.

The million vote question for Obama is, will he keep our fighting men from what they need until he has his Black Hawk Down moment, too? And if he were to do so, will he also turn tail like Clinton did?

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.

Nidal Malik Hasan

The Fort Hood tragedy inflicted by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a somber reminder of the gun-free zones forced on our military by President Clinton in 1993.¹ Mr. Hasan, spouting religious slogans² killed 14 and wounded 29 before being stopped by a police officer Kimberly Munley.

The term gun-free zone is actually inaccurate. It really should be lawful gun-free zone, as criminals are well known to ignore laws as they see fit.

In a lawful gun-free zone a law-abiding citizen with a CCW could well be stripped of his right to carry guns if he were to be caught carrying one. Yet a criminal or a would-be criminal is unlikely to face penalties any different from carrying a gun in a prohibited location, as he’s likely not allowed to have one in the first place, and penalties from a criminal act are the same be the location a lawful gun-free zone or not.

The net effect is that lawful gun-free zones create safe working environments for murderous criminals. Schools are well known for their high concentration of potential victims and typical lawful gun-free zone status. The carnage has been commensurate with this convenient combination. On April 16, 2007 a lone gunman at Virginia Tech massacred 32 and wounded many others. On April 20, 1999 two gunmen killed 13 at Columbine High School. In all, by some counts there have been almost 70 school shootings in the past 20 years.³.

The question is not simply how many of those victims might have been in a position to defend themselves and stop Hasan sooner. The bigger issue here is how many more people have to die without the ability to defend themselves in these government mandated gun-free zones?

More on this topic can be found in these excellent editorials and opinions:

© 2009, Pontificus. All rights reserved.