Thursday, February 28, 2008



Is she as nuts as she appears?

Does HER normal dress sense surpass Obama's Somali clothing she mocks?

The real HIllary?

Mmmm. Like your ......

Hillary gets angry at Obama

Hillary borrows a page from Islamic Jihadists

Crocodile Tears!

I can't believe you are doing this to me!

Neither can I, Mom!

And how about girl Friday Huma?

Huma on the right, also astonished at being so close to power and so influential on American politics.

If you watched the last Democratic Presidential candidate debate, at the end, the lady shown above with Hillary Clinton was on stage, directing Hillary, making phone calls to who knows whom, selecting favorites to receive autographs, interacting with Chelsea and so on. Who is she? Clinton's long time Girl Friday and some say girl friend.

Nothing wrong with that, you might say. UNTIL you look at this lady's background and her high maintenance life style on a tiny official income and family ties to Al Qaeda.

How in heaven does she get clearance to be in such close proximity to national secrets and has been for at least a decade! Including in the Clinton White House!


We want the Clintons to protect us against terrorism? Fat chance. Here is the proof.

Huma's Al Qaeda Family links click here


Denmark has already taken action to restrain Islamic incursion, we should also wake up and take action. PROSPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDEMENT click here

Wednesday, February 27, 2008



There is no doubt Sean Connery (now Sir Sean Connery) is British, though he may prefer to be called a Scotsman.

Now view BOTH with a black turban (indicator of being "Seyed", a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammad, which Khomeini had absolutely no more right to wear than Sir Connery but the white turban to which he could be entitled would put him in a lower Islamic rung than hundreds, even thousands, of other clerics, so he just expanded his lie of his origins).

Note: there is a closely kept, official, repository of the family trees of ALL the multitude of descendants of the Prophet in Egypt to this day and nobody has been able to find any mention of a Khomeini line or even a Khomeini related descent.

It takes a second look to see that the second set of photos are NOT of the same person.


Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Europe's Muslim Radicals: The Next Generation

Europe's Muslim Radicals: The Next Generation
"American kill," said the five-year-old boy. "Bush I kill." And as his proud father watched, beaming, he demonstrated how to cut the evil American's bare throat.

So it was in a Birmingham, England, home – as recorded secretly by British security services a few months ago while investigating the child's British-Pakistani father, Parvis Khan, then a suspect in a plot to kill a Muslim British soldier. This week, after his plan had been thwarted by MI5, Khan was sentenced to life in prison.

And what will become of the boy?

If he is lucky, he will learn from the example made of Dear Old Dad, and steer away from Islamic extremism completely. More likely, angered by the British infidels who took his father away from him, he will follow in Parvis' footsteps and endeavor to continue the work his father started.
And he will be, indeed, a formidable soldier for jihad: if he can slit a person's throat at five years old, just imagine what he can do at 20. (After all, Mozart, whose father Leopold was neither Muslim nor Pakistani but did serve as his teacher, began composing at the age of five. I leave it to readers to do with that parallel what they will.)
He may, for starters, do the way they do in Denmark, where last week, Muslim youths committed over 80 arson attacks in major cities, setting not just cars, but even schools in flames.
This unrest followed a decision by Denmark's Jyllands-Posten to republish the 2006 cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed; it is blasphemy, in Islam, to depict Mohammad's image, and those cartoons were met, when they were first published, with anti-Denmark demonstrations and riots throughout the Muslim world.
This time, the cartoons were re-issued as a gesture of solidarity in response to new threats made on the cartoonist's life. Unsurprisingly, Muslim leaders – in Denmark and elsewhere – have had little to say about the actual plan to murder a newspaper cartoonist over a drawing; to the contrary, Iran's Press TV remarked:
"This repeated insult towards a religion shared by 2.5 percent of the Danish population and more than 20 percent of the world's people may also have opened old wounds and fueled the violence in the country."
That European Muslim youth are radicalizing at a rapid rate is, of course, nothing new. What is notable is their age, which grows increasingly younger. And we are woefully unprepared, even as we should have seen this coming, to deal with it.
And we should have seen it coming.
As radical youth, usually second- and third-generation immigrants, reach their early and mid-twenties, they are having children of their own, and raising those children according to the principles of fundamentalist Islam. Add to this the increasing number of women also flocking towards salafism, and you have an instant two-parent jihadi family, creating a home environment that can't but engender similar world views in the children.
Before his arrest, Parviz Khan was already preparing his three-year-old daughter to marry a terrorist. I doubt he was the only such father on the block.
These are not small families, either, and older brothers (or sisters) are quick to recruit their younger siblings, whose commitment to Islam promises, in their elders' eyes, their redemption. Just how old will our five-year-old throat-slasher be, for instance, when he teaches his little sister a couple of his favorite tricks? And his best friend down the street?
("Look," he'll say, in his well-practiced, David Beckham accent, "Isn't this cool?") And when the best friend teaches his own little sister, whom will she teach, in turn?
If this were not enough, schools, too, have taken up the cause. The headmaster of an Islamic high school in the Khan family's hometown of Birmingham, according to The Guardian, has said he "disagrees with using the word democracy." 'They should call it ... kuffrocracy, that's their plan," The Guardian quotes him as saying. "It's the hidden cancerous aim of these people." "Kuffar" is a derogatory term for "unbelievers."
Even further support comes from the mosques, where in Britain (and elsewhere in Europe), parents are being told to beat their children if they do not pray, and to hit their daughters if they refuse to wear a hijab, or scarf.
Officials throughout Europe have watched extremist imams, listened to their incendiary sermons, for years now, but failed, in most cases, to notice the efforts being made not just to create converts to radical Islam in the West, but to raise them.
Yet child development experts and others have long known that violent homes breed violent children: In one US Department of Justice report, researchers found that "Sixty-nine percent of the youths who had been maltreated as children reported involvement in violence as compared to 56 percent of those who had not been maltreated. In other words, a history of maltreatment increases the chances of youth violence by 24 percent."
In most cases, you can teach the parents this, and they will choose to refrain from such behaviors, or try to.
But what do we do when violent and angry children are exactly what the parents want? Even removing such children from their homes won't help; in most cases, it will only make them angrier, and more troubled.
I'm not suggesting I have any answers to this. I don't. But it's time we – and especially social services experts – start looking for them. Because these days, it's the jihadi generation, and it's coming at you, going strong.
— Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning author-journalist can be reached at

Monday, February 25, 2008


Did something go wrong with nuclear research or longer range missile development in this Azari city? The explosion rocked the city and feelers have been put out to discover what happened since Iran's press has not published anything beyond confirming an explosion they could not hide, nor deny. FOR BACKGROUND: Early February report in German Press: Mahmud Ahmadinedschad, president of Iran and the most dangerous man in the world, who wants to annihilate Israel, will soon have Berlin within reach of his rockets! According to the analysis of the BND [a German intelligence agency], Iran has bought 18 unassembled mobile rockets of type BM-25 (range 2500km and then had the rockets remodelled, based on the Russian submarine rocket SS-N-6, to obtain a 3500 km range. This is exactly the distance Teheran-Berlin. Until recently it was only known that Iran posessed Shehab-3 rockets, with a range of 1300 km. The BND has issued a wide-ranging warning based on this new threat: “Germany and other parts of Europe could in the medium to long term be directly affected by the Iranian rocket program.” According to a recent and secret BND report, in the possession of BILD [the publisher of this article]: “With the future longer ranges and the nuclear capability probably under development, Iran could reach all of Israel as well as parts of central Europe.” The Iranian regime searches to obtain a “first-strike capability”. This would “change” the threat picture for NATO andGermany. The BND has information that Iranian experts currently work hard at placing nuclear devices in rocket warheads. [Near Täbriz, 600 kilometers northwest of Teheran, the German intelligence [or clearing, enlightenment] located a stationary starting system (there is probably a fix term for that) for the test of silo-supported rockets (distance from Berlin approximately 2900 kilometers). In plain language: From there, the “Madman of Teheran” could reach targets all over Germany!] Also the US is entering the sights [of Iran]. According to the BND, a delivery of aluminum rings from China has been discovered. These building parts “have as their main use the construction of a multi-stage rocket body with a range of potentially up to 10000 km.” Bush warned yesterday: “Iran is a real threat”. He confirmed: Together with North Korea and pre-war Iraq, the Teheran regime is part of the “axis of evil.”


These two guys reared this lion from a baby in England, but the authorities would not allow them to keep it once it reached maturity, so they were forced to give it up.

They took it back to Africa and placed it in a wildlife sanctuary.

A year later they went to see it and were told it would not remember them. The video tells the story.

Saturday, February 23, 2008


READ Islam Blasphemy plans here and Danish story another two articles farther down Official Danish Apology Universal Islamic “Blasphemy” Law ? by Andrew Bostom The 57 Muslim Nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are Trying to Impose Islamic Blasphemy Law—Which Includes the Death Penalty For Those Who “Blaspheme” the Muslim prophet Muhammad—as the Universal Standard ############# Early Tuesday morning (2/12/08) “three men with a Muslim background” were arrested by Danish police on anti-terrorism charges, suspected of having plotted to murder Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist for Jyllands-Posten. Westergaard is one of the 12 cartoonists who on September 30, 2005 published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Muhammad to protest the tacit enforcement in Danish society of Islam’s taboo on depictions of Muhammad, no matter how banal, or inoffensive, through intimidation—a clear violation of Western freedom of expression. Upon learning of the arrests, Westergaard (noted for this cartoon) commented aptly, “I think…that the impact of the insane response to my cartoon will last for the rest of my life. It is sad indeed, but it has become a fact of my life.” And within 3-days, by February 15, 2008, confirming the pervasive fear of violent Muslim reprisal that apparently grips Danish society, Westergaard was ejected from his police-protected hotel room having been deemed, “too much of a security risk.” Now the 73-year-old cartoonist and his wife are homeless. Not surprisingly, when newspapers in Denmark, and across Europe re-published the 12 original cartoons in solidarity with the threatened cartoonist, violent protests ensued by Danish Muslims (including burnings, and perhaps a bombing). Other violent demonstrations took place in Muslim communities across the Middle East and Asia. Yet scant attention has been paid to a remarkable—and remarkably chilling—statement that was issued on Friday February 15, 2008 by Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish Secretary General of the Jeddah-based Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world’s unique pan-Islamic political body, comprised of 57 members, including “secular” Turkey. Conveniently ignoring that the re-publication in Denmark of 12 banal cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad was an urgent, sane protest of the disrupted plot by Muslims to murder one of the original Danish cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, and oblivious to the immoral equivalence he was making, Ihsanoglu stated, By reprinting these cartoons we are heading toward a bigger conflict and that shows that both sides will be hostages of their radicals. Continuing, Ihsanoglu further demonstrated both the complete absence of self-criticism, and triumphalism of the Islamic worldview that seeks to impose its Shari’a-based conceptions—antithetical to true freedom of conscience and expression—on all of humanity. And he concluded with a thinly veiled threat of violence: It is not a way of improving your rights and exercising your freedoms when you use these rights for insulting the most sacred values and symbols of others and inciting hatred…This is a very wrong, provocative path - unacceptable. Two years earlier, on 1/18/06, in response to the initial printing of the Danish cartoons, Ihsanoglu had denounced, “…the publication of blasphemous and insulting caricatures of Prophet Muhammad.” He concluded that this “Islamophobic” act of “sacrilege” somehow contravened, “…international principles, values, and ethics enshrined in the various resolutions and declarations of the United Nations.” These sentiments of Ihsanoglu (and the OIC he represents) were reiterated more brazenly by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi during a sermon which aired February 3, 2006. Qaradawi demanded action from the United Nations in accord with purely Islamic, Shari’a-based conceptions of “blasphemy”: …the governments [of the world] must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets—to the prophets of the Lord and his Messengers, to His holy books, and to the religious holy places. But the unctuous Ishanoglu, in stark contrast to his sharp attacks on the Danish cartoonists, has never issued a statement condemning the sermons of authoritative, hugely popular Muslim clerics such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, for example, who elsewhere, has openly proclaimed Muhammad as the prototype jihadist. Sheikh al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers, “spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and head of the European Fatwa Council, reaches an enormous audience during his regular appearances on Al- Jazeera, and other Arabic television outlets. Qaradawi’s inflammatory February 3, 2006 sermon, which addressed the original publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, opens with seething, self-righteous anger, segues into Qaradawi’s now standard, pro-forma Jew hatred, and closes, most disturbingly, with thinly veiled threats of terrorism to “…Westerners, the Americans, and Europeans.” The sheer, blatant hypocrisy of these statements decrying the cartoon portrayals of Muhammad can only be appreciated when viewed in the larger overall context of his pious jihadism, most notably Qaradawi’s prior characterization of “Muhammad as a jihad model”: The prophets that Allah sent prior to Muhammad were sent for a limited time …and to a specific people. … Allah established in the life of the Prophet Muhammad general, eternal, and all inclusive characteristics, and he gave every human being the possibility to imitate him and take his life as a model…The Christian is incapable of imitating Jesus regarding war and conciliation since Jesus never fought or made peace. Allah has also made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion. Previously, Qaradawi elaborated both the targets and allowable “tactics” for those contemporary Muslims whom he encourages to wage jihad. Jews, and their allies, figure prominently in these statements. For example, at the July 2003 meeting (in Stockholm) of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, Qaradawi emphasized the orthodox Islamic basis for human homicide bomb “martyrdom operations” to be directed against all Israeli citizens, whom he further described as classic “harbis”, licit targets in the Dar al Harb. Although neither Qaradawi’s admonitions for all out jihad against Israeli Jews, nor his constant Jew baiting, are surprising, he has also called for jihad martyrdom operations against American forces in Iraq, and more ominously, Qaradawi has made unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a “jihad re-conquest” of Europe. His public fatwa on December 2, 2002 stated, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and a victor after being expelled from it twice – once from the south, from Andalusia, and a second time, from the east, when it knocked several times on the doors of Athens.” Qaradawi’s fatwa ruled, in addition, that Muslims should re-conquer, “…former Islamic colonies to Andalus[ia] (Spain), southern Italy, Sicily, the Balkans and the Mediterranean islands.” And even in that purely mythical paragon of Islamic ecumenism—“Andalusia,” Muslim Spain during the Middle Ages (which not only Qaradawi, but legions of “moderate” Muslims openly profess they would like to restore)—Islamic supremacism, as codified in Islamic Law, engendered the same deep-seated, sacralized intolerance that has always predominated under Muslim rule. Already by the end of the eighth century, the rulers of Andalusia (and North Africa) had established rigorous Malikism as the dominant Islamic school of jurisprudence, rendering the Muslim Andalusian state, as noted in historian Evariste Levi-Provencal’s seminal Histoire de l’Espagne musulmane, “…the defender and champion of a jealous orthodoxy, more and more ossified in a blind respect for a rigid doctrine, suspecting and condemning in advance the least effort of rational speculation.” Consistent with this historical reality, Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, a pre-eminent scholar of Muslim Spain, observed that the myriad religious and legal discriminations suffered by non-Muslim dhimmis (i.e., the non-Muslim Iberian populations vanquished by jihad, and governed by Islamic law, Shari’a), included lethal punishments for “blaspheming” the Muslim prophet, or the Koran: [For] having insulted the Prophet or blasphemed against the Word of God (i.e., The Koran)—dhimmis were executed. A millennium later, Islam’s draconian punishment for infidels accused of blaspheming the Muslim prophet Muhammad persisted, with uncompromising ferocity. French painter Alfred Dehodencq’s striking “Execution of a Moroccan Jewess” is based upon the actual blasphemy execution of a Jewess from Tangier, Morocco, Sol Hachuel, believed to have occurred in 1834. A detailed, near contemporary account of Sol Hachuel’s heroic martyrdom—using eyewitness interviews—was published in 1837 by Eugenio Maria Romero. Accused, falsely, of having become a Muslim, and then “blaspheming” Muhammad, upon adamantly and steadfastly maintaining her Jewish faith (“A Jewess I was born, a Jewess I wish to die”), the 17 year-old Sol was beheaded publicly for both this contrived “apostasy” from Islam, and “blasphemy.” Among the narrative details Romero provides of the young victim’s execution day in Fez is this depiction of how the Muslim masses reacted to the charge of “blasphemy” against her: …the streets were crowded with Moors [Muslims] of all ages and sexes, who made the air resound with their discordant cries. “here comes,” said they, “she who blasphemed the Prophet—death! death! to the impious wretch!” Abundant contemporary evidence demonstrates that Islamic law and mores regarding blasphemy, today, remain distressingly incompatible with modern conceptions of religious freedom, and human rights. Thus writing in the early 1990s, the esteemed Pakistani scholar Muhammad Asrar, whose opinion was accepted by Pakistan’s Shari’a Court, defined “blasphemy”, focusing on the Muslim prophet, as: Reviling or insulting the Prophet (pbuh) in writing or speech; speaking profanely or contemptuously about him or his family; attacking the Prophet’s dignity and honor in an abusive manner; vilifying him or making an ugly face when his named is mentioned; showing enmity or hatred towards him, his family, his companions, and the Muslims; accusing, or slandering the Prophet and his family, including spreading evil reports about him or his family; defaming the Prophet; refusing the Prophet’s jurisdiction or judgment in any manner; rejecting the Sunnah; showing disrespect, contempt for or rejection of the rights of Allah and His Prophet or rebelling against Allah and His Prophet. And in accord with classical Islamic jurisprudence (for example, The Risala of al-Qayrawani [d. 996]), Madani argues that anyone who defames Muhammad—Muslim or non-Muslim—must be put to death. Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo has documented how this orthodox Islamic doctrine—incorporated into the Pakistani legal code (Section 295-C, “defiling the name of Muhammad”)—has wreaked havoc, particularly among Pakistan’s small Christian minority community: …the blasphemy law is felt to be a sword of Damocles and has developed a huge symbolic significance which contributes substantially to the atmosphere of intimidation of Christians. The detrimental effect of the law…is most dramatically illustrated by the incident at Shanti Nagar in February 1997 in which tens of thousands of rioting Muslims destroyed hundreds of Christian homes, and other Christian property, following an accusation of blasphemy. Furthermore the blasphemy has engendered a wave of private violence. Equating blasphemy with apostasy and influenced by the tradition of direct violent action and self-help which goes back to the earliest times of Islam, some Muslims feel they are entitled to enforce the death penalty themselves. After at least four such murders, and the “blasphemy” case of Ayub Masih (who had been incarcerated in solitary confinement since October 14, 1996 and sentenced to death on April 27, 1998 by Sessions Court Judge Rana Abdul Ghaffar), Bishop John Joseph of Faisalbad committed suicide on May 6 1998, to protest the continued application of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. And incidents which have occurred within just the past 2-months illustrate that what prevails in Pakistan is hardly unique, but rather emblematic. Pervez Kambakhsh, a 23 year-old Afghan journalist was recently convicted (January 2008) of “blasphemy”—consistent with classical Islamic Law—for downloading and distributing an article “insulting” Islam, including the “blasphemous” allegation that “…Muhammad had ignored the rights of women..” Subsequently the Afghan Senate issued a statement on the case—signed by its leader, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a reputed ally of President Hamid Karzai—approving the death sentence conferred on Mr Kambakhsh, also in full accord with the Shari’a, by a city court in Mazar-e-Sharif. Within days, the Afghan Senate bowed to international pressure, and apparently reversed itself, withdrawing the confirmation of Kambakhsh’s death sentence for blasphemy. However, although not universal, commonplace public sentiments in support of this Shari’a ruling were expressed by Afghans across the age spectrum. Abdul Wasi Tokhi, an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, argued for a swift execution, stating: “The guy should be hanged. He was making fun of Islam’s rules and regulations. He was making fun of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. You cannot criticize any principles which have been approved by sharia. It is the words of the Prophet.” And Qari Imam Bakhsh, a Muslim cleric, concurred, maintaining: “I think he is not a Muslim. A Muslim would not make this kind of mistake. He should be punished so that others can learn from him.” This January, 2008, as well, in Iraqi Kurdistan—upheld as a successful model of regional Islamic moderation, even secularization—more evidence of oppressive, re-emergent Shari’a was on display. A court in Halabja (where Saddam Hussein’s minions gassed thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988, 15 years prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom), sentenced a Kurdish author in absentia to six months in prison for blasphemy. The author, Mariwan Halabjaee, was accused of writing in a book that Mohammed had 19 wives, married a 9-year-old when he was 54, and took part in murder and rape—all of which can confirmed from the “sira,” the authoritative, earliest pious Muslim biographies of his life (like this one by Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham). From his asylum in Norway, Mr. Halabjee maintained that a fatwa calling for his death unless he pleads for forgiveness, has also been issued. Intrepid historian David Littman has been chronicling, nearly alone, for almost two decades, the concerted efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to Islamize international human rights instruments, and apply the Shari’a “standard” for blasphemy—pace the current Kambakhsh and Halabjee travesties—to all nations. Littman warned, for example, about the development of the Shari’a-based 1990 Cairo Declaration (i.e., the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam), to which all member states of the OIC are signatories, publicizing the immediate objections of a brave Senegalese jurist, Adama Dieng. Dieng, a Muslim, who subsequently became a United Nations special rapporteur, then serving as secretary-general to the International Commission of Jurists, declared forthrightly in February 1992 that the Cairo Declaration, under the rubric of the Shari’a, …gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; introduces, in the name of the defense of human rights, an intolerable discrimination against both non-Muslims and women; reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms..; [and] confirms the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, that attack the integrity and dignity of the human being. K.S. Lal, the late Indian Professor of Islam, noted this difficult, if not intractable conundrum: Muhammad could not change the revelation; he could only explain and interpret it. There are liberal Muslims and conservative Muslims; there are Muslims learned in theology and Muslims devoid of learning. They discuss, they interpret, they rationalize—but all by going round and round within the closed circle of Islam. There is no possibility of getting out of the fundamentals of Islam; there is no provision of introducing any innovation. Confirmation of Lal’s observations at the “macro” level of international relations is manifested by the ceaseless, and increasingly successful campaign of the OIC to enforce universal application of a Shari’a standard, in complete opposition to bedrock principles of modern human rights, such a freedom of expression, and conscience. More than a decade ago, Samuel Huntington observed appositely, and with a candor that is now exceedingly rare, The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture… During his recent debate with the cultural jihadist Tariq Ramadan, Ibn Warraq elucidated what is at stake should such Islamic supremacism prevail: The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing. …Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.

DID IT MY WAY (Video of Civilized Iran)



Read about it on:

And view the article below this one on Denmark

For the pro-Mossadegh and former pro-Soviet apologists and biased critics of the monarchy, tell me how the Shah at his VERY worst was even on the same planet as the murderous Ayatollahs Carter inflicted on us. And which threaten to destroy Western civilization far more certainly than Gengis Khan and his Mongols did in their day.


By McAllen In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets -all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite? By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history. The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported: "Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending." "Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes." "Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane." "Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem." "Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim." It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the US: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today. In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of "racism" by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture, and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won't find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't. In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government's welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. "We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration. The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now," he said. A large thorn in the side of Denmark's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, "The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference," Hvilshøj says, "There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come." And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, "In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech." Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay (ISLAMIC) blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. (Hip, hip hurray!) The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce. Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole (welfare). As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history . . we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own. Alan note: AND NOT FOLLOW ENGLAND'S CAPITULATING POLICY OF "if you can't fight them, join them!" which is increasingly the policy in fast sinking England into an Islamic, Sharia controlled, society. AND WE ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION IN CANADA AND THE USA!! WAKE UP AMERICA! LEARN FROM DENMARK'S PLIGHT AND THEIR SOLUTIONS. Or die suicidally from lack of resolve - or sheer stupidity.


BETTER HEAR THIS TWICE THAN NEVER AND LOSE YOUR HARD DRIVE DATA Hi All, I checked with Norton Anti-Virus, and they are gearing up for this virus! I checked, and it is for real!! Get this E-mail message sent around to your contacts ASAP. PLEASE FORWARD THIS WARNING AMONG FRIENDS, FAMILY AND CONTACTS! You should be alert during the next few days. Do not open any message with an attachment entitled 'POSTCARD,' regardless of who sent it to you. It is a virus which opens A POSTCARD IMAGE, which 'burns' the whole hard disc C of your computer. This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send this e-mail to all your contacts. It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. If you receive a mail called' POSTCARD,' even though sent to you by a friend, do not open it! Shut down your computer immediately. This is the worst virus announced by CNN. It has been classified by Microsoft as the most destructive virus ever. This virus was discovered by McAfee yesterday, and there is no repair yet for this kind of virus. This virus simply destroys the Zero Sector of the Hard Disc, where the vital information is kept. This virus will be received from someone who has your e-mail address in his/her contact list. This is the reason why you need to send this e-mail to all your contacts. It is better to receive this message 25 times than to receive the virus and open it. Variations: Other subject lines used with this message include the following: You've recieved a Hallmark E-Card! You've received a greeting card from a school-mate! You've received a greeting ecard from a class mate! You've received a greeting ecard from a neighbour! You've received a greeting postcard from a partner! You've received a greeting postcard from a worshipper! You've received a postcard from a family member! You've received a postcard from a neighbour! You've received a postcard from a worshipper! You've received an ecard from a colleague! Class-mate sent you an ecard from! Colleague sent you a greeting ecard from! School mate sent you a greeting ecard from! Family member sent you a postcard from! Neighbour sent you a greeting ecard from! School-mate sent you an ecard from! Worshipper sent you an ecard from! Colleague sent you a postcard from! Neighbour sent you a greeting ecard from! School friend sent you an ecard from! Holiday e-card Movie-quality e-card Love postcard Birthday e-card Thank you card Musical postcard Funny postcard

Friday, February 22, 2008


Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy, said at the Jerusalem Conference Tuesday that Saudi Arabian bankers are the main financiers of global terrorism. Corrupt “Sharia financing” banking practices - legal under Islamic law - are a fairly new phenomenon, Ehrenfeld said. They were first developed by the Muslim brotherhood in the 70s, following the financial power gained by Saudis during the oil boom. ”Saudis are using money in order to corrupt the West, to fund terrorism, and eventually to take over the West,” said Ehrenfeld. “For years, Saudi Arabia has been a main supporter of terrorism, both physically and financially, and their illegal activity is now causing many innocent investors to commit serious crimes without even the knowledge that they are doing so.” According to Ehrenfeld, Saudi Arabian bankers have roughly $1 trillion ready to be invested through means of what she terms “financial Jihad.” The financial practices she refers to as “Sharia financing” are run according to Islamic law, governed solely by the Koran and with no distinction between public and private practices. “Legitimate financing goals are literally indistinguishable from immoral and illegal practices, causing unsuspecting companies and individuals to unknowingly fund terrorism.” “Sharia financing means complete and total submission to Islamic bankers,” Ehrenfeld explained. “Investors give over all rights to choose what their money supports. They are virtually forced to divest from any company or concept that is not in agreement with Muslim ideology or belief, including any company that is even inconsequentially involved with Israel. Additionally, Saudi Arabian bankers have the right to list and delist companies as they please, without legitimate cause or legal course of action." “Not surprisingly, these illegal banking practices do not have security, which comes at a very large price to investors, who are at great risk both of losing their money, endangering their shareholders, and being prosecuted by American banking laws, which strictly forbid the financial support of terrorism. Besides the money that is used to support Islamic agenda, 20% of funds are labeled ‘mandated charity’ and go directly to foreign companies in support of terrorism.” Ehrenfeld warns: “They are expanding fast, and are now in more than 80 countries, and more than 300 financial institutions around the world. This is really spreading like wildfire.”


Three Afghan nationals are being held in New Delhi, India after they tried boarding a flight to France, via Kuwait, using Mexican passsports identifying themselves as:

Antonio Lopez Juan (42)

Javier Sanchez Alberto (20)

Atonio Lopez Ernesto (16)

According to Indian press reports, the three men departed from Nedumbaserry Airport in India, on February 11, without incident.
When they arrived in Kuwait, emigration officials found them suspicious because they did not speak any Spanish. They were deported back to India.
The three had reportedly arrived in New Delhi on January 23 this year, as per the stamps on their passports.
However, there was some doubt about the authenticity of the arrival stamps on the passports.
Officials in India said the Mexican Embassy in New Delhi is involved.

Thursday, February 21, 2008


READ THE ISLAMIC "how to" DEBATE DIRECTIVE AND THEN VIEW THE BILINGUAL VIDEO ON THE OXYMORONIC ASPECTS OF AN ISLAM DEMOCRACY. While the speaker has other videos providing revisionist history, specially about Mossadegh, whom he supports, the video below attacks the Mojaheddin for proposing an Islamic Democracy for Iran. Not so much an attack on them as an attack on the stupidity of their stated philosophy. How to Debate and Frustrate Infidels by Ayesha Ahmed Dear brothers and sisters in islam: We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us. In an Islamic country, if someone did that , all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story. However here we don't have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will, inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis. However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest. Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future. 1. A popular question is "why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates". Insist that their info is false. Quote aya "to you your religion and to me my religion". 2. To answer "Islam spread with sword", say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says " there is no compulsion in religion". 3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking . 4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, then insist that the translation is wrong. 5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic. 6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don't mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings. 7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it's context without reading hadith and sira. 8. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet's rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that "all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran. 9. If he says Quran is a man made document and wants proof of it's divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it. 10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik.. 11. If the pests still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books. 12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog . 13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam. 14. If he still does not stop then run for his mother and sister and use very filthy language. 15. If he is very stubborn and wants to continue, then curse him like "Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, Allah will get you in your grave" etc 16. When all of the above has failed, threaten him with bodily harm and end the debate by drum beating and announcing that you won the debate hands down because Koran is the word of allah. 17. If possible announce about this debate in an islamist website and that you had won it handily. Such announcements do wonders for the iman (faith/belief) of muslim website readers and for dawah

Wednesday, February 20, 2008



America's economy risks the mother of all meltdowns By Martin Wolf "I would tell audiences that we were facing not a bubble but a froth - lots of small, local bubbles that never grew to a scale that could threaten the health of the overall economy." (Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence). That used to be Mr Greenspan's view of the US housing bubble. He was wrong,alas. So how bad might this downturn get? To answer this question we should ask a true bear. My favourite one is Nouriel Roubini of New York University's Stern School of Business, founder of RGE monitor. Recently, Professor Roubini's scenarios have been dire enough to make the flesh creep. But his thinking deserves to be taken seriously. He first predicted a US recession in July 2006*. At that time, his view was extremely controversial. It is so no longer. Now he states that there is "a rising probability of a 'catastrophic' financial and economic outcome"**. The characteristics of this scenario are, he argues: "A vicious circle where a deep recession makes the financial losses more severe and where, in turn, large and growing financial losses and a financial meltdown make the recession even more severe. "Prof Roubini is even fonder of lists than I am. Here are his 12 - yes, 12 -steps to financial disaster. Step one is the worst housing recession in US history. House prices will, hes ays, fall by 20 to 30 per cent from their peak, which would wipe out between $4,000bn and $6,000bn in household wealth. Ten million households will end up with negative equity and so with a huge incentive to put the house keys in the post and depart for greener fields. Many more home-builders will be bankrupted. Step two would be further losses, beyond the $250bn-$300bn now estimated,for subprime mortgages. About 60 per cent of all mortgage originationbetween 2005 and 2007 had "reckless or toxic features", argues Prof Roubini. Goldman Sachs estimates mortgage losses at $400bn. But if home prices fell by more than 20 per cent, losses would be bigger. That would further impair the banks' ability to offer credit. Step three would be big losses on unsecured consumer debt: credit cards, auto loans, student loans and so forth. The "credit crunch" would thenspread from mortgages to a wide range of consumer credit. Step four would be the downgrading of the monoline insurers, which do not deserve the AAA rating on which their business depends. A further $150bn writedown of asset-backed securities would then ensue. Step five would be the meltdown of the commercial property market, while, Step six would be bankruptcy of a large regional or national bank. Step seven would be big losses on reckless leveraged buy-outs. Hundreds of billions of dollars of such loans are now stuck on the balance sheets of financial institutions. Step eight would be a wave of corporate defaults. On average, US companiesare in decent shape, but a "fat tail" of companies has low profitability andheavy debt. Such defaults would spread losses in "credit default swaps", which insure such debt. The losses could be $250bn. Some insurers might go bankrupt. Step nine would be a meltdown in the "shadow financial system". Dealing with the distress of hedge funds, special investment vehicles and so forth will be made more difficult by the fact that they have no direct access to lending from central banks. Step 10 would be a further collapse in stock prices. Failures of hedge funds, margin calls and shorting could lead to cascading falls in prices. Step 11 would be a drying-up of liquidity in a range of financial markets, including interbank and money markets. Behind this would be a jump in concerns about solvency. Step 12 would be "a vicious circle of losses, capital reduction, credit contraction, forced liquidation and fire sales of assets at below fundamental prices". These, then, are 12 steps to meltdown. In all, argues Prof Roubini: "Total losses in the financial system will add up to more than $1,000bn and the economic recession will become deeper more protracted and severe." This, he suggests, is the "nightmare scenario" keeping Ben Bernanke and colleagues at the US Federal Reserve awake. It explains why, having failed to appreciate the dangers for so long, the Fed has lowered rates by 200 basis points this year. This is insurance against a financial meltdown. Is this kind of scenario at least plausible? It is. Furthermore, we can be confident that it would, if it came to pass, end all stories about de-coupling". If it lasts six quarters, as Prof Roubini warns, offsetting policy action in the rest of the world would be too little, too late. Can the Fed head this danger off? In a subsequent piece, Prof Roubini gives eight reasons why it cannot***. (He really loves lists!) These are, in brief: US monetary easing is constrained by risks to the dollar and inflation; aggressive easing deals only with illiquidity, not insolvency; the monoline insurers will lose their credit ratings, with dire consequences overall losses will be too large for sovereign wealth funds to deal with; public intervention is too small to stabilise housing losses; the Fed cannotaddress the problems of the shadow financial system; regulators cannot finda good middle way between transparency over losses and regulatory forbearance, both of which are needed; and, finally, the transactions-oriented financial system is itself in deep crisis. The risks are indeed high and the ability of the authorities to deal with them more limited than most people hope. This is not to suggest that there are no ways out. Unfortunately, they are poisonous ones. In the last resort,governments resolve financial crises. This is an iron law. Rescues can occur via overt government assumption of bad debt, inflation, or both. Japan chosethe first, much to the distaste of its ministry of finance. But Japan is a creditor country whose savers have complete confidence in the solvency of the government. The US, however, is a debtor. It must keep the trust of foreigners. Should it fail to do so, the inflationary solution becomes probable. This is quite enough to explain why gold costs $920 an ounce. The connection between the bursting of the housing bubble and the fragility of the financial system has created huge dangers, for the US and the rest of the world. The US public sector is now coming to the rescue, led by the Fed. In the end, they will succeed. But the journey is likely to be wretchedly uncomfortable. *A Coming Recession in the US Economy? July 17 2006, ; **The Rising Risk of a Systemic Financial Meltdown, February 5 2008; ***Can the Fed and Policy Makers Avoid a Systemic Financial Meltdown? Most Likely Not, February 8 2008

Tuesday, February 19, 2008


Rap words enumerate the following ideas depicted in the graphics: Welcome to poverty stricken residents sifting for food in garbage dumps, to addicts trying to escape the misery imposed by the bloody regime, to the hundreds of thousands of homeless and HOPELESS residents. To the daily brutal arrests and executions, to Islamic paradise on earth. If so, then what is Hell? Other new videos posted on Videos Section.

Monday, February 18, 2008

NON-INTELLIGENCE ON IRAN NUKES & Appalling Gamesmanship at the CIA

Alan Note: I have not seen much in the Media about the purloined laptop obtained from inside Iran which proves Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Why the silence? Also as a sidebar, read the article on the "News Views" Page titled Dhimmi England Seeks Sharia Bonds. It's not just the Archbishop of Canterbury pushing for Shaira law recognition. The Prime Minister is also lunging in that direction. Main Article by Michael Rubin During his February 5 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell backpedaled from the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and its claim that, "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Not only did McConnell testify that the Islamic Republic was working to master the enrichment of uranium - "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production" - but he also acknowledged that, "because of intelligence gaps," the U.S. government could not be certain that the Iranian government had fully suspended its covert nuclear programs. "We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons," he testified. "In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons - and such a decision is inherently reversible." The NIE was no accident, and McConnell's pirouette does more than confirm the intelligence community's sloppiness. The 2007 NIE was built on geopolitical assumptions as much as any hard intelligence, and historians will deem it important not because it was accurate, but because it made utterly clear the collapse of the intelligence community. While the crudeness of its assault on the (U.S.) president's Iran policy makes it the best example of the intelligence community's agenda politics, it is far from the only one. My initiation into CIA policy plays came less than a week after Baghdad's fall to coalition forces in April 2003. In the months before the war, U.S. government officials had assessed thousands of Iraqi political activists and technocrats in order to prepare to fill the Iraqi political vacuum. Representatives from State, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council were meeting to vet invitations for the Nasiriya Conference where Iraqis would discuss post-liberation governance. Rather than simply present the biographies of the various Iraqi figures, the CIA sought to be a privileged policy player. Its representative announced that not only would Langley be inviting its own candidates outside the interagency consensus, but the CIA would not be sharing the names or backgrounds of its invitees. Putting aside the ridiculousness of the CIA belief that it could invite delegates anonymously to a public conference, more troubling was the principle. Far from limiting its work to intelligence, the CIA leadership was unabashedly involving itself in major policy initiatives. The reverberations of Langley's policy games haunted reconstruction. CIA officials would promise governorships to Iraqis without any coordination. Often, diplomats, military officials, and Pentagon civilians would learn of such deals only after other Iraqis had been appointed or elected to such offices. (Some U.S. servicemen surely paid the price as spurned Iraqis responded to what they saw as betrayal.) Once the son of a Kurdish leader remarked how ridiculous State-Defense bickering was when the CIA had implemented and funded a decision on the policy issue months before without any coordination whatsoever. Many of the agency's (CYA deskjockey) senior analysts are arrogant after years behind their computers, believing they know far better what U.S. policy should be than the policymakers for whom they draft reports. The recourse of the disgruntled, bored, or politicized analyst is the leak - the bread and butter of any national security correspondent. Journalists who fulfill the leakers' objectives win ever more tantalizing scoops; those who maintain professional integrity and question the agenda behind any leak, find their access cut. The result is a situation in which journalists who might otherwise double-check sources, take a single intelligence analyst at his word, even if he is using them to fight a policy battle. Iraq again provides a case study. In order to shield themselves from accountability over flawed intelligence or to bolster their Iraqi proxies at the expense of competitors, CIA officials provided a steady stream of leaks to favored correspondents like the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh or McClatchy's Warren Strobel. Such leaks ranged from allegations that the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans - a policy shop - was a rogue intelligence operation to misattributions of the provenance of prewar intelligence. It was not uncommon, for example, to see false or exaggerated intelligence attributed to the Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi when it had actually come from Kurdish officials. This was never more clear than in a July 17, 2004, New York Times correction. The paper was retracting three stories which alleged a connection between Chalabi and an Iraqi source code-named Curveball, whose information later turned out to be bogus. The editors explained that their correspondent had "attribute[d] that account to American intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. " They continued: "Those officials now say that there was no such established relationship." In other words, intelligence officials lied to a reporter to achieve a policy aim. Such behavior is not limited to debates over policies impacting countries thousands of miles away. W. Patrick Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, told the American Prospect in 2005 that his intelligence community colleagues used leaks to try to influence the 2004 presidential election. "Of course they were leaking. They told me about it at the time. They thought it was funny. They'd say things like, 'This last thing that came out, surely people will pay attention to that. They won't reelect this man.' " The intelligence leadership did not refer the matter to the judiciary, unlike the leak concerning Valerie Plame. To deflect criticism of the NIE, intelligence officials reached out to reporters. "Hundreds of officials were involved and thousands of documents were drawn upon in this report .  .  . making it impossible for any official to overly sway it," the Wall Street Journal was told. Wayne White, a former analyst in State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, suggested it was "absolutely disgusting" that anyone could impugn the professionalism of lead author (and his former colleague) Thomas Fingar. This is disingenuous. Personnel are policy. Half of Washington's battles involve who writes the first and last drafts of any paper or memo. McConnell's testimony undercut the idea that the intelligence agencies deserve a reputation for either professionalism or integrity. A tolerance for political gamesmanship has besmirched the entire community. With the NIE giving Iran what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared its "greatest victory during the past 100 years," the consequence for U.S. national security is grave. In the wake of the Iraq war, many Democrats accused the Bush administration of politicizing intelligence. It was a false charge, but good politics. But the fact is, the problem was the opposite: an intelligence community driven by the desire to conduct policy. Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the Middle East Quarterly, was an Iran country director at the Pentagon between September 2002 and April 2004.