Even some fifty years after MLK’s Dream was heard across the nation, the racial dynamics of a country as complex as America are still muddled. Confusion abounds on all levels & in a nation most divided, MLK’s Dream lies in limbo, just as it has before…Many people of color, whichever color that may be, are uncertain what qualifies as progress in the race arena & what constitutes racial barriers being broken. Race is not nearly as clear-cut as the glass-ceiling theory for women which plagued our nation for years, but was no less important.
At the turn of the 21st Century, the local municipality constructed a glaring yellow monument at the entrance of Ciudad Juárez, symbolizing hope for future industrialization in a city wrought with corruption and a dark, secretive past. However, the people of Juárez set about constructing their own “monument”—a series of pink crosses memorializing “the Labyrinth of Silence,” a desolate area where hundreds of women have been “disposed” of over the last decade. Gazing across the Labyrinth, a “massive monument of Christ on the Cross” stands erect, symbolizing faith and protection (Rodriguez xi). Locals question if the victims have looked up toward that depiction of Christ’s suffering that towers above their brutally beaten bodies and pleaded for His mercy…This Mexican border-town, founded on prosperity and faith, is estranged from its original principles and has become known as the City of Lost Women.
Ciudad Juárez has been a city of nearly two million people living in fear for over a decade; after all, the city’s yearly death toll exceeded 1,900 by June, one hundred of which were women (“100 Women”). Nearly 620 women have been murdered since 1993, although officials claim the numbers are not even half that figure (Staudt 29). According to Alma Gomez of Justicia de Nuestras Hijas, when the murders began, “a woman was killed every twelve days…” (Operación Digna). Today, Juárez averages one woman dead for every eight days that passes. According to TheAmericano.com, an online publication focusing primarily on Latino issues, Ciudad Juárez is now the most murderous city in the world.
Border-towns are notorious for violence—they are the places where worlds collide, where the roles of men and women have long remained distinctly separate. “The U.S.-Mexican border es una herida abierta where the Third World grates against the First, and bleeds,” (Anzaldúa 3). Many blame machismo, the male-dominant repudiation of everything feminine, for the increased violence running rampant in these areas. Even after the maquiladoras, or U.S.-owned manufacturing factories, changed the typical role of women in Mexico, violence reigned; in fact, women becoming providers instead of sole caretakers completely defied the status quo of many Latin American countries. A promise of a future drove the women from surrounding areas of Mexico to the City of Industry—they “[came] hoping for the best, but often [found] the worst,” (Newton 3).
Nonetheless, as industry brought prosperity to dust-laden Ciudad Juárez, an increase of murders related to drugs and human trafficking occurred. However, in 1993 the pattern of murders changed drastically—there was a dramatic upswing in the number of young women found slain throughout the outskirts of the city. These women had been “raped, mutilated, crushed, strangled…some were even dismembered or burned alive,” (Washington). Their skin was marred with bite marks & they had deep slashes across their breasts. Bound with their own shoelaces & partially clothed, their shoes would be placed almost sentimentally beside their corpses—occasionally just bones, after desert jackals picked the flesh from their fragile bodies. “If you want to rape and kill a woman, there is no better place to do it than in Juárez,” said Esther Chávez Cano, founder of 8 de Marzo, in an opinion column during the fall of 1995. 8 de Marzo is a Juárez-based woman’s advocacy organization dedicated to rousing awareness of not only the killings, but also the corrupted officials (Rodriguez 72).
Alma Mireya Chavirria Farel’s name rings in infamy just across the southern border. Her tiny, brutalized body was discovered on January 23, 1993, making her the first documented victim of the Juárez serial murders (Newton 4). Alma was a 5 year-old child, found in the Campestre Virreyes district of Ciudad Juárez with deep slashes across her chest, evidence of sexual assault, and severe strangulation. The people of Juárez were so aghast at the brutality of the crime, that the authorities were essentially forced to acknowledge the presence of a “predator”—El Depredador Psicópata, who would become known as the “Juárez Ripper” (Newton 4). Twenty-one other women and young girls would meet their end that year, including a young woman who was set on fire and left to die (Valdez Appendix 2).
In 1994, police claimed there were eight murders in Ciudad Juárez with a similar modus operandi, and advised local women not to venture out alone (Newton 5). Just as had occurred during the previous year, an unidentified victim’s smoldering body was discovered semi-nude and strangled. Her shoes were placed “tenderly” beside her charred remains. The families of the murdered women were incredulous that authorities were not taking the cases more seriously. When a woman would go missing, the police would simply ask the family to come back in forty-eight hours and fill out paperwork…the investigations largely “concluded” at that point and the families were left to their own devices. Even after Chihuahuan officials were warned by their very own criminologist, Oscar Maynez Grijalva, that a group of serial killers were responsible for the slayings, police refused to take direct action. Between March and September of 1995, nineteen young women were found brutally raped and mutilated; consequently, the police department and Federal prosecutors came under extreme scrutiny from local families for “brushing off” the cases as the numbers continued to rise (Newton 5). Oscar Maynez Grijalva, who previously warned of the danger in ignoring the “signs” of serial murder, began to notice a distinct pattern in the bodies of the victims he was examining—in eight of the nineteen cases prior to September of that year, the victims’ right breast was removed and their left nipple bitten off (Newton 3). In the remaining months of 1995, another twenty-nine women would be murdered, bringing the grand total to forty-eight. As of July 2009, eight of the victims from 1995 remain buried in graves simply marked “Unknown,” (“2009-Femicides…”).
As pressure mounted, authorities made a stunning announcement in December 1995, sending a ripple of relief, although short-lived, through the communities of Juárez. Officials boasted to news outlets that an Egyptian-born scientist had been arrested for the murder of young Elizabeth Castro whose body had been found on August 19 alongside the Casas Grande Highway, just outside of Lote Bravo. They would subsequently name him as the “intellectual author” of at least thirteen other slayings (Rodriguez 43). Seventeen year-old Elizabeth Castro’s autopsy revealed wounds congruent with the previous victims’ injuries, as well as ligature marks from being bound with her own shoelaces. Sharif was charged with Castro’s rape and murder—authorities would announce that the female slayings were “solved.” Unfortunately, less than a month after “solving” the case of the Juárez Ripper, a stunning statistic was released to the media: in the past eleven months, 520 people had vanished from Juárez and an alarming, yet “important percentage of them [were] female adolescents,” (Newton 4).
By April 1, 1996 at least fourteen more girls were slain, including a fifteen year-old, again with identical injuries to those of the previous victims: a right severed breast, bitten-off left nipple, and a broken neck which had literally been yanked apart (Valdez 11). Police scrambled for answers as the people of Juárez grew impatient and they soon opted for placing additional blame on Abdel Latif Sharif, implying that he was the “mastermind” behind the murders. Curiously enough, a young woman identified merely as “Blanca” came forward to accuse Sharif of raping her in his home and threatening to “dispose of her corpse in Lote Bravo,” (Rodriguez 44). Unfortunately for Sharif, Lote Bravo was the “dumping ground” for multiple mutilated women in 1995, forty-five to be precise (Valdez 11). “Blanca” stood before the media and claimed to have been held hostage in Sharif’s home for at least three days. She described being raped repeatedly and later escaping through an upstairs window to contact authorities from a neighbor’s home (Rodriguez 13). Her story was never verified. Evidence against the Egyptian-national continued to mount when another woman, Erika Fierro, told police she’d introduced Sharif to nine of her girlfriends and hadn’t seen or heard from any them in months. Fierro would go on to claim that Sharif later told her he’d murdered them all, burying their bodies at Lote Bravo and threatening to do the same to Fierro if she disclosed his secret…(Valdez 215). Both women would “disappear” within a few weeks of releasing their statements, never to be heard from again.
As families of the missing women began to question the validity of the authorities’ sources, the local police grew frantic. They were struggling to maintain their story’s plausibility, not wanting to come across as incompetent investigators, but their efforts to calm the population would quickly be snuffed out. On April 8, 1996, Rosario Garcia Leal was found raped, strangled, and mutilated in a vacant lot. During the course of the investigation, Hector Olivares Villalba, a member of the local street gang Los Rebeldes, was brought in for questioning. Within a few short days Olivares Villalba would confess to the young woman’s murder. Only later would it come to light that rather than endure the “torture” that ran rampant through the police forces, Olivares would confess and claim that six other Rebels helped him “dispose of her body,” (Rodriguez 60). His confession would ultimately land El Diablo, the leader of the Rebels, in Mexican Federal prison. Sergio Armendariz Diaz, El Diablo, would remain in police custody for almost nine years, “awaiting trial” (Rodriguez 122). Eventually, two of the eight Rebels were released and in January of 2005, the six who remained were convicted of the murders of eight women who had been found in 1995 (Newton 8). The authorities also informed the media that Armendariz, whose bite impressions matched those found on multiple victims, plotted and conspired with the imprisoned Sharif to make it seem as if the Juárez Ripper was still at large (Rodriguez 123).
With the help of local women’s groups, poor practices in evidence collection were exposed and the Mexican government writhed under the pressure, blaming anyone they could. As the brutal killings continued, news outlets found their hands “tied” when they covered the murders and they were ultimately forced to report lower body counts for fear of retaliation by high-ranking members of the Mexican government (Newton 8). The media published each story with a statement declaring that an “unspecified number of women were still missing,” affectionately naming them Los Desaparecidos, or the Disappeared (Newton 8-9). Officials, thoroughly defensive, refused to allow the families of the Desaparecidos into view the bodies and identify their loved ones…Meanwhile the “corpses continued to pile up like cordwood,” (Rodriguez 69).
The stultifying desert heat and hellacious sand storms made searching for the missing women extremely perilous, but dedicated family members and concerned citizens continued to push forward. While conducting a community-organized searche during the summer of 1996, a small group made a stunning discovery when they stumbled upon a “wooden hut” in the middle of the desert (Rodriguez 134). The search party entered the shack to discover red and white candles, several women’s undergarments, and fingerprints which had been left behind in fresh blood. They also discovered a large wooden board with sketched pictures depicting gruesome scenes of torture and blood-letting of “naked women with flowing, dark hair.” An additional “shrine backdrop” depicted a group of “officials”—most prominently policemen and soldiers—surrounding a group of exposed women in a menacing fashion (Rodriguez 135). Their discovery would again shed light on a secret world within Mexico, a world America had long forgotten. In 1989, a Texas pre-Med student, Mark Kilroy, who had been vacationing for Spring Break, was found “sacrificed,” dismembered, and publicly displayed at a “cult ranch,” (Rodriguez 138). Authorities would later capture the killers only to discover that they were just the beginning…Ritualistic killings in Mexico, and most superstitious cultures, include switching the victims’ heads as well as mutilating their hearts and unfortunately, what was discovered in that tiny shack did nothing to disprove that horrifying reality (Rodriguez 140).
The young victims of Juárez were all petite and pretty with full lips and flowing dark hair. Their abductions, some during broad daylight, continued to frighten the people of Mexico’s leading industrial city. As investigators and families began to search for more distinct patterns in the disappearances, they noticed additional similarities between the cases…A sizable amount of the victims had been abducted from the lines of workers waiting to gain entrance to the maquiladoras. So was the case with a 22-year-old mother of two, Silvia Guadalupe Díaz (Rodriguez 69). She left her home on March 7, 1997, never to be heard from again. While her young husband tried desperately to involve authorities in her disappearance, four young girls were found raped, beaten, and strangled in the following ten days. Then, on March 29th, an agricultural worker discovered Díaz’s body just beside the Juárez Porvenir Highway in the Lote Bravo area. An autopsy would reveal that she had been dumped just a few hours after disappearing from her new job at a local maquiladora (Rodriguez 70). Unlike past months, the women found in March of 1997 all were found to have multiple puncture wounds across their necks; subsequently, investigators would begin to notice the already horrendous violence, escalate.
As the years passed with no significant strides of progress, frustrations grew astronomically among the families. They began to reach out to media sources, loudly expressing their belief that “…some people in power [were] more interested in covering up the crimes and shielding the perpetrators than in resolving the cases in any way that [could] bring peace of mind to the…bereaved,” (Rodriguez xi). The families also began to contact non-governmental organizations (NGO) outside of the State of Chihuahua, really stepping up the pressure for international recognition. Their efforts would prove partially rewarding on March 9, 2002, when a bi-national protest was organized by Texas lawmakers. The march began in the United States and continued over the Paso del Norte Bridge (Rodriguez 224). Nearly 2,000 people would participate…
In 2004, the number of slain women increased over 58% from the previous year drawing outrage from women’s organizations across the globe. On Valentine’s Day, “big-name stars from Hollywood” marched with thousands of Mexican protestors across the Santa Fe/Paso del Norte international bridge. “V-day…had been a worldwide event staged in tumultuous countries…to call attention to violence against women,” (Rodriguez 262). More astounding than international recognition alone, however, was that this protest involved two of Mexico’s top Federal prosecutors—Guadalupe Morfín and María López Urbina. The V-Day March was the first time two officials would publicly display their support for the people they were supposed to represent. As an active Federal prosecutor, María López Urbina would later identify “more than 125 former and current Chihuahua State Police officers…guilty of torture, abuse of power, and negligence” throughout the course of the investigations they conducted for the Juárez murders (Rodriguez 264). While reviewing 233 cases (104 of which had gone to trial), Urbina named only mid-level officials, twenty of whom quickly lost their jobs or were reassigned. As disappointing to the families as it was, Urbina would still fail to name any “high-ranking officials” who were, by law, responsible for “negligence” oversight and all other aspects of active investigations (Rodriguez 265).
The American media has largely neglected to mention the femicide occurring so close to home over the past decade. On October 16, 2009, TheAmericano.com published an article announcing the first “publicly displayed female decapitation” in the “City of Violence”—Ciudad Juárez. As horrifying as the recent events have been and even after desperate pleas for help from Mexican women’s groups, calls for aid have remained largely unnoticed. “We are asking for help…from experts who can create portraits of what the missing women would look like now…some of these women and girls have been missing for longer than two years,” said Alma Gomez of Operación Digna, during an interview in 2003. Gomez continued on to say that the Mexican people “would like the portraits of [their] missing daughters to be posted around…U.S. [cities],” so everyone would feel the terror [our] Mexican neighbors feel. Perhaps then something will be done… Additionally, within TheAmericano.com article was an admittance of the potential for ritualistic murders in Mexico. La Santa Muerte culture is a corrosive reality to anyone with an intimate knowledge of Mexico’s superstitious tendencies. Its practice encompasses a diverse mixture of twisted versions of Santería and the Aztec deities.
Nearly every street corner in Juárez shows signs of lost souls…Even the Paso del Norte Bridge bears the weight of hundreds of dead women. The massive wooden cross at the bridge’s entrance stands erect against the pale pink backdrop, punctured with more than a hundred nails. Each nail fastens in place a scrap of worn material with a name printed upon it, serving as a make-shift “missing person” poster. The sign—hanging just above the rugged cross—reads, “Ni una más…”—“Not one more…” (Valdez 75). Locals say that the Mexican revolutionary hero Benito Juárez weeps as he watches the beloved city he built as a symbol of prosperity and faith fill to the brim with injustice and mass slaughter. The cross at the bridge couldn’t be a more poignant reminder. Even as the number of victims continues to grow, seemingly unnoticed by the rest of the world, the families of the “daughters of Juárez” wonder if anyone is really listening…(Rodriguez xi). Some have even concluded that God has abandoned Juárez, but I would say that He watches with tear-stained cheeks, for it is not He who is lost in the hearts of the people of Juárez, but justice. Justice has abandoned Juárez.
Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute, 1987. Print.
Chavez, Esther. “Violence Against Women in Chihuahua and Juárez.” Operación Digna. 19 Oct. 2003: n. pg. Print.
Newton, Michael. “Ciudad Juárez: The Serial Killer’s Playground.” TruTv. Turner Broadcasting Systems, 2009. Web. 21 Nov. 2004.
Rodriguez, Teresa. The Daughters of Juárez: A True Story of Serial Murder South of the Border. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print.
Staudt, Kathleen. Violence and Activism at the Border: Gender, Fear & Everyday Life in Ciudad Juárez. Austin: Texas UP, 2008. Print.
Valdez, Diana Washington. Killing Fields: Harvest of Women. Washington D.C.: Peace at the Border, 2006. Print.
Washington, Diana. “Cosecha de Mujeres: El Safari mexicano.” La Jornada. DEMOS, 8 May. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2009.
“100 Women Killed in Ciudad Juárez in 2009.” TheAmericano.com. The Americano, 16 Oct. 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
“2009- Femicides in Ciudad Juárez.” Mexico Solidarity Network. Promet Host, 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.
 es una herida abierta – “is an open wound”
 Ni una más– Not one more
A few days ago, I wrote an article about another advisor to the president with extreme views, Ms. Dalia Mogahed, in which I discussed, among other things, the danger in the words she spoke during an interview with IslamChannel in Britain.
The entire transcript of the interview with Dalia Mogahed & Dr. Nazreen Nawaz can be read here.
Ms. Mogahed has attempted to defend her remarks while on Muslimah Dilemma about Sharia’ah as “gender justice” in her most recent interview with U.S. News & World Report.
When asked how she was booked on the show & if she had any knowledge of the “shaky” connections to the radical “political party”, Hizb ut Tahrir, Ms. Mogahed merely stated that her people had contacted a PR firm in Britain who had informed them the show was legitimate.
She then continues to state that she has no regrets about her remarks on the program, but rather would have perhaps thought twice about appearing on Muslimah Dilemma had she known who would be participating.
She also states that while Hizb ut Tahrir is admittedly an ideologically extreme organization, it is not her place as an “analyst” to comment on “ideological differences” and that her statements are representative only of the data she compiled & not of her own views.
After re-watching the program, I can state with complete confidence that nowhere during the course of the interview is Ms. Mogahed reserved in her statements, nor does she come across as uncomfortable in any way.
In fact, she states during the interview that while her conclusions are based on data she has collected, she concurs with those opinions.
So all in all, Ms. Mogahed, while perhaps having second-thoughts about her media performances, “means what she says and says what she means…”
The pathetic attempt at excusing the ideological differences, which are at minimum extreme, is disingenuous if not wholeheartedly negligent.
As an advisor to the President, she has an obligation to present the ENTIRE picture, not just what her skewed results appear to state. For example, as part of Sharia’ah, did Ms. Mogahed denounce the Honor Killings of late or are they, too, included as “gender justice”?
Was Noor Faleh Almaleki being run over by her own father, who condones Sharia’ah law, justified because he believed she was “too westernized”?
This is definitely the direction the United States, whose citizens enjoy an abundance of freedoms including that of life, could be headed if the population doesn’t speak out against such horrific crimes & those who fail to denounce them.
As President Obama once stated, we should judge him by who he surrounds himself with, not necessarily what we’ve “heard…”
On Saturday evening the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) will be celebrating its 15th anniversary as the apologetic-propagandist machine that it is. The notorious Rev. Jesse Jackson will be speaking at the banquet along with Imam Siraj Wahhaj of the Masjid Al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, New York.
Born Jeffrey Kearse, the native-New Yorker is the “No. 1 advocate of radical Islamic ideology among African-Americans,” according to Stephen Schwartz of The Center for Islamic Pluralism. Schwartz also states that, “…His stuff is very appealing to young Muslims who are on a radical path…”
If this particular Imam’s name rings a bell, it’s likely a result of his testimony as a “character witness” in the case of the “blind sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted of devising the plot to bomb the World Trade Centers in 1993. Although never formally charged, Wahhaj made the “list of unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators,” according to US Attorney Mary Jo White.
The Clarion Fund, who came to prominence in the public arena by way of their documentaries Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West & The Third Jihad, have called for the cancellation of the banquet.
So while this Imam’s presence may strike a chord with the average New Yorker, as most references to the WTC do post-9/11, should there be another reason behind that “twinge?”
The answer is yes.
It seems as though (in light of recent exposures by some in the press) people within the Obama administration who hold deep-seated ideological differences from many in America may be contributing drastically to the “fundamental Change” campaign that was promised. From the mouths of Presidential advisors have spewed hateful, anti-American rhetoric that would make the likes of Nancy Pelosi shutter, so the question that Americans should be asking themselves is how far this “Change” should be permitted to go from the Founder’s intentions.
A woman with relatively little media notoriety is the Obama administration’s Advisor on Muslim Affairs, Dalia Mogahed, who recently participated in a joint-interview on a British fundamentalist-Islam television network with Dr. Nazreen Nawaz, a member of the radical Islamist organization, Hizb ut Tahrir. Ms. Mogahed, with the backing of Dr. Nawaz, professed that “…the majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with Sharia’ah compliance…”
That’s right. According to her “scientific research” even Muslim-American women, who are the beneficiaries of many years of struggling against women’s past inequality, attribute gender justice with Sharia’ah compliance…We’ll touch on this again in a moment, but first let’s examine the type of thought that Ms. Mogahed sides with.
Hizb ut Tahrir, while only on a “watch list” in the US, has been designated a “Terrorist Network” in many countries for advocating the overthrowing of Capitalism & democracy as well as the imposition of a system of global Sharia’ah. Rather than condemning “Jihadist” viewpoints & actions, this group has been known to advocate for their use as a political means of progress, while not directly contributing to the killings.
Their organization has devised a strategy for implementing global Sharia’ah:
Stage #1- Culturing the masses to believe in an Islamic-world view by gathering them to form groups.
Stage #2- Interacting with “Ummah” so they will promote these ideas & join the cause.
Stage #3- Establish government, implementing Sharia’ah (generally & comprehensively) while continuing to carry its message to the rest of the world.
Their stratagem bears a striking resemblance to the Muslim Brotherhood’s (Ikhwan) 20 year plan to establish an “Islamic government on Earth”—the Project, available here both in its original form & as an English translation.
It’s largely up to the individual in determining the meaning behind her support of various organizations, but prior to her appointment as the Muslim Affairs Advisor, Ms. Mogahed was a member of the US Muslim Engagement Project (who holds strong, un-renounced ties to the Muslim Brotherhood). She currently serves as the Senior Analyst & Executive Director at the Center for Muslim Studies at Gallup and also directs the Muslim West Facts Initiative, a collaborative effort between Gallup & the London-based Coexist Foundation.
Back to Ms. Mogahed’s statement & assumed authority as described in the book she recently co-authored with John Esposito, “Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think.” It’s important, when discussing her statement in the interview, to confront a common misconception made as a result of the vague generalities often associated with the topic of Sharia’ah. The primary one being that Sharia’ah deals with only certain legal matters (which to many Americans would likely encompass what we consider “civil law”), but one must understand that Sharia’ah is actually an entire way of life.
There was controversy which arose in Britain when it was suggested that Sharia’ah courts should prevail above British law when dealing with the British-Muslim population. The case was made by many “multiculturalism” defenders, both in the U.S. & abroad, that Sharia’ah courts were similar to Catholic marriage tribunals or Jewish family courts. The component of this argument which is consistently overlooked is that only Sharia’ah imposes its rule over every person living within the society, regardless of their faith or beliefs. Good examples of this would be the Islamic Republic of Iran or Saudi Arabia, both of which squeeze out & eliminate all other cultures. Therefore, when properly implemented, the result is absolutely no “freedom of religion” (or even from religion)—and in all honesty, there goes the Constitution as well.
The system of Sharia’ah instills both fear & dependence within many women who, when living under its rule, are brutalized by what is considered to be the “word of Allah.” Earning the verbal approval of any Muslim, when on a pre-slanted quest, doesn’t change the fundamental nature of Sharia’ah. When people are living in fear of being critical of their own system which gives a man the “divine right” to stone a woman to death, Ms. Mogahed is naïve at best to expect “honest” answers from the majority of the Muslim women she polled.
Fox News Host Glenn Beck has exposed radical ties for many within the administration’s network, including most recently Communications Director Anita Dunn, with her Maoist-admiration. Without the denial of these ties with any verifiable credibility (apart from sweeping “mistakes” under the rug), it’s only fair to question how much of Obama’s time Ms. Mogahed is occupying & how that will potentially impact future policy decisions.
Another nary discussed aspect of the “Change” Americans may need to pay attention to is the fusion of Islamic propaganda inside our educational system. It has continued to increase as the years have progressed as a result of the politically correct culture that’s overwhelmed American minds. Imagine Valerie Moore’s surprise when she pulled up to the front of her children’s school (Joseph Kerr Junior High School in Elk Grove, Ca) to find a banner loudly proclaiming that, “There is one God, Allah, & Mohammed is his prophet…”
Or perhaps a better example would be the lawsuit (3rd entry down in the archive) filed against Excelsior School in Byron, CA where students participated in a three-week “simulation” on Islam. “Islam: A Simulation of Islamic History & Culture” authored by the Council on Islamic Education, instructed the children to “…Analyze, explain, & recite the jihadist scripture:
‘Believers, why is it that when it is said to you—March in the cause of Allah—you linger slothfully in the land? If you don’t fight, He will punish you sternly & replace you with other men.’
They were also instructed to “profess” as “true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Qur’an is God’s word.”
The Mission Viejo chapter of ACT! for America, a grassroots organization committed to Western values & democracy as well as their staunch opposition toward the “authoritarian values of Islamofascism,” recently compiled a special report, Islam in America’s Classrooms. It served as a one-stop source & in-depth look at the propaganda found in Junior High School textbooks across America, compiling information gathered by two committees established to review textbooks; they were responsible for detailing their findings on what is portrayed as “fact” in History classrooms across the U.S.—everything from generalities used to “whitewash” the often violent history of Islam; “half truths;” the liberal-myth of Islamic “multiculturalism & broad-mindedness;” and finally, the presentation of Islamic beliefs as facts while referring to all Judeo-Christian values as mere “emotional spirituality” which occasionally went as far as to actually demonize both Judaism & Christianity.
One of the committees, the Textbook League published “Reviewing ISLAM: A Simulation,” which was the unit that sparked the heated debate & eventual lawsuit against Excelsior School. An editor on the committee stated in his findings that, “…Page for page, this is the most malignant product that I’ve seen during all my years as a reviewer…”
They also published “How a Public School in Scottsdale, AZ Subjected Students to Islamic Indoctrination” detailing “blatant propaganda” from the popular middle-school textbook, “History Alive! The Medieval World & Beyond.”
When the American Textbook Council compiled a report in June of 2008 titled, “Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us,” one of the editors stated that, “…the misinformation surrounding Islam & textbooks is disturbing more so because much of it is intentional.”
According to the study, the majority of the information being taught via textbooks fails to meet the “academic definition of history” defined by former-President Clinton’s mandate on guidelines for religious expression and tolerance in public schools.
Ironic since the phrase “under God” is such an elephant in the room during the Pledge of Allegiance…
Don’t ever assume that this type of “whitewashing” & propaganda exists only in primary schooling (K-12), in reality it runs rampant throughout the country when in fact many American universities & colleges either make use of textbooks which are written in a “propagandist”-style or employ professors who subscribe to these same schools of thought.
Here in Northern Nevada, Western Nevada College (WNC) uses “The Western Humanities: Volume I” for its Humanities 101 course; its text is not immune to this frightening phenomenon. Within the book’s eighth chapter, “The World of Islam,” it is stated as fact that, “…Muhammad, as the voice of Allah, was a ruler & not a consensus builder & Islam…the only source of spiritual & secular authority.” Another passage uses the phrase “in the name of Allah” as an indication of Allah’s blessing for the remainder of the chapter’s text, doing so in a way that doesn’t seem to actually enhance the student’s understanding, but instead operates as both “normal” and “factual.” (Underline mine.)
Two commonly glamorized professors—Rashid Khalidi & Joseph Massad, both of whom are tenured at prestigious-elite Columbia University & are outspokenly opposed to not only Israel, but also America.
Professor Massad received a review for a class he instructs that was anything but praiseworthy in which a former student stated:
“This was possibly the most offended I`ve ever been. Massad does not even pretend to give the entire picture, he states that on the first day. Besides being offensive, is it really worth it to take a class that doesn`t tell you both sides of a controversy? I worry about the people who enter the class with little to no knowledge of the topic and form their opinions based on Massad`s lectures and assigned readings. Massad also doesn`t allow students to finish their questions before answering them. The class is taught unethically, and should be renamed “Why Palestinians Hate Israel.” In sum, it sucks to take a class and walk away not feeling like you can form an educated opinion. It also sucks when your professor, (in my opinion) lies and even after being proven wrong by students, continues to lie.”
Rashid Khalidi recently served as a “moderator” for the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) “forum” hosted by Columbia University during which he allowed his divine moderation skills to overcome him by reiterating his fellow Western-destructionists’ views of both Israeli & Western policy.
Another “expert” professor at the same forum reportedly “joked” with the commissioner general of UNRWA stating that he was baffled as to why she hadn’t yet “sprouted horns” for incorporating Holocaust studies into UNRWA’s school curriculum.
All of these issues are alarming, but particularly in a country said to be so united behind “Hope & Change.” Many, I’m sure, will ignorantly label this as another “right-wing extremist,” anti-Muslim diatribe, but nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is not Islam as a religion, but rather the forced conversion that groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir (and quite possibly people affiliated with the current Obama administration) would like to implement. It is not to say that Sharia’ah is “coming to a town near you,” but it is to bring to light the stark contrasts between American value systems & those of other cultures. An informed people are a strong people, after all. Additionally, it’s irresponsible of Dalia Mogahed (or any woman who has fulfilled her career-ambitions while openly practicing her Muslim faith or any other faith for that matter) to espouse an oppressive system which stands in stark contradiction to the very values every American enjoys; in this country we value human rights for all, not exclusively for men and therefore, the often violent edicts of Sharia’ah as the epitome of “gender justice” does not apply. Ms. Mogahed’s words should be infuriating feminists & human rights activists across this country. Instead…there’s a deafening silence. There is a difference between being a cultured society that is acceptant of others & having a “fundamental change” forced upon an unsuspecting nation in an attempt to completely destroy the fabric of our country. So, it seems that the puzzle for many who advocate for “change” is being mindful of the balance…
If you are interested in more perspectives dealing with this topic, I would refer you to Dr. M. Zudhi Jasser’s article, “The Un-fought War on Islamism: To Stay Civilized & Free, We Can’t Be Ignorant.”
The Reno Chapter of ACT! for America can be reached via email: ACT-NNv@callhsb.com
During a time in this great country when Americans feel more distanced from their “representatives” than ever…this video hits home.
Originally seen on the 9/12 Project website, this video is correctly described as “making you laugh…& yet making you cry.”
Wake up, uninformed America! We have a long road ahead of us which will only be exacerbated by the current government’s choices.
Remind them they work for you!
And please, SHARE THIS VIDEO WITH YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY!
The “change” voted into office a few short months ago was supposed to represent an overhaul in the “culture” that had become Washington—lies, corruption, blame, & partisanship. The candidate that was supposed to help unify & unite Americans—the “transcending racial barriers” candidate—this mere mortal man has created rifts so deep in the American psyche & deepened already existing ones such that race & color have become the least of the social issues. Now the government uses moral coercion to gain the American people’s support for their drastic overhaul & “fundamental change” in America. “Change” in and of itself arrived under the false “crises” premise as it usually does. Government handouts, entitlements, & wasteful spending describe the entirety of the current government’s “plan” for ‘recovery in America’—shredding an already fragile Constitution by playing on the fears of the public—“Destruction through Distraction.”
Bankers, Wall Street, oil companies, Republicans, Libertarians, Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and don’t forget the racists—all collectively to blame, but there exists not a second mention of the legislating body who implemented policies & regulations that worked to destroy what was left of laissez-faire markets. The government, by way of tapping the taxpayers, owns the largest chunk of private industry in history & just like could be expected, the taxpayer unwillingly forfeits any return on their “investment” in America’s future.
Welcome to the New America.
Do Americans believe that capitalism & free markets are the cause for the instabilities our country faces? No, they don’t. Could Americans finally be realizing that the direction the government takes us is inevitably the wrong one for not only our country, but also for our families & individual circumstances?
THE SHORTAGE OF BECK’S “COMMON SENSE”
Glenn Beck states in his recent book most properly titled, “Common Sense: the Case against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine,”
“You cannot take away freedom to protect it, you cannot destroy the free-market to save it, & you cannot uphold freedom of speech by silencing those with whom you disagree. To take rights away to defend them or to spend your way out of debt defies common sense.”
He couldn’t be more accurate.
- “Taking away freedom to protect it”- The 2nd Amendment, for example, has been under assault for years. Regulations & restrictions have been placed on citizens, infringing on their right to bear arms, yet are often disguised as “precautions” to “keep people safe…” Operating under this “theory” would entail strict adherence to “people don’t kill people, guns kill people…” The direct assault tactic to disarm the people is uncommon, but rather the regulations & restrictions that consistently grow stronger, weaken the people’s ability to protect themselves & their families. The right to bear arms as originally intended is floundering.
- “Destroy the free-market to save it” – By way of bailouts for financial institutions & car dealerships, Americans have watched silently as the government “saved private companies deemed too large to fail,” selling out to Unions & special-interest groups. The entire deal is eerily reminiscent of 1963 when railroad unions demanded the government nationalize railroads to preserve [ultimately useless & unnecessary] jobs by “preventing human disaster on their one-way track of making profit at human expense.” Like the totality of the Statist’s agenda, “moral imperatives” or “humanitarian” efforts are not targeting only the “rich,” but actually undercutting successful & competent people of all income levels. What’s portrayed as a “redistribution” of profit & wealth is actually much more than that—an undermining of not only business achievement, but of Capitalism and thus, the original American system itself.
- “Uphold freedom of speech by silencing dissent” – Earlier this month, even after the defeat of the original Fairness Doctrine, the FCC named attorney Mark Lloyd their new Chief Diversity Officer. Mr. Lloyd was not only the Senior Fellow at the uber-liberal CAP organization, but he also recently (and I do mean June 2007 recent) co-wrote a report entitled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” in which he discussed re-enforcing “localism” and its use as a weapon to cut down on the number of Conservative & Christian radio broadcasts that exist. Not only is Mr. Lloyd condoning censorship in effect, he is yet another one of the wealth redistributors so common-place in America today. His policies seek to mandate that conservative radio stations pay a fine of up to $250 million per year, which would then be directly funneled into National Public Radio where there are more liberal voices. So, the question remains…what entitles a person or company to make use of something by taking it forcibly from others, particularly when they didn’t themselves contribute to its existence? If freedom of speech ever fully dies in America, the origin of its fall will be clearly traced back to the broadcasting industry.
The reality remains that any & all power the government now has, we have given to them.
An uninvolved people will fail to notice as their liberties give way to government control.
The American people must cease to allow others to tell them that their “rights” are to be solely established by the government.
FREEDOM- THE INDIVIDUAL VERSUS THE STATE
There is a struggle between two cultures in America today: freedom & responsibility versus control & dependence.
“Freedom” within the scope of this political struggle means “freedom from government coercion” and that alone. The delusion that this struggle either doesn’t exist or is vastly different from the conflicts between the Individual & the State that have been waged before under various names—fascism, Nazism, socialism, feudalism, & even the “Welfare State”—is astounding & can be partially contributed to poor history lessons & false propaganda. If what a people truly desire is “freedom” within the intended context, then there exists but ONE solution—Capitalism in its entirety. It is the only moral system that serves both the political & economic aspects of life, guaranteeing man’s individual rights, thus defending them.
Ayn Rand chronicled the state of European countries & the inevitable direction America is headed best when she said,
“…It is only after men have chosen slavery & dictatorship that they can begin the usual gang warfare of socialized countries—today, it is called pressure-group warfare—over whose gang will rule, who will enslave whom, whose property will be plundered for whose benefit, & who will be sacrificed to whose “noble” purpose.”
RAND’S ‘ANTI-CONCEPTS’ & THE ‘AVERAGE’ AMERICAN
Ayn Rand describes the actions recently taken by our government as “anti-concepts” or succinctly the act of under-handedly destroying particular concepts without discussion.
How is this accomplished in modern-day America? By summersaulting with semantics, of course! Anyone taking “Hope & Change” for .50 cents? Anyone? Anyone?
Progressives often find themselves in a battle with vocabulary as they strive to disguise their ultimate goal & the steps that such a culture-shock would require. As we’ve witnessed most recently during the health care meetings, words are used to distract & cause commotion—“deathers,” swastikas, Hitler, racist, brown-shirts, etc—while in the next breath, “moral imperatives” are the “true” means & reasons for passing what Americans are showing overwhelming opposition to.
Take for example the White House & the Left having deemed all Town Hall participants as “Right-wing Extremists”& Astroturf plants—and then recall the Texas Obama Delegate, I mean DOCTOR—& one would surmise that slandering American citizens had become a new summer recess blood-sport for our “leaders.”
So break it down…
“Extreme” has the potential to be anything so long as it is “great in degree.” In saying that all of the Town Hall people are “Right-wing Extremists,” the Left has done themselves a disservice not just by attacking citizens & portraying them under false pretenses, but also by assuming that these individuals are people separate from the “average American.”
What makes them separate & who determines the “average” definition? Does the fact that these citizens hold an opinion opposite of the government’s automatically make them “extreme,” militia members, KKK, political terrorists, mobs, or fascists?
Or do you believe, like Professor Marc Lamont Hill, that because the Town Hall meetings are attended by the elderly white population (who essentially grew up as racists in a different time), that there is a reason for such categorizing? I mean, what sort of racists would work to overthrow Hitler’s death squads & free the Jewish people & all of occupied Europe? The audacity!
The Left would do well to remember that plenty of “crazies” who now are essentially common definitions of terms like “Communist,” “Racist,” or “Terrorist” come from “their side”—trust me…we don’t want to start playing this game!
PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH—APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED
The Progressive movement in general is antithetical—they paint what is not evil, as evil; what is evil, as noble; they disguise immorality as morality & vice-versa. However, don’t mistake the “Progressive” movement as merely the Democrats or Liberals, both parties are guilty in this “living document” Constitutional destruction match. The American people have elected “Conservatives” (by name only) who fail to advocate for those very principles against Statism & the Liberal causes; they (Conservatives) attempt to stealthily defend the most moral & yet misunderstood system in the world. They apologize for Capitalism around every corner, while reaping the benefits of such a system in their own careers & lives.
Americans in general play by the rules be that by paying taxes, obtaining credit they can afford to use, purchasing/applying for firearms & ammunition legally (as well as hunting & fishing permits)—now they are watching their government as it grows more bold & decisive becoming the antithesis to their own actions. Everything from ‘sweetheart’ mortgages, printing money, spending recklessly as if America’s economy were a board game—Hell, even poker champions are more frugal with their placing of bets! To the point where even drunken sailors would receive the benefit of the doubt here…
The American people have allowed their country to be taken over by a “living monster.” That monster is the government & in the words of Howard Dean, “It’s time to take America back!” The government that was specifically structured to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is long gone. Americans have permitted the loss of their freedoms by sitting idly by as the government systematically dismembers these liberties in the name of “protection.” We’ve witnessed multiple full-fledged assaults & utter disregard by the government for the Rule of Law & America’s Constitution and American citizens are paying the price.
So as the Obama Administration sets up their “citizen-fishy-spy force” under new names & as our supposed leaders target any & all dissenting voices, I’m unsure if this vilification of “average” Americans—err, I mean “Extremists”—could be more “in your face.”
Take that, Saul Alinsky.
A few months ago, I had written an article entitled “Does Modern-Day America Mean Heritage Over Country?” in which I spoke of the separatist idea of reparations for black Americans & how essentially “hyphenated-Americanism” has taken over our youth.
I received an email, in response, from a middle-aged woman who stated that she was a former advocate for National Council of La Raza, a group I also advocated for throughout my high school & initial college years. What intrigued me was a statement she made regarding “…President Obama’s hypocritical stance on social issues” pertaining to race, religion, & equality.
As I contemplated her words I realized that I had been harboring similar sentiments…
“I am offended that a man whom I voted for sold out the rest of American society for his own agenda. I am offended that he uses his own ethnicity, which could be seen as a remarkable accomplishment, as a tool to exploit Americans of all races & faiths. It makes me angry that an advocacy & civil rights organization with such high potential for positive impact on our community, has gone down such a radical & racial road…”
She’s correct. “Hope, Change, & Unity” have turned into “political jerky” & Americans are slowly realizing that the taste left in their mouths is not as it should be. And rather than be proud of your culture & heritage, it is used as a crutch which is only a ‘benefit’ when the situation permits. This can be seen in many of the individuals who now are controlling our lives as a result of Obama’s nominations & czars.
One of the beauties of American democracy is the “out with the old, in with the new” policy shifts that take place post-election. It is also one of the consequences that the losing candidate must endure. And Lord knows (or ‘tree’ knows or ‘whatever your higher power is’ knows) that we’ve had numerous policy shifts over the last few months, but there are many Americans in communities across the country who feel wholeheartedly disenfranchised by the hypocrisy evident in the majority of this “change.” The T.E.A. parties clearly demonstrated this frustration.
So is it intellectually dishonest not to take note or be aware that there exists a “cause-baiter” behind every move our Statist administration makes? Yes, it is.
Just as it is intellectually dishonest when the MSM & other ‘smear-machines’ attempt to demonize the opposing political & racial groups through baseless slander…I don’t honestly believe that you would find one American that is completely opposed to positive progress in America & largely around the world. Yet the Republican Party & its constituents are constantly vilified as the party of “old, white men.”
News flash: There are many Americans of all cultures & walks of life who hold honesty, integrity, individual responsibility, & innovation up on high pedestals—these values are goals to be reached.
Contrary to what the Liberal machine & the media would have you believe America’s “entrepreneurial spirit” is not a “white thing.”
No, I’m not one to say that the “-ism’s” no longer exist in America, but the facts also show us that the majority of these “-ism’s” run counter-operative to their traditional history. What I mean by that, in reference to minorities, is this:
There are two very distinct roles that one must play in modern-day politics & these roles also shape life choices.
The first is the Liberal Play Book, comprised of feel-good rhetoric, woe-is-me life stories, & government community dependence, sometimes referred to as “community salvation.”
The second is the Conservative Play Book, comprised of…well, I think people in this category are usually referred to as “Uncle Tom’s,” & down-right sell-outs. I was even referred to as a “coconut” (brown on the outside & white on the inside) after someone read a composition I wrote during high school & proceeded to describe my writing-style as someone who was “trying to sound like ‘whitey’.”
I mean, “why anybody tryna sound like ‘whitey’?”
On a more serious note, if “said minority” does not fit into either of these categories, they’re likely to be recruited for the Liberal cause & if they happen to fit into the Conservative one—well they’re fair game, pigment not prohibiting.
Modern-day Liberals exploit America’s citizens.
Yes, I’m aware that is a charged statement & no, I did not mis-speak, so let me be frank…
More often than not, the “changes” Liberals wish to impose are presented in a way that appears to “give the people new [yet abstract] rights” that they have previously been “denied” by the Conservative & the Constitutionalist.
Some even believe, as then-Senator Obama stated, that the Constitution is essentially a hindrance of the people.
“…It [the Warren Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted — and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
These “rights,” that so many citizens are so often ‘denied’ by way of the Conservative, are often times direct assaults on many of Man’s basic rights—the unalienable rights—and their implementation allows for an excessive State control over American lives.
Conservatives on the other hand, believe in prudent change. The difference between the Liberal “change” & the Conservative “prudent change” being that the latter pays respect to tradition & American value systems by drawing from not only the Founding documents, but also from other sources of knowledge, experience, & still all of this is done with unique specificity to the issue at hand. There are no “sweeping programs” implemented because any ‘reform’ of large scope cannot be properly monitored & therefore, the effects could potentially do more damage than benefit.
In the Liberal mind, an American “Utopian” state is not possible because too many individuals are free to conduct themselves in ways they choose & therefore, American Liberty is the enemy of the “progressive” movement.
President Barack Obama based his campaign upon “Hope & Change” & we are paying that costly price for two reasons:
1) He fully believes (through conditioning & possible “self-discovery”) that the individual must be controlled so that the entire society may have what he deems equality.
2) He also came to the conclusion (through the above stated methods) that by surrendering & relinquishing “small” freedoms—he would call it “bucking up” & making “necessary investments for the future”—the State will make what was previously “impossible” possible.
The government that was said to be “open & transparent” has clearly demonstrated that it likes to distract attention with nonsense as it proceeds along a completely different route, blindsiding its citizens in the name of “crises.”
For example, the God & Country Family Festival in Nampa, Idaho was taken-aback when the Pentagon denied their request for a fly-over demonstration due to the nature of their Christian “perceived focus…based on information found on [their] website.” 79 men & women were to be sworn into 4 different branches of the military on that night & the fly-over, which is seen by the nearly 10,000 that attend, is a tribute to all those who are serving or have done so in the past.
I now sense another Statist argument arising regarding the “Separation of Church & State” so let’s clear this up…
The Declaration of Independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, & the pursuit of Happiness.”
Meaning that the Founder’s created our country around the principles of Natural Law; and by saying this, I mean that despite their different denominations they were all united behind the belief that the Creator—a higher power of one kind or another—was not only the origin of their existence, but also the source of their reasoning abilities.
Now we move on to the actual definition & purpose behind “Separation of Church & State.”
The 1st Amendment reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
As this argument applies to the God & Country Festival, we must acknowledge that the title of the ceremony makes note of “God”—your God, my God, Fidel Castro’s God…it doesn’t matter.
The 1st Amendment does not have a “Separation from God” clause; the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment (which Statists typically refer to when defending their misguided position) prohibits the government from establishing an official religion & also from establishing preference of one religion over another.
It does not, in any way, prohibit a fly-over or other demonstration by any branch of the military at patriotic gatherings that make note of God, specifically for that reason.
Any individual in America can enjoy ‘unalienable rights’ like those which were bestowed upon us by our Creator as laid out in the Constitution of the United States, and they can at the same time wholeheartedly reject where it is that these rights came from—the “Divine origin” portion of the equation. That is the beauty of America. That is also an individual choice; organized & civilized American society cannot function around this secular principle alone, however, as can be seen in other countries & as I fear, may be witnessed in our own country more & more.
Let’s move on to another hypocritical stance…
President Obama made it explicitly clear that he wouldn’t partake in the National Day of Prayer gathering intended for all Americans. He not only snubbed the groups that organized this event, but he also offended many Americans, particularly at a time when people are turning to faith in record numbers. Did he think that America wouldn’t notice him turn around to not only attend, but key-note speak at the 2009 National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast which he used as a platform to discuss his immigration ‘plans’ & the power of faith in today’s society? Special interest much?
Or perhaps we should look at his recent ‘sermon’ to the NAACP in which he dropped all his “whiteness” & adopted a fake accent in an effort to “reach out to his people” as one MSNBC reporter put it. His message was well-executed, in my humble opinion, since he did speak of personal responsibility & telling our children that their destiny is theirs & theirs alone. However, was the pandering necessary? Of course some do not consider it pandering per se, but from someone with an ‘ethnic background’ it was a tad insulting…
It seems to many Americans, myself included, that this administration will use any means necessary to spread the message of Marxist class warfare now adapted into ‘identity politics’ to advance their own agenda. They have no interest in the people they were put into office to serve, but all the interest humanly possible in their jobs…
This administration puts in place people to run & oversee our country, like Sonia Sotomayor, who have records that clearly show they have no qualms about “interpreting” away constitutional safeguards as long as it can be used to promote their own ideological agendas.
So my message to you, Mr. President, is this:
Your administration & presidency, which could be used to inspire ‘minority youth’ & ‘majority youth’ alike, is instead coming across as the antithesis of Martin Luther King’s Dream. His transcendent principles have been all but abandoned & your hypocritical stance on issues & on the Founding documents that supposedly guided you throughout your life, are not helping.
Character & quality over color…whatever happened to THAT dream?
NOTE TO READERS– Do not assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment that is made below because I choose to let them stand. However, remember that I do hold the authority to remove comments that are derogatory in nature at my discretion.