Mike Huckabee’s first guest on his Fox News show last night was Durwood Fincher, the comedian known as Mr. Doubletalk who came on to announce his jibberish ‘platform’ for being elected to Congress.  But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s double-talk has him beat by a mile.

Here is how Madame Double-Talk chose to define bi-partisanship on her  Obamacare legislation:

A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes

Add to her double-talk her closed-ears when it comes to understanding popular opinion of her precious bill:

When the public sees what is in this bill…when we show them what the priorities are and what it’s been boiled down to, what it means to them sitting around their kitchen table rather than us sitting around a table at Blair House, the response will be positive

Note to Nancy: The public has taken a good hard look at your lard-filled, big-government bill at the kitchen table and decided it should be discarded like any other contaminated product.

Meltdown with Keith Olbermann, Part 32 ♦

Constant Countdown guest and obsequious suckup, Richard Wolffe, along with host Keith Olbermann last night proudly declared themselves to be less sophisticated than — Sarah Palin.

Either that or they showed they think Keith’s remaining audience is r— er, “challenged” and will fall for the crudest of propaganda techniques.

Last week on the world’s most influential Facebook page, Palin outed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for calling liberal activists “F—ing retards.”  Of course, everyone gets why Palin would take particular offense because her son (yes, Andrew Sullivan, her SON) Trig has Down’s Syndrome.

On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh threw Emanuel’s words back in Rahm’s face.  Last night, Wolffe and Olbermann pretended not to recognize the Emmanuel reference and called Palin a “hypocrite” for not being offended by Limbaugh!

Either that, or both men are themselves…you know; and MSNBC should be congratulated for helping both men find employment and overcome their, ummmm… challenge.

Check out the unintentionally hilarious way in which these two pretend to be having a serious political discussion—as if there is enough “there” there to actually have a guest “analyst” come on to talk about it.

WOLFFE:  What would have been consistent–and not that consistency has always been Sarah Palin‘s strong point—would have been maybe a Facebook entry along the lines of what she wrote about Rahm Emanuel: are you capable of decency, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?  I‘ll leave you to answer that one.

But the question here for her and for those who love her is this question of does she have the guts to stand up for what she believes in, no matter whether it‘s Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone else?  Because if you can‘t stand up to a talk radio host, then how are you going to confront Putin when he rears his head?

Yeah, the current guy is doing great with Putin, not to mention Ahmadinejad…

OLBERMANN:  Eventually somebody will ask her about say Beck‘s repeated and public and gleeful use of this word, or press her about Limbaugh‘s use of it.  What does she say then?

WOLFFE:  Well, here‘s the tough thing—of course, for a start, it‘s hard for journalists to press her, because it‘s a one-way communication.  Facebook does not exactly constitute a press conference.

But the problem for her, the challenge for her, is that essentially however authentic and meaningful and heartfelt her original sentiment was, she is taking a, quote/unquote, politically correct point of view.  She is trying to, in the eyes of folks like Limbaugh and Beck, restrict their free speech.  This is not a tack you can take with those folks.  And by the way, it‘s not a tack you can take for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, that forms the Tea Party folks who are paying to hear her speak at their annual convention.

So, you know, politically, it doesn‘t make any sense for her.  And that I think is why you‘re seeing this supposedly authentic politician become just yet another conventional politician.

What parallel universe are these idiots discussing?   In his first try, Wolffe blasts Palin for NOT trying to “restrict their free speech,” then she says Limbaugh and Beck will resent her trying to “restrict their free speech”… and who appointed Richard Wolffe spokesman for the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh?

This isn’t even too clever by half.

OLBERMANN:  …here she is, once again, using her child to try to beat up the White House, when it‘s clear she doesn‘t care when her political buddies and her Fox colleagues are far more guilty of the same offense.  Is there a tipping point in terms of doing damage with those who have supported her in the past?

WOLFFE:  Well, the greatest disappointment has got to be with those mothers who are—families who are in the same situation as her, who thought she would be that advocate.  But authenticity, the sort of genuine nature, the unvarnished nature of her is her currency.  That‘s her brand.  And the more she has to create problems like this, and try and get out of them, the more she‘s worried about offending certain people, the more she just looks like another career politician.  And that is ultimately going to be her downfall.  She has to take a stand and stick to it.  That‘s what going rogue would really mean.

Yes, Sarah, you need to listen to Richard Wolffe if you want to keep your fan base happy.  He’s got his finger on the pulse of the Tea Party movement…

Kathy Shaidle previously covered this in a terrific post, but it’s worth revisting Rush’s comments.  Only a – you know– could fail to understand where he was coming from, who he was attacking, and why he repeatedly used the “r-word.”

LIMBAUGH: [Emanuel] was getting mad at them about health care.  The liberal activists kept blaming the White House for all this health care debacle not happening and not getting done.  Emanuel’s getting ticked off out there saying, (paraphrasing) “What are you blaming us for?  We didn’t do anything about it, you F-ing retards.” I think the big news is the crack-up going on. But our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are “retards,” “retards.”  I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks.  They are Looney Tunes.  I’m not going to apologize for it.  I’m just quoting Emanuel.  It’s in the news. I think the big news is thathe’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters “F-ing retards.”

So now there’s going to be a meeting, there’s going to be a “Retard” Summit at the White House, much like the Beer Summit between Obama and Gates and that cop in Cambridge.

If you want to look at how this is broken down, Emanuel compares Democrat activists to retarded people, then apologizes to retarded people.  Not to the Democrats.

Normally if you call somebody a retard, you apologize to them for calling them a retard.  But he has apologized to the retarded people for daring to lump them with Democrats.  It’s hilarious.

Classic Rush.  Perfectly tuned satire that makes liberals gag on their own words.

Sarah Palin, that unsophisticated, illiterate rube from tiny backward Wasilla, Alaska got it—people in Rio Linda probably got it.  Olbermann and Wolffe?  Over their heads.

Olbermann, by the way, has done this before, playing Rush’s deliberate smack at Harry Reid’s “light skinned” and “Negro dialect” comments out of context, pretending they were merely racist cracks.  (Story on Monday’s Countdown: “David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog calls Sarah Palin an ‘unsophisticated, illiterate rube!!!’”)

In the wake of Olbermann’s infamous Scott Brown outbursts, and the revelation that his ratings have dropped 44% in a year , analysts are suggesting that people are tired of the hatred and constant insults against everyone who disagrees with Keith—which would be about 80% of the political landscape.  This theory has merit, but I would like to suggest another reason for the ratings plunge.

The AUDIENCE is tired of being insulted.

The doctrine that only whites can be racist is, in fact, itself an instigation to hate crimes. It is a doctrine that has already spread to the secondary schools. The week after the Shepard killing, a Seattle father called a national radio talk show on which I was a guest, and told the audience that his son’s class in junior high school had been discussing the hate crime concept because of the killing. During the discussion, the teacher informed the class that only heterosexual whites could be racists. The caller’s son was unconvinced and brought up the savage beating of Reginald Denny during the Los Angeles riots by a group of black gang members. Surely, he suggested, this was a hate-crime. But his teacher corrected him. Even though Denny was pulled from his truck solely because he was white, and then beaten within an inch of his life, he could not be the victim of racial attitudes. The attempted murder of Reginald Denny was actually an act of rebellion by people who were themselves the victims of a white racist system, and the act they committed, therefore, could not be considered a hate crime. This is the perspective of academics who teach “whiteness studies,” of law professors who teach “critical race studies,” and no doubt of education professors busily transmitting the progressive world view to the next generation of high school instructors.

– Hating Whitey

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then click here to submit. Please include: “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.) Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Nonie Darwish, the co-founder of FormerMuslimsUnited.com and the author of Cruel and Usual Punishment.

FP: Nonie Darwish, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Today I would like to discuss with you the photos we are exhibiting below of Cairo University graduates over the course of this era. There are the 1959 and 1978 photos compared to the 1995 and 2004 photos.

These pictures tell quite a story. Radical Islam has taken over even the minds of educated women in the Muslim world.

Since you’re from Egypt, I would like to get your take on this phenomenon. What’s going on here? One would think that people yearn for freedom rather than enslavement, but I guess life experience and human history tells us otherwise – when it comes to certain cultures. Being from Russia, I’m not too surprised with many Russians’ adoration of a thug despot like Putin and even their pining for Joseph Stalin.

Let’s first show these pics and then you share your thoughts on them.

1959:

1978:

1995:

2004:

Darwish: These photos represent the gradual but steady Islamic radicalization invading the Middle East and the rest of the world in the last three decades. I lived in Egypt until the year 1978 and have never wore a head cover, neither did my mother or grandmother. And this is thanks to a feminist movement that started in Cairo in 1919 under the leadership of the famous Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi.

Shaarawi had attended women’s conferences in Europe and Turkey, which was undergoing major reforms by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who wanted to be more like Europe and less like Muslim Arabia. Upon her return from a trip to Rome in 1923, Shaarawi performed a bold act that became the central symbol of her life: with the support of several upper class Egyptian women, she removed her veil in public, at the crowded Cairo train station.  If such an act of defiance had happened today in Iran or even Egypt, she would be executed by the Iranian government and, as to Egypt, she could be killed by an Islamist on the street for defying or insulting Islam.

FP: What were the circumstances at that time that allowed Hoda Shaarawi to engage in this act of freedom of conscience?

Darwish: The reason she was not killed then but actually protected, and was able to start a reform movement in Egypt, was due to many reasons. First and most important was the existence of the British in the area. They helped protected the peace, minorities and equal rights. Second, the Egyptian king was moderate and wanted to bring modernity to Egypt.  Third, this was the pre-petrodollar era of wealth in Saudi Arabia which was still weak and poor. Fourth, the Muslim Brotherhood was not yet in existence.

FP: How and why have things changed?

Darwish: Things started drastically changing after the Egyptian 1952 coup which ousted King Farouk and the British. Even though that coup appeared secular, none of the rebel ‘free officers’ were Christian Egyptians and almost all were members of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, the impact of the Muslim Brotherhood was delayed for a decade after the revolution when they attempted to assassinate Nasser who killed and imprisoned many members of its members. After Nasser died, the Muslim Brotherhood was empowered and with it the status of women. That coincided with Saudi petrodollars and the Iranian revolution, both of which brought power of Islamists to the whole area.

FP: Talk about these photos.

Darwish: The first 1959 photo reflects the influence of the Sharaawi feminist movement which existed until the death of Nasser. However, I must stress that the Egyptian feminist movement which started in 1919 and ended in the late 70’s, and which freed Egyptian women from the hijab, was more cosmetic than true Western-style liberation. Women still had to abide by Sharia law when it came to marriage and family matters and the culture still practiced segregation of the sexes and honor killing.

FP: So why did many of Egypt’s women, and educated women, become more radicalized and turn to the veil?

Darwish: As we see in the photos, the change was gradual, from 1959 of no head covers at all, to 2004 where almost all women, even some young girls, are wearing head covers. It must be noted that the Egyptian government, unlike Iran, does not force the head cover on women.  Religious and social pressure on Egyptian women was the cause for the change. Feminists such as Shaarawi are now threatened and accused of apostasy, forcing the Egyptian feminist Nawal El Saadawi to leave the country. And now we see that some of the harshest critics of Muslim women reformists and human rights activists are none other than Muslim women.

The Muslim woman’s attire is the first thing noticeable in any Muslim country and is dictated by Islamic law. Some devout Muslim women chose to carry the torch of Islam by wearing the burqa on their own and exhibit their piety and devotion to their faith. Those were the ones who were rewarded and respected by society. The rest were left in a quagmire, either choose to be viewed as devout Muslims or as outcast rebel apostates. The majority chose the former since perception and image is extremely important in Muslim society where the uncovered head can be regarded as a defiant image of rebelliousness. After some acts of violence on the street against uncovered women, even some Christian girls found it safer to cover their heads so they were not noticed. How can feminism be practiced openly let alone survive under such conditions?

FP: What does the future hold?

Darwish: Muslim women in the Middle East have never developed a relationship of solidarity and support for their rights and freedoms. To the contrary, they often have hostile relationships where women often report other women when they violate social and religious taboos. Most have developed a holier than thou attitude towards other women. In such an atmosphere many found that if they want respect and even financial rewards, then they must be as radical, if not more radical then men. Some women do not even talk or communicate with women who are uncovered. This happened to me personally when I visited Egypt in 2001 and was wearing a conservative one piece bathing suit on the beach and a couple of covered up women in a group I was with would not talk to me.

In the beginning of our interview you asked why educated Egyptian women choose going back to the old days of the repression of the Burqa. The reasons are many and complex. Muslim women were left with two choices; to be in a constant struggle against Islamization and merciless rejection by society or if you can’t beat them, then join them. Another reason is nationalism, Arab pride and rejection of Western influence. Arab nationalism and pride came at the same time with the sudden wealth from petro-dollars which empowered radial Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Muslim countries have an obsession against free democracies that are prosperous and give women equal rights. Muslim leaders are having a hard time convincing their citizens that the Muslim system is better than Western democracies and thus the media and preaching is consumed with hate propaganda against the West, telling the West we reject your culture, the way you dress etc. I actually remember mosque sermons telling us how Western civilization is corrupt, satanic and we should not befriend them or imitate them in any way shape or form.

The return of the Burqa movement has also migrated to the West. When I moved to the US in 1978 I visited some Muslim girlfriends at UCLA and none of them wore the head cover. Many Muslims who moved to the States in the same year with me never wore the head cover back in Egypt. However, I have seen some of these immigrants a decade later with full Islamic attire. Even on US college campuses the movement is the same, Muslim students are proud to wear their Islamic outfit and refuse to assimilate. The trend is everywhere, just like in the Egyptian photos.

FP: So then what is the future of true women’s rights under Islam?

Darwish: Many believe that Islam’s treatment of women is on its way to being reformed and that it is just a matter of time until Muslim women will wise up, figure what must be done, stand together in unity and march for their equality and human rights. That happened to women in the West, so why not to Muslim women in the Middle East?

There is a major difference: in the West, Christianity did not come with thousands of pages of Jesus’s laws regulating every detail in a Christian’s life to control every Christian. Jesus did not call women deficient in intelligence and lacking in religion or that they are toys, slaves in a marriage. Very simply Western feminists were not confronted with the many dead ends that the Muslim feminist is confronting.

Many also believe that the reformation of Sharia and Islam itself will come from its most oppressed group: women. I disagree with that view, partially because the woman is largely the object of extreme regulation in Sharia (Allah’s law).

Expecting Muslim women to be behind the reformation of Islam and Sharia, is like asking slaves to end their own slavery without their masters’ approval or asking prisoners to get out of prison without the guards opening the doors. That is the reason Muslim Feminism has not succeeded in getting the majority of Muslim women on board. A Muslim woman’s inferior status in Muslim society has gone too deep and has become institutionalized. Muslim societies, cultures and institutions are dependent on it. For Muslim women to simply revolt against Islamic gender apartheid will be regarded as anti-man, anti-family, anti-religion, anti-government and worst of all, anti-Allah himself.

FP: Nonie Darwish, thank you for joining us. And again, thank you for being the brave freedom fighter that you are.

And I encourage all our readers to get their hands on Nonie Darwish’s book Cruel and Usual Punishment.

Times Magazine’s Joe Klein is at it again.  A few months ago he accused the Fox News network of sedition, while also insulting its viewers as too dumb to understand the “truth.” Appearing as a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor” last night, Klein tried to temper his overall criticism of Fox News but launched a vicious personal attack on Glenn Beck.  Klein did everything but call Beck the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.

I wonder how many times Joe Klein has actually watched Beck’s show.  Did he see Beck’s well-sourced documentary on communism and fascism that contained clips of the real hatemongers in their own words and deeds?  Did Klein have a single fact to refute Beck’s criticisms of Obama’s lies in the State of the Union address, the run-away deficits, Obama’s left-wing czar appointments, the shady, back-room health care deals, etc. etc.?  No – Klein’s only rebuttal is to dismiss the messenger as a hatemonger.

Shame on Bill O’Reilly for his lame defense of Beck. O’Reilly likens him to the average guy venting his opinions and mocks his blackboards.  O’Reilly is not too happy that Beck is the second most popular TV personality according to one poll.  But O’Reilly did redeem himself somewhat at the end of the interview by quipping that it would take three hours to list all of his criticisms of Time Magazine.

Joe Klein – with whom I share the same name but, fortunately, little else – should get off of his high horse and stop talking down to the American people.  We get what is going on in Washington, and the truth is much closer to what Beck is saying than what Klein and his co-elitists in the mainstream media are telling us.

It’s sometimes tempting to think that, with all the petty and stupid attacks against conservatives out there, we have to have seen it all.  But if there’s one lesson you should take to heart about the Left, it’s this: Never say never.  It can always get worse.

Today’s example is a recent post by True/Slant’s Austin Considine, who complains that Sean Hannity, while discussing last night’s State of the Union Address, had the idiotic, inexcusable, unmitigated gall to…refer to Governor Sarah Palin as, um, “Governor.”

Let’s get something straight. That’s to say, let’s underscore the obvious: Sarah Palin is not a governor. She’s not even a “governor” in ironi-quotes, which is what one might have called her during and after the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, she doesn’t hold any form of public office whatsoever. The governorship she used to have was  abandoned before she finished her term. Experts are still deciphering her Twitter tweets to figure out exactly why she left.

You had to feel sorry for the next guest, Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who is actually a really real governor and commanded much less respect from Hannity, who couldn’t refrain from interrupting him every 30 seconds.

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no shame, Mr. Hannity?  I can’t bear to watch any more…

I understand full well the standard etiquette with addressing former high office holders. I know that former presidents are still called “Mr. President.” I know it’s common to do the same for former governors.

It doesn’t change the fact that when Palin abandoned her office — an office she was trusted by the people of Alaska to serve to completion — she lost a lot of respect in my book. To have abandoned her post after two and-a-half years in favor of ultimately becoming an author and a paid talking head for Fox News is deplorable.

Really?  The fact that a talk show host is too cordial to a guest by referring to her with a title she once held?  That’s important enough to hit “publish” on?

We can debate the wisdom of Governor Palin’s decision to step down from the Alaska governorship (personally, I’m not convinced it was the wisest move, or that she’d be a great presidential candidate), but there’s no great mystery as to why she did it: she felt a governor constantly plagued by frivolous ethics complaints rather than doing the people’s business was not in the Alaskan taxpayers’ best interests, and she could be of more use to the country in other ways while the next governor pursued the same agenda she would have pursued anyway.  And, given Governor Palin’s role in the ObamaCare battle, she might have been right.

Considine’s insistence that “it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with her politics” seems to be undermined by his complaints that Hannity and Governor Palin “are almost unbearable,” or his lamentation that she just wouldn’t “seem to go the hell away”—before she stepped down as governor.

Just for fun, I also dug up the aforementioned segment where Hannity supposedly won’t let poor Ed Rendell get a word in edgewise:

I’ll be the first to agree that Hannity regularly fields softballs to fellow conservatives, but I sure don’t see any disrespect towards Rendell here—just a lively exchange between two committed ideologues (Rendell himself credits Hannity for being “a fair guy”).

With the American people increasingly identifying themselves as conservatives and once-safe blue seats becoming increasingly vulnerable (even, we learned today, my home state’s Sen. Russ Feingold), liberals are going to have to do better than this if they want to improve their odds.  This job is almost getting too easy.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Related posts:

1. Why is Sean Hannity the “Worst Person in the World”? Prepare to Be Underwhelmed
2. Sean Hannity, Miss California, & the Dangers of Hero Worship
3. Dennis Prager Would Vote for Palin? It's Almost Like He's a Conservative or Something

Perhaps there’s some hope after all for America after the national suicide attempt in November 2008 that led to the election of the disastrous radical leftist Barack Obama as president.

By electing Republican Scott Brown as the 41st Senate vote against ObamaCare, voters in Massachusetts –of all places– have an opportunity on Tuesday to turn back the Democrats‘ aggressively socialist juggernaut that is destroying America as we know it.

When perennially risk-averse political prognosticators like Charlie Cook say that Republicans could grab the seat in the longtime liberal stronghold of Massachusetts, you know something serious is happening.

“The Democrats are in full freak-out mode now,” Michelle Malkin told guest host Eric Bolling on the “Glenn Beck Program” Friday. Said Malkin

I think that there’s something exquisitely poetic about this taking place in Massachusetts. After years worth of the burgeoning tea party movement, for it to happen in the home where the shot was heard around the world, this is an entirely new shot heard around the world. The fact is that — I mean, there are conservatives across the country who’ve united behind this candidate who promises to be the 41st vote to stop this Dem-care take over and to really send a huge message against the bribes, the payoffs, the backroom deals, the Chicago way on the Potomac.

Could Massachusetts become the birthplace of a new revolution, just as it gave birth to the first revolution? We’ll see.

Then there’s always the possibility of massive electoral fraud by ACORN. Note that ACORN national president Maude Hurd herself resides in Dorchester, Mass., and ACORN is actively involved in the get out the vote effort in the Bay State.

Related posts:

1. Vote Fraud Criminal Darnell Nash Should Be ACORN's Poster Boy
2. FOX: Congressional Committee Accuses ACORN of Massive Fraud, Racketeering
3. Leftist Lawmaker Nadler Aligned With ACORN Still Defending ACORN

Ibrahim Hooper, or "Honest Ibe" as we affectionately call him here, is caught redhanded in the above surreptitiously filmed video boasting about getting money for CAIR from the Saudis -- although he has publicly denied that CAIR gets any Saudi money at all.

And as for Fox, I have long wondered the same thing.

"Why does Fox News promote terror-tied, FBI-shunned group?," from WND, January 11 (thanks to Doug):

Long a reliably patriotic media source in the war on terror, Fox News may now be among news outlets who have fallen under the spell of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' propaganda machine.

"We own the media," CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper privately brags, according to a source currently working inside the aggressive Islamist lobby group.

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly last week invited the TV-savvy Hooper on his show to debate passenger profiling, the second guest appearance by the CAIR spokesman in a month. At the end of the segment, O'Reilly thanked Hooper and called him a "stand-up guy," sending shockwaves through the conservative blogosphere.

CAIR is no ordinary guest. The government has blacklisted it as an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator, and the group remains under criminal suspicion by the FBI, which has cut off outreach ties to it.

Congress and the IRS also are investigating CAIR, which has had no fewer than 15 executives and board members convicted or implicated in terror probes, including its founding chairman.

In addition, CAIR's very existence as a legitimate corporation has been challenged in a lawsuit in federal court.

Given CAIR's proven ties to terrorism - which O'Reilly failed to mention - why would Fox offer the group's top executives a virtually uncritical forum on prime-time cable TV? Saudi Arabian money may be a factor.

It turns out that the same billionaire Saudi prince who owns a major stake in Fox's parent company also bankrolls Washington-based CAIR. And sensitive State Department records reveal Hooper - despite his repeated public denials - has personally solicited cash from the prince and other members of the ruling Saudi royal family during recent trips to the kingdom.

The common financial bond between Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal and Fox, and between bin Talal and CAIR, raises questions not only about Fox News's independence, but about the truthfulness of CAIR's top spokesman.

Hooper repeatedly has denied that CAIR receives foreign support, insisting it's a "grass-roots" nonprofit organization. In CAIR press releases, Hooper has stated unequivocally: "We do not support directly or indirectly or receive support from any overseas group or government."

However, smoking-gun video footage obtained during a recent six-month covert investigation of CAIR puts the lie to Hooper's claims.

In a private conversation with undercover researcher Chris Gaubatz, who was posing at the time as a CAIR intern, Hooper boasted that he personally can "bring (in) a half million of overseas money" a year, adding: "If some guy's got a lot of extra money in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), I don't mind taking it." Hooper made the remarks Aug. 30, 2008, during the Islamic Society of North America's 2008 annual convention in Columbus, Ohio.

A State Department cable citing Hooper by name, moreover, directly contradicts Hooper's denials about foreign support, according to the blockbuster book "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," which exposes the secret inner workings of CAIR, among other radical Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America. (The book is based, in part, on voluminous documentary and videotaped evidence gathered by Gaubatz during his internship.)...

Read it all.

The Al Qaeda plot to murder three hundred innocent Americans thrust the privacy rights vs. national security debate into the public forum once again. This became personal when I was awakened in the middle of the night by the host of Coast-to-Coast AM. My husband had left his radio on and I was wrest from sleep by Mr. George Noory discussing the latest evidence of “the Shadow Government.”

I know consumers of political gourmet are not likely to frequent the paranormal buffet table that is Coast-to-Coast, the largest night-time syndicated show with over five hundred stations and millions of listeners. When Art Bell was host, one heard of aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts and exorcists, along with serious interviews of physicists, computer scientists, geologists and astronomers. I admit that, following a long day with toddlers, I looked forward to chaos theory and the odd mad scientist explaining the finer points of time travel.

George Noory, Mr. Bell’s successor, has replaced the edgy science element with left-leaning, anti-establishment alarmists. Following 9-11, Art Bell instantly silenced conspiracists trying to peddle their wares. Mr. Noory welcomes 9-11 “Truthers,” including the noxious and obnoxious Alex Jones.

Speaking with guest Katherine Albrecht, Noory addressed full-body scans as a counter-terrorism measure. Albrecht’s expertise is avoiding being tracked on the Internet, so the question of intrusive government is right up her ally. Following Albrecht’s insistence that the scanners violate personal privacy, Noory expressed doubt concerning Terrorism:

“We know that if there is terrorism, it is because of the perception of our actions in the world. And, I believe that, if there isn’t terrorism, really, then the Shadow Government would give the impression that there is, so they can increase the fear and the things that can ask us to do, for our security.”

David Horowitz states that the leftist world view considers America to be immune from any true threat. Animosity is of our own foreign policy making. For George Noory, terror in the skies is likely to be a “Shadow Government” fabrication facilitating the implementation of measures of control by the New World Order.

Readers might suggest that I not lose any sleep over Mr. Noory, an entertainer telling ghost stories and interviewing wizards, who appears dismissible and harmless. A quick perusal of his frequent guest list reveals that a full twenty percent claim to be inside experts in finance and banking.

While most people sleep, Coast to Coast pumps the stuff of which the “Global Banking Conspiracy Theory” is made of to an audience that is partially made up of individuals needing more conspiracy confirmation like Michelle Obama needs another $6,000 purse.

The History Channel’s special on the 9-11 (oh, I really do hate calling them this) “Truthers,” concludes with this assessment of the danger of factually bereft conspiracy theories:

“We see that those who embrace the theories are so emotionally invested in these ideas because it isn’t really about the facts, but about the people’s identities themselves. The ideas are truly corrosive.”

Mr. Noory’s playing host to the lie that Islamic Terror is an illusion manufactured by the real enemy, a Shadow Government seeking to control our lives, is corrosive. It trivializes the threat from an enemy who inflicts tangible, catastrophic harm. It weakens unified resolve to use necessary force to eradicate politicized Islam and it poisons the genuine love we ought to have for our Country by broadcasting a festering cynicism about our way of life and American defense of freedom in a compromised world.

Related posts:

1. Bookworm Comments on Conspiracies
2. Why Hasan Is An Islamic Terrorist
3. Obama Unable to Utter Two Simple Words – Islamic Terrorism

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer, a controversial strategist and world traveler, and the author of 25 books, including the recent bestselling thriller, The War After Armageddon, and the forthcoming Endless War (March, 2010), which examines the history–and future–of conflict between Islam and the West.  An opinion columnist for the New York Post and popular media commentator, he became Fox News Network’s first Strategic Analyst in 2009.

FP: Ralph Peters, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Peters: Great to reconnect with you, Jamie.

FP: What are your thoughts regarding the recent botched terrorist attack on Christmas Day on Flight 253?

Peters: Well, I have to separate my thoughts and my feelings.  First, the feelings: Outrage.  Not so much at the bomber, who was just fulfilling his duty to commit jihad against Christians on their most important holiday (with any dead Jews as a bonus), but at the stunning lack of interest or concern on the part of our partying president and his paladins.  Hey, why interrupt your holiday just because an Islamist terrorist (well, they don’t exist, right?) tried to kill 300 innocents and almost pulled it off?  And, of course, we were all instantly reassured when Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (whose real interest seems to be harassing law-abiding citizens at airports, while preparing to push through citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants) told us that the system worked.  I mean, God help us, you and I don’t live in the same universe as our “leaders.”

On the thoughts side: President Obama, sooner or later, has to take responsibility for something.  His call for yet another review in the wake of the failed attack had the primary purpose of deflecting blame from the administration.  Well, the military maxim applies: A leader is responsible for everything his subordinates do, or fail to do.  All his adult life, Obama wanted to be president.  Now it’s time for him to actually be a president.  That means taking responsibility.

FP: How much confidence, exactly, do you have in this administration providing safety to Americans against our enemies?

Peters: Unfortunately, I have no faith–none–in the administration’s seriousness, when it comes to protecting Americans.  A president who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that every next terrorist is just an “isolated extremist” with no connection to Islam isn’t interested in solving the problem.

FP: How about our intelligence system in this case?

Peters: It failed.  But, to be fair, many things that seem obvious in retrospect weren’t necessarily obvious in advance.  Our intelligence system has two pertinent problems (among many others): It’s dealing with a literally unmanageable volume of data, and (according to my friends still inside the system), the post 9-11 “reforms,” such as creating a Director of National Intelligence and the National Counter Terrorism Center, simply created additional layers of bureaucracy.  We’re fighting a lean, mean, fast, ruthless enemy.  Our response?  Bring more of yesterday’s senior officials out of retirement and hire more lawyers.  Maybe we should just sue al Qaeda and see how splendidly our civilian-justice approach to terror works.

FP: Your view of Janet Napolitano? Why is she still heading Homeland Security?

Peters: I’d rather not view Janet Napolitano at all.  This woman is so far out of her depth that it can’t be measured with Newtonian metrics.  She was a politically correct appointment, period.  On the positive side, word is that she’ll be gone in the next few months–Obama’s too vain to fire her right now, while the administration’s under fire over the Christmas terror attempt, but he realizes what a political liability she’s become.

There’s another, unfortunate, side to this.  When representing our country, especially on security matters, appearance and physical presence matter.  It would be great if that were not so, but facts are facts.  Even if Napolitano were a security genius, she doesn’t project a forceful, capable image to our deadly enemies (or to our allies).  Again, every one of Obama’s cabinet-level appointments has been about domestic politics, not about their effectiveness on the world stage.

Well, at least he can’t blame Bush for Napolitano.

FP: Your perspective on how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going? What strategies that are in effect are wrong? What strategies would be more effective?

Peters: Strategy?  We still don’t have a strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan.  We just have a collection of disjointed techniques we’re desperately trying to apply, hoping something, anything, will work.  A troop surge is a tool, not a strategy.  And you can’t nation-build where there’s no nation to build.  I’m disheartened.  American soldiers and Marines are dying and being maimed for fairy-tale counterinsurgency strategies that insist that digging wells for illiterate Afghans will deter al Qaeda’s Arab fanatics from killing Americans.  The only wise and effective thing we’re doing is applying UAVs (drones) and our special operations forces to the indispensable task of killing terrorists.

I’ve never been threatened by a dead terrorist.  And when a terrorist believes he’s on a mission from his god to kill you, killing him is the only plausible response.

As I’ve written recently, what little analysis of the Afghan problem we do obsesses on our continuing failures.  But the real question, which we refuse to ask, is “Why are the Taliban successful?”  And, of course, we go on pretending that Islam has nothing to do with anything.  Political correctness is killing our troops, defeating us, and facilitating terror around the world.

FP: Potential threats in 2010?  Where have we taken our eye off the ball?

Peters: Good Lord, where do you start?  The usual suspects will still be with us: Iran, al Qaeda, Chinese subversion of our economy (brought to you by WalMart, among others, thanks), piracy, Hugo Chavez’s apparent determination to precipitate a border war with Colombia, the Kirchner regime’s attempt to hobble democracy in Argentina, Islamist aggression in Nigeria (which is intensifying again), and, above all, Mexico–where the narco-insurgency constitutes the real number-one threat to the welfare of our citizen.  It bewilders me that we’re obsessed with “saving” Afghanistan, a worthless piece of dirt in the middle of nowhere, when the crucial struggle is right on (and crossing) our southern border.  Mexico is the most important country in the world to us–for better and worse–and we treat it as problem number 47.

Where have we taken our eye off the ball?  Please, tell me where the Obama administration has an eye on any foreign-policy or security balls.  This ultra-left administration isn’t concerned with security (except to the extent that it impacts on politics), but with a hard-left, destructive and divisive vision of “social justice.”  Which means, of course, punish productive citizens to reward the Lumpenproletariat.  We’re a greater threat to ourselves, in the long run, than al-Qaeda is to us.

FP: Ralph Peters thank you for joining us. It was an honor to speak with you.

I would like to announce to our readers that Mr. Peters will be speaking at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club:

Tuesday, January 12, 2009.
Four Seasons
300 S. Doheny Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
11:30 a.m. Reception
12:00 p.m. Luncheon
1:30 p.m. Book Signing
Registration: $75.00

To make reservations, please contact Stephanie Knudson at (818) 849-3470 ext. 209 or email at stephanie@horowitzfreedomcenter.org.

Excerpt from the Danny Glover profile:

Glover supports Not In Our Name, the Revolutionary Communist Party movement which “pledges resistance to [America's] endless war, detentions and roundups, [and] attacks on civil liberties.”

Glover is a strong backer of the socialist magazine Monthly Review, which he says “challenges us to think, inspires us to action, and makes us realize that the impossible is only difficult, not insurmountable.”

On several occasions, Glover has visited Venezuela and made guest appearances on PresidentHugo Chavez‘s television and radio talk show, Hello, President. Glover is a Board member of Venezuela’s “TeleSUR” news network, which Chavez created in 2005….

To view the full Danny Glover profile, click here.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a columnist for National Review and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

First things first, let me ask you this.

If our government was serious about fighting Islamic terrorism and saving lives, wouldn’t Abdul Mutallab be getting water-boarded just about now?

We know that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which included waterboarding – forced KSM to give up crucial information that ended up preventing countless terrorist attacks and saving an infinite amount of innocent lives. It allowed, for instance, the U.S. to capture key al- Qaeda terrorists and to thwart a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

But now, thanks to the Obama administration and its approach to the terror war, Abdul Mutallab will probably be getting a lawyer and not have to say anything. This, naturally, drastically increases, rather than minimizes, the possibilities of a future terror attack on our soil and against our citizens.

Your thoughts?

Hanson: I don’t think right now the question is over interrogation techniques, but rather not giving this foreign national would-be mass murderer full rights, as if he were a common criminal rather than a non-uniformed soldier at war.

Mutallab apparently, has been happy to tell all he knows without even being interrogated formally, which makes the entire foiled attack even more absurd: a Nigerian radical Muslim buys with cash a one-way ticket, carries no check-in luggage, was previously reported by his own father as a threat to America, and boards a plane to America after previous stays in Yemen?

Before we even get to questions of interrogation, how about first some sanity? And in reaction to all this, Secretary Napolitano nonchalantly talks about the system working like “clockwork”? I think very soon we will hear of no more “overseas contingency operations” and “man-made disasters”—and no more Janet Napolitano as head of our homeland security.

And when the next official struts and says “Bush did it”, the public will sigh “Thank God, he did”, since in comparison with the seriousness with which the prior administration dealt with terrorism, the Obama team seems to consider radical Islam an interesting catalyst for a civil liberties debate. “Reset” button probably won’t be used any more either—the phrase is too ironic now, and would mean going back to our anti-terrorism policies from 2001-9, which are preferable to the present mess. In political terms, one cannot ask millions of Americans to take off their belts and shoes, and then not put someone like Mutallab on a no-fly list.

FP: The fate of Gitmo?

Hanson: With over 100 Yemenis in Guantanamo, I doubt the facility will be closed; perhaps it will be virtually closed like the Iranian deadlines to stop building a bomb, or the health-care deadlines. I doubt too that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is ever tried in New York; that partisan gambit will be quietly Guatanamoized.

The present Obama diffidence—trash the Bush anti-terrorism protocols, bow, and apologize abroad, contextualize the US in the Al Arabiya interview and Cairo speech, promise to try KSM in New York, shut down Guantanamo—does not quite work in the context of a new series of human IEDs being unleashed against the US. Surely there are one or two astute advisors who will take the President aside and quietly say, “Your present rhetoric and policy are nuts! And you will destroy the Democratic Party for 30 years if you continue!”

FP: Abdul Mutallab doesn’t seem to come from the ranks of the poor, the oppressed and the downtrodden. What does this do to the Left’s belief that the devil made them do it when it comes to our enemies?

Hanson: Well that debate was over long ago, when we learned of the past profiles of the 9/11 killers, the West Bank suicide monsters, and many of the human bombs who went off in Iraq.

The angriest at the West are those with enough money, and education to have developed a full sense of inferiority, self-disappointment, envy, and jealousy. A Major Hasan or Mutallab or Atta inside the West sees the prosperity, liberality, informality, and success around him, begins to figure that no such thing exists in the world of the Middle East and Islamic world, and, presto, believes America and the Jews ensured that there is no resurgent majestic caliphate. We excite the appetites in these characters faster than radical Islam can repress them. That we too often apologize and convey a sense of shame about our own culture only emboldens these killers in their fantasies.

Every bit as important as our military response and vigilance, is our moral tone, which should be along the following lines: “Dear radical Muslims, you, not us, created your present misery through religious intolerance, gender apartheid, statism, corruption, tribalism, anti-scientific fundamentalism, and autocracy, and we have neither regrets about our own success nor responsibilities for your own self-induced miseries, unfortunate as they are.” Until they get that message, we will have the sort of image conveyed by Obama in Cairo and his Al Arabiya interviews: pleasing to the world, but a signal to those who despise the US that we really do not believe in our own exceptional history and institutions.

FP: You mentioned Napolitano, her moronic statements, and how she might not be around much longer. What’s the psychology here of this administration and its overall dance with denial?

Hanson: They seem very naive and inexperienced, almost as if to say: “This is not supposed to be happening to me; I was elected to undo George Bush’s anti-constitutional, so-called war against terror, not actually fight real life terrorists.” In this administration everything is “isolated” and “allegedly”, unless you’re the Cambridge police, and then we really can snap to instantaneous judgement.

Again, I think the Obama administration felt that it would prance in, and end the bad war in Iraq, finish off the good war in Afghanistan, and dismantle the unnecessary Bush crusade against mythical dragons. Instead, they learned that Iraq was essentially won by Bush, Afghanistan is heating up, and there are thousands of al Qaeda terrorists who hate us for who we are, and don’t give a damn that our President’s middle name is Hussein. We are no longer dealing here with college deans and TV pundits who are wowed by split-the-difference, hope-and-change soaring rhetoric.

FP: Two of the four leaders behind the Northwest Airlines passenger jet appear now to have been released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007. Significance?

Hanson: It reminds us of what happens when the Bush administration caved to the popular slur that Guantanamo was a veritable Gulag, and also reminds us that those in Guantanamo were there for a reason.

We have this la-la land fantasy that there are perfectly good and bad choices. But there are no such things. We are targeted by premodern killers, out of uniform, who are keen students of Western doubt and guilt. And in dealing with them, there are no easy solutions, as is always true when the postmodern meets the premodern.

Guantanamo was a bad solution amid far worse alternatives. Candidate Obama demogogued the issue, as he did tribunals, renditions, and the Patriot Act, and now, invested with responsibility rather than mere rhetoric, can’t close it when he promised. ‘Guantanamoize’ is a good verb for incessant rhetorical deadlines that are never met. Ask Ahmadinejad.

FP: Concluding thoughts? What most worries you about the threat we face and the people who are supposedly overseeing our protection?

Hanson: Our well intentioned leaders see radical Islam more as an alternative world view that has grievances, rather than a sick, perverted Nazi-like creed that wants to take the world back to a 7th century theocracy, where freedom is denied, heretics and gays stoned, and women relegated to servile status–all overseen by rather creepy autocrats that destroy almost any modern institution they encounter.

Too often Obama, Biden, Holder, Napolitano, etc. see terrorists in terms of domestic criminals, not as enemy combatants. But once one wades into that legalistic mess of war being a judicial circus, nothing good comes from it: is it a supposed sin to water-board the confessed architect of 9/11 to find out about future mass murdering, but OK in legal terms to be district attorney, judge, jury, and executioner in a nanno-second when sending Predator drone hellfire missiles into the mud-brick compounds of suspect terrorists and their families in Waziristan?

We are in a race between sober people around Obama trying to apprise him of the danger, and his natural Carter-like take on America’s partial culpability for world tensions. Let us hope that the serious people win.

FP: Victor Davis Hanson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has just been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books.

FP: Andrew C. McCarthy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Your thoughts on how the Obama administration is handling Abdul Mutallab in comparison to how it handled Hasan? The embarrassing and leaving-us-open-to-terror saga continues? Napolitano, as we know, emerged with some moronic statements. Your thoughts?

McCarthy: Jamie, thanks for having me.  It’s a pleasure.

It would be nice if the government spent half as much energy focusing on what actually catalyzes jihadist terror as it does denying that there is terrorism.  This problem is not unique to Obama officials, but this administration is raising willful blindness to a new level.

Basically, unless they catch a guy wearing an al Qaeda t-shirt, their default position is that everyone is a lone-wolf with no connection to any larger enterprise — and God forbid that we should ask exactly what it is that somehow inspires all these lone-wolves to attack Americans.

In my book, I describe how, right after Sayyid Nosair murdered Meir Kahane in 1990, the first impulse of the NYPD’s chief of detectives was to portray him as a lone, crazed lunatic who was certainly not part of a broader conspiracy and whose religious beliefs were irrelevant — and, as their public statements at the time demonstrate, the FBI went right along publicly with that theory.

Of course it was idiotic for Napolitano to say Hasan’s was not an act of terrorism and that there are no indications Mutallab is part of a larger terrorist conspiracy. Already, evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, on both scores.  But this is the same error we’ve been making for 20 years. We don’t want to come to grips with the fact that something we can’t control — something we can only fight or surrender to — is causing Muslims to terrorize us.  So we pretend the something and the terrorism don’t exist.

FP: It appears that former Gitmo detainees released in 2007 may be behind this latest terror effort. The significance?

McCarthy: Well, we plainly should not have been releasing jihadist detainees all along, and this obsession to shutter Gitmo is sheer madness. Common sense says that, if even the Obama administration realizes it would be problematic to release the last 200 of them, these remnants must be a very serious national security threat.  And yet, less than two weeks ago, we shipped another half-dozen back to Yemen — as a harbinger for what the administration hoped would be the return of dozens more (Yemenis account for about 90 of the remaining 198 or so detainees).  That’s nuts.

The Yemeni government, while it periodically feigns friendship with the U.S., makes common cause with Qaeda jihadists — using them to help fight Shiite insurgents.  The government has a history of releasing and allowing the escape from custody of anti-American terrorists.  Sending them to Yemen — as well as to Afghanistan and Somaliland, as we’ve taken to doing — is like sending them right back to bin Laden.

The only thing possibly more absurd is the delusion that we can move them away from jihadism by sending them to a Wahhabist re-education course run by the Saudis, who have spent billions of dollars and half a century propagating the ideology that fuels Sunni terrorism.

FP: Why was Abdul Mutallab able to board Flight 253? What needs to be done to prevent such a person from boarding another flight? Is our administration capable of getting that done?

McCarthy: He was able to board the flight due to a series of small but mind-boggling failures which take place in the context of a huge conceptual blunder. For now, let me just address the small failures:

They include issuing him a multiple-entry visa without any investigation to speak of; allowing him to begin his trip in Nigeria — a notoriously weak link in airport security — and then connect in Amsterdam without significant, invasive search and inquiry; and, of couse, failing to make sure the information provided by Mutallab’s father to the State Department made its way through all the proper intelligence channels and ultimately the no-fly list.

In the post-9/11 reform craze, critics (myself included) argued that you don’t make security and communication better by creating additional bureaucracies (e.g., the National Intelligence Directorate) and moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic so government can appear to be doing something (e.g., the Department of Homeland Security).

To this day, we haven’t married up the various databases or even coordinated immigration tracking so we can monitor what aliens are in the country and whether they are actually engaged in the purpose for which they claimed to be coming here.  Addressing those rubber-meets-the-road tasks would be a far bigger advance for national security than growing government.

And no, I don’t think this administration has the inclination to get that done, far from it.

FP: What is the greatest failure on our side in all of this? What upsets and worries you most?

McCarthy: The much bigger problem is the failure to come to terms with the fact that we are being targeted by Islamic militants whose ideology — if not their methods — are shared by a broad mainstream of the world’s Muslims. Further, we lack the conviction and confidence that our way of life — the commitment to individual liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity — is superior and worth defending on that basis.

We should unapologetically take note of the fact that we are being targeted for mass-murder attacks by Muslim terrorists and for gradual extinction by Islamist theorists (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood’s Yusuf Qaradawi).  That should inform our foreign policy and our immigration policy.

Regimes such as the Saudi government that support the Muslim Brotherhood and its “voluntary apartheid” strategy for destroying the West are our enemies, not our allies.  And the Constitution is not a suicide pact:  it does not require us to permit entry into our country, or maintain within our country, aliens who are not committed to the principles that are the backbone of our way of life. If you’re an alien who thinks sharia should be the law of the United States, you’re entitled to that viewpoint, but you’re wrong and we don’t need to have you here.

There’s no “marketplace of ideas” justification for making the country a safe-haven and breeding ground for people who want to destroy it.

FP: Andrew C. McCarthy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Tom Trento, Director of the Florida Security Council.

FP: Tom Trento, welcome to Frontpage Interview. I want to talk to you today about the rally your group is coordinating for Dec 30.

But first, let me ask you this. Last year, on Dec 30, 2008, you videotaped a pro-Hamas demonstration in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In days, the You Tube video, went “viral,” around the world. What happened?

Trento: My video camera, not unlike a microscope in a laboratory, discovered a “virus” of such lethality, on the streets of Fort Lauderdale, that it makes the bubonic plague look like a runny nose.

The frightening problem is that we have no cure, for the infectious growth of the Arab Street here on the streets of America. Here is what happened:

On December 30, 2008, a protest was planned by HAMAS and Hezbollah supporters against the United States and Israel, because Israel was prosecuting the Gaza War, in an effort to stop the daily rocket attacks by the Palestinians. A counter demonstration, by Jews, Christians and secular Americans took place directly across from the HAMAS demonstration.

I decided to go across to the Palestinian side and videotape the Muslims, up close and personal. Boy, what a decision that turned out to be for the counter-jihad movement. I was in the middle of 300 of the most hateful, angry, venomous people I have ever been around, as they yelled insult after curse, after unimaginable comment at the Jews in particular.

When a Muslim women in full hajib, yelled with a distorted, somewhat demonic voice, “Jews go back in the oven,” I knew I had the making of a powerful story. Right after a call to prayer by the Imam, the hate-filled crowd got up and started marching, in a threatening manner toward 25 Jewish and Christian counter protestors, most of whom were elderly or young. But not for the brave Fort Lauderdale police, the Muslim crowd would have hurt many innocent people. Once I got home and saw all of this on my tape, I knew I had to get this unbelievable message out to America.

FP: How exactly did this short video change your life?

Trento: I finished the editing of the video around midnight and put it up on You Tube. Early next morning, over seven thousand people had watched the 10 minute revelation of the angry, Arab Street. Then, for many days, over 30,000 people a day people watched the video and the emails and phone calls starting coming in to my office. I received over 5000 personal comments and scores of calls from news agencies all over the world, who wanted to play various parts of the video. It has even been used in several documentaries about anti-Semitism, terrorism and the decline of America. Literally, millions of people worldwide have experienced, through the video, the emotions of being right there in the middle of this very dangerous gathering.

Less than one week after the Fort Lauderdale demonstration, I was at a similar rally in Miami and when I walked over to the Palestinian side – immediately, an angry group of six Muslim men came up to me in a threatening manner and started yelling at me, telling me that I made Muslims look bad in my video and that I better put my camera down. My response was simple, direct and forceful. I said get back, don’t start trouble, you are in America now and I’m going to take more pictures of whatever you do and say so get out of my way. Then I told them that I didn’t make them look bad, all I did was hold a camera and capture what they truly are, hateful Muslim men who want to destroy Israel, it’s really that simple.

Unlike in Fort Lauderdale, where the police held back the violence, over a dozen Muslims and one Jewish man were arrested as fight after fight broke out in Miami. The Arab Street lives. My video has underscored the valuable role that advocacy video can play in the education of America about the clash of the civilized West against the barbaric mentality of the venomous Arab Street. I am dedicated to producing more videos that take the fight to the bad guys.

FP: Tell us a bit more about the Arab Street and how active it is in America.

Trento: A simple definition for the concept, Arab Street, is “an out of control Arab gang intent on change through force, terror, destruction and…even death, when necessary.”

Basically, it is how many Middle East countries operate on a daily basis. Due to this cultural conditioning, when Muslim Arabs men come to America and run into the freedoms we enjoy, like videotaping people yelling for Jews to go back into the ovens, these Muslims believe that their collective power, as a gang, will intimidate their opponents, causing such fear that the Muslims will get their way, thus exerting their Islamic supremacy.

Sadly, this sociological tactic has become an effective methodology for terrorizing more and more Americas, just like the Arab Street is doing in places like, Paris and London.

Sadly, the Obama Administration’s concerted effort to appease the “Muslim World,” has only provided political fuel for igniting this Muslim hatred in American streets, as we approach some very deadly and dangerous days ahead.

FP: So why are you and others gathering in the same place, on the same date, one year later?

Trento: Recently I was approached by several organizations who wanted to “commemorate” the video that I shot, so that America will not ignore the Muslim hatred that is boiling just under our cultural surface. I thought it was important and agreed to participate and help promote the ON GUARD Rally. Our message is simple – We stand ON GUARD for America, for Israel, for Freedom…come stand with us.

The Rally is on December 30, from 3 – 7pm, at the exact location in Fort Lauderdale where I filmed it last year.

FP: Who should attend and why?

Trento: All patriotic Americans who want to GUARD America, Israel and Freedom should join with us and let your voices be heard.

This Rally, unlike last year, is being organized with the full cooperation and assistance of the Fort Lauderdale Police department and several joint anti-terrorism law enforcement organizations.

Participants will have no reason to fear the Arab Street, in fact it is freedom loving Americans who strike fear in the hearts of sharia loving hate-filled Muslims.

Join with us! We have a excellent group of speakers including; Joe Kaufman, Bob Knust, Charles Jacobs, May Long, Alan Bergstein, Joyce Kaufman and I may even say a word or two (or three)!

FP: Your thoughts on what will happen in 2010?

Trento: Regrettably, I do not have very good thoughts for 2010. When Israel attacks and destroys Iran’s nuclear facilities, which it must do for the sake of the free world, the Arab Street will erupt, globally. As my video demonstrated, angry Muslim men will not be able to control themselves, when Islamic leaders – calling for jihad against all Jews, Christians, Americans and Europeans – incite these ticking time bombs to strike back, hard.

In various parts of America, the Arab Street will explode with violence, destruction and death. At that point many Americans will have had enough of this “Muslim craziness” and they too will fight back to stop this out of control situation. Then the whole world will be looking to President Obama, to see if he stands with Israel, or condemns Israel, as the rest of the world will do.

If he stands with Israel, the Islamic world will feel betrayed by the one they consider their own and even more death and destruction will follow. If President Obama stands with the Islamic world against Israel, that will be read by Islamic scholars (who are quite good at political manipulation)  as the will of Allah, blessing their call for a worldwide jihad, which will further fuel the destructive desire of those angry men, who found themselves in the lens of my camera, one short year ago.

America and Israel are at a crossroads in 2010. Happy New Year everyone. I hope I’m wrong, but you know I’m right.

FP: Tom Trento, thank you for joining us.

For rally details, click here.

To see the Hamas video, click here.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

FP: Victor Hanson, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Hanson: Glad to be here again.

FP: Sarah Palin is, clearly, carving out a national presence right now. It’s not just the appeal of her book, but also her outspokenness on the Copenhagen conference and other issues.  What do you think she might be up to? And what is she tapping into? What are her possibilities?

Hanson: I think she taps into a current of populist unhappiness in the country with Washington insiders, Big Money, and condescending elites in the media and popular culture. The Wasilla mom of five, married to the snow-mobile champ, is simply the antithesis of all that. She senses the general disgust with an insider class that has nearly bankrupted the country through insane federal spending and equally insane financial speculation. She resonates in this regard mostly through an authentic middle-class upbringing, the real-world living of Alaska, natural intelligence, spunk and drive that sent one from the Wasilla city-council to the governorship of Alaska—and common sense answers like less government, lower taxes, more self-reliance, and national confidence.

Her can-do “let’s develop our own energy and spend no more than we earn” creed has a reassurance in these days. People root for her. The Ivy-Leaguers in government, whether the lawyer Obama or the economist Summers, haven’t exactly wowed the public with their studied brilliance so far.

Palin feels at ease with Middle America, and in a strange way is the antithesis to Barack Obama. Both are young, and charismatic, and appeal to populist constituencies. But whereas Obama came out of a Honolulu prep school and  elite Ivy League hot-house, and had to acquire, quite artificially, his street credentials at the foot of Rev. Wright and in the Chicago scratch-back world of Valerie Jarrett and Mayor Daley, Palin was a true product of the working class and took on rather than swam into the status quo political structure.

That fact was sadly lost in 2008, but it is starting to ring true as her popularity rises and Obama’s declines. Remember, though, these are mostly perceptions still, and Palin will have to give long interviews, do debates, lecture, write, and show a public grasp of the issues in the way that earlier charismatic, non-career politicians like Eisenhower and Reagan could—in contrast to flash in the pans like a Wesley Clark. For 2008 and much of 2009 the left and the media successfully caricatured her as a creationist, white-supremacist, Christianist nut, but that demonization is wearing off. Quite simply, the more the public sees her, the more it likes her—and that’s not true of most politicians like a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid—or Barack Obama.

FP: Can you expand a bit on what is it that the liberal-Left hates so much about Palin?

Hanson: Well, well, let us count the ways:

1) Feminists resent her stance on abortion, not just her pro-life views, but the fact she delivered a challenged child in her 40s and her teen-daughter delivered an out of wedlock boy; for many professional women on the up and up, those decisions are not just absurd but scary.

2) The elite Left was furious over her populist appeal, particularly her charm, good looks, accent, and appearance. In sum, their view was “don’t hoi polloi know, as we do, that this glitzy thing is a moose-hunting mom with an Idaho BA? To a Maureen Dowd or Sally Qunin, a Christian mom, who hunts, lives in Alaska, and is married to Todd is OK—but not OK if she thinks she can come east and run their US.

3) She’s an interloper outside the normal cursus honorum. Almost all our female columnists, many of our politicians, and several of our TV personalities either married into, or were born into, influence and can trace some of their careers to the wealth or influence of powerful husbands, fathers, and mentors. Not Palin—she had no family or marital connections, no money, no powerful fixer, she’s a genuine up-from-the-bootstraps sort of feminist that, oddly, feminists don’t define as feminist.

4) Conservative, attractive women, with traditional marriages and child-raising, for a variety of reasons, earn media scorn;

4) She scares the Left by her star power; few in America can fill stadia like she can—and that worries the powers that be. Populism is supposed to be a leftist phenomenon, but when a conservative resonates with the folks, that raises concern.

5) Finally, her accent, her demeanor, her poorly prepared interviews with Couric and Gibson all cemented for many intellectuals and cultural grandeess, both left and right, the idea that she was hickish. Many tsk-tsked her in snobbish disdain.

FP: What do you think of Palin?

Hanson: I both admire and worry about her. She has exuberance and natural intelligence, coupled with energy and toughness and a certain fearlessness, and doesn’t seem to be a trimmer, but consistently articulates a common-sense position on the issues. On the other hand, she has so many obstacles in a strictly political sense to overcome. She is based thousands of miles away from New York and Washington. She is the mother of 5 and has little money, or powerful friends. The East-Coast Right dislikes her as much as the liberal elite. With young children, the Levi Johnston mess, the resignation from the governorship, the constant traveling to earn an income for her large dependencies, she is burning the candle at both ends. So I admire her pluck, but again worry that her present frenzied pace is unsustainable.

FP: What advice would you give to Palin?

Hanson: After her book tour ends and she has earned some money, I wish she would hunker down somewhere to write, recharge and contemplate things. A month at Hillsdale College, for example, where, in friendly and supportive surroundings, she could debate, talk to faculty, read and write would be wonderful, or in fact a month almost anywhere she could review issues, have her views tested and debated, and do some in depth reading and discussion would be great.

If she wrote a weekly column or did a bi-weekly radio address, in the fashion of Reagan, that too would allow her to both support her family and at the same time master the intricacies of modern national politics. She has so many gunning for her, that she needs to be proactive. Joe Biden did not know that FDR was not President in 1929 or that TV was still experimental—but given his status, the media shucked “Oh, that’s just Joe!” Obama can be clueless about state geography, a 50-state union, or the basics of US history, but that’s because “he’s tired and has so much on his mind.” Wasilla moms has no such margin of error.

The good news is that she is so energetic, naturally talented, and charismatic, that, with a few weeks prep, she could redo the Couric interview and sparkle. What happened in 2008, was that she went from a supportive populace in Alaska to a hostile prime-time lion’s den, without proper appreciation that she was the antithesis of most of the values and lifestyles of those who would write and comment on her—and they were waiting for her in a way I think she did not anticipate. That said, I think we can already see that she is becoming media-savvy and picking her venues carefully.

FP: Victor Hanson, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Sen. Joe Lieberman opposes the current health care bill, so MSNBC’s Ed Schultz has a solution: punch him out. On last night’s episode of The Ed Show, Schultz asked Democratic Senator and way-too-frequent guest Sherrod Brown, D-OH:

What is the feeling towards Joe Lieberman? I mean how do you, you know, go into a room without punching the guy out after what he’s done to the progressive movement in this country? I mean, that’s how I think a lot of people feel. What attitude, what attitude — is he still just a beloved, friendly, fraternal senator, or is he a jerk in the room?

The courageous Brown, after hearing the violent tirade against his colleague, replied:

He’s not beloved, for sure.

What a Sister Souljah moment, Sherrod.

After a boring few weeks, when MSNBC brass must have told the rabid ratings failure to hold things down, Ed’s showing his true colors again. At least he only threatened to clock Lieberman; he invited a Rep. Michelle Bachmann to slit her wrists on his program.

Remember his violent outbursts the next time someone on MSNBC moans about “incivility” or worries a tea party attendee will “inspire violence” by waving a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Related posts:

1. Ben Johnson’s “Genius Envy” Takes on Ed Schultz
2. Genius Envy: Ed Schultz Gets Tweaked by Rush
3. Genius Envy: Ed Schultz Pads His Resume, Taunts O'Reilly, Steals (Credit for) KFGO's Peabody

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He is the co-author (with Paul Sperry) of the new book, Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America. He can be contacted at davegaubatz@gmail.com.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Congrats on your new book Muslim Mafia.

Five missing American Muslim men have been arrested in Pakistan suspected of terrorist activity. CAIR claims that it assisted the FBI in this case. Your thoughts?

Gaubatz: Jamie, thank you.

I will get right to the point on this one. This is like Ismail Royer and Ali Al Timimi (both had strong relationships, and still do, with CAIR and are serving prison time for advocating terrorism against America) telling authorities they will help them prosecute Major Hasan from Ft. Hood.

I have been informing the public and law enforcement for years that the way to stop young Muslims in America from running away to fight Jihad against assumed ‘oppressors’ and enemies (to include America and Israel) is, for one, to stop groups like CAIR from promoting jihadist activity. We need to prosecute groups like this when they do things that are illegal. And let’s be honest about the materials that they distribute.

FP: And these materials are?

Gaubatz: These are materials Islamic leaders are providing to their worshippers. They come directly from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran.  They are current and are distributed in 2009 as a reference to how young Muslims should carry out their obligatory duties in regards to physical Jihad. Young Muslims are told exactly the manner and tactics to use during attacks, what to attack, and the type of weapons to use.

For instance, I have previously written about the manuals that call for having the exact weapons the alleged enemies of Islam have, must be manufactured and/or purchased in America for their use. Such weapons as chemicals, high-powered weapons, biological, and nuclear.

FP: Ok just a second. Are you stating that CAIR and other such groups promote and advocate young men to leave America and engage in physical Jihad?

Gaubatz: Yes Jamie. And I am not the one saying it. The materials that these groups distribute to young Muslims are saying it. I am just reporting on what I see. And not only are these materials telling young Muslims in America to leave America to fight enemies overseas; CAIR and their supporters advocate doing so in America as well.

CAIR has the same violent materials in their National HQ, and various chapters that the young men are using for references in their mosques.  The ADAMS Center and Dar Al Hijrah (both Northern VA) are prime examples of violent material being provided to the worshippers (to include children). They literally have hundreds of manuals/books/DVDs, audio lectures informing the young Muslims to ignore the U.S. Constitution and our laws, and only obey Sharia law. These Islamic scholars encourage the youth to change America, even using violent force when required.

FP: Can you give us an example of what is in some material?

Gaubatz: One such manual I had obtained was distributed across America. It is one that goes into very direct detail on how the young Muslims (Soldiers of Allah) can take America down. I’ll quote from it:

“It is imperative therefore that war be waged both specifically and against the larger totality before victory is possible.  Archive systems, individual terminals, national debt-all these must be targeted. It is already well known what the reneging of one country on its massive debt would do to the total market stability. No one has yet contemplated the impact of one destroyed Stock Exchange or Central Bank Archive.”

Jamie over the last few years I have conducted first-hand research in Islamic centers north, south, east, and west in our country.  The message to attack our country, Israel, and other countries/people that support us is being advocated on a daily basis. The orders have been given to the young Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and to take every opportunity to conduct such attacks as Major Hasan did at Ft. Hood.

The senior leadership of the Muslim Mafia (Muslim Brotherhood) is full of hypocrites. They will tell naïve politicians, media, and many Americans they are assisting the FBI, but in reality, as Paul Sperry and I have proven in our book, they are lying. Organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, MANA, must be legally closed down. There is already ample evidence to show they are involved in treason and sedition against America. Islamic scholars such as Siraj Wahhaj, Bilal Phillips, Ahmad Sakr, Yusef Estes, Shaykir Elsayed, Zaid Shakir, and dozens of others are encouraging acts of violence against innocent people of all races, religions, and colors who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood.

FP: What could be done immediately to reduce America’s chance of another attack?

Gaubatz: With the documents pertained in our book, Muslim Mafia, the 12,000 other docs, and hours of video, along with information already known to the FBI and other law enforcement/intelligence agencies, a Congressional Hearing should be called and then Grand Jury Criminal Investigations pertaining to the organizations and people I mentioned above.

Have Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper go before a Grand jury and swear under oath that they are not aware of any material in their faculties or in any Islamic center/mosque that calls for the overthrow of America by violent means. Have them swear under oath that they are not aware of any worshippers who have informed them they are prepared to commit violence against our law enforcement officers. A Muslim within the last year did write Nihad the right within Islam to use violence against U.S. Govt. officials. This information was not provided to law enforcement by Nihad Awad. I have always informed readers anything I have ever said or written can or already has been provided in a sworn statement.

FP: Additional crimes CAIR may be involved in?

Gaubatz: There are numerous, but it will take the FBI time and resources to go through all the evidence. The dots can be connected.  CAIR has intentionally lied and has known some of their clients have lied to the FBI during investigations. For this reason alone they could be prosecuted and should be.  The FBI knows where these documents are and they can possibly prevent another attack if they begin reviewing them immediately. I have faith in our ‘street level’ FBI agents. They know what needs to be done. Of course they will encounter ‘political red tape’ from their superiors, but I have confidence they will win this battle.

FP: Why do you think street level FBI agents can win a political battle with their superiors, many of whom have supported CAIR previously?

Gaubatz: Because I know the quality and professionalism of these agents. They have families, children, and love our country. They are at the stage that they are no longer going to allow politics, and political correctness, to cause the possible innocent deaths of our children, which they know could include theirs. The Muslim Brotherhood has only one allegiance: “To Allah”.  The Muslim Brotherhood does not care about our country, our families, and will attack even innocent children when the need arises to advance their cause.

Right now our politicians and law enforcement need to act. A failure to do so will result in more innocent deaths.

FP: Dave Gaubatz, thank you for joining us.

To order Muslim Mafia, click here.

With ClimateGate broken wide open, you knew it was only a matter of time before Congress’ leading crusader against global-warming alarmism, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), entered the fray.  Last night on Fox, he and Sean Hannity had an interesting discussion about the scandal…but it could have been better if Hannity had let his guest make the point he was trying to make.

The Senator pointed out that it’s not just right-wing corporate shills who think ClimateGate is a real problem for the environmental Left, recounted his meetings with skeptical scientists who were being shunned from the discussion, and blasted the White House’s insistence on clinging bitterly to bad data.  Inhofe also said:

Barack Obama “is gonna go [to Copenhagen] with two messages that are really pretty scary.  One is, I think, that he’s gonna announce that the United States is going to reduce by, uh, I think they said 17 % by 2020.  Now, that’s not gonna happen, but a lot of people over there in other countries, they think that if a President says it, they don’t know that we have a Congress […] and the other one is, which I’m sure you’ve heard, he’s gonna commit $10 billion a year to, uh, developing nations, to help them, to do something about emissions in their countries.”

Inhofe was going to expand upon Obama’s second message, but Hannity cut him off, steering the conversation back to the East Anglia scientists’ misconduct.  Granted, hosts have the right to guide the course of their show to keep segments on topic, and ClimateGate’s inherent sleaziness is worth repeating, but we’ve heard it all before.  I, for one, would much rather have heard more about Obama’s latest policy schemes, about which even Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) warned the President:

“…the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference],” but “As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.”

And as for the rest of the world’s contribution to reducing global carbon emissions, National Review’s Greg Pollowitz reminds us that it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘cuts’ is:

“Government sources revealed [India] could curb the carbon emitted relative to the growth of its economy — its carbon intensity — by 24% by 2020.  The target would mean emissions would continue to rise as the government aims to lift millions out of poverty, but by less than currently predicted.”

Again, it’s all well and good to remind the American people of the Left’s propaganda tactics—repetition is an important part of getting a message across—but we can’t lose sight of why they cook the books: to advance their crackpot policy initiatives and all-encompassing vision of government authority.

_____

Hailing from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, Calvin Freiburger is a political science major at Hillsdale College.  He also blogs at the Hillsdale Forum and his personal website, Calvin Freiburger Online.

Related posts:

1. Just How Big Is Climategate? The Tiger Woods Index Measures Media Incompetence
2. Climategate Jumps the Pond: NASA Continues to Stonewall on FOIA Requests
3. Daily Kos Takes Aim at Hannity, Shoots Self in Foot

FP: Ines Laufer, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

In our last discussion, we focused on how Germany has exposed a young girl to female genital mutilation and how Germany, and Europe in general, is not protecting young girls from this barbaric crime.

Today I would like to talk to you about a new campaign you have started. Tell us about it.

Laufer: Thanks Jamie.

Our research brought to light that to up to 400,000 sponsored girls who are marketed by the big development organizations PLAN International, World Vision, Kindernothilfe and ChildFund do not receive protection from female genital mutilation. We have started a new campaign, at sponsoredgirl.com, to protect the girls from female genital mutilation. We invite your readers to come join us.

These children are marketed in order to acquire money from trustful donors. The donors pay about 30 Euros per month – which means 360 Euros per year, in the belief that the organizations do all they can for providing a better life — including health for the sponsored children. PLAN International for instance, acquires about 72 million Euros every year, just by marketing the 240,000 concerned girls.

But asked about female genital mutilation on the sponsored girls, these organizations openly and publicly claim that demanding the safe protection of the girls would be against their approaches and against their policy.

So, by failing to demand, to stipulate and to control the protection of the sponsored girls from FGM, the organizations must be considered complicit in every single crime perpetrated against a little girl in this regard.

We are The Alliance for Protection of Girls from Female Genital Mutilation. We consider this simply scandalous and unacceptable. It is a crime against the girls and also a system of defrauding the donors.

That’s why we launched this campaign. It is suited to go the largest step forward in the direction of an end of FGM since the beginning of the fight against these practices. It could lead to true and immediate protection of a few million girls.

FP: Ok, what concretely does the campaign demand?

Laufer: It demands that all organizations who work with the sponsored-child-system, should make sure that all girls in their projects – in the relevant regions – are safely protected from violence like female genital mutilation.

This demand is based on the cognition that it is not only possible but very easy to achieve that goal – and even more: It does not cost any money.

It is just about the change of the attitude, approach and policy of the organisations. We call for:

[1] The stipulation of the safety and protection from FGM of the sponsored girls in the preconditions for support for the communities – and regular check ups.

[2] A careful selection of the project partners, which means that only those communities that support children’s rights will be targets of help. This means an investment of donations in the most economic and effective way.

[3] The complete solution – the two steps to safe protection – you find here.

FP: How do the mentioned organizations react to your activism on behalf of the victims of FGM?

Laufer: To be honest, Jamie, they all react quite similar so far, with a mixture of ostrich behavior (putting their heads into the sand) and helpless efforts to defend their current policy of tolerating and accepting the mutilations of thousands of sponsored girls.

But in fact, they deliver us one proof after the other that confirms how much this campaign is needed – how important it is and that it will have a deep impact to truly stop FGM.

To the people who sign and send the petition letters, they send standard-answers which make clear that they did not even read or understand what we demand. They still refuse to admit that they are fully responsible for every single mutilated girl in their projects because of their failure to implement the adequate protection measures. And they do not have any scruple to simply tell tales.

We can sum it up as following: There is much ignorance and denial and no adequate seriousness or goodwill to even understand what should be changed and how.

But I am sure this will change soon.

Only, it doesn’t lie in our hands anymore. Now, the world public – every person who feels concerned and disturbed by the knowledge that every day, thousands of little girls are mutilated by FGM – is asked to help the campaign.

FP: What exactly can people do to help the campaign? Is it about money and donations?

Laufer: No, Jamie – it is absolutely not about money or donations. It is about something much more important: It’s about the power of everyone’s voice. By investing exactly two minutes of time and a few clicks, everyone can help – while comfortably sitting in front of the computer. Every reader can help free this world from the nightmare of female genital mutilation. It has never been so easy.

At the www.sponsoredgirl.com website, you find four prepared letters, addressed to PLAN International World Vision, Kindernothilfe and ChildFund, see here.

Every person who signs and sends the letters – and who even steps back from current sponsorship-contracts, enlarges the pressure on the organizations. And this helps us to strengthen our efforts in demanding them to consequently protect the children.

That’s why: Please sign the letters and send them to your friends that they can do it too.

FP: So how has the campaign been going?

Laufer: Well, let me tell you this. In the last ten days, more than 750 letters have been sent to the organizations already. But we would like to achieve at least 5,000 to put the campaign at the next level of public pressure.

FP: Ines Laufer, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. I encourage all of our readers who want to help stop this genocide against girls to go to www.sponsoredgirl.com.