The growing dominance of the federal government over the states has obscured more fundamental changes within the federal government itself: It is not just bigger, it is dangerously off kilter. Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency.
We take these extracts from an article in the Washington Post by Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University. If he is right, America is being governed by a bureaucracy accountable to no other branch of government or to the people. The rule of the bureaucrats is arbitrary and tyrannical.
For much of our nation’s history, the federal government was quite small. In 1790, it had just 1,000 nonmilitary workers. In 1962, there were 2,515,000 federal employees. Today, we have 2,840,000 federal workers in 15 departments, 69 agencies and 383 nonmilitary sub-agencies.
This exponential growth has led to increasing power and independence for agencies. The shift of authority has been staggering. The fourth branch now has a larger practical impact on the lives of citizens than all the other branches combined.
The rise of the fourth branch has been at the expense of Congress’s lawmaking authority. In fact, the vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations, crafted largely by thousands of unnamed, unreachable bureaucrats. One study found that in 2007, Congress enacted 138 public laws, while federal agencies finalized 2,926 rules, including 61 major regulations.
This rulemaking comes with little accountability. It’s often impossible to know, absent a major scandal, whom to blame for rules that are abusive or nonsensical. Of course, agencies owe their creation and underlying legal authority to Congress, and Congress holds the purse strings. But Capitol Hill’s relatively small staff is incapable of exerting oversight on more than a small percentage of agency actions. And the threat of cutting funds is a blunt instrument to control a massive administrative state — like running a locomotive with an on/off switch.
The autonomy was magnified when the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that agencies are entitled to heavy deference in their interpretations of laws. The court went even further this past week, ruling that agencies should get the same heavy deference in determining their own jurisdictions — a power that was previously believed to rest with Congress. In his dissent in Arlington v. FCC, Chief Justice John Roberts warned: “It would be a bit much to describe the result as ‘the very definition of tyranny,’ but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed.”
The judiciary, too, has seen its authority diminished by the rise of the fourth branch. Under Article III of the Constitution, citizens facing charges and fines are entitled to due process in our court system. As the number of federal regulations increased, however, Congress decided to relieve the judiciary of most regulatory cases and create administrative courts tied to individual agencies. The result is that a citizen is 10 times more likely to be tried by an agency than by an actual court. In a given year, federal judges conduct roughly 95,000 adjudicatory proceedings, including trials, while federal agencies complete more than 939,000.
These agency proceedings are often mockeries of due process, with one-sided presumptions and procedural rules favoring the agency. And agencies increasingly seem to chafe at being denied their judicial authority. … A 50-year-old technology consultant … charged with disorderly conduct and indecent exposure when he stripped at Portland International Airport last year in protest of invasive security measures by the Transportation Security Administration, … was cleared by a federal judge who ruled that his stripping was a form of free speech, … but was pulled [by the TSA] into its own agency courts under administrative charges.
The rise of the fourth branch has occurred alongside an unprecedented increase in presidential powers — from the power to determine when to go to war to the power to decide when it’s reasonable to vaporize a U.S. citizen in a drone strike. In this new order, information is jealously guarded and transparency has declined sharply. That trend, in turn, has given the fourth branch even greater insularity and independence. When Congress tries to respond to cases of agency abuse, it often finds officials walled off by claims of expanding executive privilege.
But while the agencies can sometimes be protected by the president, they can also protect themselves from him. Their power is independent of the president just as it is, in practice, independent of Congress and the judiciary.
Of course, federal agencies officially report to the White House under the umbrella of the executive branch. But in practice, the agencies have evolved into largely independent entities over which the president has very limited control. Only 1 percent of federal positions are filled by political appointees, as opposed to career officials, and on average appointees serve only two years. At an individual level, career officials are insulated from political pressure by civil service rules. There are also entire agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — that are protected from White House interference.
Some agencies have gone so far as to refuse to comply with presidential orders. For example, in 1992 President George H.W. Bush ordered the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a lawsuit against the Postal Rate Commission, and he threatened to sack members of the Postal Service’s Board of Governors who denied him. The courts ruled in favor of the independence of the agency. …
Only “a small percentage of agency matters… rise to the level of presidential notice”. The rest remain “the sole concern of agency discretion”. For instance, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Department of the Interior (DOI) force people into poverty by depriving them of their land or their water or their jobs in order to preserve some animal, bird or fish instead, there seems to be no recourse to any higher authority for the human victims to appeal to for arbitration. (See for example our post The environmentalists’ tyrannical drive against civilization, January 19, 2013.)
The marginalization Congress feels is magnified for citizens, who are routinely pulled into the vortex of an administrative state that allows little challenge or appeal. The IRS scandal is the rare case in which internal agency priorities are forced into the public eye. Most of the time, such internal policies are hidden from public view and congressional oversight. While public participation in the promulgation of new regulations is allowed, and often required, the process is generally perfunctory and dismissive.
Professor Turley speaks of “the new regulatory age“, in which –
Presidents and Congress can still change the government’s priorities, but the agencies effectively run the show based on their interpretations and discretion.
The importance of this development, he stresses, cannot be overestimated. It is a huge, momentous change in the US system of government.
The rise of this fourth branch represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding.
And he ends with a warning:
We cannot long protect liberty if our leaders continue to act like mere bystanders to the work of government.
Does the independent power of the bureaucracies mean that President Obama is off the hook for the scandals of Benghazi, the IRS targeting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status, the Department of Justice secretly investigating journalists? That he could have done nothing much about them one way or the other even if he’d wanted to?
If so, is that why the Washington Post published Professor Turley’s article?
Interesting questions, but of passing concern.
What matters is that Americans are no longer living in the free democratic republic they think they are.
Whenever uncomfortable truths about Barack Obama arise, he always seems to know nothing about anything related to the matter in question. He didn’t know what happened when a video was blamed for the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi, he learned about the IRS scandal from the media, and he has appointed Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder over the reporting scandals.
So he probably knows nothing whatsoever about the favorable treatment received by the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) of which Malik Obama is the head.
In May of 2011, BHOF received incredibly expeditious (and retroactive) tax-exempt status from the IRS in general, Lois Lerner in particular. Lerner’s signature is at the bottom of BHOF’s approval letter.
We quote Walid Shoebat, former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, now a most useful source of information on the jihad. He posts this report at his website:
It has been learned that the relationship between President Barack Obama’s half-brother Malik Obama and Sudan’s President Omar Al-Bashir is much closer than previously thought. Malik is the Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) as reported by all major Saudi press, including Okaz.
How significant is this?
Very significant. The IDO has been created by the Sudanese Government, which is considered by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist state.
This places Malik Obama in bed with terrorists and working as an official with a terrorist state.
[President] Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on seven counts relating to crimes against humanity. As such, Bashir is the head of a country that the U.S. State Department has identified as a State Sponsor of terrorism, a designation issued in 1993.
In 2010, Malik Obama attended the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) conference in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. One of the objectives of the IDO is to spread Wahhabist Islam across the African continent. Bashir wasn’t just present at the conference; he supervised it. In this photo, from the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) website, headed by Malik, Bashir can be seen dressed in black, to the right. Another man to take notice of is seated directly to the right of Bashir; his name is Suar Al Dahab (more on him later):
Omar Al-Bashir with Suar Al Dahab. The banner in the background, when translated, says the following: 23rd Conference Islamic Da’wa Organization Under the Supervision of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir – Organization Supervisor
President Obama’s half-brother Malik addressing the conference
So, what is the significance of Malik’s schmoozing with Al Dahab? … Take a look at who [else] Al Dahab schmoozes with – the Prime Minister of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh and the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and IDO Chairman Suar Al Dahab in Gaza in May of 2013
Of course, there will be naysayers who will accuse us of attributing blame to Barack for the sins of his half-brother Malik. Those who make such charges encounter problems because Barack and his brother are very close. Each was the best man at the other’s wedding and Malik has made multiple visits to the White House.
Malik and Barack Obama at the White House
Malik is the fourth Obama family member in Kenya who is now implicated in the spread (Da’wa) of Wahhabist Islam.
The three others are Step-Grandmother Sarah, Uncle Sayid, and Cousin Musa, who in 2011 told Al-Jazeera that the Mama Sarah Obama Foundation (MSOF) deceptively diverts its contributions toward scholarships for Kenyan students to attend the most virulent of Wahhabist schools… in Saudi Arabia.
The MSOF claims to exist in order to provide homes for widows, orphans, and AIDS victims. No such homes have yet been found. But there is a Barack H. Obama Recreation and Rest Center in Kenya, which houses Malik’s 12 wives in a facility that includes a restaurant and a mosque with a madrassa.
In Britain, in its pre-Islamized days,when it was thought necessary by intellectuals to take the opinions of the “common man” into account, they would allude to him as “the man on the Clapham omnibus”. That man, considering that he lived in the London district of Clapham, which is on the wrong side of the river (though over the last 30 years or so very much gentrified), and considering further that he was not transporting himself in a car, was lower middle-class in the calculation of the always class-conscious Briton. But his opinions could be held to be representative of a wider band of the class spectrum, from middle-middle-class to working-class.
Tommy Robinson, a working-class Englishman, is the leader of the English Defence League. Apparently he speaks for the many tens of thousands of Britons who show their approval of his organization by joining it. At the moment, though he lives (we suppose) further to the east of London, he is our man on the Clapham omnibus.
The organization he leads is called “far -right” and “fascist” by its critics.
If they are what we would call fascist – authoritarian collectivists – we are their opposites, our highest value being individual freedom.
We find, however, that we do not disagree with the view he expresses in these two videos on the issue of Islam, its jihad, the actions Muslims are taking in Britain (and elsewhere) in waging their jihad, the weakness of government and police in dealing with it, and even with the recommendations he makes for what should be done about it. Though we might word our arguments differently, and advocate other, more considered remedies, they would be in addition to those he demands, not instead of them.
The videos provide an opportunity for viewers to judge the organization and its leader, at least on this issue, for themselves.
Lois Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Service’s tax-exempt organizations office, told Congress last week that she had broken no laws and had done nothing wrong. Then she hastily “took the Fifth” – ie refused to say anything more or answer any questions so as not to incriminate herself, as the Fifth Amendment allows her to do.
So she would have us believe that there was no corruption in her department under her authority. No crime was committed. None at all.
Yet this happened. It comes from Discover the Networks:
The Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) was established in 2008 by Abon’go Malik Obama, the half-brother of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Abon’go, a Kenyan-born Muslim with twelve wives, created the foundation in memory of his (and President Obama’s) biological father, Barack H. Obama (1936-82) of Nyan’goma Kogelo village in Kenya.
Seeking to “provide people everywhere with resources to uplift their welfare and living standards,” BHOF claims to be “committed to a wide array of development and humanitarian projects which will help mitigate social shortcomings in areas of education and literacy, health and well-being, poverty, and … community infrastructure” — particularly as regards “basic needs such as water, electricity, shelter and sustenance.” The foundation’s guiding principle is “the inherent belief that no one can truly enjoy the riches he has reaped if his neighbor suffers.”
A noble sentiment. But how nobly has BHOF acted?
BHOF currently identifies its major project as the Siaya Community Self-Help Group, which focuses on helping impoverished residents of Siaya, Kenya to access clean drinking water, financial assistance, K-12 education, academic scholarships, medical care, leadership training, and guidance in small-business development. The foundation also claims to have funded the construction of a madrassa in Kenya. There is no concrete evidence, however, that BHOF has actually done any of these things.
Financial records indicate that from 2008-10, the foundation received grants and donations totaling $42,923 but awarded no grants at all.
Shared none of the riches it reaped with the impoverished residents of Siaya in Kenya? Nope. None at all.
On its website, BHOF asserts that its “future projects in Kenya and elsewhere around the globe” will focus on:
- Education development
- Child development and welfare
- Infrastructure development, to include water, electricity and sanitation
- Energy development, to include wind turbines, solar and power generation
- Health improvement through health clinics, vaccinations and disease prevention
- Humanitarian and natural disaster intervention and response
- Nutrition, to include food security, diet assurance, vitamin deliver [sic]
- HIV/AIDS, particularly child-affected transmissions and prevention
- Advocacy and Partnerships
- Life skills, training and modeling
BHOF’s website lists the foundation’s physical address as 107 S. West St. #401 in Alexandria, Virginia, a location that actually houses only a UPS store. “They probably just rent a mailbox here or receive mail here,” said one UPS employee there in May 2013.
Equally problematic is the address listed in BHOF’s IRS filings — 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 110-152 in Arlington, Virginia — which houses only a marketing center for a drug-and-alcohol treatment organization known as A Better Today Recovery Services. When questioned about BHOF in May 2013, not a single employee in A Better Today’s office had ever heard of the foundation.
From 2008-11, BHOF operated illegally as a nonprofit group and falsely claimed tax-exempt status —f or which it had not yet formally applied. The foundation finally submitted its 2010 application for nonprofit, tax-exempt status on May 23, 2011; seven days later, it submitted its filings for 2008 and 2009. Within just one month of these filings — on June 26, 2011 — Lois Lerner, the senior official who headed the IRS’s tax-exempt organizations office, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to BHOF.
This promptness represented a stark contrast to the experience of many conservative organizations that, beginning in 2010, had been intentionally forced (by Lerner’s office) to wait more than three years, in some cases, for approval. Moreover, Lerner broke with the norms of tax-exemption approval by making BHOF’s tax-exempt status retroactive to December 2008.
According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center: “The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity … had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status.” Boehm described Abon’go Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money under the nonprofit banner as “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”
The case of BHOF needs to be compared with the case described in our post Political persecution in America, May 21, 2013, which is about Catherine Engelbrecht having waited for three years – and waits still – for tax-exempt status to be granted by Lois Lerner’s office for two “non-profits” she founded. In that time she and her husband and their business and their farm have been investigated … and investigated … and investigated. The IRS required her to answer “hundreds and hundreds of questions”. Other government agencies were sent to inspect their manufacturing business, which was fined thousands of dollars for trivial “offenses” such as an employer wearing the wrong type of protective glasses.
Mrs Englebrecht is not related to President Obama, and the organizations she launched, King Street Patriots and True the Vote, are not planning ambitious projects round the world, or promising to re-distribute grants and donations to the poor in Africa. She declared them to be patriotic and against voter fraud. Not causes, we now know, scoring high marks on the approval chart of Obama’s IRS.
What it is to be born a girl in Islam! This is about a girl child in Afghanistan, sold as a piece of goods, then knifed and raped to death.
It is from the Facebook page of Mustafa Kazemi, “War Correspondent, Afghanistan”. Though his English is awkward, the writer tells the horrifying story vividly, in disgust:
This article includes information that may be undesirable, discomfort & upset some audiences. …
The girl was one of the several daughters of a man in his late 30s. … He gave his daughter to the Mullah of their village for a big amount of money. It is also common in Afghanistan’s rural areas or 3rd level provinces/cities to marry young girls to old men, and trading their daughters for their debts or other items.
The mullah is in his late 50s and is the mosque guy of the village where this incident happened.
The mullah is already married and has many children too.The two families hold a tribal meeting, agree on the price that the groom’s family pay to the bride’s family, and they set a date for wedding. …
The two families planned a wedding party, the wedding and Nekah (the religious process in which a woman is officially married to a man) took place and the 8-years-old bride became the 50-years-old Mullah’s 2nd wife.
The celebration party was over and the sun downed – the time to have sex (not make love) with the 8-years-old bride.
The girl was just 8 years old and everybody understands the fact that she knows nothing about sex or wedding or making love or virginity or sexual related topics; not even at a basic level for two reasons, one being that she’s just a child – not even a teenager and that in that part of the country, nobody knows anything about these things nor they are given trainings or education about a healthy sexual life.
The mullah takes off the bride’s clothes as well as his owns and with apparent so much happiness approaches her for sexual intercourse with the 8-years-old bride. Because of the Mullah’s huge physique which gave him a big penis, he threw himself on her and started to penetrate the girl’s vagina.
After several tries that led him to failure to penetrate her vagina, the Mullah was frustrated.
He failed because the 8-years-old girl who was about to die was physically thin and had a very tight vagina opening.
Sourced from the Mullah’s animal behavior, he took out the sharp knife that he always carried with himself in his pocket and tore apart the girl’s vagina from the clitoris side upwards as well as tore it downwards towards her anus in order to make the vagina larger enough so he can enter his penis into her vagina.
Naturally, she started to bleed in a very bad amount, but the mullah was too annoyed for not being able to have sex with her, to care for what he did or her bleeding or her wounds that he gave her.
The girl had her scarf stuffed in her mouth, crying and trying to not raise her voice because others were there in the room adjacent to or outside. …
Mullah entered his penis into the girl’s severely bleeding vagina and had sexual intercourse with her on a blood-covered bed …
The girl … was bleeding and there was nobody to help her neither could the Mullah ask for help as it was a shame for him and the girl’s family (who were sitting over a cup of tea in the other room) would kill him.
Our 8-years-old bride bled and went into a traumatic shock because of both forced sex as well as severe bleeding. She had lost so much blood, this I can tell for certain.
She bled and bled as herself was in trauma shock until morning and early in the morning around 5 when the sun was about to rise, she passed away.
According to the Mullah, she was pale and her eyes were open when she died. The bed, as he described, was all red with her blood and she was lying in her blood only. No cloth beneath her was recognizable and everything was in dried blood because a whole night had passed on the blood.
She was pale because she had lost all her body’s blood. Her eyes were open as she was shivering when she died and her hands were tied in a praying position, saying her death time prayer.
The Mullah called in [a] person and asked him to clean up the mess around and prepare a reason to tell the others for her death. Because the man was a close friend or family of the mullah, he did whatever he could, including [getting rid of] every piece of cloth that was bloody.
They wrapped her in a piece of white clothes and called the others that she has passed away.
That morning her family mourned her death in the saddest manner without looking for proper explanation about her death, and then took her to wash her body as a religious ritual.
Because the Mullah had a great influence on the village, none of the women who washed the girl’s body dared to ask or seek the reason for the wounds around her vagina.
By 10 am or so they rallied the now-dead 8-years-old bride to the graveyard and buried her.
Her life ended.
The close friend of mullah, who knew everything, was very upset and shared the story with my source that then called me and told me the story.
And this is from PJ Media, by Robert Spencer:
Last Friday [May 17, 2013], an Afghan journalist named Mustafa Kazemi posted on Facebook a harrowing story about an eight-year-old girl in the Khashrood district of Nimruz province in Afghanistan, who was sold off into marriage to a mullah in his 50s, and who bled to death on their wedding night.
It was one of many such tragedies in a land that little notes nor long remembers such deaths. An eight-year-old girl sold into marriage and dead after a brutal sexual assault that her body could not withstand is no more noteworthy than a pack animal that collapses under a too-heavy weight. It’s time and money wasted, that’s all. Forget about it. Get another one.
Indeed, the day after Kazemi posted his account, pro-Sharia lawmakers in Afghanistan blocked a proposed Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women, which would have set criminal penalties for child marriage. Pro-Sharia legislator Khalil Ahmad Shaheedzada denounced the law as un-Islamic, explaining: “Whatever is against Islamic law, we don’t even need to speak about it.”
That means that more girls like the eight year old in the Khashrood district will continue to suffer. For few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage … Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary … And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam… [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.
Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well … “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women—if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not [yet] menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. …
Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.
Unsurprisingly, such laws are a boon to pedophiles, who, as Time magazine reported in 2001, can “marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them,” all within the bounds of Islamic law. …
In July 2011, the Saudi cleric Salih bin Fawzan, a member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, issued a fatwa … declaring that Islamic law set no minimum age for marriage at all, and that therefore girls could be lawfully married off “even if they are in the cradle.”
As with other aspects of Islamic law and practice, immigration has extended child marriage into Western countries. The Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO) declared that in England in 2010, at least thirty girls in Islington, a neighborhood of greater London, were forced into marriage, and that some were as young as nine years old. In Sweden, there are several hundred reported incidences of child marriage every year.
Who will speak up for these girls? Apparently the Western “human rights” organizations largely believe that it would be “Islamophobic” to do so.
Those self-appointed consciences of the human race would rather let little girls be raped and tortured to death than commit the greatest sin of our age – offending Muslims.
Come fix upon me that accusing eye.
I thirst for accusation.
How interesting that you are intent on destroying our nation – please tell us all about it, Sir. And tell us how we deserve it. How bad we are.
Thus the BBC (in effect) to a leading jihadist, inspirer of the Butcher of Woolwich. To provide him with one of the biggest platforms for his loathsome propaganda that the world can offer.
This is from the MailOnline:
As the awful events unfolded on the streets of Woolwich on Wednesday, the mobile phone secreted inside the black Islamic robes worn by Anjem Choudary — the self-styled Sheik of East London — soon started ringing.
Calling him were producers from the BBC’s Newsnight programme, as well as rolling BBC news shows and Channel 4, all wanting to find out from this so-called ‘expert’ what exactly drove young, British-born men to hack an innocent young soldier to death in the capital with knives and a meat cleaver.
An expert on what? On JIHAD. On Islam’s mission of slaughter and subjugation. Why else phone HIM? By the very act of inviting him to come on their programs they were demonstrating that they know what they will not confess to knowing – that the butchery on the street in Woolwich was a religious act, and the religion is Islam, and Islam is a murderous ideology.
Media-savvy, and far more intelligent than his oafish demeanour suggests, Choudary was given star billing on a discussion panel with Newsnight presenter Kirsty Wark, as he insisted he was not a ‘hate preacher’ or Islamic extremist.
Indeed he is not an Islamic extremist. He is just Islamic. A Muslim. Like the Butcher of Woolwich.
The 45-year-old, who is often seen talking in whispers with young acolytes at Middle Eastern cafes in London, was given a platform as if he were a respected academic talking at arm’s length about Islamic extremism.
Refusing to condemn the killers of Lee Rigby, the British drummer crushed by a vehicle and then hacked to death with machetes, Choudary even suggested that ‘one man killed in a street’ was hardly proper vengeance for those killed by ‘Britain and the U.S.’ in wars overseas.
Claiming most Muslims support that view, the ‘preacher’ — he has no formal religious qualifications — also talked over the presenter and other guests as he implied that the killing was the result of British prejudice and racism towards young Muslims.
Lap it up, lap it up, Kirsty Wark and all ye BBC dhimmi! To your decadent and corrupt taste, accusation is sweeter than honey. Must be. You grovel for it so.
As well as admitting that he knew and had been on marches with Michael Adebojalo, one of the alleged Woolwich killers, who was photographed standing immediately behind him at a demonstration in 2007, Choudary insisted that ‘persecution’ of Muslims prompted attacks against Western targets.
Perhaps that’s why he felt moved to describe Adebojalo [the Butcher of Woolwich]— whom he first met eight years ago — as a man of ‘impeccable character’.
Disgracefully, Choudary even claimed that he and his followers had signed a covenant — akin to the British military’s covenant to care for the welfare of its soldiers — not to wage war against this country’s people in return for living here unmolested and at our expense.
There is only one problem with this preposterous claim: it is simply not true. For the preacher is a fan of what is known by Islamic extremists as taqiyya — the telling of lies to protect their secret, deadly aims.
What is the point of inviting an habitual liar to say anything on a public platform? The BBC is so full of Islam-lovers and cowed dhimmis that that question would not occur to it.
… The extent of Choudary’s activities in Britain raises disturbing questions about how individuals with known terror links are allowed to flout the law and openly recruit on our streets.
Though he comes over as an excitable buffoon (he orders his young recruits to call him ‘Sheik’ and shouts down anyone who disagrees with his extremist views), the reality is that Choudary is smart, cunning and dangerous — prompting [some] commentators to brand him the most dangerous man in Britain.
Funded by benefits from the infidel taxpayers he so despises, for the past four years he has openly staged ‘Islamic road shows’ across Britain to recruit young men to his chilling cause.
As a result, some of those with whom he has come into contact have become embroiled in hatching terrorist attacks here and abroad. An extremist who believes his sole calling is to wage holy war against Britain and her ‘infidel’ allies, his real goal is trying to prepare the ground for a global Islamic jihad.
He dreams of seeing the black crescent flag — which is the symbol of his extremist Islam and Al Qaeda — flying over Downing Street, and a draconian form of sharia law imposed across Britain. …
Once described by a moderate Muslim as the sort of religious leader who ‘sets the mood music for suicide bombers to dance to’, Choudary wants alcohol banned, amputations for thieves and adulterers to be stoned to death. …
According to terrorism experts, Choudary is the recruiting sergeant for what U.S. intelligence dubs Britain’s ‘Generation Jihad’. …
In a chilling portent of the horrors that unfolded in Woolwich this week, [one of Choudary’s native British converts to Islam] told me that British soldiers were a fair target. …
Choudary’s tentacles run far across a number of militant Islamic groups. He is a founding member of extremist groups that are banned in many countries, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun — of which the alleged Woolwich killer Michael Adebojalo is thought to have been a member.
It was this group that praised the ‘magnificent’ July 7 London terror attacks that killed 52 innocent people in 2005. Choudary also once ran a hard-line sect called Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’aah Muntada. …
‘Jihad is part of the Koran,’ he says. …
And there he speaks the truth.
He wants Britain to become an Islamic state.
He believes Muslim immigrants will eventually out-breed the native British population, pointing out that Medina in Saudi Arabia once had just 200 Muslim inhabitants, but went on to become the second city of Islam. His mood will no doubt have been buoyed by new figures this week showing that one in ten of under 25-year-olds living here are Muslim. …
Choudary claims to have converted hundreds of young men to his cause. …
With breathtaking cynicism, Choudary instructs his recruits that it is their Muslim duty to claim benefits, ensuring they make no contribution to the ‘enemy’ British state through taxation.
And successive British governents, whatever their party color, support this terrific idea. And judges uphold the “right” of immigrant Muslim criminals to continue to live in the country and be housed, educated, and medically treated at the expense of the British tax payers.
The ‘Sheik’ leads by example. Now separated from his wife and three children, for years he has received more than £1,700 a month in benefits — which he once referred to as ‘Jihad seekers allowance’. …
So why is he still allowed to preach hate on Britain’s streets — and why is he given airtime on flagship TV news programmes only hours after a murder he refused to condemn? That is a question that is going to enrage more and more people …
Until tolerance is tried to breaking point, and more tens of thousands will join the English Defence League – just any organization, however unsavory in itself, that will take action – violent action – to stop Muslim immigration, deport Muslim criminals, ban terrorist-affiliated Muslim organizations … No. Against Muslims. It will be too late then to start arguing against the ideology of Islam – at present a more promptly punished crime in Britain than butchery on the streets of London –
This is from PowerLine:
A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.
Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.
Thus does civilization end with a whimper.
How interesting that you are intent on destroying our nation – please tell us all about it, Sir. And tell us how we deserve it. How bad we are.
This map, via the Washington Post, shows the distribution of the world’s atheists in 40 countries.
A 2012 poll by WIN/Gallup International – an international polling firm that is not associated with the D.C.-based Gallup group — asked more than 50,000 people in 40 countries whether they considered themselves “religious,” “not religious” or “convinced atheist.” Overall, the poll concluded that roughly 13 percent of global respondents identified as atheists, more than double the percentage in the U.S.
The most atheist nation is China, with 47 percent of respondents self-described as atheist. Next comes Japan with 31%, and the Czech Republic about the same. France falls into the 20%-29% category; Germany and Australia 10%-19%; the US, Canada, Russia – and Saudi Arabia [!] 5%-9%; India, Pakistan, South Africa, Nigeria, Peru under 5%.
WIN/Gallup notes that religiosity is highest among the poor and the less educated.
So chances are, the better off you are and the better informed you are, the more likely you’ll be to slough off religion.
Though not so much in the United States.
No surprise there.
6 a Woken by the Common Alarm loud as usual. Shower water cool as usual. (Am not complaining.) Did not shave as this is the very day scheduled for my conversion to Islam and I’ll have to grow a beard.
6.30 Ate a salad from my own mini-refrigerator. Got the bed into the wall (mechanism now fixed), so able to lower table and eat comfortably sitting on the chair.
7.00 Bicycled to work. Timed myself. 25 minutes from the Unitarium to the Ministry, bicycle hall to bicycle hall. Enjoyed the ride today. Lovely weather thanks to the City Council finally achieving its goal of carbon dioxide reduction to lowest level in the state. Saw that they’ve begun to remove the dead trees along Michelle Obama Avenue. Larger sign over main door must have gone up overnight: New America Federal Ministry of Tolerance.
8-12 noon. Productive morning. Found an intercepted email from an 80-year-old woman to her son in the Progressive Army Pre-School Sex Education Division complaining about getting no treatment for her heart condition. They just don’t get it, these oldies, that they’ve had their time and resources simply cannot be squandered on keeping them alive. Stupid really. Obstinate. What are they clinging to life for when they’re of no more use to the People? Launched the prosecution of both of them as the son has not reported receiving the complaint.
12 noon. Ate a salad in the Ministry Food Space. Also today both slices of Pleistocene Loaf. A hard chew. Still not used to the taste. (Am not complaining.)
12.30p Had to search for nearly twenty minutes of Love Hour to find someone to copulate with. Looked first for a same sex partner as per regulations, but eventually had to settle for a womin. Her living unit no nearer than mine, and time running out. Copulation Hour always a rush as regular partners are forbidden and search always takes time. (Am not complaining.) So we went to the Ministry Love Annexe. Every cubicle engaged. Had to wait ten minutes. Then she made me use a condom (the Free Dispenser was working) even though she was on the pill, because, she said, she knew how unreliable the Pharmaceutical and Birth-Prevention Department was as she’d once worked in it, and also from her own experience, having had seven abortions in the last three years. She talked too much, actually. And it amounted to complaining in my opinion. Am wondering whether to launch a prosecution. Would have to find out her full name and Unitarium. It wasn’t an A-class experience. I signed off on a B- on the Records Chart. She signed off on a C-, which I thought was just plain insulting. Yes, a prosecution will be the honest thing to do.
1–4 Not productive. I suppose I was a little over excited about my conversion coming up. Confined myself t0 searching for the word “freedom” without result. Had no time to look for “Constitution” or “patriotic” or “gun”.
4-6 Off early from work to go to conversion ceremony. Actual conversion took only a few minutes. Recited the first shura of the Holy Koran aloud, and bingo! I was a Muslim. But then there was buying a prayer mat (special allowance in my cash packet this month for that as conversion is increasingly encouraged), then prayers and a sermon from the imam. I knew the guy. He was at my school back in the bad old days. He singled me out to welcome me personally into the faith. He used to be a good baseball player. Wanted to join the old Army – willing to kill people! Being an ethnic minority (half native-American) and gay, he was admitted into the State university. “Not the old Army then?” I said – perhaps a little unkindly. “They cured me of all that in my first semester,” he said. Then he asked me where I went to college. Had to admit I’d been turned down everywhere. He remembered I was only good at math and physics. I told him how I’d finally got a degree in computer science from Common Core Higher Education Online. “Main thing is, you must learn the Koran by heart,” he said. “One year from now I’ll be testing you.” I wanted to ask him if he was still gay, but didn’t dare. Must find out first thing tomorrow at work whether I must still look for same-sex partner in Love Hour now that I’m a Muslim.
6 Ate a salad in our Unitarium Food Space. Then met Mike in the Play Space for a game of chess. Not easy to concentrate. Noisier games all round us, much more popular. Almost everyone naked now. Mike said he hoped they don’t make it a Play Space rule. Actually I do too, but he shouldn’t have said so. He caught the look in my eye and quickly added,“I’m not complaining. It’s fine really – I just feel the cold rather more than most, I think.” After that his game went off and I won three times in a row.
9-10.30 Did some Koran memorizing and now finishing these diary notes just before Conservation Time lights out. Hope the bed comes down okay. Don’t want to have to sleep on the floor. (Am not complaining.)
Today two Muslims beheaded a 20 year old British soldier on a street in London. They shouted “Allahu Akbar!” of course. Police shot them. They were taken to a hospital.
The young soldier was wearing a T-shirt of a military charity called Help for Heroes.
Why did the Muslims do it? Because they are Muslims fighting perpetual jihad, and the victim was a British soldier. In their primitive mentality, a legitimate target.
WHEN ARE THE PEOPLE OF CIVILIZED NATIONS, INVADED BY THESE BARBARIANS, GOING TO START FIGHTING BACK?
This report comes from the Telegraph:
One witness, called James, told LBC radio: “We saw clearly two knives, meat cleavers, they were big kitchen knives like you would use in a butcher’s, they were hacking at this poor guy, we thought they were trying to remove organs from him”
“These two guys were crazed, they were not there, they were just animals. They then dragged him from the pavement and dumped his body in the middle of the road.
“They took 20 minutes to arrive, the police – the armed response.”
He added: “There was only a few people at first then traffic began to build up because people were getting out of their cars to shout at them they were taking no notice, they were standing there, I think they were proud of what they were doing.
“When they dumped the body in the road, these two black guys had the opportunity to hurt other people if they wanted to because there were brave women with the dead guy on the floor, they were shielding and covering him. The attackers with the knives were standing over these women.
“The guy with the gun, the tall guy with the beanie cap on, even a bus had pulled up – he was going over to the bus and asking people to take his photo.”