Americans are Drowning in Lies

In the April 1st edition of The Wall Street Journal, an editorial took note of President Obama’s announcement the previous day that sign-ups for Obamacare had passed seven million.

“Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.”

I usually don’t quote from other newspapers for the simple reason that most just repeat Obama’s lies. To an old journalist, that’s very depressing.

It’s depressing, too, to contemplate the list of Obama administration scandals, not the least of which is the September 11, 2012 attack on our Benghazi consulate that took the life of a U.S. ambassador and three security personnel. The claim that it was a spontaneous response to a video has been completely discredited.

“The Benghazi Report” of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has been published by Skyhorse Publishing. It documents a complete lack of truth and morality regarding the event and it has cascaded through the entire administration from the day Obama first took office in 2009. It was summed up by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s now classic response, “What difference does it make?”

What historians will likely find astonishing is the way Hillary Clinton is the only person mentioned as the Democratic Party candidate for President in the 2016 elections. I find it distressing that former Governor Jeb Bush is being touted as the Republican choice. With the exception of Obama who defeated Hillary in the 2008 primaries, the U.S. has had a Bush or Clinton as President since 1989.

We fought a Revolution to rid ourselves of such monarchies or in this case political dynasties.

There’s something fundamentally wrong with such lines of succession, but worse is the notion that the Democratic Party would even consider someone—Hillary Clinton—whose character, let alone her policies, have been so seriously flawed and documented for so long.

The most current and obvious demonstration of the lies with which we have been living since Obama was first elected is Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act that was passed solely by Democratic Party votes and by legislators that never even read it. This has been compounded by the now famous lies of the President concerning it.

Obamacare is so toxic that Democrat candidates up for election or reelection in the November 2014 midterms have fleeing their votes or support, now claiming that it merely needs revision, not repeal. Even the Republican Party has taken this position and both are wrong to do so. It puts the government in control of one sixth of the economy and the lives of all Americans. Some will die as a result.

Most revealing is Sen. Dick Durbin’s April 1st statement that “The free enterprise system is a strong system” but that it “created unfairness and injustice when it came to health care, which we are addressing with this Affordable Care Act.” Free enterprise is what made America the most powerful economy in the world. There is no system anywhere that does not suffer from some degree of unfairness because all are the product of human invention. Life is not fair.

The only “injustice” Durbin could be addressing is whether one could afford the health care insurance plans formerly available from many sources. Now the injustice is embodied in a government that requires its citizens to buy something they may not want and threatens to fine them if they don’t. This is so monumentally unconstitutional that the Supreme Court had to define Obamacare as a tax to enable it. That too is a lie.

We used to be able to depend on the U.S. Constitution to guarantee our freedoms and maintain the nation’s moral values but it has been interpreted to permit the murder of the unborn since the 1970s. There are lawsuits before it to protect the freedom of religion because of Obamacare. The assaults on our freedoms and moral values never end.

And now the nation is drifting toward the legalization of marijuana, a gateway drug to harder ones. We have a President who was a former “pot” smoker. If driving while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to kill thousands annually, this new intoxicant will increase those numbers.

Epitomizing the lies with which we are living these days—other than Obama’s—is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has reached the point of lying about his lies even though there are ample videotaped examples of them. Adding to this is his claim that those relating horror stories about their loss of health care insurance are all lying. Reid is one of the most powerful figures in our government these days and utterly devoid of the truth.

One has to have some confidence in one’s government, but that feeling is in decline and that is well worth worrying about.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jordi Payà. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Shannon’s Story: How Obamacare is Destroying Middle Class Families

A kick in the gut. That’s what it felt like for Shannon Wendt, a Michigan mother of five, when she found out her health care plan was being cancelled because of ObamaCare. Now, Shannon and her husband are struggling and working harder than ever to pay for an unaffordable health care plan under ObamaCare.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/L2wPxdmBrco[/youtube]

Vindication: Magnitsky, FGM and the Muslim Brotherhood

The lazier pessimists observing our political processes often like to claim that nothing changes.  Those with a keener eye can notice that they do, but that change takes time.  Just as in an argument, the most devastating facts backed up by even the most compelling style, never lead to any interlocutor saying, ‘Sorry – I see now, it is you who is right’, so in politics when facts become accepted, nobody much likes to acknowledge the fact.  People rarely say that their opinions have changed, and are even less keen to say that they were, in the recent past, wrong.

Here at the Henry Jackson Society there are a number of facts which we have laboured away at repeatedly for many years now.  And while not all of them are popular and not all of them are currently accepted, one of the rewards of having a values-based approach to the world – and holding to it – is that now and then you see a case you have been making get taken up by others and sometimes, just sometimes, even taken up as accepted wisdom.

When we were first calling for a Magnitsky Act to be instituted in Britain, replicating the US Act, to ensure that allies and associates of Vladimir Putin had their activities in Britain curtailed, there were very few others making the case.  Today, with facts in Crimea and Ukraine putting the wind behind our argument, we see sanctions against allies of Putin not simply becoming popularly argued for, but actually, in recent weeks, put in place.

So it is with the case of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Long before the group managed to ride the wave of post-revolutionary Egypt we had warned about them.  Long before the recent second-wave return of their leaders to London we had warned about the first such wave and asked repeatedly how it could be that Britain should act as a refuge for such fascistic totalitarians.  Now this week the British Prime Minister has announced a formal government inquiry into the Brotherhood’s activities in the UK.  We look forward to helping with that inquiry and will take a very active interest in its findings.

As with domestic terrorism, FGM, the effects of the draw-downs in defence spending and many other issues these are core HJS activities which have been not just taken up by government but swiftly accepted as the norm.  It will not always be the case.  There will be arguments we make which will be just as hard, if not harder, and slopes which are even steeper than those we have already scaled.  But the pleasure of occasional vindication is enough to encourage us in the fact that where there have already been victories there can be – thanks to your support – many more.

Death of Obama: Payback for Pushing “Peace” on Israel, Jerusalem’s Destruction and War with Iran?

Obama mocked the Bible as America’s heritage and favored Islam and a “Holy Qur’an”?  The Bible suggests his soon-coming fate in the only book recommended by Christ when asked about the end of the world—the book of Daniel.

The Savior urged our understanding of the book of Daniel, Matthew 24:3,15. The book of Daniel was sealed until the time of the end, Daniel 12:4. The angel, Gabriel, told Daniel that his vision [chazon of ram and goat] “is at the time of the end.”

Historians recognize the defeat of the Medes and Persians by Alexander the Great at the Battle of Arbela in 331 BC as fulfilling Daniel 8:7,8,20,21. But that was not “the time of the end.” This begs an understanding that there is an end-time application to this vision AND probably to Daniel’s whole book that was “sealed until the time of the end.”

In Daniel 8:7, the ram had its horns broken. They represented the kings of Media and Persia. But those areas today are Iraq and Iran. We have already seen the horn of Saddam Hussein broken. If we can trust the Bible, we should see trouble coming for Iran as it has pledged itself against Israel.

But Obama’s love for Islam has led him to press Israel for concessions that make them vulnerable to attack. The Bible says God “will gather all [Arab] nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken and the houses rifled and the women ravished and half of the city shall go forth into captivity… Then shall the LORD go forth to fight against those nations.” Zechariah 14:2,3.

The “going forth to fight against those nations” is also seen in Daniel 8:7 where the ram is stomped and then the goat becomes great. This sounds good for the United States until we see its great horn broken in Daniel 8:8. The Bible says that horn represents the king of Grecia, Daniel 8:21.

But remember, Daniel has an end-time application and Alexander wasn’t “the time of the end.” This is about Obama as Commander-in-Chief responsible for the U.S. attack on the ram of militant Islam as it “flies from the west on the face of the whole earth and touched not the ground,” Daniel 8:5.

Daniel’s description had to fit both the historical war of Alexander and the end-time application in order to be “sealed” till the time of the end. When we see the geographical areas of the Medes and Persians being broken by a western power, we can understand “touched not the ground” as an air war and coming “from the face of the whole earth” represents a coalition. Neither of these fit Alexander’s time.

After the defeat of Muslims militant against Israel, the goat becomes great, but its horn (king/Obama?) is broken. In history, Alexander died prematurely at the age of 33. This suggests early death for Obama, as does the broken horn of Saddam Hussein.

After the “great horn” is broken, four horns spring up toward the four winds, Daniel 8:8. The margin refers to Daniel 7 where four winds strove upon the sea and Daniel saw four beasts come up. It is significant that the Bible represents nations and govenments as fierce beasts of prey. True also today.

The first was like a lion with eagle’s wings. God “declares the end from the beginning,” Isaiah 46:10. The United Kingdom is often represented as a lion. The United States is represented by an eagle.

The second beast was like a bear that has three ribs in its mouth, and it’s told, “Arise and devour much flesh,” Daniel 7:5. “Arise” because it has been down. The three ribs could be Georgia, the Ukraine and?

The third beast was like a leopard with four heads. An Asian coalition of China, Japan, Korea and Thailand could fit this description.

The fourth beast was like a dragon with 10 horns. In the historic application, the Roman Empire was represented, and as it fell, the 10 horns represented 10 tribes that roamed Europe, but one of these horns became great. The Protestant Reformers were united in their view that it was the papacy, the “Holy Roman Empire” that grew out of pagan Rome and dominated Europe for many centuries.

In the end-time application, it is not hard to see this beast as the European Union, and again we may expect the papacy to dominate as Daniel 7:20-25 describes. This author is indebted to information from Charles Wheeling and his website.

When these things happens, everyone should turn to Scripture for a better understanding of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 13 reveals the Old World Order as an amalgamation of the four beasts from Daniel 7. It has a mouth like a lion, feet like a bear, looks like a leopard, but has the total of seven heads and 10 horns from Daniel 7. Amazing imagery that begs our understanding.

My urgent concern is for the people in Jerusalem who should consider further information at http://ezinearticles.com/?Could-Judgment-Be-Impending-on-Jerusalem?-A-View-of-History,-Bible-Prophecy-and-Current-Events&id=8395758    In addition, everyone should have a better understanding of http://AmericaInProphecy.me

April’s Fools: The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

On March 31st the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. You probably read something about it in your paper; almost certainly, you heard about it on the evening news from ABC, CBS, or NBC. But, why pay attention to the small fry, like Diane Sawyer or Brian Williams? The Secretary of State, John Kerry, tells us that “the costs of inaction are catastrophic.” Mr. Kerry apparently still believes “climate change” is the greatest weapon of mass destruction we face.

This report was brought to us by the same people who, last September, admitted their climate models tremendously exaggerate warming, as shown in the below graph.

models-vs-datasets

For a larger view click on the graph.

There are thousands of balloon observations of the atmosphere daily, going back to the 1950’s. Since 1980, there have been millions of satellite measurements of the temperature of the mid-troposphere (15 – 30,000 feet). And, as the IPCC (and NASA, and NOAA, and the UK Meteorological Office) admit, there has been no global warming for over 17 years.

Think about that. Science is based on formulating a hypothesis about the cause of a phenomenon in nature, conducting an experiment to test that hypothesis, and then modifying or rejecting, or – rarely – accepting the original hypothesis (at least until you can conduct a more definitive experiment).

UN “climate scientists” – the sort accepted by the UN and John Kerry – have been observing an ongoing experiment in the atmosphere for over seventeen years. Throughout that time, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing, by about 10%. The hypothesis is that CO2 “traps” heat in the atmosphere and warms the Earth. But no warming has been observed. How to explain this? Other than to admit the experiment demonstrates the hypothesis is false?

I personally accept that the hypothesis is false. In a previous article, I pointed out that, of infrared radiation emitted from Earth, and absorbed by a greenhouse gas (water vapor or CO2), at least half is re-radiated toward space. The other half (or less) is radiated downward; that’s the “greenhouse effect.” It acts like the insulation in the roof of your house, which helps the furnace keep the house warm, but it won’t set fire to the house. It won’t even heat the house by itself, in the absense of a furnace. You can live in a house with a furnace and no insulation, but a house with no furnace and lots of insulation will still be cold – at least some of the time.

But there are several excuses on offer for the lack of warming, such as the sun is getting colder, or the missing heat is hiding in the oceans, or there’s a lot more volcanic dust in the atmosphere than we thought, or oceanic winds are stronger than modelled, or we just don’t have enough observations in the right places….all excuses that were never mentioned before. Until the last six months, carbon dioxide was the one and only climate control. Now the story is changing; the models were just incomplete, and, as soon as they get their models improved (i.e., keep the “climate scientists” funded), they will figure out what the climate is really doing.

You should not believe this argument, for a fundamental reason. Models of the atmosphere are not reliable beyond about a week. A year? A century? Give me a break! Not a chance.

I’ve been musing over this for a couple of days – the impossibility of modelling the climate. I’m pleased to see that Lord Monckton of Brenchley has written on the same topic. You can read his description of why climate modelling is impossible as well – or you can simply write or call your local weather forecaster. None of this is a secret.

I became a student of meteorology in 1962, at Florida State, and I learned that scientific meteorological forecasting was becoming possible, through the ability of smart meteorologists (i.e., my professors) and the advent of very high-speed computers. The smart meteorologists would write the necessary non-linear partial differential equations in spherical coordinates on a rotating earth and initialize the boundary conditions from the thousands of surface and upper air balloon observations (with satellite observations yet to come) and run (i.e., find the solution that satisfied) the equations and out would come the forecast. Note the word initialize.

The next year, 1963, it all went to Hell. A very smart meteorologist, Ed Lorenz at MIT, started his computer and stepped away for a cup of coffee. When he came back, to his annoyance, he found the computer had stopped for some reason, only part way through. No reason to redo all the calculations, so he restarted the computer, and initialized the calculations with some of the values partway through. This time the calculations ran as far as he wanted, several days into the future. Much to his surprise, when he compared his partial results with the full results, they were very different. Much to everyone’s surprise, the solution to a set of deterministic non-linear partial differential equations depends very much on the initial conditions. Slightly – I mean infinitesimally – small initial condition differences can lead to wildly different forecasts. As Lorenz phrased it, “the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could lead to a tornado in Texas.”

So, how does a meteorologist know the initial conditions – always a little uncertain – won’t turn the forecast into nonsense? The National Meteorological Center runs the model several times, with small random variations in the numerical values of the initial conditions, to be sure the forecast doesn’t change drastically. But, over a few days, the inevitable errors – noise – in the initial value data will swamp the valid solution. The forecast always goes wrong.

As I said, every forecaster who has to face real customers in TV land, or the newspapers, or at the airport, or in the Air Force or Navy, is aware of this. That’s one of the reasons most real weather forecasters don’t believe the ivory tower “climate scientists” who offer prognostications of the climate a century from now. Have you noticed the “climate scientists” don’t bother to offer a forecast for next month? Or next year? Gee, I wonder what their verification statistics would look like?

Ed Lorenz discovered a new field of mathematics, called Chaos Theory, a major scientific development. It also includes fractals and fractal art, such as the Mandelbrot set. And the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock (I’m told) contain fractal characteristics. I guess meteorology’s loss is art’s gain. If you wish to know much more about Chaos Theory, The Great Courses (www.teach12.com) offers a very nice 24-lecture course by Professor Strogatz of Cornell.

curry

Ann Curry

Breaking news: the propaganda campaign to control your life and take your money, in the name of saving our children from climate change, will get a fresh hour of nonsense from Ann Curry (NBC News) on Sunday evening, April 6, 7p/6c. Curry will assure us that 2013 was “a year of extremes” that proves …well, I’ll wait to see.

RELATED STORY: Report: Global Warming Causes ‘No Net Harm’ to Environment or Human Health

Report: Global Warming Causes ‘No Net Harm’ to Environment or Human Health

Independent review of climate science contradicts “alarmist” views of United Nations report.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Monday released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. The 1,062-page report contains thousands of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature — and concludes rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are causing “no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.”

Click here to read the full report in digital form (PDF). An 18-page Summary for Policymakers is available here. Print versions of the full report and the summary will be released by NIPCC in Washington, DC the week of April 7th. Individual chapters of the full report can be downloaded at the Climate Change Reconsidered Web site.

Among the findings in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts:

  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic, non-irritating, and natural component of the atmosphere. Long-term CO2 enrichment studies confirm the findings of shorter-term experiments, demonstrating numerous growth-enhancing, water-conserving, and stress-alleviating effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on plants growing in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
  • There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefiting from rising agricultural productivity around the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.
  • Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life. Many aquatic species have shown considerable tolerance to temperatures and CO2 values predicted for the next few centuries, and many have demonstrated a likelihood of positive responses in empirical studies. Any projected adverse impacts of rising temperatures or declining seawater and freshwater pH levels (“acidification”) will be largely mitigated through phenotypic adaptation or evolution during the many decades to centuries it is expected to take for pH levels to fall.
  • A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than are lost due to excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases.

NIPCC scientists and experts from Washington, DC-based think tanks will be in Washington the week of April 7th to publicly release the final two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered II series: Biological Impacts, which is available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org, and Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies, which will become available online during the coming week.

ABOUT THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

The Heartland Institute is a 30-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit the Heartland Institute website or call 312/377-4000.

ABOUT THE NONGOVERNMENTAL INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of scientists and scholars who first came together in 2003 to provide an independent review of the climate science cited by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC has produced five major scientific reports so far and plans to release one more in the coming weeks. These reports have been endorsed by leading scientists from around the world, been cited in peer-reviewed journals, and are credited with changing the global debate over climate change. No corporate or government funding was solicited or received to support production of these reports.

Florida: Threat of Force to Stop Attackers PASSES

House Bill 89 by Representative Neil Combee and Senator Greg Evers is on its way to the Governor. On April 3rd, 2014, HB-89 passed the Florida Senate by a vote of 32-7. In the Senate, 6 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the bill:

Republicans voting against the bill were:   John Legg (R-Lutz)

Democrats voting against the bill were:  Oscar Braynon (D-Miami Gardens), Dwight Bullard (D-Cutler Bay), Arthenia Joyner (D)-Tampa), Gwen Margolis (D_Miami), Jeremy Ring (D-Margate), Chris Smith (D-Fort Lauderdale)

Having previously passed the Florida House by a vote of 93-24, the bill  is now making its way to the Governor’s desk.

According to Marion P. Hammer, USF Executive Director and NRA Past President, “HB-89 is a bill to stop abusive prosecutors from using 10-20-LIFE to prosecute people who, in self-defense, threaten to use deadly force against an attacker as a means to stop an attack. Some anti-gun, anti-self-defense prosecutors have been abusing the 10-20-LIFE law to prosecute average citizens who displayed a weapon or gun in self-defense to make an attacker back off. Average citizens who never would have been in the system if they had not been attacked and in fear for their own safety, are being persecuted and prosecuted for defending themselves.”

“Because citizens took responsibility for their own safety, some prosecutors treat them like criminals and make them victims of a judicial system. 10-20-Life was passed to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-wielding criminals on the wrist so they could quickly clear cases. The 10-20-Life law was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self-defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attacker, including the unwise use of a warning shot. Yet, that’s what some prosecutors are doing. They are willfully and knowingly violating the intent of the law,” notes Hammer

RELATED STORY:

It’s Not About Warning Shots — The 10-20-Life law is being misused By Marion P. Hammer December 7, 2013

Nothing in SB-448 and HB-89, the House Companion, allows warning shots nor do they promote or encourage warning shots.

Warning shots are not safe. Nonetheless, when people are in fear for their lives or the lives of loved ones, they might fire a warning shot rather than shoot someone. People make mistakes and do irrational things when in fear of death or injury. That doesn’t mean they should go to prison for 20 years when there was no injury or harm done.

Warning shots are an unsafe result of the glorification of such conduct in movies and on TV. No one is recommending warning shots.

Nonetheless, a father should not be prosecuted under 10-20-Life for firing a warning shot. No harm was done yet a father was sent to prison for 20 years for firing a warning shot to stop an attacker from harming his daughter.

A mother should not be charged under 10-20-Life for firing a warning shot to stop an attack by an abusive ex-husband. It caused no injury and no harm yet she was prosecuted and sent to prison for 20 years. These are not isolated cases.

The simple truth is the intent of the 10-20-Life law is being violated. The law was intended to be used to lock up criminals who use guns during the commission or attempted commission of crimes.

It was intended to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-toting criminals on the wrist so they could quickly clear cases.

The 10-20-Life law was never intended to be used against citizens who, in an act of self-defense, threatened the use of force to stop an attacker, including the unwise use of a warning shot. Yet, that’s what some prosecutors are doing. They are willfully and knowingly violating the intent of the law.

The cold hard reality is that some prosecutors are treating law-abiding people like criminals. People who never would have been in the system had they not been attacked and in fear for their own safety are being prosecuted. Self-defense is not a crime, it is a right and prosecutors are trampling those rights.

The threat of force in self-defense should have the same protection as actually shooting someone in self-defense. You should not be required to shoot an attacker to have the protection of the law.

The issue is not warning shots, it’s about protecting people from the abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Marion P. Hammer is a past president of the National Rifle Association and executive director of Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

The 10-20-LIFE Law is a Minimum Mandatory law that mandates specific penalties for criminals who use guns to commit crimes:

10 years in prison for pulling a gunduring the commission of a crime.

20 years in prison for shooting a gun during the commission of a crime.

25 years to Life in prison if you shoot someone during the commission of a crime.

For more information on Florida’s 10-20-Life go here:  10-20-Life – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslim tells Muslims: “If you feel you are uncomfortable here — then leave the country”

HPR-300x199

Qadir visits a study group hosted by Institute of Politics fellow Farah Pandith. Photo courtesy of Harvard Political Review.

Rachael Hanna, Associate World Editor for the Harvard Political Review interviewed Hanif Qadir, Founder of the Active Change Foundation (ACF). According to the ACF website, “Hanif is recognised as one of the UK’s leading specialists in positively transforming violent extremists. He is actively involved in advising and assisting senior policy makers in reforming key aspects of the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) agenda. He works closely with a wide range of Governmental institutions, most of the UK’s Police authorities including the Metropolitan Police and research academics across the globe, with a view to applying a more sensitive and sensible approach in counter terrorism strategies.”

Given Qadir’s background, and that he is a practicing Muslim, this question and answer from the interview stands out:

HPR: In more conservative Muslims communities, how do you deal with the conflict that they might feel exists between some of their beliefs and the modernity of Britain?

HQ: I find that quite easy to handle. There is nowhere in Britain where you are not allowed to practice your faith. In every part of Britain, there are mosques and people are allowed to practice their faith as long as it doesn’t harm others. So my argument to [conservative Muslims] always will be, “If you feel uncomfortable about being a Muslim in Britain, you are not being compelled to live in Britain. You can choose to leave.” And sometimes, if they feel strongly about their views, then I will quote [Koranic] verse to them about emigrating for the sake of Allah to a land where you can feel comfortable practicing your religion. So if you feel you are uncomfortable here, then please your Lord and leave the country. [Emphasis added]

To read the full Harvard Political Review interview click here.

Qadir believes “the War on Terror absolutely can be won.”

“I believe wholeheartedly that it can be won. Communities have a role to play in this. We cannot tackle this problem without the backing of the community, and the only thing that will allow that to happen is if the government and its institutions support organizations like the ACF to go into communities and build that collateral. There has to be more participation from young people and from communities in politics, government, and education,” notes Qadir.

In the video below former extremist and Founder of The Active Change Foundation Hanif Qadir tells us his story of getting sucked into radical thinking, how young people get radicalized, what we can do to prevent it and if its possible to win over the extremists:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/8CZP1vabiV8[/youtube]

 

There are many who question current US policy in the war on terror under Presidents G.W. Bush and Barack Obama. Former federal agent and author of Muslim Mafia David Gaubatz stated in an interview:

A “radical Muslim” is a “practicing” Muslim. A “Moderate” Muslim is a “non-practicing” Muslim or otherwise known as an “Apostate of Islam.” I ask readers to read my prior article, “The Fallacy of the Moderate Muslim.” There are essentially four types of people associated with Islam.

    1. You have the “Pure Muslim” who does everything he or she can to be an example of what Islam was mandated to be by Prophet Mohammed (the founder of Islam). These folks are the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a dozen other Islamic terrorist groups. They are otherwise known as the band of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    2. The second group are Muslims who found and lead such organizations as CAIR, ISNA, MSA [Muslim Students’ Association], MANA [Muslim Alliance in North America], etc. They spend millions on public relations to make themselves appear as peaceful Muslims only wanting to help other Muslims in need. In actuality, these groups are simply fronts of the Muslim Brotherhood to help fund their illegal operations.
    3. The third group consists of what the world describes as “Moderate” Muslims. They have little to do with Islam and Sharia law. The majority of them are simply Apostates of Islam. The dangerous part is that some of these so-called moderates will side with Islamic terror groups when “the time is right.”
    4. The fourth type of group is made up of liberals worldwide who are non-Muslim but who support the Islamic ideology before they would support their own governments in America, Egypt, UK, etc. They are a grave danger, because they provide cover for terror groups.

Qadir and his colleagues at ACF appear to fit into the type 3 category of Muslims. Practicing their religion without the violence associated with it.

To read more articles by Rachael Hanna go to: http://harvardpolitics.com/author/rachael-hanna/

RELATED STORIES:

CIA Chief: I Removed ‘Islamic’ from ‘Islamic Extremists’ in Benghazi Talking Points to Appease Muslims

Female AP Journalists Shot in Afghanistan, One Dead…

If you think expanding school choice is expensive –consider the alternative! by Jeff Spaulding

President Obama has yet again omitted funding for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program in his recently proposed 2015 education budget. Although his reasoning is likely more philosophical than financial, his decision makes analyzing the fiscal effects of opposing school choice worthwhile.

Data from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) show that taxpayers are bearing additional costs for funding K-12 education as a result of the continued erosion in private school enrollment.

By the 2009-10 school year, the private school share of K-12 enrollment nationwide had dropped nearly three percentage points, down to 10 percent since its peak of 12.7 percent in the 1984-85 school year. The DOE currently projects that enrollment shift, if unabated, will continue—falling further, to 9.1 percent, in 2020.

Critically, public schools have had to fill that gap, causing a substantial net additional fiscal cost that is rarely acknowledged by public officials.

Looking only at 2009-10, if the private school share had held steady at the 1984-85 level, about 1.5 million fewer students would have been enrolled in public schools. With America’s per-student spending average of $10,652 in public schools in 2009-10, taxpayers would have saved $15.7 billion that year alone.

Taking a broader view, if the private school enrollment share had held steady at 12.7 percent from 1985 through 2010, spending on the K-12 public schools across the United States could have been as much as $222 billion less! Check out the chart below to see for yourself.

Just imagine what might have happened had a different set of policy options been pursued over the past 25 years. For example, a very limited and targeted school voucher program—phased in one cohort annually starting with kindergarten in 1986— likely would have been more than sufficient to maintain the 1985 private school enrollment share. At a theoretical voucher amount of half the public school average spending per pupil—awarded to just enough students each year to maintain a 12.7 percent private school enrollment share—taxpayers could have saved as much as $111 billion, through 2010, by “spending” on a new school voucher program.

Phasing in by cohort is merely a technical way of describing a voucher program that is expanded sequentially starting with a first group of incoming kindergarten students and then allowing all subsequent new classes of kindergarten students to be eligible. Thus, in year two of the program, both kindergarten and first grade students would be eligible. In year three, eligibility expands to students in kindergarten through second grade, and so on. Such a strategy would have served to moderate the voucher program’s growth and align its expansion more closely with the erosion rate in private school enrollment. Additionally, a phase-in by cohort could have been overlaid with other criteria, such as income limits or geographic boundaries, to control eligibility even more tightly if so desired.

In fairness, it would be rather difficult to design a nationwide school voucher program in such a restricted way that it would offset only the slow erosion in private school enrollment share (approximately 0.1 percent or 50,000 students per year). Because each new cohort is about four million students, any such program, even if restricted and phased in, likely would attract more participants than required just to offset the erosion rate. The upside is, if such a voucher program caused the private school enrollment rate to rise, the savings would be even more.

What has actually happened over this period of time? A sporadic expansion of school choice options on a state-by-state basis has served as a form of phase-in. Unfortunately, its pace has, thus far, been far too slow to fully offset the erosion in private school enrollment.

There’s no objectively “right” ratio for public school versus private school enrollment, but from a purely fiscal perspective, the larger the private school share the lower the public cost. For the ratio to return to somewhere near its 1985 level, the growth of school choice across the country will need to be accelerated by state lawmakers—because the president wants no part of it.

More Posts

March 2014 UPDATE: School Choice in the States

Alabama
The Alabama House passed HB 558 that would amend the Alabama Accountability Act. The bill heads to the Senate for consideration. The bill would make the following changes:

  • Define individual donors as shareholders or partners of S corporations or Subchapter K entities, and eliminate the $7,500 cap on all individual contributions.
  • Scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) would be able to distribute scholarships first to students in “failing” schools and then to lower-income public school students who are not in a failing school by May 15. Current law requires that the SGOs wait until September 15 to distribute scholarships to low-income public students not transferring from a failing school.
  • Change the definition of a failing school. The change would likely eliminate a few public schools from the failing school list, thus making students in those schools ineligible for future participation in the refundable-credit program.

Alaska
The current fate of SJR-9, which would place an amendment to the Blaine provision in the state’s constitution on the November ballot, is still up in the air. The resolution has been sent back to the Rules Committee where it waits until it is reintroduced on the Senate floor.

Arizona
The Arizona Supreme Court declined to review a Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the state’s education savings accounts (ESA) program. The high court’s decision essentially deemed the ESAs constitutional. Several legislative proposals are moving in the state to expand the ESA program further.

Colorado
The Colorado Supreme Court announced it will review the constitutionality of the Douglas County Choice Scholarship Pilot Program. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in 2013 the program does not violate the state’s constitution, which led the ACLU, which is openly anti-school choice, to file an appeal to the state supreme court. There is no word on when a decision could be expected.

Florida
The House chamber passed an expansion to the Florida tax-credit scholarship that would expand the cap on contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) and allowed businesses to donate against their sales tax liability. The bill would also allow lower- to middle-income families to receive partial scholarships. Proponents of the bill projected the changes would have allowed thousands more students to participate in the program. Even though close to 60,000 students are receiving scholarships through Step Up For Students, Florida’s sole SGO, there is still a waiting list for families in need of options.

The bill’s chances were cut short when the Senate sponsor pulled the bill because Senate and House leadership vehemently disagreed over adding state testing requirements. The House wanted to keep the original accountability language in the bill—requiring students take a nationally norm-referenced test—but Senate leadership demanded that private schools participating in the program should be required to take state tests.

The legislation would have been dead this session but for Rep. Erik Fresen, who added the Florida tax-credit scholarship expansion language to an education savings account bill for students with special needs. The combined legislation passed the Florida House Education Appropriations Subcommittee and will likely be up for a House floor vote in early April.

Indiana
A new voucher program was created this legislative session allowing parents of up to 1,500 children to choose a publicly or privately run pre-kindergarten school. Also, lawmakers clarified language in a portion of the state’s existing voucher program to better serve K-12 students with special needs whose parents want to choose a private school.

Iowa
ESA legislation in Iowa did not make it through the “funnel” process there. This requires that all legislation be moving toward crossover to the other chamber by a certain date. The ESA bill made it out of the Appropriations Subcommittee but was not taken up by the full committee.

Kansas
Both the ESA and the tax-credit scholarship bills are stalled in the legislative process. There is a bill in the legislature to raise the Base State Aid[KB2] in conjunction with a recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling. That legislation does not contain any school choice-related language.<

Louisiana
Legislation that would give low-income students access to more school choice funding passed the state’s House Ways and Means Committee. The bill would allow students participating in the Louisiana Scholarship Program to be automatically eligible for the state’s tax-credit scholarship program, which could potentially give their parents greater purchasing power.

Mississippi
On March 12, the Senate passed HB 765, the Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Act. The conference report on the ESA bill was filed in late March and contains a three-year repealer clause, making this a pilot program. The House voted down the ESA bill April 2 by a vote of 57-63. To see the evolution of the bill to date, visit State Programs and Government Relations Director Stephanie Linn’s markup here.

New York
In 2012, the New York Senate passed tax-credit scholarship legislation, the Education Investment Tax Credit, by a vote of 55 to 4. The Assembly’s companion bill had more than 100 co-sponsors. Although the measure had prominent support, including from some unlikely sources, this year New York’s budget did not include funding for the program, eliminating the possibility that the tax-credit scholarship program will become law.

Rhode Island
A “sliding-scale” voucher bill available to families earning up to 300 percent of the income needed to qualify for free and reduced-price lunch is still pending in committee. The bill faces a deadline of June 23, when the state’s legislative session ends.

Tennessee
The House Finance Subcommittee passed a failing-school voucher bill for students attending schools with academic performance in the bottom 10 percent of the state. The bill does not include income restrictions for students, although most eligible students in this bill would be from lower-income households. The bill sponsor has been taken off notice in the House Finance Committee with the stated intention to take up the bill later this month.

The Tennessee Senate Education Committee followed suit by passing a companion bill. The bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Mark Norris (R), offered an amendment that would allow the program to give first preference to students attending schools in the bottom 5 percent academically and then open up eligibility for low-income students not in failing schools but who are in public schools within counties that contain failing schools. That amendment passed. Notably, the bill passed the committee 8-1 with bipartisan support. The Senate Finance committee will consider the bill in early April.

Vermont
An effort is underway in Vermont to dramatically cut the number of school districts statewide. The move essentially would render the state’s town tuitioning voucher program meaningless (for it to take effect a district must not house any public schools). Also, lawmakers are attempting to put a moratorium on “flipping” schools—in recent years, two public schools used the state’s voucher program to convert to private status amid concerns over state and federal over regulation.

More Posts

Milton Friedman On Taxes and Education Funding

How can we minimize the gap in income inequality for America’s Haves and Have-nots? This video features Milton Friedman with a surprisingly simple solution. Watch to find out about the keystone of school choice.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/JrqAv5Z6yRo[/youtube]

 

To learn more about the Nobel Prize-winning economist and his views on education, visit: http://www.edchoice.org.

Recent cases highlight terror threat from Muslim soldiers

It is simple common sense that soldiers who are Muslim might be hearing from other Muslims that no non-Sharia government has any legitimacy, and that the U.S. is the enemy of Muslims for waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. It is simple common sense to try to determine the allegiances and loyalties of Muslim soldiers. But to attempt such a thing would be “Islamophobic,” and the need to avoid “Islamophobia” trumps everything.

“Jihadist 5th Column Targets The Military,” from Investor’s Business Daily, April 3:

Infiltration: Though the Fort Hood copycat shooter wasn’t motivated by jihad, the FBI is hunting for another member of the Army, a Muslim convert allegedly planning a terrorist attack on U.S. bases.

After a Muslim Army major in 2009 massacred 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, the FBI and Pentagon opened more than 100 investigations into suspected Islamic extremists inside the military. At least a dozen showed a strong intent to attack military targets.

These ongoing threats come on top of the 30 plots or attacks against military targets within the U.S. that law enforcement has disrupted or prosecuted since 2001, and don’t include the three military-related terror busts from this year alone, which are:

• Nicholas Teausant, aka Assad, a California National Guardsman and convert to Islam, who was arrested last month trying to join al-Qaida fighters in Syria. (An FBI affidavit quotes Assad as saying “I despise America” and threatening to kill his “kaffir” mother if she tried to stop him from joining “Allah’s army.”)

• Craig Benedict Baxam, a Maryland Army vet and recent convert who was imprisoned in January for trying to join al-Qaida in Somalia. (Court records show he told FBI agents he planned to fight the U.S. in jihad.)

• Mozaffar Khazaee, a U.S. defense contractor arrested in January for shipping secret documents detailing the F35 Joint Strike Fighter program to Iran. (He was taken into custody while catching a flight to Tehran.)

Despite continued evidence Muslims and Muslim converts pose a threat to military and national security, the Pentagon continues to make special accommodations for Muslim soldiers. Earlier this year, it relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards and turbans.

Such accommodations only attract more Muslims at a time when recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of them in uniform. What’s needed, instead, is special screening and monitoring of such recruits.

RELATED STORIES:

Robert Spencer at Breitbart: How Many Fort Hood-Style Jihad Attacks Must There Be?

Canada’s former ambassador to Afghanistan says Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo courtesy of the Department of Defense is of US Army Muslim Soldiers bow down in prayer during the celebration of Eid-Al-Fitr Sunday at the Joe E. Mann Center. Eid-Al-Fitr marks the end of Ramadan, the holy month for Muslims worldwide.

Into the Benghazi Storm with “Special Operations Speaks”

“The political director of Special Operations Speaks, which represents over 1,000 Special Operations veterans, claimed House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is not creating a committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi because he is protecting those who know what really happened and the details of what may have been a cover-up. Special Operations Speaks recently launched a social media campaign to memorialize the four Americans killed in last year’s Benghazi terrorist attacks and pressure Congress to create a Select Committee to investigate and uncover the truth of the administration’s handling of the attacks,” reported Breitbart’s Tony Lee in August 2013.

The officers of SOS will join with me on WBTM TV to battle corruption and incompetence in DC!

[youtube]http://youtu.be/q73QhxHBYro[/youtube]

Florida Bar Association Attacks Rabbi for supporting Dutch MP Geert Wilders

The Florida version of American Law for American Courts (ALAC) SB 386 passed the second hurdle  today, on a partisan vote of 6 Republicans  versus 3 Democrats.  The Democrat opponents included  Sen. Jeremy Ring, the Chairman of the State Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability (GO&A)Committee.

It was left to GO&A Deputy Chairman Sen. Alan Hays to advance the legislation to passage at today’s hearing.

We join with other Floridians in commending Sen. Hays for his valued support of SB 386: “acceptance  of foreign laws in certain cases”.  His tenacity, perseverance and collegiality in working with the proponents and his adroit understanding of the politicking involved has made a demonstrable difference endeavoring to pass the Florida version of ALAC s in its fourth try.

Having watched the video of today’s Florida Senate GO&A  hearing and partisan vote we have provided you with  the URL link to the Hearing video below. Please watch beginning at time mark 60 mins through  81 mins.

http://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=2443575804_2014041060

The bulk of the hearing discussion  was comprised of  the introduction by  Republican  Committee  member  Sen. David  Simmons of an amendment that seeks to codify, in his parlance, judge made law. He considers that  superior to SB 386 in that  the amendment seeks to perfect a compromise with critics of the bill.  After presentation  of  Simmons’ amendment, it was withdraw enabling a vote on SB 386 as proposed.

Sen. Hays endeavored to show our video interview with Rabbi Hausman to the Committee.  At the request of Committee Chair Ring,  Sen. Hays  presented  Rabbi Jonathan Hausman’s professional bona fides to comment on Israeli family law recognition of rabbinic decrees. Hays focused on the Rabbi’s  multifaceted qualifications as an ordained  pulpit rabbi,  Member of the Bars of  Pennsylvania and Connecticut and extensive  knowledge of both Jewish Halacha and Islamic Sharia.

Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman small

Rabbi Jonathan H. Hausman

In the presentation by the Florida Bar International Law section we noted the ad hominem attack against Rabbi Hausman for being an ally of a Dutch Member of  Hague Parliament, Geert Wilders and leader of the Freedom Party. Further, this  line of attack  was taken up  by GO&A Chair Senator Jeremy Ring (D-FL District 29) about the lack of Family Law testimony from that section of the Florida bar association. It was also reflected in the comments of the Emerge USA Muslim group representative  complaining  about the bill not being heard by Senate Child and Family dominated by Senators concerned about alleged denial of Israeli divorces. That clearly is the misinformed argument promoted by the ADL in a mass email campaign to the Florida Jewish community just prior to today’s hearing.

The Florida Chamber of Commerce  Representative argued that SB 386  was complicated impacting on international transactions and small business owners. We suspect that the ADL, Florida Family and International Law sections of the state bar association, Emerge USA Muslim advocacy group and Sen. Simmons will put in their final strokes at the next stop, the Senate Rules Committee.

So far on the family law matters we have yet to see  introduced the video evidence by either or both Professor Margaret McClain and especially Floridian Yasmeen A. Davis. Ms. Davis  was rescued by her family  from an abduction and removal to Saudi Arabia by her father in violation  of state, federal and international law against parental abductions. This is graphic testimony of the war on women under Sharia.

Perhaps given today’s  successful vote on SB 386, there might be movement in the Florida House on the companion measure, HB903 that passed on the Subcommittee on Civil Justice on  March 18th. The subcommittee is  Chaired by District 32 Rep. Larry Metz who is one of ALAC’s  most knowledgeable proponents. He sponsored the legislation in the 2013 legislative session in Tallahassee.  One indication of that came in a meeting that occurred at a recent dinner of the Allen West Foundation in Palm Beach, Florida.

District 2  Florida House Representative, Warren Bryan “Mike” Hill and Rabbi Hausman were featured speakers at the event. Rep. Hill when he learned of Rabbi Hausman’s involvement in the pending Florida ALAC legislation  said he voted for the measure at the House Subcommittee hearing and would vote for it when it reached the Florida House floor. It appears likely that the House version may be heard shortly in the full Judiciary Committee where Rep. Metz may play a key role in arguing for passage.

As baseball great and master of malapropisms, Yogi Berra might opine, “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings”.  Nevertheless, today’s  Senate GO&A passage may indicate that the momentum could be building up a head of steam for ultimate passage in the 2014 Legislature Session in Tallahassee.

EDITORS NOTE:

The Florida Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee approved American Laws for American Courts legislation which would prohibit Sharia and other foreign laws during the committee’s April 3, 2014 meeting. The committee voted 6 to 3 in favor of SB 386 titled Application of Foreign Law in Certain Cases during their Wednesday, April 3, 2014 9:00 am – 10:30 am meeting:

Chair:
Senator Jeremy Ring (D)                    No
Vice Chair:
Senator Alan Hays (R)                         Yes

Senator Aaron Bean (R)                      Yes
Senator Lizbeth Benacquisto (R)    Yes
Senator Rob Bradley (R)                    Yes
Senator Dorothy L. Hukill (R)         Yes
Senator Bill Montford (D)                  No
Senator David Simmons (R)              Yes
Senator Christopher L. Smith (D)    No

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Eighty-one Years Ago: It began with a boycott of Jews in Berlin

April 1933: Nazi storm troopers outside a Berlin store posting signs reading, “Do not buy from Jews!”

220px-Al-Husayni1929head

Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In office from 1921–1948. Photo taken in 1929.

It always starts with a boycott. That is how tyrants begin the process of cleansing those deemed unfit or enemies of the state. Eighty one years ago we saw the same thing that is happening today, not in Nazi, Germany, but rather on the campuses of America’s elite universities and on the streets of New York City.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero in The Jewish Press reports, “It is incomprehensible. This year, the sponsors of New York’s annual Israel Day Parade are allowing organizations to march who actively promote a boycott of Israeli businesses and companies owned by Jews in Judea-Samaria.”

“The UJA-Federation, responsible for the annual parade, has given the Green Light to groups organizing boycotts against products of Jewish owners in Judea and Samaria. These groups work every day to isolate Israel and make her a global pariah, announcing to the world the names of specific Jewish-owned companies operating in Judea-Samaria they want punished. Yet, these ‘Jewish’ groups are being invited to infiltrate the Parade, either because of agreement with their tactics or as a way of affirming what the UJA-Federation calls an ‘open tent’,” notes Rabbil Spero.

The current Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement touts itself as promoting “freedom, justice, equality.” The global BDS campaign against Israel is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), established in 2007.

But the 1933 boycott of Jews in Berlin is inextricably linked to the current BDS movement against Israel. That link is Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

On 20 November, al-Husseini met the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop[149] and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on 28 November.[150] He asked Adolf Hitler for a public declaration that ‘recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for independence and liberation, and that would support the elimination of a national Jewish homeland’.[151] Hitler refused to make such a public announcement, saying that it would strengthen the Gaullists against the Vichy France, but asked al-Husseini to ‘to lock …deep in his heart’ the following points, which Christopher Browning summarizes as follows, that:

‘Germany has resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well’. When Germany had defeated Russia and broken through the Caucasus into the Middle East, it would have no further imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation… But Hitler did have one goal. “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power”. (Das deutsche Ziel würde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht lebenden Judentums sein). In short, Jews were not simply to be driven out of the German sphere but would be hunted down and destroyed even beyond it.’

Al-Husseini meeting with Muslim volunteers, including the Legion of Azerbaijan, at the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin on 18 December 1942, during the Muslim festival Eid al-Adha.

While in Germany, al-Husseini was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly admonished the guards operating the gas chambers to work more diligently. In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit under al-Husseini’s command parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.

Al-Husseini also helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies.

A separate record of the meeting was made by Fritz Grobba, who until recently had been the German ambassador to Iraq. His version of the crucial words reads “when the hour of Arab liberation comes, Germany has no interest there other than the destruction of the power protecting the Jews”.

In the lead-up to the 1948 Palestine war, Husseini opposed both the 1947 UN Partition Plan and King Abdullah’s designs to annex the Arab part of British Mandatory Palestine to Jordan, and, failing to gain command of the ‘Arab rescue army’ (jaysh al-inqadh al-‘arabi) formed under the aegis of the Arab League, formed his own militia, al-jihad al-muqaddas. In September 1948, he participated in establishment of All-Palestine Government. Seated in Egyptian-ruled Gaza, this government won a limited recognition of Arab states, but was eventually dissolved by Gamal Nasser in 1959.

After the war and subsequent Palestinian exodus, his claims to leadership, wholly discredited, left him eventually sidelined by the Palestine Liberation Organization, and he lost most of his residual political influence. But his spirit lives on in the current BDS movement.