Did Hezbollah, foreign agents and unions infiltrate the Republican Party?

Kerry Patton

Kerry Patton

by Kerry Patton:  Republicans are nothing more than Democrats in disguise,” a conservative friend told me recently. More and more conservatives are displeased with the Republican Party. Some believe the party has actually been infiltrated by not only left leaning persons but foreign influencers and Islamists as well.It’s sad that in today’s political arena, a person cannot present sound critical questioning to their own party without being castrated. It appears that more and more self-proclaimed Republicans are playing a game of ad hominem attacks, just as Democrats do. If conservatives favor a two party system, it’s critical we fix a very broken Republican Party. The first step could be to begin vetting members appropriately. This requires asking critical questions and demanding answers.Bearing Drift: Virginia’s Conservative Voice, an online media platform, recently published an article titled Del. David Ramadan Kicks Butt! The author praised Delegate Ramadan (R-87th) for his initiative on passing House Bills 1760 and 2120. Everything sounds good so far. But reading comments on the blog revealed a troubling pattern.One commenter posed a very simple question: Who is Imad David Ramadan? The question should have been more appropriately presented by asking, Who is Lebanese born Imad Afif Ramadan? Yes, the person we know as “David” Ramadan is actually a Shi’ite Muslim born in Lebanon with the birth name Imad Afif Ramadan.

What’s interesting is the fact that the author who wrote “Del. David Ramadan Kicks Butt” is the same author who in August, 2011 wrote Questions Swirl Around David-Imad Ramadan in 87th HOD. This article revealed David Ramadan’s past, including his ties to Lebanese Intelligence, the fact that he was formerly married to a Muslim woman who has gone missing, the fact that he filed bankruptcy, and his breach of the oath of American citizenship by signing a petition with his two brothers called DEMAND[ING] THE RIGHT TO VOTE AS CITIZENS OF LEBANON.

Something just doesn’t seem right about the entire debacle surrounding David Ramadan. Why would any online media outlet expose David Ramadan and then, months later, do everything in its power to act like they are his best friend?

Let me be very clear. I am not saying one way or another David Ramadan is aligned with any international terrorist organization nor am I claiming he has ties to any foreign state. Nor am I claiming the team at Bearing Drift are doing anything wrong. Maybe they just had a sudden “change of heart.”

Some questions about Ramadan’s past do warrant answers, however. We the people deserve those answers without being chastised for posing such questions. I will touch more on Bearing Drift and at least one of its board members.

Some Republicans may believe Ramadan and Bearing Drift don’t matter so long as they continue the conservative path. I disagree. The conservative path is not about lies, deception, and monetary influence. That’s the path of today’s Republicans and Democrats. Again, I am not saying anyone has lied, deceived, used or uses foreign or domestic monetary value to influence duties. I just want answers.

We must not allow fellow so-called conservatives to jump on Republican bandwagons. Remember, through our party’s history, we have had many sell-outs. It’s time to weed out the fake conservatives wearing a Republican disguise. We cannot afford for our party to be further infiltrated.

And yes, we conservatives have allowed our party to become infiltrated. Let’s not forget the case of one Pakistani agent by the name of Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai who infiltrated our party not long ago in an attempt to influence our elected officials.  The 62 year old Fairfax, VA resident was supported by the Pakistani ISI—the very organization who many believe supported in the aiding and harboring of Osama Bin Laden. [Ed. Note: Nabi Fai’s activities dated to the terms President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served.]

If you believe Nabi Fai is the only foreign agent to infiltrate and influence our party, you are wrong. It happens more often than you could imagine. He just happened to get caught.

Read more at The US Report

Kerry Patton, a combat disabled veteran, is author of Contracted: America’s Secret Warriors.

See also:

Who is Imad “David” Ramadan? (counterjihadreport.com)

Grover Norquist is the problem with Washington DC, not the solution

By Patrick Poole

One of the bigger political stories of the past few days has been the backlash by some members of the GOP to the manner in which Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform wields some legislators’ tax pledges as a bludgeon to Grover’s own agenda.

Some of the criticism of these lawmakers is on target as they lose their nerve following Obama’s reelection and are contemplating various “revenue enhancements” or “tax reform” schemes as mechanisms to raise taxes on American citizens. Fair enough.

But that in no way makes Grover Norquist the guy in the white hat as a review of his record shows. Not only did Norquist endorse increases in government spending (which we now have to pay for), but his record shows that Grover Norquist’s primary interest in DC is not the taxpayers but no one other than Grover Norquist and whomever is paying for his time (and it sure ain’t the taxpayers).

Let’s review some data points:

In Sept 2003, Norquist was the main cheerleader and defender of the increases in government spending under President Bush and the GOP-controlled US House and Senate, claiming that these spending increases were to “make government more effective“:

Some other conservatives see it differently. Grover Norquist, founder of the Americans for Tax Reform, says much of the growth is short-term and aimed at programs to make government more effective, helping conservatives to meet long-term goals of shrinking government. He cited Mr. Bush’s education initiative requiring more student testing as an example that could eventually bring school costs down. “We are going to find that there are failures in the public-school system. Are we building the case for school choice, for defeating teacher’s unions? I think you can argue that we are, that we are investing in order to reform.”

Clearly, those spending increases haven’t made government more effective or lowered spending in the long-term as Grover promised.

In June 2011, Norquist was battling with Sen. Tom Coburn, who wanted to end ethanol subsidies. But Norquist said he considered ending billions in government handouts without cutting the same amount as a violation of the ATR tax pledge. Again, fair enough, but just a few weeks later Norquist was telling the Washington Post editorial board that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would not be considered a tax increase:

WITH A HANDFUL of exceptions, every Republican member of Congress has signed a pledge against increasing taxes. Would allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2012 violate this vow? We posed this question to Grover Norquist, its author and enforcer,and his answer was both surprising and encouraging: No.

In other words, according to Mr. Norquist’s interpretation of the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, lawmakers have the technical leeway to bring in as much as $4 trillion in new tax revenue — the cost of extending President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for another decade — without being accused of breaking their promise. “Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase,” Mr. Norquist told us. So it doesn’t violate the pledge? “We wouldn’t hold it that way,” he said.

It does seem at times that Norquist’s interpretation of the ATR pledge has frequently coincided with whomever his lobbying clients are at the time.

His record also shows that he has no real regard for the conservative movement he tries to wrap himself up in, as demonstrated following the investigation, arrest and conviction of his pal Jack Abramoff, where the investigation showed that Norquist whored out the conservative movement to a wide variety of interests, including Indian casinos, Marianas Island sweat shops and nefarious foreign governments.

Let’s also not forget Norquist’s lobbying on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue the homeownership tax credit, which as Erick Erickson noted directly contributed to the housing bubble and collapse at the expense of billions to the American taxpayers.

But in October 2010, Norquist was on CNN blaming the collapse on Freddie and Fannie:

NORQUIST: You may have missed this, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac brought us this collapse. Those were the two things the Democrats refused to fix.

SPITZER: No, no, I agree with you that they were…

(CROSSTALK)

NORQUIST: This was criminal negligence on the part of Barney Frank and Dodd.

SPITZER: They were huge participants, but there were multiple parties involved. I think everybody was…

NORQUIST: No Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac, we wouldn’t have the collapse.

SPITZER: No, that’s not quite the case. Fannie and Freddie contributed in a very significant way as did…

NORQUIST: With trillions. You keep — I give you trillions and you tell me that’s not a big enough number.

SPITZER: This was multiple links in the chain. And that’s why if you want to say just Fannie and Freddie, you’re wrong. If you want to say they’re part of it along with the mortgage banks and the brokers and the people who actually were taking out mortgages improperly, then you have the full picture.

NORQUIST: And Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton’s laws which forced your bank to lend to people who can’t afford to, so that everybody got screwed by the misdirection of capital.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Norquist.

Speaking of hypocrisy, in the late 1990s, Norquist teamed with Christian Coalition executive director Randy Tate to help sell social conservatives on the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, I was in some of those meetings, including one where Norquist and Tate publicly browbeat a female intern for the Eagle Forum for raising the objections of her organization to using the Commerce Clause as the basis for the legislation and how that might undermine federalism and states rights. Yet now Norquist sits on the advisory board of GOProud, which is working to overturn the same act claiming it should be a states rights issue.

Norquist’s record gets worse.

Not only has he sold his influence to the highest bidder, some of those that Norquist gave entry to the GOP corridors of power were downright dangerous.

Take for instance Norquist escorting Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror leader Sami al-Arian into the White House for a meeting with Karl Rove. During Al-Arian’s terror support trial, his attorney specifically cited the top Republican government officials that Al-Arian had met with courtesy of Norquist’s introductions as a defense that his client couldn’t possibly be a terrorist leader. When Al-Arian plead guilty to terror support, the federal judge noted that Al-Arian had been “an active leader” in the terror group.

Where were the apologies by Norquist for exposing Republicans to such a dangerous individual? In fact there were none. Rather, he attacked as racists, bigots and Islamophobes anyone who dared raise issue for his new-found terrorist friends.

Read more at Front Page

See also:

Is Grover Norquist Losing His Grip on the GOP? (counterjihadreport.com)

The GOP’s ‘No Foreign Law’ Platform

by: Karen Lugo:

Republican convention delegates voted last week to adopt a platform plank, cautioning against the use of foreign law in U.S. courts. While jurists such as Supreme Court Justice Scalia have said that “foreign legal materials can never be relevant to an interpretation of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution,” and Justice Thomas has written that the Court should not “impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans,” other jurists have searched foreign legal sources to locate “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

This GOP platform provision, however, represents something beyond concern over the practice of buttressing sketchy legal reasoning with extra-American sources; the GOP statement also objects to Sharia law or any other foreign legal code that threatens to creep into judicial decisions disguised as validated ethnic customs. As suggested, this admonition would apply when claims in a legal dispute are based upon cultural codes with deficient individual and civil right protections compared to American constitutional standards.

The publicized New Jersey spousal abuse case first raised widespread alarm when a trial court judge refused to issue a restraining order against a husband despite the established record of domestic violence and assault (reversed on appeal). The judge ruled that the husband did not demonstrate sufficient legal criminal intent in light of an imam’s testimony that wives are required to comply with husbands’ sexual demands. The man’s wife, known in the opinion as S.D., was 17 on the day of her wedding and did not know the bridegroom before the marriage ceremony in Morocco.

Another case that presented the Sharia terms of a foreign marriage in an American court is that of Joohi Hosain. When Joohi left her marriage (under strict Sharia rules, wives are not generally allowed to sue for divorce), her husband in Pakistan sued for custody of their daughter, Joohi fled to America on a student visa with her daughter, and eventually presented her custody case in U.S. courts after her by-then-ex-husband pursued her to Maryland. Although Joohi explained that making an appearance in a Pakistani court would likely result in accusations of adultery and the possible punishment of whipping or stoning, the Maryland appellate court determined that even so, the mother had the notice and opportunity to be heard and was thus afforded proper due process. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals then deferred to the Pakistani ruling that it was in the best interest of the child for the father to have primary custody.

About half of the cases involving Sharia family customs which have been presented for adjudication by American judges involve marriages solemnized in other countries, but many Islamic domestic marriages are also based on Sharia norms. These domestic unions present unique challenges: they often begin with disregard for the state law regarding the registration of officiants and the licensing of marriages. Even worse is the disregard for due process and informed contract formation when marriages and property distributions are arranged without the bride’s participation.

After a review of both foreign and domestic Islamic marriages, I recently presented a survey to the Federalist Society that considered both published and unpublished family court cases that adjudicated Sharia terms. To date, about 25 U.S. family law cases reflect the U.S. approval of the Sharia-based marital terms in the family court or the court of appeal.

Read more at Radical Islam

Karen Lugo is the Founder of the Libertas-West Project and a co-director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

ACT! Founder Brigitte Gabriel Stands Up To Rep. Ellison / Slams Sharia Law in US

Brigitte Gabriel, Founder of ACT! for America; challenges comments issued by congressman Keith Ellison, who refers to the GOP as the “Party of Hate” based upon the platform’s attitude towards Sharia Law.

What the 2012 Election Means for Israel

If elected, Romney will be staunchly loyal, but Obama’s coldness will turn glacial

By Daniel Pipes:

President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” That’s what Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president, said in the high-profile speech accepting his party’s nomination last week, repeating a slang phrase for sacrificing a friend for selfish reasons. Romney had deployed this phrase before, for example in May 2011 and January 2012. This criticism of Obama fits a persistent Republican critique. Specifically, several other recent presidential candidates used or endorsed the same “bus” formulation to describe Obama’s attitude toward Israel, including Herman Cain in May 2011, Rick Perry in September 2011, Newt Gingrich in January 2012, and Rick Santorum in February 2012.

Barack Obama pointed a finger at Binyamin Netanyahu in 2008.

These Republican attacks on Obama’s relations with Israel have several important implications for U.S. foreign policy. First, out of the many Middle East–related issues, Israel, and Israel alone, retains a permanent role in U.S. electoral politics, influencing how a significant numbers of voters — not only Jews but also Arabs, Muslims, Evangelical Christians, conservatives, and liberals — vote for president.

Second, attitudes toward Israel serve as a proxy for views on other Middle East issues: If I know your views on Israel, I have a good idea about your thinking on topics such as energy policy, Islamism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AKP-led Turkey, the Iranian nuclear buildup, intervention in Libya, the Mohamed Morsi presidency in Egypt, and the Syrian civil war.

Third, the Republican criticism of Obama points to a sea change in what determines attitudes toward Israel. Religion was once the key, with Jews the ardent Zionists and Christians less engaged. Today, in contrast, the determining factor is political outlook. To discern someone’s views on Israel, the best question to ask is not “What is your religion?” but “Who do you want for president?” As a rule, conservatives feel more warmly toward Israel and liberals more coolly. Polls show conservative Republicans to be the most ardent Zionists, followed by Republicans in general, followed by independents, Democrats, and lastly liberal Democrats. Yes, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, also said, in September 2011, that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” but Koch, 87, represents the fading old guard of the Democratic party. The difference between the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict is becoming as deep as their differences on the economy or on cultural issues.

Big smiles between Mitt Romney and Binyamin Netanyahu, friends since 1976, in July 2012.

Fourth, as Israel increasingly becomes an issue that divides Democrats from Republicans, I predict a reduction of the bipartisan support for Israel that has provided Israel a unique status in U.S. politics and sustained organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I also predict that Romney and Paul Ryan, as mainstream conservatives, will head an administration that will be the warmest ever to Israel, far surpassing the administrations of both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. On the contrary, should Obama be reelected, the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow.

Obama deferentially listening to Edward Said at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998.

Obama’s constipated record of the past three and a half years vis-à-vis Israel on such topics as the Palestinians and Iran leads to this conclusion; but so does what we know about his record before he entered high electoral politics in 2004, especially his associations with radical anti-Zionists. For example, Obama listened deferentially to Edward Said in May 1998, gave a warm tribute to former PLO flack Rashid Khalidi at Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, and sat quietly by as guests at this party accused Israel of terrorism against Palestinians. (In contrast, Romney has been friends with Benjamin Netanyahu since 1976. In this photo from Romney’s July 2012 visit to Israel, the men’s big smiles attest to their ease and friendship.)

Also revealing is what Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based anti-Israel extremist, wrote about his last conversation with Obama in early 2004, as the latter was in the midst of a primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Abunimah wrote that Obama greeted him warmly and then added: “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” More: Referring to Abunimah’s attacks on Israel in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere, Obama encouraged him with “Keep up the good work!”

When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then–Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (“This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility”), and in the context of Obama’s publicly displayed dislike for Netanyahu (as in this photo from 2008, in which he points a finger at the prime minister), it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on November 6, things will “calm down” for him and he finally can “be more up front” about so-called Palestine. Then Israel’s troubles will really begin.

Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

American Laws for American Courts in GOP Platform (video)

The Republican National Convention adopted an amendment in the spirit of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation to their platform

Related articles:

 

GOP Platform Addresses Sharia Encroachment

By Andrew Bostom:

Reports  (at “Live”  wire , repeated at Salon)  are quoting Kansas Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach to the effect that  the GOP platform has adopted an amendment which addresses Sharia encroachment.  Kobach stated,

We  see it from the top where the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly quoted  foreign law in interpreting our U.S. constitution and it’s actually coming in at  the bottom as well, it’s being raised as an argument in courts around the  country. We actually put a provision affecting Kansas statute this year and I  think it’s important for us to say foreign sources of law should not be used as  part of common law decisions or statutory interpretations by judges in the lower  state courts as well.

…I’m  not aware of any court that’s accepted the argument, but in cases involving  either spousal abuse or assault or other crimes against persons, sometimes  defenses are raised that are based in Sharia law

Despite  the predictable sneering and distressing ignorance which frames these reports by  two agitprop  “journalists,”  and Kobach’s own noble, if incomplete assessment of the profundity of the  problem, this is very welcome news.

Kobach  referred to Kansas’s recently passed law-a version of American Laws for American  Courts (ALAC) legislation-which should remind us all that the earliest of these  laws (now also passed in Tennessee, Arizona, and Louisiana) have been in effect  for several years without being challenged, let alone overturned. David  Yerushalmi recently provided a very clear, didactic example of the need for  ALAC-style laws, which corrects Kobach’s assessment about courts not having  accepted Sharia-based arguments.

Yersuhlami  described in brief an appellate court decision from Maryland, cited in a Center for Security  Policy Study, where

…the  court enforced a Pakistani Sharia court’s judgment of custody  in favor of the father even though the mother had argued that she was not  provided due process because had she gone to Pakistan to contest the case, she could have been subject to capital  punishment for having a new relationship with a man not sanctioned by sharia.

The  salient facts of the case,  and appellate court ruling, were summarized by  Yerushalmi as follows:

The  Maryland appellate court ruled that since the woman could not prove she’d be  executed had she gone to Pakistan to litigate custody in the Pakistan Sharia  Court, which is a national-state court in Pakistan, her failure to go to  Pakistan and take the risk of execution precluded her from making the void as  against public policy argument. ALAC  would have provided the Maryland appellate court the legislative clarity to have  reversed the lower court’s outrageous  decision.

Here  are the Maryland appellate court’s own words, cited by Yerushalmi:

Additionally,  appellant [the mother] asserts that the Pakistani custody orders were founded on  principles of law repugnant to Maryland public policy because the Pakistani  courts allegedly “penalized the mother for not appearing without considering the  affect of her admission to adultery on her ability to return to Pakistan.” In  this regard, appellant points out that if convicted under Pakistani criminal law, her penalty could be public whipping or death  by stoning. Although Dr. Malik [the expert] opined that appellant would be arrested for adultery if she returned to  Pakistan for the custody proceedings, he also conceded that punishment for  adultery was extremely unlikely and that proving the crime was extremely  difficult. Given this testimony, the circuit court was not clearly erroneous in  not considering the effect of whether appellant’s admission to adultery [under  sharia] was “repugnant” to Maryland public policy in its failure to find that  the Pakistani courts punished her for not appearing.”}

Let  me summarize for the (hope against hope) edification of  the “Live”  wire , and Salon,  agitprop journalists, the liberty-crushing, dehumanizing nature of Sharia:  open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order;  rejection of bedrock Western liberties-including freedom of conscience and  speech-enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of  non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient  chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as  amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol  consumption.

I  would also point out how the two agitpropjournalists  steadfastly ignore: ominous polling data from US  Muslims; jihad funding trial  revelations and the content of more banal Muslim litigation  proceedings; mosque  surveillance reports; analyses  of Islamic education institutions and their Muslim schoolchildren’s textbooks;  the issuance of obscurantist “fatwas” (Islamic legal rulings) by the respected,  mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America; and an open declaration by  one of America’s largest mainstream Muslim organizations, the Islamic Circle of  North America (ICNA), in its 2010 ICNA Member’s  Hand Book, which calls for the (re-)creation of a global Muslim Caliphate,  and the imposition of Sharia in America.

Notwithstanding  the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA’s) mainstream acceptance,  including uncritical  endorsement of its seventh annual American conference in Houston (October  15-18, 2010) to train American imams, AMJA  has issued rulings which sanction the killing of apostates (here),  “blasphemers” (including non-Muslims guilty of this “crime”; here),  or adulterers (by stoning to death, here),  and condone  marital rape. Even more ominously, another Arabic-language fatwa from AMJA’s Dr.  Salah Al-Sawy leaves open the possibility for offensive jihad against America  and the West, as soon as Muslims are strong enough to do so. When asked whether  “the Islamic missionary effort in the West … [was] to the point where it could  take advantage of offensive jihad,” Al-Sawy ruled:

The  Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at  this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring toward defensive  jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage.  But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows  best.

Just  six months ago (3/14/12), Translating  Jihad put what one might wish to deem as these circumscribed, “purely  Islamic” rulings, in a more disturbing-and entirely unacceptable, seditious  context. AMJA’s own  words make plain the organization’s long term commitment to superseding the  US legal code with its antithesis, a Sharia-based system.

Read more at American Thinker